Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mccain. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mccain. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, February 08, 2008

John Kerry's Favorite Republican

McCain, Kerry United by Ideology, Divided by Party
It's not hard to deduce John Kerry's favorite Republican. The same person is also one of the Bush administration's least favorite Republicans - John McCain.

McCain: I'd 'entertain' Democratic VP slot
"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."

John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004
According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004.

Kerry Aides See McCain As Perfect Running Mate
"If there is a consensus among Kerry aides about who would be the boldest and most potent pick, it is Senator John S. McCain of Arizona -- a Republican."

McCain a liberal demagogue
In 2004, one of John McCain's closest associates, John Weaver, spoke to John Kerry about the possibility of McCain running as Kerry's vice presidential running mate. In "No Excuses," Bob Shrum's memoir of his role in numerous presidential campaigns, including Kerry's, Shrum writes that Weaver assured Kerry that "McCain was serious about the possibility of teaming up with him," and Kerry approached McCain.
Need I go on? Are our memories really that short? Are gun owners truly that oblivious?

God damn you idiot Vichy "conservatives" who are pushing this fraud on those who don't know any better.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Friday, February 01, 2008

Ourselves Alone

A Guest Editorial
by Mike Vanderboegh


"Still, let us not be complacent. Should private interest fail today and public purpose thereafter, what rough beast, its hour come round at last, may be slouching toward Washington to be born?" -- Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., paraphrasing Yeat's "The Second Coming" in The Cycles of American History, 1986.
"The falcon cannot hear the falconer": The Politics of 2008

Small "r" republicans -- folks who believe in the original intent of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, the rule of law, free markets, private property rights and the right to keep and bear arms -- are not going to be represented in this presidential election. There is nothing new about that. What is new is that the GOP candidate will likely feel he owes absolutely nothing to the conservative base of his own party. Of course, the antipathy is mutual and many of us will not vote for him in either the primaries or the general election.

Not that McCain and the party elite think we have any choice. The Candidate's mother was doing some "straight talk" of her own a few days ago during this exchange with C-SPAN's Steve Scully.

Scully: "How much support do you think he has among the base of the Republican Party?
Roberta McCain: "I don't think he has any. I don't know what the base of . . . maybe I don't know enough about it, but I've not seen any help whatsoever."
Scully: "So can he then go on and become the nominee of this party?"
Roberta McCain: "Yes, I think holding their nose they're going to have to take him."
Well, I don't know about y'all but I ain't holding my nose while voting for GOP sellouts ever again. As Hugh Hewitt told the Associated Press, "Senator McCain is a great American, a lousy senator and a terrible Republican. He has a legislative record that is not conservative. In fact, it is anti-conservative." Dubya at least went through the motions and pretended to be one of us. McCain glories in spitting in our face and expects us to like it.

American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene said there's little possibility of reconciliation. "The overt hostility he has demonstrated toward conservatives as a movement and toward their leaders is one impediment," he said. Mr. Keene said that on a "half dozen issues, from taxes to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, McCain has yet to clear up his flip-flops. He claims to be a conservative, but thinks that the federal government should be used to achieve whatever is his goal of the day, even to restricting boxing. He claims he isn't, but operationally, he's a statist."

New Jersey Republican National Committeeman David Norcross, who ran the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, said Mr. McCain's nomination will hurt the Republican Party. "Basically, he has no use for it and has no sense of what it is all about," he said. "John McCain thinks politics is all about the individual." (Source, Washington Times, Jan 31, 2008, "McCain Savors Momentum" by Stephen Dinan)

And one other thing about John McCain that bears mentioning. He is one vindictive SOB. Arizonans who know him best say that if you cross him, he will stick it to you, even if he has to wait years to sharpen the knife. So we are expected to hand the keys to the Oval Office to this guy who despises us, who sneers at our principles, at a time when the Democrats, not the GOP, will control the House and Senate? On the altar of the false god "bipartisanship," McCain will no doubt find that there is little of our money and few of our rights that cannot be sacrificed for "the greater good."

Now some folks believe in the quixotic campaign of Ron Paul. Paul will likely end up as the best funded Libertarian candidate ever, after he finishes raising all the money he can during the GOP primary season. What this will accomplish, beyond allowing him to pitch his political points to a larger but still largely tone-deaf voting public, is beyond me. He will certainly split some of the vote with the GOP, even though many of us small "r" republicans will not vote for McCain anyway as we have had it up to here with the continual lies and sellouts over the past 14 years by the woefully misnamed "Republican" party.

The inevitable Democrat winner of the general election will see in us nothing but "domestic enemies" of their regime, and they will have the advantage of all the freedom-destroying, tyranny-enabling legislation and precedent of the Bush Administration to turn upon us. Which "terrorists" do you think Hillary will use the PATRIOT Act against?

Politically, come Inauguration Day 2009, we are going to be very, very lonely republicans.

"Things fall apart": The Economics of 2009

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch."
-- Robert Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, 1966
Randall Forsyth, writing in Barrons on 22 January 2008, says "WELCOME TO THE CRASH OF 2008". Whether future historians write of a crash or not, the American recession coming down the road at us is likely to be more severe than anything we've seen in modern memory since the Great Depression. The subprime fiasco and the bursting of the credit bubble have yet to shake completely out. "Stimulus packages" and Fed rate cuts do little or nothing to address the systemic infections.

Indeed, a blogger writing at bigpicture.typepad.com calls the Fed interest rate cut of 75 basis points "a shot of penicillin to a cancer patient" demonstrating "a none-too-faint whiff of panic" by Bernanke and Co. which he believes will merely aggravate the problem in the credit markets, not settle it. We will see, say many analysts, the proof of the old dictum, first enunciated by Army General and economist Leonard P. Ayres in 1946 and more famously popularized by Robert Heinlein twenty years later in his novel The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" which is often reduced to the acronym "TANSTAAFL":

"3) TANSTAAFL: The free lunch crowd (a/k/a Long & Wrong) has been chanting for Fed cuts. However, these are not without consequences, as Inflation remains a pernicious threat. Here's a question: What goes to $5 a gallon first - Milk or Gasoline? How about $6?" (Source: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/01/a-whiff-of-pani.html)
So what will we face economically on that inauguration day of 2009? Millions are expected to be evicted from their homes by then. Foreclosures in California are reported as of the last quarter of 2007 to be up over 500% over the same period in 2006. It may be ten times that by January 2009. If the recession is a deep and a long one as seems likely, we will soon see strikes of union members broken by employers using illegals as strike-breakers. What will the Democrat pols who will be in control do then? Which of their constituencies will they side with? Both? None? And who will the unemployed and dispossessed middle class blame for their misery? How will our society, riven by competing economic interests, racial identity politics and old grievances previously papered over by affluence, how will it react to sudden impoverishment? Not well. Not well at all.

"The center cannot hold": The Rule of Law in 2010

And what scapegoats will be found to harness the natural resentments of the economically distressed? What political diversions will be deemed expedient to prevent blame from being assigned to the political mandarins? Is there a Reichstag Fire or another Oklahoma City bombing in our near future? For the rule of law, having been tattered by unpunished government misdeeds such as Waco and Ruby Ridge in the last decade of the 20th Century and shredded by the elites looking the other way on illegal immigration in this first decade of the 21st Century, is just about discredited. And there will be even more forces pulling at the essential glue of the republic around the next turn in the road.

By July, we should have a Supreme Court decision in the Heller DC gun ban case. This will tell us if the Black Robes consider us as citizens with the inalienable right to arms or as serfs who may be disarmed at will. The Bush administration, pusillanimous on the 2nd Amendment from the beginning, has now given us a brief in that case which manages to take both sides at the same time. In addition, we have agencies like the ATF who have long had a habit of ignoring law and precedent, soaring to even greater heights of bureaucratic misdeeds, framing law-abiding gun owners whose weapons accidentally malfunction on charges of making and transferring illegal machine guns. (See my essay "Who Shall Guard the Guards" at the waronguns blogspot regarding the shocking case of US v. Olofson.)

And when the majority of the population comes to the conclusion that we no longer are governed by the rule of law, but by the whims of men; when we begin to believe that we can no longer expect a fair trail and that the law no longer protects the innocent; then some of us are going to conclude that the law no longer protects our oppressors (who act under color of law) either. We will be, as Yeats put it:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
--W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming
Who then can we count on? Ourselves Alone.

Too long our Irish hearts we schooled
In patient hopes to bide,
By dreams of English justice fooled
And English tongues that lied.
That hour of weak delusion's past-
The empty dream has flown :
Our hope and strength, we find at last,
Is in OURSELVES ALONE.
-- "Sinn Féin" (Ourselves Alone) by "Sliabh Cuilinn" (John O'Hagan), 1845
Sinn Féin is an Irish-language phrase whose literal translation is "ourselves" or "we ourselves," but is most often rendered in English as "Ourselves alone." A political slogan used by Irish nationalists in the late 19th and early 20th century, it advocated Irish national self-reliance, expressed the yearning for an independent Irish republic and even included the revival of the Irish language. Its earliest use was to describe individual political radicals unconnected with any party but who shared the dream of Irish independence and republicanism.

Does that not now describe us small "r" republicans of the present-day American republic? We find ourselves at the end of this first decade of the 21st Century faced with the uncomfortable reality of becoming a despised and oppressed minority in our own country, unrepresented by any party. We are thus bereft because we (and our principles) have been sold out by both major parties. We didn't leave them, they left us. And in the process, they also turned their backs on the oaths they took to uphold and defend the Constitution. They did. We didn't. And where does that leave us? On whom may we rely for our future liberty and safety? Why on ourselves, alone.

We should not, at this juncture, worry about forming a political party of our own. Whatever effort we expend in that direction (and I know this will be instantly rejected by the Libertarian and Constitution party loyalists as well as the Paul supporters of all stripes) will be ineffective, swamped by the tidal wave of history which is about to engulf us. Our enemies (that is to say the enemies of the Founders' republic) will have the whip hand at national politics for the foreseeable future. What we have to do is to make arrangements ahead of time to give them pause and make them find reasons to stay that whip hand, lest they lose it.

The first imperative for all of us, ourselves alone, is to recognize that each of us has a piece of the overall picture and to begin making practical alliances that strengthen and protect us all. Entrepreneurs, home schoolers, gun rights advocates, tax reformers, Internet free speechers, Minutemen, libertarians, Christians, fully informed jury and common law advocates -- all have allowed themselves to be divided by little things when it is the big things that threaten us all. For example, most Libertarians differ with Christians on the sanctity of life, but they can certainly agree that the Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of all to speak without being strangled by leftist "hate speech" codes.

In a period of economic hardship, societal breakdown and political repression, we can overcome our individual weaknesses and mold our individual strengths into common bonds that protect us -- bartering skill for skill, farm produce for community security, and above all, realizing a common determination that protecting the rights of individuals is the best guarantor of the rights of all. Collectivists, including government bureaucrats and street gang leaders, are individual cowards when confronted by free people who refuse to be victims and who are numerous enough, organized enough and well armed enough at the point of contact to make the bureaucrat (or the street gang leader) doubt that they can accomplish their depredation without cost to themselves.

We have more power on the local and state levels than we know. Certainly our enemies fear us or they would not have been seeking to disarm us these past 40 years. Once we are able to stand up, ourselves alone, and survive the coming challenges to our liberty and property, we may be ready for a political party to consolidate our demands for a revived American republic and a restored Constitutional rule of law. Until then, we should abandon national politics that we are fated by events to lose and put all our efforts into standing together on a local and state level, counting only on ourselves alone to maintain our liberty and property. The GOP can go the way of the Whigs, or to the Devil, whichever suits them. To paraphrase the Mexican bandit leader in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, "We don't need no stinking national party buttons."

It will not be easy or pretty, but with faith in God and the help of our fellow American citizens, we can prevail. We have only to look to ourselves alone for our security and not to the false promises of the rigged game of national politics.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

Monday, January 28, 2008

A Hill of Beans

From Victor Bean, Owner, Southern Classic Gun and Knife Show:
As you already know, Tuesday, January 29, there is a presidential primary. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. I am a registered Republican, and I will be voting for Senator John McCain. Governor Charlie Crist has also endorsed Senator McCain.

Bill Bunting spoke personally with Senator John McCain, Governor Mitt Romney, and Governor Mike Huckabee over the weekend. As most of you know, Bill is chairman of the Republican Party of Pasco.

Senator McCain will sign on to a national right-to-carry bill if Congress brings it to his desk. As far as he is concerned, the gun show loophole is a moot point, and he will appoint judges who follow the Constitution.

Lou Oliver, Chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County, said Governor Huckabee would make a great vice president. I recently appeared on the Kathy Fountain Show (Fox News Network) in a half hour live show on presidential politics with Bill in Tampa with live call-ins. Bill is our strongest supporter when it comes to the Second Amendment whether at a gun show, on television, or in the newspapers.

I spoke to Senator McCain on his cell phone on Saturday night. He will be "humbly gratified" if we support him.

Victor

Right. Nothing like straight talk.

Could I have another glass of Kool-Aid, Victor? And maybe put a little bit more saccharine in it this time?

Luke O. is none too happy, and shared his email reply with us:
Yes, I'm sure Senator McCain is very, very sorry, he's learned his lesson and he'll never, ever even consider betraying gun owners again... at least not until his warm, close gun-grabbing, Bill-of-Rights-hating friends Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy ask him to.

John McCain has a long history of working against both the Second and First Amendments, against conservative values and against our sovereignty and border security. I wouldn't vote for McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee if Satan himself were the Democratic nominee.

When Senators take their oath of office, they don't swear to keep us safe, they don't swear to work for this lobby or that special interest. They swear before God and man to preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION! John McCain has demonstrated that he sees the Bill or Rights as a list of helpful suggestions, and nothing more. The Bible says that those who cannot be faithful in small things will not be faithful in large things. If we couldn't trust John McCain to uphold his oath as a Senator, we can't trust him to do it as a President.

There IS a committed pro-gun candidate in the race- you know damned well who I'm talking about. It's amazing to me that you and your ilk will make excuses for a faithless opportunist and chameleon like McCain and won't even consider supporting the statesman who is gun owners' best friend, the taxpayers' best friend, the Bill of Rights' best friend on Capitol Hill, bar NONE. In light of your craven endorsement of this notorious enemy of the Bill of Rights, I will never set foot in one of your shows again, and I am going to contact the area gun dealers who rent tables at your shows to inform them that as long as they do business with you, they will do without my business as well. And I will encourage every Florida gun owner I know to do the same.
I guess Luke wasn't thirsty and has had it with gun rights compromisers who are full of...beans.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Common Ground

"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."
That must be why he is requiring them to disarm to show fealty during the perversely-named "Celebration of American Values" at the annual meeting. And I'm waiting for the first apologist to come in here with a straight face and tell me that's not his choice and not totally within the control of his orders and actions. What's his security detail gonna do--arrest him?

Guess what, gun owners--we don't have a horse in this race. You can rationalize otherwise ad nauseum and that won't change. The reason we don't have a choice is because we have allowed ourselves to be used for years and never insisted on one. The Republicans are counting on gun owners being so desperate and afraid they can present us with anything, and Wayne & Co. will help gussy it up. They've been prepping us to swallow this for some months now.

Oh, but McCain voted against the "assault weapons" ban . True, but more recently than that, he told the Los Angeles Times he "Supports ban on certain assault weapons...McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details."

The AP also reported "McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows."

Vote for McCain and you'll be voting for "The Vote Freedom First President" on steroids. Just look at what's happening now, with Bush appointee "Pro-Gun" Mukasey running DoJ, and Bush/Kennedy/Kerry nominee "Maximum Mike" running BATFU. Yesterday's Olofson outrage happened on his "the buck stops here" watch. They're not even masking the contempt any more. They know they can rely on gun owner Judenrat "leadership" to take whatever they slop on the dish and serve it up to the membership as good for them.

And they're betting you will eat it.

UPDATE: FatWhiteMan has a copy of the Celebration of Amerikan Values disarmament edict email.

And I forgot to add: NRA could always say "No dice," too, if they wanted to. Go speak somewhere else--maybe to La Raza. That'd not only make headlines, the egg on his face would be priceless.

Courageous "gun rights leaders" would. If you think it through, he needs us worse than we need him--unless you're one of those who say we're going to "lose our gun rights," that is, surrender them with a whimper.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

"Well, Let's Go Ahead and Be Honest Now"

He danced the complete Kabuki, right down to the mandatory move about considering John McCain for his VP slot. But at the end of the day, Mike Huckabee has admitted the obvious: he'll take the Veep nomination if John McCain offers it.
And there will be no shortage of self-deluded gun owners telling themselves that's good enough for them, putting a "conservative" (!!!) a heartbeat from the presidency.

Besides, McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist judges"--as long as we forget that such a judge would overturn his signature legislation, and as long as we disregard his enabling democrat and rino obstructionists as a Gang of 14 leader. But that isn't stopping those desperate in their denial from offering that up as a reason for hope, and joining forces with The New York Times and The Los Angles Times, not to forget Arnhole and Sly.

So by all means, let's go ahead and be honest now. Team McCain/Huckabee is transparently predictable, and would be an undisguised con job. Some no-line-in-the-sand gun owners may be able to lie to themselves about it. Don't let them lie to you.

Friday, August 24, 2018

The Final Curtain

[More]

But he hasn't stepped down?

[Via Bluesgal, who adds: Never have local elections been more important than now.  With Senator Flake deciding not to run again it set up the perfect storm for his Senate seat at a time when he knew the other AZ Senator (McCain) would not likely live out his term.

At stake in November are two senate seats and the governor's office.  Flake's former seat is hotly contested between McSally(R) and Sinema (D).  (Yes I wanted Ward but it looks as if McSally has a lock on it)

The Governor is facing a challenge from Progressive/Democrat Garcia (Front runner)

Now that McCain has stopped treatment, depending upon when McCain steps down or passes, his replacement could be appointed after the Nov Election.  IF the Governor's seat goes D we know that a D will replace McCain.  Any "appointment" is for 2 years (Remainder of MeCain's term) which puts the Senate seat up for election again in 2020 during the Presidential race.  So if Sinema and Garcia win in November, the likelyhood is that BOTH AZ Senate seats would then be BLUE. ]

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Another Profile in Apathy?

I reminded readers here of another option that was not included in WorldNetDaily's recent poll on the Arizona Senate race.

Correspondent Straightarrow sent them this letter to the editor under his real name. They opted not to post it,so I will post it here:
I looked at your poll today. But I did not participate. The reason for my not participating is because the poll only offers a choice without a difference.

I propose you do a profile and perhaps an interview with J
im Deakin who is challenging McCain for the Senate seat. As we know McCain is a Republican in name only and a conservative by no stretch of the imagination. The man does not even believe in the Constitution.

Contrarily, Deakin appears to understand the Constitution and to believe in it. I draw your attention to David Codrea and his Gun Rights Examiner column on the internet and Mr. Deakin's answers to a questionnaire that has been used more and more often by citizens trying to plumb the depths of candidates' commitment to liberty for the average citizen. Mr. Deakin acquits himself well.


Please check out Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea and the appropriate column. I think you will find that Mr. Deakin deserves some exposure. As it now stands, I would bet that more people throughout the nation know Mr. Deakin is a candidate in the race from reading that column than Arizonans who have never heard of him because no one mentions his candidacy or his views. Silence is our enemy. It is your enemy. You know enough history to know that. Please correct this oversight.
As I noted last Tuesday and on other occasions, one of the simplest and easiest things gun owners can do is spread the word--share links with fellow gun owners via emails, on blogs, on forums...

We have a situation in Arizona where this is not happening. And turning that around could not be simpler.

Last September I told you about Jim Deakin, who is challenging John McCain for the Senate. Take a look at the answers Jim gave to my gun rights questionnaire.

Go ahead. Read them and come back--I'll wait.

Now watch this:



What this means is gun owners aren't getting involved and telling their friends.

This isn't the first time I've tried to help spread the word. I've included periodic updates as supplements to my main column on a few other occasions.

I asked gun owners to send him "a measly buck" here.

I relayed how he needed support here.

And I asked if anyone wanted to help beat McCain here.

I'll bet I could sit down and think of dozens of excuses not to get involved, to ignore this and to go about my business. What I couldn't do is convince myself doing nothing is the right choice.

I sure hope it's not too much to ask for you to share a link or two, maybe the one to the questionnaire and the link to the Jim Deakin United States Senate website...?

Or else explain why it is a candidate should go out of his way to give unequivocal answers to questions his political enemies will use against him? Why lead if you turn around and everybody s just milling around behind not even getting involved?

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Trading Essential Freedom for Security Theater

We wants it, we needs it.
Must have the precious.
McCAIN VOTES TO PREVENT TERRORISTS FROM PURCHASING GUNS [More]
No he didn't.

But you can bet the pompous, self-entitled sell-out and the other Republiqislings behind these Intolerable Acts got the green light from Fairfax.

Arizona gun owners do have a choice: Challenger Kelli Ward.

She beats McCain by a mile on guns and immigration.

Who represents the GOP will be decided August 30, and Ward is showing enough Arizonans are tired of McCain's establishment subversion to where she stands a good chance. But that means people are going to need to step up and actually do something to:


[Via Bluesgal]

Also see: WarOnGuns "McCain Archive

Friday, August 29, 2008

Palin

John McCain tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, two senior campaign officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
Sarah Palin on Gun Control
I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska's youth.
This doesn't tell me all that much. But I've heard some good things about her.

If this is confirmed by an official announcement, McCain made the best choice he could have, all things considered with the existing field.

Who knows what about her? Comments?

UPDATE:Structureless first impression rambling to follow. Saw her intro and speech. From a strictly political standpoint, this is a brilliant move--beautiful family--Norman Rockwell Americans--likable--people can identify with them. As for attacks on experience, she has more as an executive in charge of a government than Barack. Schumer is gloating he wants to see her debate Biden--ditto--I think she'll kick his ass. Concerns were raised in comments about a scandal to exploit--if it's the trooper deal, evidence says she wasn't directly involved, the guy who did was disciplined, she has cooperated with the dems leading the charge making subpoenas unnecessary, plus it sounds like the guy was a true 'Only One'.

On first glance, I'm impressed, but admit most of it is emotional rather than analytical--like I said, politically, I don't think McCain could have done better. I imagine a Mitthead choice and compare him to her and the visceral reaction says there is no comparison.

For some reason I'm conjuring up a cartoon of her standing behind McCain at the inauguration getting ready to pop a blown up paper bag.

UPDATE: Some partisan rah-rah that makes some valid points about political viability...

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Guest Editorial: Force, Liberty and the Potential of the Third Party Vote

by Charles H. Sawders

The future of this nation will be settled by force. Make no mistake about that. Either the public will be victorious through the ability to muster the most force, or not enough will participate and state force will prevail. Or the public will only resist verbally and acquiesce to the threat of state force.

Either way, the issue will be settled by force. If McCain wins, the usurpation of citizen rights will be much slower and much more subtle, thus making the possibility of non-resistance in any effective manner less likely. For, by the time the public awakes, they will no longer have the wherewithal to resist actively and most probably not even the right to speak in opposition. Remember it was McCain who partnered with Russ Feingold to prohibit the exercise of free speech within sixty days of an election. This does not auger well for his future actions as our president, since he has already shown a willingness to deny the second most important right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. He has also stated publicly and voted to place ever more infringement on the most important right guaranteed in that magnificent document, the right to keep and bear arms, the one which the second amendment states unequivocally "shall not be infringed". The end game under McCain will probably not be realized in his tenure, even if he were to serve two terms, but the pattern will be set and irrevocable. His pattern doesn't just suggest an antipathy to individual "unalienable rights" it proclaims such, loud and clear.

If Obama wins, I expect the exact same problems. The only difference will be the accelerated timetable for accomplishment of the total subjugation of the American citizen. This acceleration may just be noticeable enough to the average non-involved, non-interested citizen to make him notice and become involved. While he still has the tools to resist!

So, when one says a vote for a write-in candidate or third party candidate is a wasted vote, I say it is a moot point as to the general direction of this society. Such a movement, should it prove widespread could possibly, but not probably, result in at least a suspension of the plans of power mongers, if not a downright abandonment of them. Power mongers never abandon their quest to rule others. That is why "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." But eternal vigilance does no good without the will to act, except as to note at what point one has surrendered his life's service to the whim of another.

A large enough loss of formerly reliable votes to other than the two main candidates may just return the political parties closer to the ideals and principles held by the majority of Americans and codified in our constitution. The outcome of the election will probably not be changed by such action, but neither party can be sure how many of the lost votes would have ordinarily been theirs. Of necessity each major political party would be forced to wonder about ever larger desertions in future elections. This can't help but be a better consideration than the American citizen is now receiving. It could possibly lead to a renewed effort to woo the American voter by each party in the hopes of staving off political suicide.

Potential force in the service of liberty is preferable to kinetic force. But the decision is not ours to make, it will be made by those who view us as livestock, disposable commodities to be utilized for maximum profit of the herdsmen. Therefore any indication of the weakening of resolve to remain free will be seen as a signal by those people to proceed.

Voting third party, or write-in should be considered a rejection of both our primary choices, by them if they be capable of rational analysis, and could possibly serve as a warning, thereby avoiding or postponing the application of kinetic force. Make no mistake that kinetic force will be used by the state under either of these candidates if they perceive a lack of will to respond in kind by the public. This application of kinetic force would most probably occur in response to civil disobedience and/or peaceful protest to finally remove them from the arsenal of the citizenry and gain a much more compliant populace.

Worse than the above statement is that there could be no more damning indictment of the American character than if the state need not apply kinetic force, but through threat and isolated example of kinetic force achieve their goals by only the application of potential force on the majority of the American public. That would mean the tables have been completely reversed, because it is the potential for the application of kinetic force by the public that restrained the state up to now. In this instant turnabout is not fair play, because the rightful object of any free state is to serve at the will of the people and not the other way around.

For more than 200 years, the issue has been settled by force. But thanks to the founders we only had to rely on potential force. The public ability to actively resist and their known willingness to do so, has served as a brake on the ambitions of our would-be masters. Should we surrender that, as it seems most Americans are now willing to do, mistakenly, in the name of "public safety", the likely machinations of either of these presidential candidates will most certainly require the public's ability to transition potential force into kinetic force.

We have already seen this dynamic in civilian law enforcement by civilian policing forces. One need only read a little news each day to see accounts of atrocities committed by our policing forces on innocents and misidentified persons and property with absolutely no consequences for the malefactors in blue uniform.

Just recently the Army has designated a brigade for use in civilian law enforcement, emergency response and "crowd control" while stationed on dwell time in the continental U.S. (CONUS), with an eye to continuing this with other brigades as duty rotations take place. The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, to be exact per the Army Times. If the over all command structure is pleased with the results of one brigade thusly employed, the practice is certain to expand, both in number of units employed and added tasks (mission creep).

We have an all volunteer military now. That means that many of the people in armed service of the nation are careerists. Careerists only advance by pleasing their superiors in the hierarchy of the organization, this applies to all organizations. Never in history has liberty survived in a society where the military became the civil police force. Not once, not in any nation, throughout history has liberty survived just such an arrangement. The reasons are simple.

A nation's military is under the over-all command of people farthest removed from the realities and principles of the majority of the people of their nation. Whether those people be a president, premier, junta, tribunal, politburo or something else, they are at the farthest remove from the populace. When they control a police force, it is also at a much farther remove than local policing agencies which are answerable more directly to the public either through political pressures put upon local politicians to manage that police force appropriately, or through court actions. This cannot happen when the military becomes the police force for a nation. And it never has. Our civil law enforcement agencies are almost beyond control now, how much worse would it be if instead of a city, county or state matter, recourse was not even possible at any level poised to respond to the people of a particular locality?

In summary voting one's conscience is never a wasted vote. In this particular election a vote means less than it ever has as to the assertion of the public will. Ergo, I cannot adhere to the philosophy that "He's a sonofabitch, but he might be our sonofabitch."

It is time to warn all sonsofbitches and rid ourselves of them. Peacefully, if possible, otherwise, if not.

Monday, August 27, 2018

The Replacements

Among those people being talked about as potential appointees are Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife of more than 37 years, and former Sen. Jon Kyl. [More]
Kyl is needed on Kavanaugh.  And as disastrous as the Widow McCain would be if left to her own devices for any length of time, it's more than likely she'll follow suit.

Not that many unanswered questions don't still exist...

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Behind Closed Puertas

Republican presidential John McCain assured Hispanic leaders he would push through Congress legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected...

...But supporters who were in the room denied that McCain held the closed-door session out of fear of offending conservatives, many of whom want him to take a harder line on immigration.

Nothing to see here.

I'm sure The Award-Winning John McCain had a perfectly good reason for meeting in secret...

Thursday, June 12, 2008

On the One Hand...

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain praised New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg during a visit to the Big Apple and hinted that Bloomberg could be considered as a possible running mate.
On the one hand, I've long been suspect of Newsmax as a credible source for anything, and "conservative" Richard Mellon Scaife changing his tune on Hillary was nothing short of bipolar.

On the other hand, McCain straddling both sides of the fence is nothing new.

I'm going to start referring to him as "The Award-Winning John McCain."

Thursday, January 31, 2008

A Numbers Racket

I took last night's CNN republican debate transcript and crunched some numbers. I pulled it into Word to get aggregate totals using the "Find" utility with "Match Case"--as candidates speaking were presented in upper case. Here's what it showed:

ROMNEY: 49
MCCAIN: 45
HUCKABEE: 16
PAUL: 9

A bit of a disparity there, don't you think? And I couldn't help but notice Jim VandeHei from Politico initiated only one question to Dr. Paul. Janet Hook from the LA Times didn't even acknowledge he existed.

Here's something else that bothered me:

PAUL: ...But I would like to take one minute, since I didn't get a chance to answer this discussion on conservative versus liberal.

COOPER: We're going to have -- I promise you we're going to have -- you're going to have another opportunity to do that. I promise you, coming up in like two minutes or two questions.

Go ahead and find where Anderson kept his promise.

We've talked before--several times--about how the "Authorized Journalists" are marginalizing Dr. Paul by omission. He needs to do a better job of not allowing that to happen, particularly in debates where he has some immediate control--by gently but firmly protesting being ignored, and insisting on equal time for all candidates.

I think if, during commercial break, he and Huckabee decided to walk out in protest when the cameras came back on, they'd not only have their own impromptu mini-debate/news conference with plenty of reporters, but it would be today's major headline, completely overshadowing the meaningless posturing, pandering and prevarication that went on last night between establishment darlings Romney and McCain. That's a guerilla move--millions of dollars worth of free publicity that would also set them apart in a way, I believe, that many Americans who are sick of the same old BS and manipulation would admire.

Friday, August 29, 2008

About Last Night...

The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
(APPLAUSE)

It's official. The Lightworker just promised a new "assault weapons" ban.

I suggest making preparations without delay if you haven't already, because on a personal level, he comes across so much better than "My friends" McCain--it reminds me of the Kennedy/Nixon telegenic factor.

If you didn't hear the speech, watch it on the Internet or read this transcript. Look at everything he promises, and then compare it to what this authorizes him to do.

Not that I believe McCain's pledges would fare much better under such scrutiny.

Friday, May 16, 2008

I Took the Road Less Traveled By...

If C-plus rated Sen. McCain hasn't changed, why is the NRA highlighting him in Louisville?

Does the NRA still believe McCain is a "premier flag carrier for the enemies of the Second Amendment"?
Imagine that.

Me being at the same place on the same road at the same time as Paul Helmke.

Of course, we're traveling in different directions...

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Guest Editorial: Assassination

by Mike Vanderboegh
26 February 2008

PART ONE
"Assassination has never changed the history of the world” -- Prime Minister of Great Britain Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881)
"Juggernaut"

Disraeli didn't live long enough to witness the reaction to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 -- which swept away the entire world that Disraeli knew and left millions of dead rotting in muddy graves. If he had, he might have changed his mind about the power of assassination to work evil in the world far beyond the corpse of a single victim.

As we live in a nation of historical amnesiacs, I doubt that one American in a thousand has ever heard of Herschel Feibel Grynszpan. I have, and I thought of him as I watched one of Barack Hussein Obama's flights of charismatic oratory the other day. Here's a sample:

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire, January 7, 2008.
Obama, it seems clear at this writing, will be the nominee of the Democrat party in this election. Forget the "Obamamania"; forget the fainting teenage girls in scenes reminiscent of Elvis, the Beatles or Hitler; forget the messianic lines such as those above; forget the fact that the "old bulls" of the Democrat party have finally decided that the eternal traveling soap opera of the Clinton co-presidency is an embarrassment they can do without. Forget all that and remember this:
In January, Mr. Obama raised a stunning $36.1 million in contributions from individuals, more than 2.5 times the $13.8 million that Mrs. Clinton raised from individuals last month. To fully appreciate Mr. Obama's feat, let's put his January windfall in perspective. Recall that Howard Dean emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination at the end of 2003 in large part because he had raised $40.9 million from individuals during the entire year. In the single month of January, Mr. Obama raised 88 percent of Mr. Dean's 2003 total. And, by all indications, he did so without breaking a sweat. Moreover, if a stiff like John Kerry, who managed to raise only $19.4 million from individual contributions throughout 2003, was then able to raise a mind-boggling $180 million during the five months (March-July in 2004) after he sewed up the Democratic nomination, imagine how many hundreds of millions of dollars Mr. Obama will be able to raise before the Democratic National Convention in late August if he knocks Mrs. Clinton out in Ohio and Texas on March 4. No wonder he is running from his commitment to accept public funding for the general election if the Republican nominee agreed to do so. -- Washington Times editorial, "Obama's Financial Juggernaut," 24 February 2008.
If money is the ammunition of American politics as practiced in the early 21st Century (and it is), Hillary is about to go down in a shootout that will look like the final scene of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid -- with Obama playing the part of the Bolivian Army. Indeed, John McCain will likely also be far outgunned in the general election, which by all accounts has already begun. Hillary, say those who study the minutiae of American politics, is a dead candidate walking and John McCain ain't feeling too good either. (See Michael Barone's "The General Begins," 23 February 2008)

So, (to use an old phrase of Louisiana politics) unless someone comes up with pictures of Obama in bed with a live boy or a dead girl (and Teddy Kennedy could probably even help Barack out with THAT one) OR Osama's boys go nuclear in New York, Barack Hussein Obama is going to be the next President of the United States. Unless, that is, he meets up with a modern cousin of Herschel Feibel Grynszpan on his way to the Oval Office.

"Kristallnacht"

The son of Polish Jews who emigrated to Germany in 1911, Herschel Grynszpan was born in Hanover in 1921, where his father Sendel had a modest tailor's shop. Herschel had an elder sister, Esther, and brother, Mordechai. After Hitler came to power, the Grynszpan family began to suffer persecution. To keep their oldest son safe, in 1936 Sendel and Berta sent the 15 year old Herschel to Belguim to live with his uncle and aunt. Shortly afterward, Herschel crossed illegally into France seeking work, moving to Paris. He spent the next two years trying to get legal residence in France, without which he could not work or study legally, but was rejected by French officials. His reentry permit for Germany expired in April 1937 and his Polish passport expired in January 1938, leaving him without legal papers. Meanwhile, his family's position back in Germany was becoming desperate. The Nazi boycott of Jewish shops was killing his father's tailoring business and his siblings lost their jobs. On 26 October, the Gestapo was ordered to arrest and deport immediately all Polish Jews in Germany.

The Grynszpans were among the estimated 12,000 Polish Jews arrested, stripped of their property and herded aboard trains headed for Poland. When they got to the border, they were forced to walk two kilometers to the Polish border town of Zbszyn. But the Poles, every bit as anti-Semitic as the Nazis, refused to admit them. The Grynszpans and thousands of other Polish-Jewish deportees were left stranded at the border, fed only occasionally by the Polish Red Cross and Jewish welfare organizations. It was from Zbszyn that Berta Grynszpan sent a postcard to Herschel in Paris, telling him what had happened and pleading with him to rescue them and arrange for them to emigrate to America - which was an impossibility. Berta's postcard reached Herschel on Thursday 3 November. Herschel decided to avenge his parents' persecution.

Four days later Herschel wrote a farewell postcard to his parents and went to a gunshop where he bought a 6.35mm pistol and a box of 25 rounds, for 235 francs. He then walked to the German Embassy and went inside, asking to see an embassy official -- he later said he had wanted to kill the German ambassador. The clerk on duty asked Ernst vom Rath, a junior embassy official, to see him. When Grynszpan entered vom Rath's office, he pulled out his gun and shot vom Rath three times in the abdomen. He shouted "You're a filthy boche" and said he was acting in the name of 12,000 persecuted Jews. Grynszpan made no attempt to resist or escape. He freely confessed to shooting vom Rath, who died two days later. Grynszpan said that his motive for doing so was to avenge the persecuted German Jews. Ironically, vom Rath was in fact an anti-Nazi and was under investigation by the Gestapo at the time of his death. Heck, he wasn't even an anti-Semite but he died just the same.

The Nazis had been planning to let loose their Brownshirts on the Jewish community for some time. Grynszpan's act was just the excuse they were looking for. Vom Rath died on the fifteenth anniversary of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, the greatest day of the Nazi calendar. That night Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels made an incendiary speech to veteran Nazis at the Bürgerbräukeller beer hall in Munich. Goebbels hinted that there might be "spontaneous outbursts" against the Jews. The assembled Nazi leaders needed no further encouragement.

Thus began the anti-Jewish pogrom known as the "Night of Broken Glass," or in German, "Kristallnacht." On the night of 9-10 November 1938 the Nazis fanned out across Germany. During Kristallnacht over 7,500 Jewish shops were destroyed and 400 synagogues were burnt down. More than 1 billion Reichsmarks' damage to property was reported - and Jews were unable to file insurance claims for property losses. Ninety-one Jews were killed and more than 30,000 were sent to concentration camps (where over a thousand died within a short time of beatings, outright murder and disease). The rest were released some months later. Those who could, left Germany after that. The ones who didn't perished later with all their kin in the Holocaust. Herschel Grynszpan set out to make an anti-Nazi gesture, inadvertently killed an anti-Nazi, and gave the Nazis the excuse for the first nationwide assault on the Jews. It was the Law of Unintended Consequences writ large. And it was only the beginning. As William Shirer wrote in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
On the flaming, riotous night of November 9, 1938, the Third Reich had deliberately turned down a dark and savage road from which there was no return, A good many Jews had been murdered and tortured and robbed before, but these crimes, except for those which took place in concentration camps, had been committed mostly by brown-shirted rowdies acting out of their own sadism and greed while the State authorities looked on, or looked the other way. Now the German government itself had organized and carried out a vast pogrom. The killings, the looting, the burning of synagogues and houses and shops on the night of November 9 were its doing. So were the official decrees, duly published in the official gazette, the Reichsgesetzblatt . . . which fined the Jewish community a billion marks, eliminated them from the economy, robbed them of what was left of their property and drove them toward the ghetto -- and worse." (Page 434)
Gerald Schwab, who witnessed the events of Kristallnacht as a German Jewish boy and who later researched the case, titled his 1990 book The Day the Holocaust Began, as indeed it did. One wonders what Grynszpan made of the awful result of his assassination of vom Rath. We cannot know because two years later, after the fall of France, Herschel passed into German custody and thereafter disappeared into what the Nazis called "Nacht und Nebel" -- Night and Fog. Never heard of "Night and Fog?":
"After lengthy consideration, it is the will of the Führer that the measures taken against those who are guilty of offenses against the Reich or against the occupation forces in occupied areas should be altered. The Führer is of the opinion that in such cases penal servitude or even a hard labor sentence for life will be regarded as a sign of weakness. An effective and lasting deterrent can be achieved only by the death penalty or by taking measures which will leave the family and the population uncertain as to the fate of the offender. Deportation to Germany serves this purpose." -- Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler, Nacht und Nebel Decree to the Gestapo, 7 December 1942.
Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel ordered: "The prisoners are, in future, to be transported to Germany secretly, and further treatment of the offenders will take place here; these measures will have a deterrent effect because - A. The prisoners will vanish without a trace. B. No information may be given as to their whereabouts or their fate."

Having served the Nazis unintentionally but well, Grynszpan vanished into the Nacht und Nebel. Grynszpan apparently died in one of their camps in the final year of the war. In one final ironic twist, Grynszpan's parents -- who had been so concerned about Herschel's safety that they sent him to "safety" within pistol range of vom Rath -- survived the war.

The Last Crossroad, or, Take Another Spin Around Dealey Plaza
"If I were Barack Obama, I wouldn't walk my dog in Fort Marcy Park." -- Neal Boortz.
Boortz's crack was obviously directed at the Clintons, who have a history, as they say. Personally, I think Obama can survive the Clintons. Their old voodoo has lost its juju, and one almost pities them in their bewilderment as Obama dances around their already-dug political graves -- almost. What is unclear at this point is whether Obama can survive the other dark forces lurking under the surface of our body politic.

We are coming up on a crossroads in our Republic's long journey, perhaps the last crossroads -- one fork of which can lead to "Kristallnacht" and "Nacht und Nebel." To the power-hungry elites who are tired of tiptoeing around the sensibilities (and latent power) of the American armed citizen to achieve their goals, Barack Obama may be worth more dead than alive.

Obama's friends and supporters have long worried about the target painted on his back. In an Associated Press story that ran a couple of days ago, David Crary reports:
For many black Americans, it's a conversation they find hard to avoid, revisiting old fears in the light of bright new hopes. They watch with wonder as Barack Obama moves ever closer to becoming America's first black president. And they ask themselves, their family, their friends: Is he at risk? Will he be safe? . . . But concern about Obama's safety transcends racial lines. He has white supporters who see him as an inspiring, youthful advocate of change in the mold of Robert F. Kennedy, and they are mindful of Kennedy's assassination just two months after King's. Pam Hart, the principal of a multiracial elementary school in the Philadelphia suburb of Cheltenham, said she is struck by the contrast between some of the black students there, innocently excited about Obama's candidacy, and the more anxious perspective of older people who lived through the violence of the 1960s. "My 70-year-old aunt—every time I call her, she says she's really afraid Obama is going to be assassinated. She is so worried that history will repeat itself," said Hart. (Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UVHBRO2&show_article=1)
Indeed, Monica Guzman, a liberal blogger at http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/, reports that "An ugly topic is capturing attention on the Internet: Today the phrase 'assassinate Obama' appeared on a list of the top 100 Google search terms." Guzman worries that reporting on the possibility of Obama's assassination will make it a fact. Other folks see Biblical prophecy at work. At http://www.satansrapture.com/ , Harry Walther claims that he has decoded the Bible to predict this headline:
"BIBLE CODE: OBAMA ASSASSINATED; HILLARY CLINTON WINS AS PRESIDENT, WELCOMES ANTICHRIST 2010 AD."
Whatever you may think of Harry's Bible scholarship (and I don't presume to know the will of God myself) Walther does have some good advice straight out of the book of Luke: "Watch and be ready . . .Pray always that you are accounted worthy to escape all these things and stand before the Son of God." (Luke 21: 34-36.)

That's certainly good advice for Obama, given that everybody including his friends are discussing his potential imminent demise. Witness this excerpt from New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny's "Hushed Worry About Obama's Safety":
Here in Dallas, those memories were raised in conversation after conversation with several of the 17,000 people who came to see Mr. Obama at a rally last week. “Right around the corner is the John Kennedy Memorial; everyone all around me was talking about it,” said Imogene Covin, a Democratic activist from Dallas. “In the back of my mind, it’s a possibility that something might happen because he’s something to gawk at right now. But you know why I think he will be safe? He has a broad range of people behind him.” That afternoon, Mr. Obama’s motorcade passed Dealey Plaza and the Texas Book Depository building, where the fatal shot was fired at President Kennedy in 1963. Several campaign aides looked out their windows, silently absorbing the scene. Not so for Mr. Obama, who later said he had not realized he was passing the site. And no one in his car pointed it out. “I’ve got to admit, that’s not what I was thinking about,” he said. “I was thinking about how I was starting to get a head cold and needed to make sure that I cleared up my nose before I got to the arena.” (NYT, 25 February 2008)

PART TWO

"Cui Bono?"

Of course the assassination of Barack Obama would play into the most hackneyed prejudices of the collectivist left and the "mainstream" news media who serve their interests. Not that Obama isn't an object of great concern to those of us who revere the Founders' Republic. As Bob Owens and other gun rights activists have pointed out, Obama is profoundly anti-freedom when it comes to firearms. (See http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/obama_shooting_himself_in_the.php) This gun-grabbing tendency of Obama's may play a role in the general election, especially if the Heller decision goes against an individual interpretation of the Second Amendment. Of course, he has to make it to November for that to be an issue.

In addition, there is something about Obama's mesmerized followers and lack of substance that frightens many thoughtful folks. "By the Lord above, Mike, they're worse than Jonestown koolaid drinkers!" said a friend of mine after personally witnessing an Obama rally. "You could tell that they'd die for him, or kill for him, without a doubt in their minds or even knowing why," he marveled. In this, Obamamania approaches the cult of Thulsa Doom from Conan the Barbarian, as David Codrea and others have pointed out on waronguns blogspot.

Worse than that, though, is the emerging notion that Obama may be more anti-freedom and more, yes, anti-American, than Hillary Clinton on her worst day. Witness this incredible piece of analysis from "Spengler" at the Asia Times, "Obama's women reveal his secret":

"Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America. We
know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife...

Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.

Ann Dunham died in 1995, and her character emerges piecemeal from the historical record, to which I will return below. But Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."

The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama's face are not new to the candidate's wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of "blackness" at Princeton University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."

Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007.

"For some reason this guy still can't manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn't get stale, and his five-year-old is still
better at making the bed than he is." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, "She added that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she'd like to meet him sometime." Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then.

"Frustration" and "disappointment" have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite her US $300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships. It is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims, subjected to a century of second-class citizenship even after the Civil War ended slavery. Blackness is not the issue; General Colin Powell, whose parents chose to immigrate to America from the West Indies, saw America just as other immigrants do, as a land of opportunity. Obama's choice of wife is a fail-safe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk.

It is a disturbing analysis of Obama that Spengler presents and should be read in its entirety by everyone interested in the future of our country. (It can be found here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html )

Spengler eschews, as do I, the notion that Obama is a closet Muslim:

Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed. Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America . . ., but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States. There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss.
And Spengler observes, "Americans are the world's biggest suckers." And, he says,

America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point. . . . (Spengler details the current economic downturn and observes) In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen. Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over. . .

It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.

The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.

Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
This is tough and scary stuff, to be sure and one might rightfully wonder who is serving it up. Wikipedia says that "Spengler is the pen name of an anonymous Internet columnist published in Asia Times Online since January 2000. He writes from a conservative Judeo-Christian religious perspective but in a provocatively iconoclastic style, using aspects of Western history and culture to comment on current geopolitical events."

My own guess is that he's an ex-pat Brit, probably an ex-MI5 or MI6 analyst/intellectual. (His analysis of Tolkein vs. Wagner found here http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EA11Aa02.html is a classic.) As I know from personal experience in the 90s, while the British may not always make the smart decisions, they always have the best intelligence before doing so. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard comes to mind.

“Rome had Caesar, a man of remarkable governing talents, although it must be said that a ruler who arouses opponents to resort to assassination is probably not as smart as he ought to be.” -- Barbara Tuchman
So, if we accept that Spengler is correct about Obama's inner demons, we must admit that his election to the office of President can only portend terrible times ahead. Still, one must ask "Cui bono?" Or, to whose benefit would Obama's assassination work?

The Men in Black & the Cigarette Smoking Man
You'll dress only in attire specially sanctioned by MiB special services. You'll conform to the identity we give you, eat where we tell you, live where we tell you. From now on you'll have no identifying marks of any kind. You'll not stand out in any way. Your entire image is crafted to leave no lasting memory with anyone you encounter. You're a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu and dismissed just as quickly. You don't exist; you were never even born. Anonymity is your name. Silence your native tongue. You're no longer part of the System. You're above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Black. -- Zed, Men in Black, the movie.
"You're above the system." Isn't that the side of the current administration's bureaucracy that we see in the case US vs. Olofson? The ATF certainly acts as if its above the law. This is nothing new. Still, it would be silly to imagine that every evil event is the result of some conspiracy or another. I have never been one to believe that there is one human spider at the central web of our Republic's enemies. There are many competing spiders and many evil webs and the only thing they have in common is that they serve Lucifer's purpose. And despite having been pulled into the private investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing, I don't waste much time chasing "conspiracy theories." But a student of history would also be a fool if he didn't admit that unseen hands often pull distant triggers, either deliberately or inadvertently.

It is not insignificant that the Klan bombers of the 16th Street Baptist Church here in Birmingham in 1963 that killed four innocent little girls got their dynamite from an FBI informant, Tommy Rowe. (For more about Rowe, see The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan and the Murder of Viola Liuzzo by Dr. Gary May, 2005.) It is also pertinent that Emad Salem, the FBI informant on the inside of the first World Trade Center bombing conspiracy, offered to his handlers the option of doing a "switcheroo" on the bombers, substituting a harmless powder for the deadly explosives and thereby preventing any potential catastrophe. The FBI spurned his offer. And if you believe that Tim McVeigh's call to federal informant Andreas Carl Strassmeir at Elohim City, Oklahoma prior to the OKC bombing was a wrong number, you probably still believe in the tooth fairy as well. For my money, these facts representing 30 years of FBI incompetence and/or complicity (take your pick) form what I call a pattern.

Again, cui bono? The reaction to the 16th Street church bombing broke the back of segregation in the south. It also discredited for a generation the Founders' concept of the Tenth Amendment, which had been stupidly linked to the denial of constitutional rights that segregation represented. (Much as the concept of secession, which the Founders certainly envisioned as a possibility if the central government became too onerous, was discredited by its use to defend the institution of human slavery.) The OKC bombing reelected Bill Clinton. (He said so himself, on the plane coming back to DC the day after the election. "It broke the spell," he told reporters.) And the first World Trade Center bombing (before all those embarrassing little facts about their prior knowledge came out) reinforced the FBI's cultivated image as the squeaky clean defender of America. Dragonslayers need dragons if they are to be willingly fed by the gullible peasantry.

Was Lee Harvey Oswald really the "lone gunman?" Or was President Kennedy killed by the Cigarette Smoking Man from X-Files? How about Martin Luther King? Was it "Old Smokey" as Mulder called him, or James Earl Ray? Does it matter? The Nazis did not send Herschel Grynszpan to vom Rath's Paris embassy office. But they certainly benefited from his death.

Justice Robert Jackson once warned, "I cannot say that our country could have no secret police without becoming totalitarian, but I can say with great conviction that it cannot become totalitarian without a centralized national police." He also said this: "The most odious of all oppressions are those which mask as justice."

In the aftermath of an Obama assassination, all oppressions will be masked as justice. And it doesn't take much imagination to figure out what would happen to individual liberty in this country (especially that of American gunowners) if Obama is assassinated during the campaign. His killer would no doubt be found wearing a "Minuteman" hat, with a Gun Owners of America membership card in his wallet. The worst provisions of the PATRIOT Act and the other counter-terrorism laws passed in the last ten years would be focused on us, the armed citizenry of the United States.

So while the prospect of an Obama presidency is scary, the threat of an Obama assassination is worse. Personally, I'll take my crises one at a time as they present themselves. If Obama gets elected and proves to be as great a danger to our liberties as we fear, I'll worry about that then. But for now, if Obama comes to my town to make one of his kool-aid drinker, swooning teenybopper highfalutin' speeches, you'll find me and my friends working the crowd, protecting his skinny butt from harm. If you're smart, you will too. Just watch out for the FBI, the Men in Black and the Cigarette Smoking Man -- and the powerful elites they serve.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Our Principle Thing

The Montana Shooting Sports Association says principled voters should vote for Ron Paul over John McCain or Barack Obama...

But the MSSA says "pragmatic" voters should choose McCain, because he is not as bad on gun issues as Obama.
Glad to see the term getting wider use.

The hatred against Dr. Paul from some of these pragmatic voters is still popping up--I just saw him contemptuously described as a "bizarre little man" the other day on one "gun blog." Others continue on the theme that he's a racist, or a "troofer," and one actually resorted to making fun of Paul backers by publishing the photo of a heavyset female supporter and ridiculing her weight.

I guess you can take your lead from that.

I won't write in Paul because he doesn't want it. My preference doesn't matter--it's his choice, not mine.

My advice continues to be: Vote your informed conscience. Because whether we compromise and go lesser of two evils, whether we sit on our hands, whether we go third party, it will affect the results--and we will share in moral responsibility for what follows if our decision helped enable it.

But then again, what do I know? I think it's been pretty well-established that I'm a rigid, "SNBI!"-shouting extremist.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

The Truman Show

Doug McCain, son of U.S. John McCain, will accept the Truman Public Service Award in his father’s name. [More]
And seeing as how "Last year’s winner was Janet Napolitano," he's in appropriate swamp company.

[Via Steve T

Thursday, August 14, 2008

ObamaGun

Comparing Obama to McCain on the single issue of the right to keep and bear arms
Fine.

I would like to know who's behind it. I'd be surprised if I was surprised.

Here's the thing--we know The Lightworker is bad.

I need to hear more than the republican is comparatively less bad.

We just saw a reputed draft of the democrat platform on guns. In it, I see the Bush Doctrine on "assault weapons" and the McCain Doctrine on "gun show loopholes."

So warnings from the right notwithstanding, let's see what the GOP platform has to say. If it's more meaningless feel-good platitudes with no strong guarantees and pledges to roll things back, don't expect that to put a fire in anyone's belly.

[Via Ron W and Zachary G]