Saturday, August 23, 2008

Now This Ought To Even Things Out

We now have equality in the Democratic race for the White House. Senator Obama who hates Whites has selected Senator Biden who hates Blacks for the Vice President's slot. Biden the Iranian Medal of honor winner showed his colors on numerous occasions but none more prominent than during the Clarence Thomas hearings during Thomas' consideration for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.
In other areas that now spell equality is that of plagiarism. Obama plagiarizes Franklin D. Roosevelt while Biden copies Neil Kinnock (see story below).
What a pair! What a choice! If it makes you feel any better, Obama's choice pretty much sums up's word of the day for Friday August 22nd 2008; Hobson's Choice.
(Hobson's choice \HOB-suhnz-CHOIS\, noun:A choice without an alternative; the thing offered or nothing.) For certainly Biden is the nothing offered part of the definition. -- Norman E. Hooben

The following cross-posted from the Washington Post
by Chris Cillizza
Obama Picks Biden as V.P.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden" src="" width=454 border=0 aptureProxy="23">

Barack Obama confers with Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Biden chairs.

Barack Obama has chosen Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, a pick designed to shore up the Illinois senator's foreign policy credentials in advance of the November election against John McCain.

Biden's selection was confirmed by a Democratic source after an evening of speculation that centered on the Delaware senator when it was reported that the other top contenders were no longer under consideration. Biden had been considered the frontrunner for the job in recent weeks -- a position confirmed by a last-minute, unscheduled trip last weekend to meet with the president of Georgia.

News of the pick was reported in advance of the Obama campaign's planned Saturday announcement to supporters via email and text message.

Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972 at the age of 29. A month after his election, his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident. Biden has not been seriously challenged since that first election -- a reflection of both the Democratic roots of the state and Biden's skillfulness as a politician.

Long rumored as a candidate for national office, Biden launched a presidential bid in 1987 that was gaining traction until a video was leaked to the press that showed striking similarities between a speech by Biden and an address by British Labour Party politician Neil Kinnock. Biden sought to beat back the controversy but subsequent allegations about plagiarism and resume inflation in law school forced him from the contest.

Biden was subsequently stricken in early 1988 by a brain aneurysm from which he recovered fully. Once his health improved, Biden threw himself back into the day to day working of the Senate where he chaired the high profile Judiciary Committee from 1987 until 1995. In that role, he chaired the controversial Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden has also served several stints as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a perch from which he has emerged as one of the leading voices in the Democratic Party on foreign policy matters.

Two decades after his first bid for president, Biden launched a second candidacy in 2007. He was never considered anything more than a longshot due to the presence of both Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the contest but acquitted himself well in the eyes of the Democratic establishment. Biden proved that the charisma that had recommended him as a rising star in the 1980s was still very much part of his political portfolio; he also excelled in the myriad debates held among the Democratic aspirants during the primary season.

For Obama, the Biden pick is a sign that he and his campaign believe that foreign policy matters will be front and center in the fall election. Biden brings the Democratic ticket immediate gravitas on issues ranging from the war in Iraq to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Georgia.

McCain has made no secret that he believes Obama's experience in public life ill suits him to handle the complex world situation into which the next president will immediately step. Biden, a serious politician with a far deeper resume than Obama, will complicate -- if not entirely blunt -- Republican attacks on the Illinois senator's readiness for office.

We'll have far more about the pick both on The Fix and the site more generally throughout the day. In the meantime, make sure to check out the case for and case against Biden as vice president we made in this space. They should provide a blueprint for how Democrats and Republicans will try to define the Delaware senator in the coming weeks and months.

By Chris Cillizza August 23, 2008; 1:30 AM ET Category: Eye on 2008 ,

Friday, August 22, 2008

Thinking may be difficult for Obama voters...

by Norman E. Hooben - August 22, 2008
Reverend James Manning makes it a point that boycotting (see video below) is effective and this is true. As we have proved this with the very successful boycott of Ford Motor Company, a radical leftist corporation that sponsors immoral and Godless anti-Christian ideology to promote it's agenda. For the last year or so Ford has lost millions of dollars and will continue to lose more and more until they rid themselves of their heinous ways.
Some viewers would argue against Rev. Manning by insisting he is some far right whimsical preacher. For those poor souls I have no empathy. The only people voting for Mr. Obama fall into one or more of the following classes: Stupidity is sure to be number one followed by ignorance/the uneducated, anti-American, Socialist/Marxist (either believers or those leaning in that direction), and what is referred to as the know-nothings.
These know-nothings comprise a very large voting block. They are the typical person found on the street and made fun of on such shows as The Tonight Show and others with a similar format. They are the same people who have taken advantage of America's greatness and never gave much thought as to how we got here. They are thankless and are usually very selfish...the gimme crowd if you will. The Obama voters also include those that feel welfare is an types too lazy to work themselves upward to a higher standard of living.
I present these few items because they are indeed facts. Facts that you cannot disprove. You may disagree with them but only because of your ignorance. So instead of getting all hot under the collar take the time and research this gangster from Chicago's South Side. Check out all his close friends and associates and his Marxist teachers. Study those who Obama studied such as Saul Alinsky and William Ayres. Follow his connections with such criminals as Tony Resko and others. Then ask yourself why you want to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more to the government for programs that only help the politic elite. You are not a member of this elite group but Obama is one of it's leaders and he has stated emphatically that he wants to take more and more of you money. Why would any clear thinking person want to give money to the government when surely the family needs it more than the likes of Obama and company.
While your watching the video THINK! Thinking may be difficult for Obama voters...prove me wrong! Remember its your duty to find out all you can about who it is you vote for...and I'll leave you with this to think about: A vote for Obama is a vote to destroy America, the free world's last refuge!

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

If I Could Have Voted In Obama's Place In The Illinois Senate Obama Would Have Been Aborted

Just imagine I'm a state senator in the state of Hawaii forty-seven years ago and that I sponsored legislation such as Obama has in the state of Illinois...We wouldn't be having this conversation; Obama would have been aborted! -- Norman E. Hooben
The following cross posted from
[Jill Stanek]

August 20, 2008
Michael Phelps before conception

Sorry, unknown artist...

michael phelps.jpg

[HT: Troy Newman of Operation Rescue]

[] [digg] [Yahoo] [Windows Live] [Technorati] [Stumble Upon] [Sphere] [Reddit] [Newsvine] [NetVibes] [Google] [Facebook]

Washington Post article on Obama/Born Alive

Still trying to spotlight all the major news articles published today on the new revelation that Barack Obama voted against identical Born Alive legislation as IL state senator that passed on the federal level overwhelmingly.

Washington Post, today, front page:

The narrative of the presidential campaign appeared to be set on the issue of abortion: Sen. Barack Obama was the abortion-rights candidate who was reaching out to foes, seeking common ground and making inroads. Sen. John McCain was the abortion opponent....

obama mccain warren.jpg

But both those impressions have been altered since the Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in CA ....

Obama's hesitant statement at the forum that defining the beginning of life is "above my pay grade" took even some supporters by surprise. Since then, the National Right to Life Committee has challenged him on an obscure law that protects babies born alive after failed abortions, saying that his opposition to the measure in the IL state legislature proves he is an extremist....

Continue reading "Washington Post article on Obama/Born Alive"

he always was and always will be...A SOUTH-SIDE GANGSTER

Obama Played by Chicago Rules

August 20, 2008; Page A19

Democrats don't like it when you say that Barack Obama won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.

By clearing out the incumbent and the others in his first Democratic primary for state Senate, Mr. Obama did something that was neither illegal nor even uncommon. But Mr. Obama claims to represent something different from old-style politics -- especially old-style Chicago politics. And the senator is embarrassed enough by what he did that he misrepresents it in the prologue of his political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."

[Obama Played by Chicago Rules]
Barack Obama talks with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, June 6.

In that book, Mr. Obama paints a portrait of himself as a genuine reformer and change agent, just as he has in this presidential campaign. He attributes his 1996 victory to his message of hope, and his exhortations that Chicagoans drop their justifiable cynicism about politics.

When voters complained of all the broken promises politicians had made in the past, Mr. Obama writes that he "would usually smile and nod, and say that I understood the skepticism, but that there was -- and always had been -- another tradition to politics, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done."

Mr. Obama writes that even if the voters were not impressed by this speech, "enough of them appreciated my earnestness and youthful swagger that I made it to the Illinois legislature."

In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama's petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents' signatures on various technical grounds -- all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that "[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don't live in the 13th district."

One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.

In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents -- including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

But Mr. Obama's offenses against the idea of a "new politics" are many, and go well beyond hardball election tactics. It is telling that, when asked at the Saddleback Forum last weekend to name an instance in which he had worked against his own party or his own political interests, he didn't have a good answer. He claimed to have worked with his current opponent, John McCain, on ethics reform. In fact, no such thing happened. The two men had agreed to work together, for all of one day, in February 2006, and then promptly had a well-documented falling-out. They even exchanged angry letters over this incident.

The most dramatic examples of Mr. Obama's commitment to old-style politics are his repeated endorsements of Chicago's machine politicians, which came in opposition to what people of all ideological stripes viewed as the common good.

In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago's Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.

The since-deceased Stroger's self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.

When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County's government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.

After the primary, when Stroger's son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him -- to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals -- a "good, progressive Democrat."

Mayor Richard M. Daley -- who would receive Mr. Obama's endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago's city government -- was invested in the Stroger machine's survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama's friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger's finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko's wife on the county payroll).

Mr. Obama has never stood up against Chicago's corruption problem because his donors and allies are Chicago's corruption problem.

Mr. Obama is not the reformer he now claims to be. The real man is the one they know in Chicago -- the one who won his first election by depriving voters of a choice.

Mr. Freddoso is the author of the just-published "The Case Against Barack Obama" (Regnery).

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

From the Wall Street Journal

Monday, August 18, 2008

Have We Gone Too Far...left

If the article below is any measure of the current state of the nation, I would say, "Yes indeed! We have gone too far." How even the citizens of San Francisco can tolerate such dictates is beyond the limits of normal free individual thinking. Are San Franciscans abnormal? Can they think? Has the Golden Gate turned into the gates of hell? It would appear so!
As I so often said about Massachusetts, The Police State has arrived." Only now it has been surpassed by the City of San Francisco.
East is east and west is west...God forbid that the two shall ever meet! -- Norman E. Hooben

Eco-Nazi's and Gang Green

The Wall Street Journal
August 15, 2008; Page W9

Earlier this month, while visiting a friend in San Francisco, I almost spilled my latte in my lap when I read this on the front page of the Chronicle: "S.F. Mayor Proposes Fines for Unsorted Trash."

The story began: "Garbage collectors would inspect San Francisco residents' trash to make sure pizza crusts aren't mixed in with chip bags or wine bottles under a proposal by Mayor Gavin Newsom." Isn't that what homeless people do -- rooting around in other people's garbage? If Bay Area residents are caught failing to separate the plastic bottles from the newspapers, according to the newspaper story, they could face fines of up to $1,000.
"We don't want to fine people," the mayor is quoted saying reassuringly. "We want to change behavior." Translation: Do exactly as we say and no one gets hurt. And San Francisco considers itself one of the most progressive cities in America!

When I was a kid, the environmentalists promoted their clean skies and antilittering agenda mostly through moral suasion -- with pictures of an Indian under a smoggy sky with a tear rolling down his cheek or the owl who chanted on TV: "Give a hoot, don't pollute." Such messages made you feel guilty about callously throwing a candy bar wrapper on the ground or feeling indifferent toward car fumes. Back then I was a devoted recycler, but not for sentimental reasons. It was the financial incentive: You got up to a nickel for every bottle you brought back to the grocery store. So I would scavenge the landscape to find unredeemed bottles to buy baseball cards and candy.

But now the environmental movement has morphed into the most authoritarian philosophy in America. The most glaring example of course is the multitrillion-dollar cap-and-trade anti-global warming scheme that would mandate an entire restructuring of our industrial economy. This plan, endorsed by both presidential candidates, would empower climate-change cops to regulate the energy usage and carbon emissions of every industry in America. If we do this, the best estimates are that we could reduce global temperatures by 0.1 degrees by 2050 and save on average about one polar bear a year from early death. But no burden is too great when it comes to helping the planet -- even if the progress to be made is infinitesimal. To weigh costs and benefits is regarded as sacrilege -- the refuge of global warming "deniers."

There are also new federal and state proposals to snoop on citizens in our own homes. California is considering a plan to police the temperature settings on residents' thermostats. The feds are checking on the flush capacity of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we use. A new game called Climate Crime Cards urges kids to spy on and keep an online record of their family's environmental faux pas -- noting when their parents fail to turn off the TV, plug in too many appliances or use the clothes dryer on a sunny day. Sen. John Warner, a Republican from Virginia, wants to bring back the reviled 55-mile-per-hour federal speed limit law so that America can reduce gasoline consumption. Barack Obama believes that properly inflating the tires on our cars is the solution to our energy woes. Is the government going to start giving tickets for failure to inflate?

The latest rage among the more radical environmental groups is to encourage the government to monitor and ration every individual's carbon footprint -- how much you eat, drive, fly, heat, air condition, throw away and so on. Why? Because the average American emits twice as much carbon as the average European (which is another way of saying we are more productive than they are). This is all promoted as a form of shared sacrifice. But under this system some people are more equal than others. People with enough money like Al Gore can purchase carbon offset credits to justify chartering a plane rather than having to fly commercial. Seems like this is the very kind of elitist policy -- reminiscent of the practice during the Civil War of allowing the rich and privileged to buy their way out of the draft -- that liberals used to be against.

Do-gooders also once wanted to "celebrate diversity," but total conformity seems to be the aim of those in Seattle these days, where the city has started putting green tags on garbage cans of homeowners who don't recycle. Enthusiasts boast that there is a very positive "Scarlet Letter" effect to subjecting noncompliers to public scorn. So you can almost hear the kitchen conversations: "Jimmy, I don't want you playing with the Williams boys anymore; their family doesn't recycle." But wait, aren't these the same ACLU members who oppose public registries of multiple sex offenders?

Many studies have shown that the environmental benefits from household recycling are minimal or at least highly exaggerated (because it uses a lot of energy and those recycling trucks emit a lot of greenhouse gases). America is not in danger of ever running out of landfill to store our garbage. For example, a study by Daniel Benjamin, an economist at Clemson, finds that we could store all of America's garbage for the next century within the property of Ted Turner's ranch in Montana, with 50,000 acres undisturbed for the horse and bison.

In reality, household recycling is mostly about absolving the guilt of Lexus liberals who just hate themselves for enjoying an affluent 21st-century lifestyle. The aim seems to be less saving nature than building self-esteem.

And it has worked. Too well. I can barely tolerate the proud recyclers, hybrid-car owners and "save the polar bear" button-wearers who smother us with their self-righteousness. A few weeks ago I was at the house of some friends, and I accidentally tossed a plastic Gatorade bottle into the glass recycling bin. You would have thought that I had made a pass at their daughter.

Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes with rich irony that "we now live in a society where Sunday church attendance is down, but people wouldn't dream of missing their weekly trek to the altar of the recycling center." These facilities, by the way, are increasingly called "redemption centers." Which is fine except that now the greens want to make redemption mandatory. Oh, for a return to the days when someone stood up for the separation of church and state.

Mr. Moore is the senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

Note: And the liberals label us Nazi's? Good luck with that. Orwellian Progressivism at it's best. Just one more reason people are leaving Kalifornia.
Oh, and don't forget to turn off the lights on your way out.....