Blogs For Victory

From Rob over at Say Anything:

Back when Obama was just a primary candidate he was asked about William Ayers during a debate with Hillary Clinton. At the time Obama said that Ayers was just “a guy in my neighborhood.” Implying that his only association with Ayers was geographical.

But it’s since come to light that Obama worked as Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that William Ayers founded. That Obama launched his political career from Ayers house. And, now, that Ayers and Obama shared an office for three years.

If Obama thinks his association with Bill Ayers isn’t a big deal because the past is the past, then one must ask why Obama keeps lying about it.

The New York Times doing oppo research on Cindy McCain for the Obama campaign generates this response from Mrs. McCain’s attorney:

…Any further attempts to harass and injure her … will be met with an appropriate response. While she may be in the public eye, she is not public property nor the property of the press to abuse and defame.

It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama. You have not tried to find Barack Obama’s drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father. Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus, there is a terrific lack of balance here.

I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy of the energy and resources of The New York Times. They are cruel hit pieces designed to injure people that only the worst rag would investigate and publish. I know you and your colleagues are always preaching about raising the level of civil discourse in our political campaigns. I think taking some your own medicine is in order here…(emphasis added)

If it was just peachy to have us treated to President Bush’s ancient DUI in 2000, why can’t we get a page 1, above-the-fold interview with Obama’s drug dealer? Is he dead? In jail? What is the story on the guy? How about some conversations with an ex-boyfriend of Mrs. Obama? And the people have a right to know just how many of Obama’s cousins live in abject poverty in Kenya. But, none of that – and, of course, none of it would be relevant, anyways…but the fact that we are getting the MSM looking into the less flattering aspects of Mrs. McCain’s life (and who among us doesn’t have some of those which we’d be mortified to find reported in the pages of the New York Times?) and not getting the dirt on the Obamas shows the MSM bias.

You can bet dollars to donuts that the MSM – in coordination with the Obama campaign – will dump as many nasty stories about the McCains and the Palins as they can in the last week of the campaign. Tabloid trash to be trotted out when its too late for McCain/Palin to make a response. And while Team Obama will say they had nothing to do with it, the facts of reporting on Campaign ’08 clearly indicate collusion between Team Obama and various elements in the MSM…they are just too often on the exact same page at the exact same time for it to be mere coincidence (this, by the way, is another criminal investigation to have done once McCain/Palin are in office – whether or not the apparent coordination between Obama and the MSM can be proved and, if it can, who gets to go to jail over it).

I will give this advice to Obama and the MSM – for us on the right, chivalry is not dead. When we see you launching cruel attacks against honorable women, it makes our blood boil and all the more determined to emerge victorious, if only to teach you how to treat ladies with proper respect. The things being done to Mrs. McCain and governor Palin are things which, in a different age, would result in a duel. We cannot get that satisfaction in 2008, but we can sure as heck do everything we can to make you eat your disgusting words.

Yeesh!

A host of well-known figures, including some Republicans, have indicated they would be willing to serve in some capacity as Obama begins to acquire a winner’s glow. From Senator John Kerry, the 2004 presidential candidate with hopes of becoming secretary of state, to Larry Summers, a former US Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator who has been tipped as defence secretary, there are plenty who have signalled their availability.

A guy who compared our soldiers to savages; a guy who was asleep at the switch while the accounting scandal grew in corporate America; a RINO who will just tick off Republicans if he were appointed in an Obama Administration; yeah, that’s the way to bring us together…I’ll also note, with care, that all three of them – like Obama’s VP pick – are hip deep in the politics-as-usual, culture of corruption which is Washington DC…not a maverick or outside amongst them. The change we need – in a pig’s eye.

In his weekly radio address:

…some big problems with my opponent’s claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?

Well, that’s the key to Barack Obama’s whole plan: Since you can’t reduce taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will cover those checks by taxing other people, including a lot of folks just like Joe.

In other words, Barack Obama’s tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington. I suppose when you’ve voted against lowering taxes 94 times, as Senator Obama has done, a new definition of the term “tax credit” comes in handy.

At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut it’s just another government giveaway.

What’s more, the Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America, and especially for small businesses like the one Joe dreams of owning. Small businesses provide 16 million jobs in America. And a sudden tax hike will kill those jobs at a time when need to be creating more jobs.

Fortunately, America has an alternative to the phony tax cut my opponent started talking about only months ago. The McCain-Palin tax cut is the real thing. Among our other serious tax reforms, we’re going to reduce every income tax bill in America, and double the child deduction for every family. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America.

As Joe the Plumber has now reminded us all, America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by letting government “spread the wealth around.” In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. And that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

It would be nice if Obama and his Democrats would come right out and say what they’ll do if the do win the trifecta of White House/House/Senate. Of course, if they were to announce clearly just how much taxing, spending and tearing down of traditional morality they plan, they’d not win that trifecta, now would they? So Obama is reduced to a fiscal sleight of hand in order to try and fool a majority into supporting him – and it may work, thanks to an MSM which is fawning in its coverage of The One.

Fortunately for us, we do have a real choice on November 4th – John McCain and Sarah Palin are coming on strong and battling it out toe to toe with Obama and his liberal and leftist allies. With the polls tightening over the past few days, we can see that this race will go right down to the wire and, in the end, I’m very hopeful that McCain will pull off the biggest upset in American political history. Should we win this battle then we’ll be able to proudly state that while being slandered by the MSM and outspent massively by the Democrats, we still managed to secure the support of the American people – and John McCain will have secured a mandate to bring about the real change we need to get America back on track.

Archbishop Chaput states the case:

When Jesus tells the Pharisees and Herodians in the Gospel of Matthew (22:21) to ”render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” he sets the framework for how we should think about religion and the state even today. Caesar does have rights. We owe civil authority our respect and appropriate obedience. But that obedience is limited by what belongs to God. Caesar is not God. Only God is God, and the state is subordinate and accountable to God for its treatment of human persons, all of whom were created by God. Our job as believers is to figure out what things belong to Caesar, and what things belong to God – and then to put those things in right order in our own lives, and in our relations with others…

…As Christians, we can’t claim to love God and then ignore the needs of our neighbors. Loving God is like loving a spouse. A husband may tell his wife that he loves her, and of course that’s very beautiful. But she’ll still want to see the evidence in his actions. Likewise if we claim to be ”Catholic,” we need to prove it by our behavior. And serving other people by working for justice and charity in our nation’s political life is one of the very important ways we do that…

…I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ”abortion-rights” presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what (pro-Obama Catholic) Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ”pro-choice;” it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child – and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ”murder” – the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.

Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.To suggest – as some Catholics do – that Senator Obama is this year’s ”real” prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ”prolife” option is to subvert what the word ”prolife” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ”Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” and his follow-up article, ”Obama and Infanticide.” They say everything that needs to be said.

I understand the argument – while Obama is pro-choice (so-called), he’ll provide those social services for pregnant women which will convince them that they can, indeed, carry the child to term. There are two flaws in this argument:

1. It pre-supposes that the vast majority of abortions are the result of mere lack of resources for pregnant women.

2. Even if it is verified that lack of resources are at the bottom of most abortions, Obama’s support for the inhuman “Freedom of Choice Act” would still disqualify him for pro-life support because it would prevent any regulation of abortion at all, including the ban on the horrific barbarism known as “partial birth abortion”.

We can’t really know why abortions occur because the abortion-industry fights desperately to prevent any sort of comprehensive, independent study of the matter which would allow us to understand who is getting abortions and why they do it and, of course, what physical or psychological problems might result from it (yes, I know there are studies – but the sort of study we need to render a judgment on this has not been done, and will never be done if the abortion industry has anything to say about). My best guess on the matter is that most abortions result from an attitude rather than a need – there is a huge network of groups around the nation who will provide pre- and post-natal care, parenting classes and adoption services for any pregnant woman who is contemplating abortion but wondering if there’s a way to bring the baby to term. Give this support network, I don’t buy the argument that an increase in resources would have a large effect on reducing abortions – there might be a marginal improvement, but nothing which would justify a pro-life person supporting a pro-abortion candidate, supposing that candidate steps up and offers vastly increased resources for pregnant women.

To be sure, I want vastly greater resources applied to the issue – with the preference for faith-based groups dispensing the aid, as they are most likely to be both genuinely caring and cost-effective with taxpayer dollars. But to decrease the number of abortions requires a mental and moral shift in that portion of the population of the United States which obtains abortions. It requires, in my view, a lack of respect for life, a lack of respect for self and a feeling of despair to get an abortion – we have plenty of such people in the Unite States because we’ve spent decades now propagandizing for the culture of death, the degradation of the self and that life is a hopeless misery. With the relentlessness and ubiquity of the propaganda, it is absolutely no surprise that we have a large number of abortions – but the key to the fact of abortions is the lack of respect for life, which lack of respect was greatly accelerated when the Supreme Court rendered its unconstitutional Roe decision.

Ultimately, to lower the number of abortions will require a renewed respect for life, and self, and an end to despair. Given this, we of the pro-life community daren’t offer our support for those who advance the cause of abortion. It would be one thing to offer up some support to a person who merely refuses to ban abortion or restrict it, its quite another to support someone – like Obama – who have pledged themselves in advance to support the most extreme pro-abortion positions.

In the battle for life in 2008, the only rational choice for a pro-life American is to support Senator John McCain and governor Sarah Palin. Only they are pledged to a stout defense of life and to advance laws, regulations and judges who will allow the pro-life community to slowly, bit by bit, change America back into a nation with an inherent respect for life.

Watch TV:

FOX News on Obama [Stanley Kurtz]

FOX News is going to be airing a special report this weekend on Barack Obama’s background, associations, etc. I did a long taped interview for the show, and I expect that parts of it will be used. The report is scheduled to air today (Saturday) at 9PM ET, Sunday at 5AM ET, and again on Sunday at 2PM ET.

Kurtz, you might recall, is the guy who has been targeted by leftwing, Obamaniac-inspired thuggery for daring to express his opinions. This might be very much worth seeing.

But don’t question their patriotism:

…Not present, or at least not singing the National Anthem at the rally was Londonderry senior Zach Bencal.

Bencal, who sings the anthem for a number of school events and is actively involved in local community theatre, had been contacted by the Obama campaign to sing the anthem. He agreed to do so, then was told later in the evening the anthem had been scratched from the program. Bencal said he was told by the campaign the decision was a simple programming change to make room for another speaker.

“I guess it just wasn’t meant to be,” Bencal said.

Sandra Abrevaya, communications director for the Obama campaign’s Manchester office, confirmed the choice had simply been a last-minute scratch from the rally’s program, which included the Pledge of Allegiance…

“Last minute scratch from the program” would more normally, in America, be excluded – perhaps – some down-ballot candidate. Memo to Team Obama: the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner are vital parts of any campaign for President of the United States. All the time and everywhere.

Its like we’ve now got a chance of electing the anti-patriots to the White House…

“All I have is words. In some ways words are always inadequate.” –Barack Obama

Interesting:

John McCain’s peace summit visit to CBS’ “Late Show” gave David Letterman his highest viewership in nearly three years.

The Thursday night telecast was seen by 6.5 million viewers, and received a 1.7 rating in the adult demo. That’s the largest audience for the show since December, 2005, when Oprah Winfrey appeared. “Late Show” also topped Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” (4.6 million viewers) by 43%, and Leno had Joe Biden as a guest.

“Can I give you an answer?” says McCain when ribbed about his previous appearance cancellation. “I screwed up.”

When you couple this with the rather large and enthusiastic crowds being drawn by both McCain and Palin, I begin to perceive an enthusiasm shift – could be that GOPers come out to the polls as they did in 2004, and markedly failed to do in 2006. If the GOP has a 2004 turnout, coupled with McCain’s appeal to moderate Democrats, then the results on November 4th could make for a lot of very, very depressed MSMers…

A correspondent to NRO’s The Corner:

…the way the pro-Obama media and bloggers, and Obama himself, have responded to Joe has got me nearly shaking with rage. They are attempting to destroy a man — a private citizen — who had the audacity to ask The One a question. Mind you, Joe was on his front lawn playing football with his son when Obama strolled up to give him his hopenchange spiel. Obama approached Joe, not the other way around. And Joe asked Obama an honest question. And Obama gave him an honest — and very, very revealing — answer. Again, mind you, the embarassment was on Obama’s end, not Joe’s. It wasn’t a gotcha question.

And yet, for that Joe is being pilloried, every aspect of his private and professional life being sorted through and exposed. To prove … what? What does that have to do with Obama’s answer? What does Joe’s situation have to do with Obama’s philosophical answer — that he wants to “spread the wealth”? Obama’s answer goes down the memory hole while the nation concentrates its fire on obliterating Joe the Plumber.

It’s sickening, it’s maddening and it’s downright chilling.

Sorry for the length. But I am just SEETHING.

Michael Barone warns of a coming “thugocracy” if Obama is elected, and in these hate filled actions against private American citizen who just happened to ask a man a question we can see the sort of suppression via intimidation we’ll get under an Obama Administration. Liberals and leftists just don’t like free speech – they want us to shut up and allow them to do as they wish. They’ll tolerate a few tame conservatives who will make erudite statements about the errors of liberalism but never actually stop it from advancing, but when it comes to people who don’t want to be shackled to the liberal plantation, they just want us to get lost.

Could there be a backlash coming? A rising up of the Average American against an MSM and socio-economic elite which is determined to install Obama? I think so – whether it will be enough, at this late stage, to derail the Obama Express remains to be seen…but we’re seeing the Great Awakening; the understanding by millions of Americans that liberalism and the left don’t wish us well – that they don’t want a pluralist America where we argue things out and reach a compromise solution. The understanding is dawning that liberalism wants it all, and wants it for good.

UPDATE: Another example of the hatred on the left:

While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”…

…The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs.

The result of 8 years of lies coupled with the left’s usual Leninist rage over dissenting opinions. The lies about GOPers make us appear worthy objects of hatred, the leftwing insistence that dissenting voices be suppressed creates a situation where a man goes on a rampage.

There is a limit, leftwingers, and you are fast approaching it. As a rule, we don’t care what you say as long as you’re not hurting anyone, damaging property or blocking traffic. We demand the same consideration from you.