Blogs For Victory

From USA Today last week:

Note the inset photograph.

No photoshopping was required. Click here if you don’t believe me.

Over at Battle Born Politics.

Once again the Democrats back down…

Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday.

Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.

“It’ll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that’s it,” said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation.

Sorry Democrats, looks like the troops will get funded.

We hear much of this, but let us actually think of the ways and means we can cut our oil consumption. We’re going to have a rule or two:

1. It can’t be something already put out by the Obama or McCain campaigns.

2. It must not require any new technology.

3. It must not require any direct government expenditure.

4. It must not add to the regulatory burden on the economy.

5. It must allow people to be in charge of their own energy consumption choices.

Herewith some of my ideas:

A: Switch from a standard 8 hours, five days a week at work to 10 hours, four days a week.

In theory, this would cut America’s collective commute – and the fuel consumed therein – by 20%; in actuality, it would be less even if it became the norm, but I’ll bet that a widespread application of this would reduce our gasoline consumption by 10%, as well as greatly cutting down auto emissions.

As for the practical terms of it – I and the Mrs have been working “four tens” for years now, and we’ve become so accustomed to it that we find it incomprehensible how anyone has any real fun with only two days a week off. Such a proposal would allow for people to have more usuable leisure time (that two hours you’re currently off each weekday are rather worthless for recreation in any real sense), more time to spend with family, more time to spend on personal activities (you think I’d blog this much if I had to put in a five day week?) and would allow for very flexible work schedules (some people, like me, will prefer Fri-Sat-Sun, but others will prefer Mon-Tue-Wed, or any combination you can think of). My preferred method of encouraging this – tax breaks for businesses which allow it.

B: Large trucks only to travel between 7pm and 7am.

Large trucks tend to clog the highways as they are slower and less nimble than automobiles – at rush hour, this tends to slow down traffic greatly, causing greater consumption of fuel for all concerned. By getting them off the road during the day we will make the commute much faster and easier (already made so, of course, by the fact that 20% less people are trying to get to downtown each day in line with Proposal A) and I believe that it can be demonstrated that keeping truck traffic to the night hours will show that average time on the road for the trucks is reduced, thus reducing the cost of shipping goods as well as the amount of fuel consumed. Preferred way to encourage – once again, tax breaks for transportation companies who will do this.

C: Encourage telecommuting.

How many millions of us spend our work day in front of a computer in a cubicle? I do and the Mrs does. The difference? She rolls out of bed, brushes her teeth, grabs a bite to eat and then goes into the home office to work. Zero fuel expenditure for her morning commute, as well as being able to sleep in later. As for me, I drive 18 miles each way to do a job I could just as well do at my kitchen counter on a lap top. A neighbor down the street telecommutes to New York City every day – her “workspace” being her back patio next to the pool, where she’s able to put in a solid days work as well as become the most perfectly tanned person I’ve ever known. There is, as far as I can tell, no downside to telecommuting – and we can make a great upside for corporations by allowing them to write off the cost of setting up telecommuting for their employees.

Those are three that I thought up (though the “four tens” thing was actually suggested by the Mrs – too close to the reality for me to actually notice that I spend less on gas than most because I’ve only got to drive in four days a week). What do you think of them? What would you do?

Discuss.

The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Barack Obama’s half-brother Malik let something very interesting slip while talking to Army Radio.

Barack Obama’s half brother Malik said Thursday that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.

In an interview with Army Radio he expressed a special salutation from the Obamas of Kenya.

Israel Insider has more.

In a remarkable denial issued last November that still stands on the official campaign website, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs issued a statement explaining that “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.”

Apparently Malik Obama, himself a Muslim, had not read the press release.

Melanie Phillips is the most recent commentator to draw attention to the massive body of evidence that leaves no doubt that Barak Hussein Obama was born a Muslim (Islam is patrilineal) and raised a Muslim (so registered in school, acknowledging attending Islamic classes, reported accompanying his step-father to the mosque, and able to recite the Koran in the original Arabic).

Reuven Koret, Aaron Klein and Daniel Pipes have previously pointed to the attempts by Obama and his campaign to conceal the candidate’s Muslim background. The well documented evidence draws upon the on-the-ground interviews by researchers in Indonesia and Kenya, published quotations of Obama’s childhood friends and his school records, as well as the candidate’s own autobiography.

Will Barack Obama disown his half-brother now? Or can Barack Obama no more disown him than he can disown the black community? If that be the case, i may just take Obama a month or so to throw his half-brother under the bus.

ALSO BLOGGING: Gateway Pundit, Little Green Footballs…

Then you know the Democrat has told a pretty brazen lie:

Is Obama smearing Rush?

News item: Barack Obama campaign starts new Web site to fight smears from political opponents at http://www.fightthesmears.com.

The first smear mentioned:

“LIE: Rush Limbaugh says a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word ‘whitey’ from the pulpit of Trinity United.”

Well. No. This is what Limbaugh said:

“The rumor is — and we don’t like dealing with rumors here — but the rumor is that Michelle Obama from the pulpit of this church used the term ‘whitey.’ Some are saying be very careful with this because she might have said ‘why’d he,’ why did he, the contraction ‘why’d he’ instead of ‘whitey.’ ”

He added: “I can’t find anybody who’s seen it.”

So while Limbaugh was happy to wallow in the rumor, he was careful not to claim the tape exists.

More on this when someone gets around to creating http://www.clarifyfightthesmears.com.

I have to figure that Team Obama is going to be pretty ticked off at this – for 20 years now the left’s primary means of slamming Rush has been to misquote and/or take him out of context. Usually, whenever someone on the left makes an accusation like this against Rush, the MSM gleefully joins in…but someone at the Sun-Times (no doubt now at risk of being transferred to the obituaries page) caught the lie (well, “catch” is too strong a word when you’re speaking of figuring out that a Democrat has lied…usually it involves no more effort than noticing that their lips are moving) and then actually did the right thing and pointed it out.

I get lots of rumors in my in-box, too – probably not as many as Rush as I’m just a little blogger, but in the attempt to smear an opponent, no stone – or little blog – is left unturned in the attempt to get the smear out there. So, someone started this rumor of Michelle Obama and “whitey” – is it true? Who the heck knows? But given that the Obama’s sat for 20 years in the pews of a racist, anti-American church, protestations from the Obama’s about accusations of “whitey” ring rather hollow…the Obama’s should have thought about this thing oh, the second or third time Wright went off on a racist rant…little late to clean that muck off themselves in time for November, 2008.

And if you fall for this, then you’re an exceptionally dense person:

Democrat Barack Obama told voters Saturday he would push an aggressive economic agenda as president: cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy, pouring money into “green energy” and requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania, a key battleground in the fall campaign, Obama said he would take a much more hands-on approach than would Republican John McCain. He again criticized McCain’s proposal for a temporary halt in the federal gasoline tax. It would “actually do real harm,” Obama said, by reducing revenue for road and bridge construction even as oil companies make record profits.

Speaking to about 200 people in Wayne, a Philadelphia suburb, Obama made no new proposals but emphasized earlier ones in light of rising gas prices, inflation and job losses. They include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.

A President can only do so much, of course, and just how much effort do you think ultra-leftwing extremist Obama, working with a very liberal Democratic Congress, will expend on cutting taxes vis a vis raising taxes and spending? I’m sure that if Obama wins the “middle class tax cut” will make it into the rhetoric for a while, but I’ll also bet that, like Clinton, Obama will find out that, painful as it may be (for you and me, that is), there’s just no room in the budget for a tax cut…this is because we can’t afford it…can’t afford, that is, to leave your own money in your own pocket. And “we” means “government bureaucrats” and not, you know, “me and you”.

Of leftist moonshine and American defeat is what you want, thne Obama is your man – on the other hand, if hard nosed reality and American victory is what you want, then McCain will be your man in 2008.

After massive effort, he’s still trailing McCain for Nevada’s must-win five electoral votes. Details over at Battle Born Politics.

A Wall Street Journal editorial via Catholics in the Public Square lays it out:

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a “survivor.” Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna’s biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist’s arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, “I guess I don’t die easy.” Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim’s birth certificate. Gianna’s medical records state that she was “born during saline abortion.”

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as “persons” babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother’s wombs are “persons,” and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama’s candidacy, she paused, then said, “I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme.”

“Extreme” may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama’s autobiography have been left with. In “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama’s presidential manifesto, he calls abortion “undeniably difficult,” “a very difficult issue,” “never a good thing” and “a wrenching moral issue.”

He laments his party’s “litmus test” for “orthodoxy” on abortion and other issues, and even admits, “I do not presume to know the answer to that question.” That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has “moral weight.”

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime “pro-choice” voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers’ abortions.

OBama is, indeed, extreme on the issue of abortion – but the real problem is that this extremism is entirely mainstream in the Democratic party. The article goes on to note that Obama has pledged to sign the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act“, a monstrous bit of pro-death legislation which would undo no only the federal ban on late-term abortions, but also the various common-sense regulations placed on abortion at the State level over the years. This is pro-abortion fanaticism in action, and Obama is hip deep in it.

I cannot take at face value anyone’s claims to care about people if they can’t care about the most helpless amongst us – there is a cold hearted indifference to suffering in the actions of those who work to protect abortion; from those who just use honey-coated words to cover up what it really is, to those who actually seek to ensure that more abortions are peformed. Obama talks a great game about helping the helpless, but when the real helpless have arrived in front of him, he’s slammed the door in their faces, more interested in garnering pro-abortion donations and pro-abortion political support for his blinding ambition to be President of the United States. Abortion is wicked; evil to the core – only the rankest sort of ignorance and cowardice can excuse any support for it; there is just never, ever a valid reason for seeking the termination of an unborn human life.

While many issues will be discussed during this campaign and while abortion won’t register with more than 5% or so as the most vital issue of the election, the central issue or our time has been, is and will be the abortion issue. As long as we permit this barbaric and inhuman practice – a veritible human sacrifice on the altar of the secular god “Selfishness” – just that long will we remain a nation divided against itself, and unsure of its place in the world. Just as we were riven by the stresses of trying to reconcile chattel slavery with our sublime Declaration of Independence so, too, are we riven by the attempts to reconcile cold blooded murder with the right to life our Founders fought and died for. This terrible poison, abortion, must end – and we will not end it by electing as President a man who will talk a lot about how sad abortion is, but who will in practical terms do all he can to advance the cause of abortion in the United States.

In the end, if one has any sense of the sanctity of human life – all life, even that unborn – then John McCain is the only possible candidate for 2008. A man of unscotchable pro-life record and a clear view of the value of life (probably built up by his inhuman treatment at the hands of the North Vietnamese), who is pledged to appoint judges who understand that the US Constitution isn’t a plaything for the latest liberal fads.

Another Democrat getting preferential treatment on a loan:

Senator Kent Conrad said he was given preferential treatment on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp. and will write a $10,500 check to charity.

“It appears Countrywide waived one point on my mortgage,” Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said in a statement today in Washington. “Although I did not ask for or know that I was receiving a discount, and even though I was offered a competitive loan from another lender, I do not want to have received preferential treatment.”

Conrad said he also received a loan from Countrywide on an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck, North Dakota, even though the lender typically serves properties that have four units or less. He said he had decided to refinance that loan with another institution.

Conrad and Senator Christopher Dodd, who oversees the U.S. mortgage industry as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were among those who received loans through Countrywide’s “V.I.P.” program, which waived points, fees and borrowing rules for prominent people, Portfolio magazine reported June 12. Dodd has denied receiving preferential treatment.

“He never expected, asked for or was aware of any special treatment,” Conrad’s spokesman, Chris Thorne, said. “He is paying this to make absolutely clear he will not partake in any preferential treatment.”

As there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to bribe a politician. The fact that there is such a thing as a VIP program is disturbing enough (full disclosure: the very large financial institution I work for has one, too, and it annoys me no end, though I’ve never noted a politician in the mix, but I’m also not nearly privy to the full scope of the program), but to see an elected official not making 100% certain that he doesn’t benefit from such a program gets any “clean government” advocate rather upset.

You see, the problem here is that its too large an opening for outright corruption – we don’t know if Conrad was actually being bribed, but the plain fact of the matter is that such a thing can very easily become a bribe. Like this – one of the things Matt and I discovered in writing Caucus of Corruption is that while a politician can’t use political donations to enrich himself, he can put his wife on the campaign payroll and pay her (and, therefor, himself) a hefty paycheck out of donated funds…and more than once Matt and I found that the politician doing this sort of thing had no or token opposition to his re-election bid (meaning he was taking in vast amounts of money for no actual purpose, and shovelling it over to his wife for alleged work on a nearly un-necessary re-election effort). Very easy for Countrywide – or any bank – to turn special treatment of a loan into a bribe; “ok, Senator, you vote the way we want and we’ll ensure that you get a very low cost loan to buy that property you have your eye one” – the savings in such a transaction could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, more than enough to get a corrupt pol to do one’s bidding.

And, once again, this brings me back to the theme of Caucus – that unless and until Democrats start holding their own side accountable for corruption, this sort of shady practice will continue unabated. Conrad might be squeeky clean, but does anyone want to bet me that a program like Countrywide’s VIP program has never been misused? Back in 2004, Democrats were urging any Republican even remotely connected to shady practices be forced out of office…I won’t hold my breath waiting for Democrats to start demanding the same level of accountability for their side.