WhackyNation

Even you Obamamaniacs will really enjoy this piece.  Her list is long, long, long.

The current boring, repetitive, and never-ending presidential campaign was bad enough before Senator Barack Obama’s longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, ran off at the mouth with his anti-white racist ranting.  Now it is worse than ever as Obama and his Democratic adversary, Senator Hillary Clinton, continue to play the race card.  Obama’s defense of Rev. Wright may have pleased the Ultraliberal fringe in the Democratic Party and its adherents, but it did nothing to fortify his insistence that he does not share the pastor’s expressions of hatred for whites and his stupefying declaration that, instead of “God bless America,” it should be “God damn America” for its treatment of blacks.

To me, the most disheartening aspect of the entire brouhaha is that it has made racism a key factor in the presidential race.  Frankly, I don’t care about Obama’s 20-year relationship with the outspoken Wright.  What matters to me is that Obama is a proven ultraliberal, who worships Big Government more than he does his pastor.

I would have applauded the emergence of a competent African-American as a candidate for the presidency.  My favorite all along has been another black man who has served his country admirably in so many ways.  He is Colin Powell, who should have run for the presidency in the early 1990s.

If Powell had become a candidate then, surveys showed he would have won in a landslide.  And, even more important, he would have prevented the election and re-election of Bill Clinton, whom I believe to be one of the worst Presidents in American history.  Powell was and still is an outstanding Conservative, who never has preached the race card.

Powell served brilliantly as an Army general, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then as secretary of state.  He had all the leadership credentials a presidential candidate should have to be considered by the voters of America as the logical leader of this great country.

Why he decided to retire from public service and not seek the presidency is a mystery to me.  I think that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party should have drafted him to run for the White House back in the early 1990s, when he was still very much in the headlines and the news.

Am I a racist because of my aversion to a possible Obama presidency?  Hell, no!  My record as a crusading newspaper editor and TV/Radio commentator on behalf of the African-American community speaks for itself.  All my life as a newsman, I have appealed for what I have called “a gray America” that is color blind. 

I am opposed to an Obama candidacy because his entreaties on behalf of Big and Bigger Government would continue the nation’s dangerous slide toward total Socialism.  In fact, his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, would be just as dangerous if she were to become the nation’s first woman President. 

I hope that, come November, American voters will realize they must vote for the Republican nominee if they want to turn the tide against the Socialist horde in the Democratic Party.

The American news media are full of surprises. Their latest one involves the grisly, revolting news that the governor of the state of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who was once noted for being a “Mr. Clean” and a foe of sleaze and crime, was deeply involved with a prostitution ring for some time before and after becoming governor.

So, what is the big surprise? Just this: The pro-Democratic, pro-Liberal news media, hitherto noted for singling out Republican officials who have played footsie with various types of crime or foul play, have finally found one of their own heroes, a Democratic governor, no less, to be a miscreant.

I have no pity for Governor Spitzer, but I admit having to shake my head in disbelief over his being given screaming Page 1 play in the newspapers and the No. 1 spot in broadcast news across the land. And it’s apparent that the print and broadcast news media are going to keep up the daily play — mainly because the media seem to be obsessed with stories involving naughty sex.

However, I have to ask a pointed question that may answer itself: Where in hell were all these sex-infested, Liberal newshounds in the 1990s, when an American President should have been impeached for doing something very much like what Spitzer has done? The only real difference is that Spitzer was involved with known prostitutes, while Bill Clinton worked behind the scenes with several women who weren’t prostitutes but who were doing the same “exercises.”

Is there a more detestable act than a sex act that has been committed in the Oval Office of the White House by the President of the United States? If the press had descended upon Clinton with the same ferocity it is now showing in its coverage of the misdeeds by Governor Spitzer, there is no doubt in my mind that the Senate would have voted to impeach Clinton by a unanimous vote — instead of covering its eyes and permitting him to continue in office.

In my 55 years of service in the print and broadcast news media, and particularly as the managing editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, I have strongly opposed the double standard in news reporting. But times have changed, and the Liberal news media are employing the double standard again and again.

Today another Clinton is striving to return to the White House as President. Is anyone naïve enough to believe that Hillary would run the country without interference from her husband? I have no doubt that Bill Clinton would once again function as the real person in charge of the Oval Office, where he once cavorted sexually with Monica Lewinsky.

Just the thought of it charges up the red blood cells. I wish I could rouse the American public to see what is at stake and to vote accordingly.

Thanks to my Internet friend, Bob Stubblefield, we have the content of a boiling-mad letter Colonel Harry Riley, USA, Ret., wrote to the 35 senators who voted against a bill making English America’s official language last June 6. The list of senators includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Washington’s Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Here’s the letter:

“Your vote against an amendment to Immigration Bill 1348 to make English America’s official language is astounding. On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character, and principles of America, I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.

“I don’t much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you’re black, white, or some other color, male or female, Democrat, Republican, or Independent. But I do care that you are a U.S. senator representing the citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the U.S.

“Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, and violates your pledge of allegiance. It dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action, and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States senator. Four of you voting against English as America’s official language are presidential candidates — Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama.

“You are four senators vying to lead America, but you won’t or don’t have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America’s official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language. This is the second time in the past several months the list of senators voting ‘No’ have disgraced themselves as political hacks, unworthy as senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the U.S.

“If America is as angry as me, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties — and preferably totally out of the U.S. Senate. The entire immigration bill is a farce. Your action only confirms this really isn’t about America. It is about self-serving politics, despicable at best. It has been said: ‘Never argue with idiots. They’ll drag you down to their level!’”

Bravo, Colonel Riley, and thank you for your courage, your patriotism, and your wisdom! We’re going to do our best to get your letter out to every citizen in the land! And our thanks, too, to our friend, Bob, for circulating the letter. I wonder why the Liberal news media didn’t have the courage to publish the letter way back on D-Day, June 6, 2007.

In closing, Colonel Riley added this quotation from President Abraham Lincoln that should put additional pressure on Senators Clinton, Obama, Murray, Cantwell, and all other senators who voted against making English our official language:

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged!”

In case the senators don’t realize it, we have been in a war against international terrorism for at least 20 years — a war that continues in fury today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the present boring, repetitive, and often embarrassing presidential campaign, we hear principally on the Democratic side that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are constantly repeating the promise that they are dedicated to the spirit of “change” in the federal government.

Obama is banking his entire campaign on the elusive word. And just exactly what are the changes he would make in the presidency if the voters put him in the White House? Don’t expect the Liberal minions in the nation’s print and broadcast news media to help define what Obama’s so-called “changes” will be, so I will do it for them.

Whether it’s health care, education, the economy, or any other aspect of American life, Obama promises he will bring changes, and his proposals have a very familiar ring to them. Primarily, his changes will involve no changes at all but, simply, the increased growth of Big Government and Uncle Sam’s involvement in every aspect of your life.

Ditto Hillary. The language both candidates are using daily in their campaigns is quite understandable because it is merely a repeat of the Socialist legislation that originated with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. It says, in effect, “don’t worry, ladies and gentlemen, the federal government will take care of you and run your life, whether you like it or not.”

Take the health-care issue, for example, which both Obama and Clinton have hammered again and again. Like it or not, both of them will force a massive governmentally controlled health-care program on every living soul in America, regardless of their age and circumstance.

Don’t worry about paying for the government-sponsored health-care program. “The other guy” will pay the tax burden to support health-care for everybody. Neither Hillary nor Barack has learned from the tottering Canadian example that government-run health care just doesn’t work.

They refuse to accept the fact that a great many Canadians come to the U.S. for their serious surgeries or other serious health problems. Why do they do so? Simply because the doctors, hospitals, and clinics in Canada are so overwhelmed with patients who don’t have serious health problems that the Canadians have no choice but to cross the border.

The irony of the entire situation is that, when Canadians get their operations or other treatments in the U.S., they return to Canada and get paid for surgeries or treatments they go in the good ole U.S. of A.! Some national health program that is, eh? In fact, Canada, like most European countries, offer clear proof of the monstrosity that government-subsidized medicine has become.

Concerning Obama, in particular, have you noticed that he sounds more like FDR did in his heyday than FDR did? Well, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but you see my point. Change? What Obama and Clinton want to do is go back to the same old Socialist dogma preached by FDR, LBJ, and other Democratic presidents.

I am deathly afraid that if either Barack or Hillary wins the presidency, his or her insistence on “change” that is not change at all will finally push America toward the goal of total Socialism — something the Democrats have been yearning for since the early days of the New Deal. Will Americans awake in time to avoid that terrible denouement?

Thank you, Rush Limbaugh listeners for keeping Senator Clinton in the race!

Senator Obama is revealing true character by going negative, and the Clinton camp attacks back.

“When Senator Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton,” [Howard] Wolfson said. “I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.”

Wolfson was attacking Obama’s explicit strategy, in the wake of his March 4 losses, to attack elements of Clinton’s record on the grounds of secrecy, and to revisit the questions raised by Clinton foes in the 1990s and earlier. Obama has demanded Clinton’s tax returns, cited delays in releasing her White House schedules, and even made reference to trades in cattle futures in the late 1970s that became a subject of allegations during the White House years.

Read more by Ben Smith.

Senator Clinton just won Texas.  Ouch!

One week of bad press and pressure and Senator Obama’s campaign loses steam.  His tactics no longer work.

NAFTA and Rezko … two big stories undermined Obama … and then the 3am phone call ad undermined Obama’s standing as presidential timber.

Clinton is going to argue she can win the big states, the swing states.  Obama is going to argue he won the popular vote.

The problem with Democrats is that they think the people elect the president and are so hung up on the popular vote.  Reality is the people don’t.  States do.  That’s what the electoral college is all about.  But most young Democrats (Obama supporters) aren’t sophisticated enough to realize that.

Clinton is right … and the Super Delegates (older, elected public officials) will realize that.

Prediction: Clinton gets the nomination and the wet-behind-the-ears Obama supporters will cry foul and not learn the lesson.

God, it’s got to be tough being a young Democrat.

The story of Barack Obama’s shady dealings with Antoin “Tony” Rezko over the the purchase of Obama’s Chicago mansion and the lot next door may be breaking fast enough to save Hillary Clinton in Texas and Ohio Tuesday.

Even though the story was first reported in 2006 and the Chicago papers have been re-working the story the past few weeks, the liberal drive-by media throughout America has given it little play.  If it weren’t for conservative bloggers, Obama might have gotten his party’s nomination before the truth about his corruption became public.

 According the Chicago Tribune:

Weeks after saying he’d answered all questions about his controversial dealings with the now-indicted Rezko, Obama released new details about their purchase of adjacent lots from the same seller on the same day. But the disclosures by Obama’s presidential campaign left unanswered questions and raised new ones.

Apparently the seller of Obama’s mansion also sold the vacant lot next door to Rezko’s wife on the very same day in 2006 as the house was sold to the Obamas.  Here’s the deal: Rezko’s wife paid the full $625,000 asking prize for the undeveloped lot and Barack and Michelle got $300,000 off the asking price for the mansion.  The Obamas only paid $1.65 million.  And it get’s better: the “vacant lot” has been turned into a garden and is only accessible today from Obama’s lot.

Obama has been reticent to discuss Rezko since the Tribune in 2006 revealed their property transactions. He has called their financial dealings “boneheaded” because, at the time, Rezko was reported to be under grand jury investigation. Rezko is set to go on trial next month on corruption and fraud charges.

Looks like the Democrats are close to nominating not only the next McGovern-Dukakis, but a corrupt one at that.  2008 is going to be a great year for Republicans!

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two candidates for the Democratic nomination in the presidential race, have both made statements in their campaigns that would increase Big Government’s expenditures in health care immensely — and simultaneously increase the tax load on all Americans.

If either one of them succeeds in becoming the next President, the nation will be in for a debt that could bankrupt the US. As if to underline that tragic potential, the Associated Press has just reported that the federal government has projected that “by 2017, health-care spending will double to more than $4 trillion a year.”

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “the 6.7 percent annual increase in spending — nearly three times the rate of inflation — will be largely driven by higher prices and an increased demand for care. Other factors in the mix include a growing and aging population. The first wave of baby boomers becomes eligible for Medicare beginning in 2011.”

If that forecast doesn’t scare the hell out of the nation’s taxpayers, nothing will. Big government has been primarily responsible for the ballooning cost of health care, particularly in the field of health services for seniors, but not limited to the elderly population.

In case you haven’t noticed, here’s how the present predicament and the ever-increasing cost of health care has come about in all phases of health care, not for seniors alone. By usurping the authority and administration of private medical practice, as well as clinics and hospitals, the federal government has dictated the cost of all medical services/

As a result, doctors, dentists, pharmacies, clinics, and hospitals have routinely padded their bills for services because they know the feds will meet the increasingly high costs without complaint. After all, why should the doctors and all the others in the medical field protest? Whatever they charge will be paid and has been paid by the government.

That’s why all medical services and particularly those for seniors have multiplied without control over the years. And that’s why I have proposed so many times that health care should be under the control of America’s doctors — and specifically under the control of the American Medical Association.

Does that sound like a contradiction? Of course not. If doctors and hospitals could no longer charge exorbitant amounts because Big Government will guarantee them, they would instantly bring down the cost of medical services. Without doubt, if your doctor or hospital had to send you a bill you had to pay directly, instead of relying on Uncle Sam’s bureaucracy to do so, that bill would be reasonable and much lower than it is now under government controls.

We can be sure that Senators Clinton and Obama would not initiate legislation to get Big Government out of health care. Only a “health revolution” motivated by an angry public can force Congress to get the feds out of the health-care field. It’s one of the important reasons the next President should be a Republican who believes in returning health care and many other services to the private field.

Bill Clinton may have tripped up on himself yesterday in Denver.  Appealing to Democrats, who think themselves more pro-children than Republicans, Clinton said:

“We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

What?  When many in this country (and I’m not one of them) think this country is heading into recession, would the former president advocate making the recession worse?  And say that during an election cycle when his maxim in 1992 was: “It’s the economy, stupid”?

Does he think he can have more appeal to people by pandering to the global warming hysteria than causing them to fear being hurt in a depressed economy?

Maybe he understands Democrats better than I do.  Perhaps Democrats can’t intellectualize the consequences of a slowing economy so a slowing economy in the future has no relevance to them compared to imagining drowning polar bears.  Perhaps Democrats can only understand economics in the here and now so they can’t understand what it would mean to live in a worse or better economy in the future so they can’t place a value on the future.

So did Clinton make a mistake or does he better understand the subtleties of dim-witted Democrats?

In case you thought former President Bill Clinton had purely altruistic motives in plugging the global-warming fantasy before the meeting of mayors and others in Seattle this past week, guess again. Or, rather, read the telltale paragraphs from the Seattle Times’ slanted story about the conference, sponsored by another hoax-believing political leader, Seattle’s Mayor Greg Nickels.

Oh, yes, and I almost forgot to mention that the Pied Piper of the global-warming movement, former Vice President Al Gore, was also at the conference. He and Clinton have been leading the parade whose announced incentive is to force governments at all levels to spend billions to fight a threat (global warming) that doesn’t exist.

But to get back to the point of this commentary, one must have suspected a hidden purpose in all the hullabaloo over the non-existent threat. And that hidden purpose was partly glossed over by the Times reporter, Warren Cornwall, who obviously has already been brainwashed by the Gore-Clinton propaganda brigade.

Here’s how Cornwall put it, and note that these paragraphs were buried deep in the continuation of the article on an inside page:

“To help spur the movement, Clinton announced a new program between his private Clinton Foundation and the mayors’ conference to make energy-efficient products more affordable for 1,100 U.S. cities by helping them buy as groups and get volume discounts.

“His Clinton Climate Initiative has already started a similar project with 40 of the world’s largest cities and several major banks that help finance projects to increase energy efficiency. Clinton said energy efficiency programs represent some of the easiest ways to reduce greenhouse gases by conserving energy in inefficient buildings and other infrastructure.”

There you have it! Carefully covered over by the reporter is the fact that Clinton and all his cohorts have some kind of a product — or perhaps two or more products — that will enrich him and them under the guise of being helpful in combating a problem that doesn’t exist!

Is anyone going to come forward to challenge Clinton and the rest of the global-warming contingent for their willingness to use a hoax to fatten their personal bank accounts — or their private foundations, as Clinton put it? We can be assured that the Seattle Times and other newspapers who have bought into the global-warming hoax won’t do it.

Maybe the bloggers of America — the Conservative ones, that is — will see through Clinton’s skullduggery, as well as Gore’s, and tell the public what the newspapers and other Liberal elements in the news media have neglected or purposely forgotten to report?

It’s truly a sad day for the nation when a danger that isn’t there is perpetuated by a bunch of third-rate politicians, who have a financial motive they have been hiding — and a danger that is promoted by America’s print and broadcast news media. Furthermore, these two entities are proposing that we spend ourselves into bankruptcy to combat a phantom problem!

The citizens of Seattle, King County, and Washington State should be considering a rebellion against many of their political leaders for their espousal of a national and international hoax that goes by the insidious and unscientific name of global warming.

These misled leaders are, in fact, attending and even presiding over a conference in Seattle featuring those two disciples of the global-warming fantasy, former Vice President Al Gore and former President Bill Clinton. Also prominent in the conference are equally misinformed Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle and King County Executive Ron Sims, both of them devotees of the global-warming myth.

Added to the lineup of the global-warming advocates are both Seattle newspapers, the Times and the Post-Intelligencer, whose publishers, editors, and science reporters should have known better. Both newspapers are equally guilty, mainly because they have neglected or refused to present the other side — the honest, scientifically accurate side — of the global-warming debate.

The voting public in the city, county, and state can no longer go on trusting these one-sided leaders and journalists who have consistently refused to listen to the views of the world’s leading — and honest — climatologists. These climatologists, who greatly outnumber the hoax-believing individuals who call themselves scientists, have done their research on the issue for years and they deplore the false notions of impending doom by the global warmers.

While the Gores and Clintons of this world, as well as their pseudo-scientist global warmers, have been blaming the human race for contaminating the atmosphere and bringing on the threat of global warming, the honest scientists of the world have been trying to get their message through. It is substantially this:

Yes, the planet’s atmosphere has warmed occasionally, but that is something that has been happening since the earth was born several billion years ago. And, most important, they have trying to tell us after years of research that mankind has had nothing to do with the occasional warming periods.

As I learned long ago, the legitimate scientists of the world shy away from making statements to the press and to political leaders and organizations. I wish they would be bolder in their attitudes and that they would decide as individuals or as groups to tell the public the truth so that the Gores, Clintons, and other alarmists — as well as the news media — would be prevented from frightening the populace.

Most important of all, I wish the legitimate scientists would periodically address the citizens of America with the truth about such significant subjects. There is nothing more reprehensible nor dangerous than to have a Nickels, Sims, Gore, or Clinton sounding a loud alarm over a danger that does not exist.

The best way to get rid of such alarmists, of course, is to vote them out of office at the earliest opportunity. >As for the misguided news media, what is profoundly needed is for the public to put the owners and publishers on notice that such mismanagement of the news will eventually cause citizens to stop buying the newspapers and listening to the offending broadcasters.

Who said it?

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

A.  Karl Marx
B.  Adolph Hitler
C.  Joseph Stalin
D.  None of the above

“It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few,  by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility  for shared prosperity.”

A.  Lenin
B.  Mussolini
C.  Idi Amin
D.  None of the Above

“(We) …can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

A.  Nikita Khrushev
B.  Josef Goebbels
C.  Boris Yeltsin
D.  None of the above

“We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to  give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

A.  Mao Tse Dung
B.  Hugo Chavez
C.  Kim Jong Il
D.  None of the above

“I certainly think the free-market has failed.”

A.  Karl Marx
B.  Lenin
C.  Molotov
D.  None of the above

“I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

A.  Pinochet
B.  Milosevic
C.  Saddam Hussein
D.  None of the above

Scroll down for answers

Answers

(1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004
(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007
(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007
(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007
(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007
(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin

Without question, the following statement can be supported with years of evidence: If the Democrat front runner for the nomination in the presidential race, Senator Hillary Clinton, had been a Republican, the Liberal print and broadcast news media would have crucified her and run her out of the race.

Hillary’s fund-raising activities should have been investigated long ago. Among the suspicious tactics, was her outlandish association with the disgraced Norman Hsu. Caught with her hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, she decided she should give back at least $850,000 of the loot he had given her for her campaign.

Still to be decided in Hsu’s case is whether he paid others to donate to Hillary’s fund, as well as the funds of other Democrats, including Senator Ted Kennedy. Also waiting to be decided is the outcome of a Manhattan probe to determine whether Hsu pilfered millions of dollars from an investment fund. Nice fellow this Hsu, no?

One must also wonder why Hillary associated with a man — Norman Hsu — who remained a fugitive for at least 15 years on a California charge of grand theft. The nation’s press should at least have been interested in finding out how a former First Lady and now a presidential candidate could have been playing footsie with a known fugitive from a serious criminal charge.

However, that’s not all. Now, the New York senator has resurrected her old Socialistic health-care scheme, which was rejected in the 1990s, while her husband, Bill, was President. At that time, the proposal was soundly trounced because it was clearly a total takeover of health care by the federal government and a move toward Socialism.

To be sure, Hillary has “made a few changes” in an effort to make her measure acceptable to the Democratic Party and to voters. One of the changes she made, she said, was to permit those who “are satisfied with their current health plans to continue their coverage.” That wouldn’t remove the “Socialized Medicine” label from her “new” plan.

Other presidential candidates, Republicans as well as Democrats, have also been guilty of proposing health-care reforms that would lead to socialized medicine, but their suggestions can’t match Hillary’s desire to place the future of the nation’s health program in the hands of Big Government — making it even Bigger Government.

Unfortunately, they, led by Hillary, are all traveling the dangerous road toward total Socialism, and the nation’s press should have been the first and strongest prober of that movement. Do America’s newspaper publishers and broadcast executives want a socialized nation? And do they want the same health-care failures that have attended socialized medicine in European nations, as well as Canada?

The press should get off the “Hillary Express” and investigate the much better health-care system I have proposed many times. That system would remove government at all levels from health care and call upon the medical and dental professions to run the nation’s health future on a private basis.

Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other federal-government health programs have brought us skyrocketing costs in health care. If doctors and dentists were in charge, they would restore the “pay as you can and what you can” system that was a great success, until the Socialist-minded politicos got into the act. With the professionals in charge, the billions spent on government administrators and all that red tape would disappear!

Now there’s an online ad by Rudy sticking it to Hillary.