General Secretary Kim Jong Il is a peerlessly great man who provided a sure political and military guarantee for the prosperity of the DPRK under the banner of Songun, says Rodong Sinmun Tuesday in a signed article. 

LIE: “This reference establishes that Obama Senior was considered at the time to be ‘a radical economist’ and leaves no doubt that Obama Senior had gravitated from his longtime family supporter Tom Mboya to the more extreme communist position openly advocated by and identified with Odinga Odinga.” [pp 110-111]

REALITY: NO ONE WITH “A SHRED OF INTEGRITY” OR INTELLIGENCE WOULD CALL OBAMA SR A COMMUNIST BASED ON HIS ACADEMIC WORK

---

Kenya Expert, Economist And UCLA Visiting Professor Dr. Omwami Said That Obama Sr.’s Projections And Critiques Are So Spot On That He Plans On Assigning The Paper In His Future Classes.

"But Kenya expert Dr. Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, said Obama Sr. could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece. Omwami points out Obama Sr.’s paper was primarily a harsh critique of the controversial 1965 government document known as the “Sessional Paper No. 10.” Sessional Paper No. 10 rejected classic Karl Marx philosophies then embraced by the Soviet Union and some European countries, calling instead for a new type of socialism to be used specifically in Africa… Obama Sr.’s projections and critiques are so spot on, says Omwami, that he plans on assigning the

paper to his classes in the future.” [Politico, 4/15/08]

 

To paraphrase.  "My dad wasn't a communist.  He was a an innovative socialist.  See, even this visiting UCLA professor and economist, a right wing credential if ever there was one, thinks he was a moderate."

 

In one fell swoop, Obama's team declares that Obama's dad was a far left guy (not such a big deal, but not something you want voters thinking about), and more damaging, reveals that Obama and his staff, as many conservatives have observed, are so far left and out of touch that they find a UCLA economist an objective expert, and that socialism (like communism, but without the mass-killing) is not a problem.

 

LIE:

“As a vice president, Madelyn Dunham would have earned enough to be well off, even if not rich.” [p 71]

REALITY: DUNHAMS LIVED MODESTLY

Obama’s Grandparents Rented A Two Bedroom Apartment In Honolulu.

The Chicago Tribune reported,

“At age 11, Obama was sent to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. They lived in a modest two-bedroom Honolulu apartment in order to save money for Obama’s tuition to attend the Punahou Academy, an elite private school.” [Emphasis mine] [Chicago Tribune, 10/22/2004]

Hillary’s big win in Pennsylvania this week has compounded the Democrats problems. This is an election in which all the fundamentals appear to be in their favor, yet their destructive nominating process is putting all of that in danger.   As a Republican, this a beautiful thing to watch. For Democrats, though, this is a mess with no obvious good solutions.

If Obama wins, as is probable, he’s going to be a weakened candidate, with the continued Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Tony Rezko problems. 

(Memo to Paul Shanklin, the time has come for a Hank Willams Jr. parody. Barack Obama sings “All My Marxist Friends”. Surefire hit. )

About 20% of Hillary supporters (about 10% of the party) would vote for McCain or stay home if Obama is the nominee. Even if only half of those follow through, Obama loses Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida handily. 

If Hillary wins, it will only be through some very, very shady work on the part of the former First Lady. Denver 2008 would look like Chicago 1968, and an embittered democratic party would go into the fall divided, clinging to their ipods and atheism, having made fools of themselves on national TV in the Mile High City.

So what options are left? There’s always the desperate call to Al Gore to be the compromise candidate, but Al Gore doesn’t exactly “Winner”. The fact that he’s an attractive “dream” candidate says more about the low expectations of Democrats than it does about Mr. Gore.

Democrats have to think outside the bun. As a conservative, my choice would be for the Democrats to nominate a tough on spending, defense hawk, with a great record of military service. He would have to toe the liberal line on some issues, to hold the party together, so they need to find someone that is a Global Warming alarmist, and is highly critical of President Bush. Only one man fits that description. The Democrats should nominate John McCain. Think of it. The Republicans would now be left scrambling for a nominee. Blue-collar Democrats, reluctant to pull the lever for a Republican, but not wanting unrepentant terrorists roaming the White House, would have their perfect candidate. Democrats would look wise and magnanimous, while pulling themselves off the ideological brink that Howard Dean and Barack Obama currently have them on.   Republicans could scramble to find the true conservative that eluded them during the primary. Whatever the outcome, Al-Qaeda continues to hemorrhage in the sands of Iraq, the federal budget shrinks, taxes don’t skyrocket, and adults run the war and the courts. 

It’s a happy version of the classic Simpson’s episode, when twin aliens, Kang and Kodos, assume the bodies of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Shortly before the election they reveal their true identities, and their intentions to make slaves out of all humans. But it’s a two party system, so the impending slavery is unavoidable. (Much to the displeasure of Ross Perot, on whom no one will “throw their vote away”).  

There’s one more form of the Kang and Kodos strategy, one that’s a little more sinister, and less fun for my fellow Republicans. Democrats, please stop reading here.   Here’s the plan: Call it a tie.  The Democratic Party is big enough for Obama’s Black Panther Marxism, and Hillary’s corrupt political machine. Nominate both.   Put Hillary on the ballot in states that she won, like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Run Obama in the states he won. As long as they don’t ever run in the same state, they could win enough electoral votes between them to deprive John McCain of 270 votes. Then it goes to the House of Representatives.   Barring a huge upset, Democrats will have solid control of the House in January of 2009. Then we’re back to the same fight we’re having now, Democrats picking between two closely matched candidates. Only now, they win the White House either way. It would be an ugly mess, but sometimes you have to win ugly.

 In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s “BitterGate”, we are reminded that liberalism and elitism have more in common than sharing a suffix.  Fellow Democrats complain that Obama’s comments reinforce views that the party is elitist. (His failed attempt at bowling didn’t help…a grown man bowling a 37?)

The haughty John Kerry was pilloried for windsurfing during the 2004 election season. His comical hunting venture (“Can I get me a huntin’ license”) nicely reinforced the image of snobbery.

The words of BitterGate, and these previously mentioned embarrassing attempts at recreating with commoners reveals a far more important pattern. Liberalism attracts elitists, and it fosters elitism. On any domestic policy issue, liberalism argues that government elites make better decisions than the unwashed masses. 

For health care, they are confident that a government bureaucrat can engineer better and more economical care than doctors and patients.  

On taxes, they argue that the government will spend any given dollar more prudently than the individual who earns it. Liberals fear the bitter serfs may do something ridiculous, like buy some sort of “All Terrain Vehicle”, or groceries at Wal-Mart, as if he’d never even seen a Whole Foods.

In fact, liberals seem to believe that aside from the decisions to have an abortion, use recreational drugs, or purvey pornography, all decisions in life are just too important to be left to the American people.   In a liberal utopia, gun ownership would be restricted to Rosie O’Donnell’s security detail. SUV’s would be banned as unnecessary gas hogs, but Al Gore’s private jet would continue to help him conduct his important work. Government (read liberal elites) would choose your doctor, your diet, your school, your occupation, car and home (a nice concrete apartment complex, gotta fight that urban sprawl, but don’t expect to see bull dozers converting the Kennedy compound into low-income housing.) Don’t worry, average Americans would still remain free to choose their IPod playlist.

Not only does a belief in liberalism require you to believe that you are smarter, wiser, and generally better than your contemporaries, it also demands you look down on your predecessors.

Woodrow Wilson, the founder of modern liberalism, articulated the liberal position well:

All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

Imagine John Adams, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin as some sort of political missing links, hunched over, trying to scribble out a Constitution with their newfound capacity for abstract thought.

Liberal belief in political Darwinism dictates that societies always move forward to bigger and better government (except for the Reagan and Bush years, which nearly destroyed humanity itself.).   Progress is defined by “Progressives” as the eradication of relics of their 18^th century forbearers, like the 2^nd Amendment and heterosexual marriage; always evolving to be a better government, as those who interpret it evolve into better people. Never mind that it requires an enormous suspension of disbelief. Jimmy Carter knew better than George Washington? Bill Clinton was wiser than James Madison? Barbara Boxer defeats Daniel Webster in the All-Time Senate Debate Contest? 

We shouldn’t be surprised at the enormous overlap of liberalism and elitism. Liberal democrats may claim to be the party of the common man, but the logical extension of their political ideology is unbridled arrogance and elitism.

Barack Obama has made himself synonymous with “Hope”, but it’s a puzzling sort of hope. Obama, his wife, pastor, and liberal friends have nothing positive to say about America’s history. While Ronald Reagan spoke of America returning to its greatness, for Obama and the American left, there is no such greatness to return to. If they have hope, it’s that America will become a neutered pseudo-socialist state like Sweden.   And as much as I am proud of my Swedish heritage, that’s not particularly inspiring or hopeful.

Let’s review the American history that liberals like Obama and his pastor teach their children:

The founding fathers were white racist pigs, or they were gay; or religious bigots. Only on the rarest occasions can they be hailed as heroes, like when one of them writes a letter to a friend about “separation of church and state.”

Slavery was a unique American sin, one that we only gave up after the U.N. peacekeepers and Janet Reno stormed Robert E. Lee’s forces at Appomattox.   We invaded Mexico, stole Louisiana, slaughtered Indians who never once raised a bow and arrow against American civilians or each other. 

In World War Two, we liberated the concentration camps, but we should have done it sooner. And then we topped it off by nuking Japan for no apparent reason. 

We invaded Vietnam, murdered civilians for kicks, and then left, defeated.  

In the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan invented cocaine, the AIDS virus, and homelessness. He then deployed all these maladies toward traditional Democratic voting blocs, felons, gays, and urban bipolar alcoholics, respectively.

Then the Soviet Union fell, but no one knows why. This only produced more pain, as vile Americans gained more influence, waged war for oil, invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, all of which led to the attacks of 9/11. 

We tell kids that they are divinely created beings. We tell them that they live in the greatest country in the history of the world. We tell them that they are the heirs of the “boys of Pointe du Hoc”, who stormed the beaches of Europe, and saved a continent. We tell them that they are the heirs of the band of farmers and tradesmen who took down the most powerful army in world, and won their freedom. We tell them about the economic juggernaut that their fathers built; a machine that out-produced an Evil Empire bent on world domination, and so consigned it the ash heap of history. We tell them they are the heirs of statesman like Washington, Madison and Lincoln, who fought for, built, and preserved the most powerful beacon of freedom in human history. We tell them that hope that is not a vacuous four letter word, but a real, sincere, intellectual belief that America’s story is a great one; a story that is still being written. It’s a story about the power of human freedom, even in the midst of human frailty. It’s a story about great courage in the face of tremendous odds. It’s the story of divine Providence when human wisdom and ability fails. That’s a real story of hope, that’s real audacity.

Every March, Americans are treated to the excitement that is March Madness. We love the upsets, the fearful way that number 5 seeds enter the court against their 12^th seeded opponents, knowing that more money, boosters, a nicer arena and all their other advantages are worthless if they can’t defeat this underdog on the court. There are upsets, surprises, at the end, an undisputed winner.

Every December, Americans are treated to another spectacle. 5 or 6 college football teams will finish with 1 loss (except a small school, who will be undefeated), and all will claim the right to compete in the championship game, based on everthing but their record. Debates will rage about strength of schedule, margin of victory, “quality wins”, and based on these esoterics, reporters and coaches will arbitrarily pick 2 of them to compete for the title. And the title will be anything but undisputed.

Since Florida in 2000, the Democratic party has been bent on turning the March Madness of American politics into a BCS-like fiasco. See, March Madness isn’t very fun if all the pundits and press love you, but you still lose the game.   And Democrats have been doing a lot of losing. In 2000, on the losing end of the only score that mattered, the electoral college, Democrats complained about “the popular vote”, and absurd arguments took place about which states were more important, and confusing ballots, early calls, and all the data except what mattered. Bush won Florida in a squeaker, and thus the 270 electoral votes to be President. In 2004, Democrats complained about Diebold, crowded polls, and Swift Boat Vets. But they lost.   And now we are treated to the Hillary/Obama civil war. Republicans quickly learned that the number 1191 was important. It was 50%+1 of the convention delegates. Win 1191, and you’re the nominee, no questions asked. But our Blue friends are engaged in all their usual BCS scorekeeping. “Sure, Obama’s ahead, but Hillary won California, shouldn’t that count for something?” “I know Michigan and Florida broke the rules, but we have to count those votes, it would be Un-American not to.” “If Hillary wins with superdelegates, that just won’t be right.”

Here’s a novel idea: Win a majority of delegates, win the nomination. If at the end of the election, you determine that the rules don’t suit you, change them for next time.   The Democrats combination of super delegates, open primaries, and proportional awarding of delegates is a mess. But everyone knew the rules in advance.

The Democrats BCS strategy of electoral politics has been a bad thing for the country. It’s with quite a bit of pleasure that I’m watching their party thrown into chaos by these very same tactics.

 ABC’s Nightline ran a story on Wednesday night about Creationist tours of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. I happened to attend one of these tours as a 2^nd grader, so my interest was piqued. As expected, the Christian tour guides were mocked for not believing or respecting “Science”. To drive home the mockery, Nightline pointed out that the tour guides believed the biblical account that 7 or 8 generations of humans before the flood lived for 800 years on average. But, crowed Terry Moran, “they believe this period was approximately one thousand years.” Then came the chalkboard graphic showing that 7 times 800 would be 5600 years.   I nearly fell out my chair. What a sad collection of 800 year olds, struggling 780 years to have children, only to die seconds after they succeed, then repeating this horrid luck for 8 generations. Does Mr. Moran have living parents, grandparents, or children? Terry Moran has probably interacted with grandparents, parents, siblings, and children.. Since the average lifespan is around 80, that means that Terry Moran is 320 years old. Either that, or his assumptions were a bit off. You decide.

Not content with that gem, Nightline weighed into the Iraq War, whining that a recent poll shows that fewer than half of Iraqis are glad that we invaded. Even as awful as Barack Obama’s pastor tells us that America is, creating virus, selling drugs, and whatnot, would more than 10% of Americans be glad we were invaded by a foreign power? Even an invasion by docile Canadians would be greeted with extreme resentment. War is terrible, and being invaded by outsiders is surely unpleasant and irritating at best. If 45% of Iraqis think that all that suffering is worthwhile, it’s pretty certain that we were in the right. Keep in mind, 20% of Iraqi’s where on the dole from Saddam’s kleptocracy, so they probably aren’t going to join the war supporters in the near future. Of  the 80% of Iraqis who could be persuaded (thieves and murdurers don’t typically celebrate falling crime rates),  somewhere around 60% are glad the United States invaded their country. As Ronaldus Magnus would say, “Not bad, Not bad at all.”

From The Corner...

Missing Fred video...it brings a tear to the eye. 

Of course the important thing at this point is that we stop the McCain train to the White House, or more likely, the McCain train to a drubbing by Hillary or Obama, so all the Fred-heads, Huckabites, and all the rest need to support Romney.  But boy I wish Fred were still in it. 

Well, the vaunted Backspin endorsement wasn't enough to keep Fred alive in South Carolina.  Fred's withdrawal from the race is a big loss.  No candidate articulated conservative principles better than Fred.  2008 is going to be a tough year, when we need a good salesman for conservative ideas, not just a slick campaigner.  Fred was, as many have said, "a depth guy".   The debates will be poorer without him.

Not only is it disheartening that Fred lost, its disheartening why he lost.   He lost because he "didn't want it enough".  It is refreshing, positive, to have a candidate who wants to be President, but isn't a narcissist who has devoted every waking moment of his adult life to becoming President.  Fred was willing to campaign for president, but he wasn't willing to do absolutely anything to win.  We need more guys like that.

Fred lost because he's not flashy.  He doesn't give a good soundbite, but if you can spare 90 seconds, he can layout some pretty deep, principled, and wise policies.  We as Americans, and Republicans in particular need to take a hard look at our process for choosing a president.   If principled depth is always doomed when faced with shallow soundbites, it will keep the best leaders out of office.  How we fix that, I don't know, but admitting the problem is the first step.

We often complain that our generals our fighting the last war.  It is equally, if not more true, that our politicians are waging the last campaign.

The McCain-Feingold bill restriction campaign donations is terrible law, and a gross abrogation of free speech, (did the founders really intend for freedom of speech to extend to pornography, but not political statements on the eve of an election?) but I believe it will soon be irrelevant, and that's a good thing!

We all know why people give to politicians, some give for noble reasons, supporting the candidate they like, some for less noble reasons, attempting to purchase influence.  But why do politicians need so much money?  Because for the past several election cycles, campaigns have relied on incredibly expensive broadcast television commercials to get their message out.  Those days are fading, and it's not hard to imagine a world where tacky political ads with ominous voice-overs have gone the way of the stump speec h from the caboose of a train.

We live in a world of TIVO, DVR, 500 channel sattelite packages, and YouTube.  How long can networks continue to charge high prices for ads that no one watches?  How long will politicians still focus their campaign on raising $5 million to air a tacky ad that cost them $5000?  The next way to reach the masses hasn't been found yet, but YouTube offers a tremendous medium to get a substantive (see Fred's video below), quality message out, with almost no distribution costs.  It hits a limited market, but it hits it well, and with incredible efficiency.

The end of the lame 30 second attack ad will be a good thing for our political process, a good thing for getting the money out of politics without a single government regulation.  It can't come soon enough.

(I am Darrick Johnson, and I approved this message.)