Barack Obama's promise to bring transparency to government has been rightly derided and  fraud.  Backroom deals and opaquely worded bills have been hallmarks of his adminstration.  But in odd way, we are living in an era of transparency.  For years conservatives have been frustrated by liberal politicians, pretending to be conservative in states that required it, pretending to be blue collar, when the situation called for it.  In the last 3 months, Democrats have torpedoed their image in all these respects.

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]

 

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]

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.

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.