Bush Attacks Obama - A second look

President Bush addressing the Israeli Knesset in honor of the 60th anniversary of the Israeli state "spoke of what he called a tendency toward “appeasement” in some quarters of the West, similar to that shown to the Nazis before the invasion of Poland.

Mr. Bush also said he rejected negotiations with “terrorists and radicals,” the New York Times reports. Senator Obama took the opportunity to ascribe the appeasement appellation as an attack directed at him in particular and members of his party in general. Appearing at a forum in Watertown South Dakota Mr. Obama claimed the remarks by the President were an attack on his foreign policy.

President Bush's speech had included these remarks:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

So are these words actually an attack aimed at Senator Obama? Let's consider further below the fold.


Let us consider some other remarks of President Bush that are remarkably similar.

We've seen their kind before. The terrorists are the heirs to fascism. They have the same will to power, the same disdain for the individual, the same mad global ambitions. And they will be dealt with in just the same way. Like all fascists, the terrorists cannot be appeased: they must be defeated. This struggle will not end in a truce or treaty. It will end in victory for the United States, our friends and the cause of freedom.

Senator Obama apparently believes President Bush to be extraordinarily prescient. The remarks just quoted were made from the deck of USS Enterprise at berth in Norfolk Virginia on December 7, 2001. At the time Mr. Obama was a member of the Illinois legislature.

Read More. . . .

Obama in Philadelphia: Capital Loss

In Philadelphia's debate Wednesday,"both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama said they would not raise taxes on middle class Americans — those making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year." Not minutes later though, in response to a question about the capital gains tax, Mr. Obama acknowledged his proposal to raise the capital gains tax rate to 28% from the current 15%. When confronted about the positive tax revenue effects of lowering the capital gains tax rate instead, Obama replied, "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Fairness? See more below the fold.

Mr. Obama believes that raising the capital gains tax rate would not raise revenue but would result in greater fairness. The fairness, we must suppose, would come from reducing the disparity between the income of the rich and the income of everyone else. The disparity would be reduced however only be reducing the income of those more well off. It would add absolutely no income to to those less well off. The fairness would only result from lower income folks feeling they are being treated more fairly even though they would have not a penny more in additional income. Worse the increase in the tax would decrease government income, preventing the delivery of additional services to lower income people as well. In fact it seems that, "[M]r Obama appears to have counted the (non-existent) proceeds of a higher tax on capital gains both for his healthcare plan and for an 85bn middle-class tax relief plan that he announced [in September 2007]."
Capital gains indeed.

Read More. . . .

Obama on MLK at Fort Wayne

Previously we analyzed Hillary's MLK Anniversay remarks at Memphis. It is now our turn to look at comments made by Mr. Obama on the same occasion but from Fort Wayne Indiana.

Mr. Obama's preamble is worth considering:

...today represents a tragic anniversary for our country. Through his faith, courage, and wisdom, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. moved an entire nation. He preached the gospel of brotherhood; of equality and justice. That's the cause for which he lived - and for which he died forty years ago today...

While the circumstances of Dr. King's assassination 40 years ago may have been tragic, Mr. Obama leaves us no clues as to why the anniversary this year is tragic. Although Dr. King was a powerful advocate of nonviolence, and an eloquent spokesman for brotherhood, equality, and justice, the gospel he preached was the Christian gospel familiar throughout the African American Baptist community. Though Dr. King might have given his life willingly if the occasion would have furthered the progress of his struggle as he expressed, "I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to give his life serving others", he was given no such choice standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis.

Later in his remarks Mr. Obama noted:

This is the struggle that brought Dr. King to Memphis. It was a struggle for economic justice, for the opportunity that should be available to people of all races and all walks of life. Because Dr. King understood that the struggle for economic justice and the struggle for racial justice were really one - that each was part of a larger struggle "for freedom, for dignity, and for humanity."

Indeed in the latter years of Dr. King's life the tenor of his campaigns shifted from racial equality to economic justice. It is in this context that we can see Mr. Obama's rhetoric as a continuation of Dr. King's trajectory from equal justice under law, to equality of results through government intervention. In Memphis it was for union recognition of government workers.

Mr. Obama makes the tie explicitly: But while those sanitation workers eventually got their union contract, the struggle for economic justice remains an unfinished part of the King legacy. Because the dream is still out of reach for too many Americans. Just this morning, it was announced that more Americans are unemployed now than at any time in years. And all across this country, families are facing rising costs, stagnant wages, and the terrible burden of losing a home.

To Mr. Obama, being unemployed is a matter of economic injustice. Facing rising costs is a matter of economic injustice. Having stagnant wages is a matter of economic injustice. Not being able to or not choosing to pay your mortgage is a matter of economic injustice.

While he invokes the words of Amos, "let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream," Mr. Obama is unable to understand or express that justice consists of rendering to every man his due, and that the commandment to Adam was "in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground". When Mr. Obama calls for economic justice he calls for bread without sweat.
Read More. . . .

Who’s the REAL Conspiracy Theorist?

Barack Obama is taking some heat for statements made by his pastor that are controversial to say the least. Many of these are conspirator in nature. Many of Obama’s pastor’s statements refer to various conspiracies. I am sure you have seen most of them. As an example, Dr. Wright blamed the US Government for using HIV as a population control. These statements are obviously inflammatory. And if they were actually made by Obama himself would surely disqualify him from running the nation.

However this is not the case. Obama is not a conspiracy theorist. However, the evidence is building that Hillary Clinton is actually the conspiracy theorist. As I have noted before in “Hillary Clinton Facts – ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,’” Clinton actually blamed the Right for her husband’s infidelity. In fact she called it a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Here again are her statements:



Now she “misspoke” about being under attack in Bosnia. So now everyone is out to get her?


So who is the real conspiracy theorist? Read More. . . .

Obama at Trinity United-An Alternate View

Much has been made of Mr. Obama's attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ. Much of the focus has been on its former Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and considered whether Mr. Obama shared some of the 'controversial' views Rev. Wright expressed. In a statement Friday, Mr. Obama said,

"Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church."

Let us assume that Mr. Obama is being sincere in his disagreement with views expressed in the church he attended. Let us further assume that he did not attend on days some of the more controversial statements were made, did not read the church bulletin, did not buy or watch the church video's, and did not hear about any of these things in discussion with his fellow congregants.

One must consider then why Mr. Obama was there in that church for 20 years. It is not too much to consider that Mr. Obama, during that period of time, was establishing himself in the political milieu of Chicago and Illinois. His attendance at a very widely attended black congregation would have certainly been of value in finding and attracting supporters and establishing credibility in the black community, especially considering Mr. Obama's upbringing, overseas residency, and elite education which did not provide solid ties to that community.

It would seem that Mr. Obama would benefit greatly from his membership in this congregation, and mere attendance was not too high a price to pay for that benefit. He did not have to adopt or agree with the black liberation theology which underly some of the sermons. He certainly did not need to speak out in favor or against anything that was said. He could permit the congregation and his base of supporters to believe that he was one of them, was with them, agreed with them.

If this conjecture accurately reflects Mr. Obama's connection with Trinity United, we can then understand that it is not the larger nation that is being deceived by his denials of congruency between his own views and those of his church's leaders. Instead, we must understand that Mr. Obama deceived his fellow congregants and supporters by simply allowing them to believe that they shared the same views and convictions.

Whichever view we accept, the conclusion is that the audacity of hope consisted of hoping either we or the congregation would never discover Mr. Obama's actual views. Read More. . . .

Two Patriotic Presidential Candidates?

The Obama campaign is accusing Bill Clinton of being like Joe McCarthy in describing a race between Hillary Clinton and John McCain as being between two people who loved this country as if a race between Barack Obama and John McCain would not be so constituted. The reaction referred to reported remarks of Mr. Clinton made in North Carolina:

“it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.”

While it is possible to read these remarks to the disadvantage of Mr. Obama, I believe these were more directed toward making some equivalence between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain.

Former president Clinton preceded those remarks by describing Mr. McCain as a patriot, noting his valiant Vietnam service.

"He paid as high a price as you can pay to serve this country without getting killed, and we have to honor that," Clinton said. "[And] he has some redeeming qualities for a Republican: he doesn't believe in torture, he supported campaign finance reform, and he doesn't think global warming is a myth... So it is not gonna be all that easy to beat him."

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," Clinton said, "and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.

While Mr. Clinton's remarks can be interpreted to denigrate Mr. Obama, as Mr. Obama's camp has done, the remarks can also be interpreted as an attempt to assign to Mrs. Clinton Mr. McCain's aura of patriotism. Regrettably Mr. Clinton has provided no supporting argument for such a patriotism transplant.
Read More. . . .

Obama in Philadelphia: A Closer Federalist Look

Much has been written by spinners and pundits about the meaning, effect and success of Barrack Obama's address in Philadelphia. I have chosen to instead go directly to the text and examine it for its own meaning. I believe that the text as delivered was heartfelt, and that it revealed much about the thought process of Mr. Obama. So let us look at some of that text together, of course from a Federalist prospective.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
"Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy."

Note the very first line of the speech is enclosed in quotes, yet it is if anything a dowdified quote, missing of the United States. A Federalist would also argue that there was no experiment in democracy to launch. The states convened in that Philadelphia convention launched a representative constitutional republic. It is perhaps merely gloss to pass over this distinction in a political speech, but if it is truly representative of Mr. Obama's thought we must wonder.

'Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787."

There may have been a few at the convention who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and prosecution, but for the most part the men who assembled at that convention had been born in America and many had never left its shores.

"And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States."

In general the constitution confers some limited powers to the federal government it forms enumerates some of the preexisting rights of the people and sets forth the organization of the branches of government. The constitution did not create or provide any rights. The people, in adopting it, retained all of the rights they previously had, as the Declaration of independence noted, as a gift from their Creator.
Taken together with an apparent misconception that the political system of the United States is a democracy this comment displays a stunning lack of understanding or willful misconstruction.

"Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students."
"Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities."

The segregated schools of Brown were segregated by force of state Jim Crow laws. It was governors (of the Democratic Party) standing in school house doors, in Arkansas and Alabama and Virginia who stood in the way of enforcement of national civil rights laws. It was laws passed by democrats that permitted unions to exclude black workers from work places, and government work. it was laws passed by democrats that encouraged black women to avoid marriage and seek sanctuary in government handouts. That history which continues to today that explains far more some of the apparent gap between black and white.

"In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well."

Perhaps a more central article of faith which is sufficient in itself to end the politics of envy is found in the tenth commandment to not desire your neighbor's house, or field, or ox or anything that is your neighbors.

"We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words."

I doubt that the question today or later will be whether the American people think Mr. Obama believes anything in particular, but whether he actually believes one thing or another. I am sure there are few who think Mr. Obama accepts, asserts or agrees with Reverend Wrights most offensive words, whatever they are or whoever defines them. It is all those other less offensive words, which one must believe found resonance with Mr. Obama to succor twenty years of attendance that the American people will need to consider.

"This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."

The shuttered mills that once provided a decent life are no longer producing products decent American wish to purchase. If they once were open simply to make a profit, they are not now open because they do not make a profit, and nothing, no hope or dream, will make them profitable ever again. It is men and women who risk all of their own wealth to create goods and services which they hope their fellows will purchase from them at a fair price and earn for them a profit, who create jobs which provide a decent life, who create products and services that make that decent life worthwhile and who inspire others to do it over and over again.
Read More. . . .

Must See Black Hole Update

Cargosquid at United Conservatives has a perfect addition to yesterday's black holes of political thought post. Don't miss this one. Too good to quote. Read More. . . .

Mississippi Spells Problems for Obama

While Barack Obama is expected to easily win the Mississippi Primary, the exit polling data shows surprising trend. Clinton supporters overwhelmingly don’t like Obama.

The Data shows that 72% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters in Mississippi would be “unsatisfied” if Obama is the Democratic Party’s nominee. This stands in stark comparison to the mere 55% of Obama supporters that would be unsatisfied if Hillary got the nomination.

This nearly 20% disparity in satisfaction with the opposing candidate does not bode well for Obama. Superdelegates that are trying to please the most people with their inevitably controversial pick may just favor Hillary as it will upset less people.

Developing . . . Read More. . . .

Clinton Campaign Admits Obama Will Be Ready on Day One

Actually, the Clinton campaign suggests that Senator Obama will be ready to be President well before Inauguration Day, in time for the Democratic National Convention this summer. Hillary Clinton was so eager to pander to many Democrats' desire to see neither candidate lose that she undercut her own strongest argument for deserving the Democratic nomination - that her opponent is not prepared to be President.

Now Sen. Clinton, Bill Clinton, and senior members of Clinton's campaign are all suggesting that she would choose Sen. Obama as her running mate, if she were to receive the Presidential nomination. Either Sen. Clinton is acknowledging that her opponent will be fully prepared to assume the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States or she is willing to endanger the country by putting someone she does not trust with those responsibilities a mere heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Read More. . . .

Hillary was for the DNC Sanctions Before She was Against Them

On September 1, 2007 Hillary Clinton, along with Barack Obama, signed a pledge that she would not campaign in any state that had broken the DNC’s rules about changing the date of the primary. Both Florida and Michigan had previously moved their primaries breaking the DNC’s rules. Hillary knew this when she signed the pledge.