Obama Doublespeak Decoded (part 1)

As I listen to the President-elect speak about the various issues on his agenda, I often get frustrated. Yes, elections have consequences, and he is one of them. He seems to be trying to talk the economy down, disclose his private plans, and reveal his secrets while at the same time appearing to not do any of those things. So I think he is in the Doublespeak mode, and somebody had better start decoding what he means from what he says and does. Here is my first attempt.

• stimulus plan - plan to grow government in ways that take years to implement and even longer to recover from.
• clandestine meetings with Hamas - put pressure on Israel and Hamas to make concessions, because Hamas is being treated as an equal.
• Economy is getting worse - you need my plans so badly that they must be passed ASAP with no discussion or disagreement.
• work with Congress - let Congress put it together, so they can take the blame when it doesn't work.
• Bi-partisanship - include the Republicans so they can be blamed for the inevitable failure of the resulting bills including the stimulus plan.
• tax cuts for 95% of working families - wealth transfers to those who pay no Federal income tax, while soaking "The Rich".
• Secretary of State Clinton - safe place to keep Hillary so she stays away from health care, since she is poisonous, though her plan is not significantly different from my own plan, assuming she makes it through confirmation. Watch for some reasons to pop up to keep her from taking the Sec State post, and at the same time, make her irrelevant to the political scene - Obama doesn't need her or her husband to achieve his goals.
• 3 million jobs saved or created - take credit for Bush's stimulus that is beginning to take effect, and pull in however many jobs are needed in the "saved" category as necessary to claim victory.
• recession will last for years to come - my plans will deepen the recession, but I will blame it on Bush and the Republicans, so that you won't want to vote for them, even though my plans didn't make things any better.
• deepening crisis - more reason to change form free-market capitalism to socialism, because capitalism has failed this time.
• get American working - for the government.
• reward hard working taxpayers - let them give to support those who are not working, or who are in failing businesses. Hard work is its own reward.
• talk with Iran - Obama: use dialog to help them understand that the US is no longer like Bush, so we can be trusted, and they can stop their nuclear weapons programs. Reality: make concessions to Tehran that make it impossible to support Israel properly.
• Talk with Hugo Chavez - lower US diplomatic status to that of a third world dictatorship, which is what I think we should become.
• Leon Panetta is a fine choice for the CIA - I need someone over there who I can trust to tell me everything, not do much, and make the CIA a clean, friendly organization who will stop torturing those poor misunderstood Muslims, who really just want what's best for America and to be our friends.
• End the war in Iraq - quit irritating those nice middle-eastern countries who just want to peaceably co-exist with the rest of the world.
• make healthcare affordable for all Americans - nationalize healthcare, so you don't see the cost when you go to the doctor or hospital. Let the rich, the smokers, big business and the unhealthy pay more in penalties, taxes, and fees so the rest of us don't have to.
• Secure our borders - declare the borders secure, and provide a path to citizenship for thos illegals who are here now.
• One President at a time - I don't want to talk about that. Ask me later, if you dare. Does not apply to the economy, only to Israel, and heck, to foreign policy in total, since I don't have much interest in it, nor understanding of it.
  

I'm sure there will be more definitions as words and phrases are bandied about in the never-ending campaign of Barack Obama. He seems to love looking Presidential, but is short on anything other than platitudes and rehetoric.

BlagObama Senate Seat Fiasco

For those of you who have read my other posts, you know that I am a Conservative. You also know that I think a lot. I have to, to get it right. I am still gathering information about the Blagojevich abuse of power allegations. I read the indictment submissions on The Smoking GUn, and they are devastating, and very graphic.

This whole Senate Seat for Sale scandal is not only disgusting, but illustrative of the seedy political arena President-Elect Barrack Obama willingly jumped into on his way from Hawaii to the White House. I have no evidence yet that Obama was involved in this, though there is that possibility. Here is why I think this:

1. David Axelrod, Obama's Rove (chief political advisor) said Obama had spoken with the Governor about this. He was on a TV show, it was taped, and it was dug up after the revelation of Blago trying to get whatever he could for himself and his wife to relieve the financial pressure on his family, due to his only being a governor. I guess that doesn't pay enough for him.
   
2. A reporter at a local Illinois TV station reported the day after the election that Obama was scheduled to meet with the governor the next day, to discuss filling the impending vacancy. I have not seen any confirmation that any meeting actually took place, but then, I'm a consumer of news, not a producer of it. I'll await any confirmation.
   
3. Governor Blago indicated on tape when discussing the matter that Obama wanted candidate #1 (That lady, Valerie Jarrett?) to fill his seat. He said that they were only willing to give him future appreciation. Blago wanted money, so he swore about Obama that he was a M-F-, and he repeated it in different conversations. How did he know that they would only offer appreciation, if he didn't talk with someone about some sort of compensation?
   
4. Obama did not display outrage, disgust, or other anger that his still-warm Senate seat was up for bid by the governor. He said it was an ongoing investigation, so he could not comment on it. Really? Not even to say that it was a travesty, and he totally condemns that type of shameful corruption? Why not?
5. Obama has helped Blago get elected over the years, as Blago has helped Obama over the years to do the same. The press is trying to say that the two of them travelled in different Democrat circles in Illinois, though I doubt there are different circles in that state. To quote Lincoln, a House divided cannot stand. Neither can the Illinois Democrat party.

So I have yet to see proof beyond reasonable doubt that Obama is involved with this thing, but the doors for going down that path are open. One thing that gets lost in the sauce is the presumption of innocence. I have held to it in this case, as much as I would like to indict him myself. In another related idea, there is nothing in my mind wrong with governor Blagojevich getting input from different sources, including the potential Senators, on who should get the seat. There should even be room for discussion, political considerations, and even favoritism. Where the line is clear as day for me is when compensation for the selection is either sought, considered when offered, or the unspoken rule during said discussions. Clearly, Governor Blago was in this for his own financial benefit.

Is Gay the New Black?

I was just reading an article on some news website, and saw the headline above. I don't even have to read the article to give the answer: NO, by no means is "Gay the new Black".

One does not need to be gay to know that being gay is a choice or lifestyle one can make or hide. Even if you grant that Gays are genetically wired to not be straight, if the desires are not acted upon, if the lusts are not fulfilled, one can easily hide their homosexuality. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean one is effeminate. There are strong, big, successful Gays that don't give the outward appearance that they are gay. I occasionally hear of athletes who are outed, and people seem shocked! Shocked that such a talented, often masculine guy, or very feminine gal is lesbian.

But let's talk reality here. Who doesn't know that I am black? I once had a conversation with a well-intentioned white brother in Christ, who asked me, after I divulged my lineage as including my white mother and black father, if I identified myself as black or white. After my spontaneous laughter subsided, I told him to look at me, think about it, and ask me again if he still needed to. My race is as obvious as the nose on my face. No, in fact, it is more obvious, because if one is nearsighted, and has no glasses on while looking at me, they may not see my nose, but would still see my race. I have no choice. I cannot hide my race casually.

Sure, there are those who can "pass", but they still have the genes inside them. Michael Jackson may be able to obscure his race chemically or surgically, but his kids show his genes. So do pictures from his younger days. But for the rest of us average Joes, our race is set and obvious. As America mixes races more thoroughly, our descendants will all be a happy shade of brown; some more, some less. But Gays will continue to have the luxury of choosing. Choosing to openly be gay, or to hide their activities that define them as Gay.

So don't dare compare being Gay with being black. Compare being Gay with being a Liberal, or with any other group of Americans defined by their actions and beliefs. Gays were not brought to this continent in chains against their will. Gays may have come on ships, and some slaves may have been Gay, but they were not captured, sold shipped and auctioned because they were gay. Blacks have struggled mightily for civil rights which mostGays have always had. This brings up the issue of tolerance, which I will not expound upon here. Suffice it to say, Gays have been tolerated, but that is not enough these days for them. They want acceptance and normalcy to be conferred on them, which goes way beyond tolerance.If we grant special rights based on lifestyle choices, where does it stop? Which group will get special rights based on their particular lifestyle choices?

Let's suppose daredevils demand the right to low insurance rates, just like non-daredevils are given. Or that smokers demand acceptance of their lifestyle choices, so they should be able to smoke wherever they choose. Or that professional race drivers be allowed to drive on the roads and highways at speeds they have proven themselves to be able to safely drive on the track. Or that Republicans should be able to pay lower taxes because that is their lifestyle choice. I think the point is clear: no special rights for groups defined by their actions and feelings.

Content of the Character

Well, we now know that Barrack Obama has won the 2008 Presidential Election. Congratulations are in order, and I think he might have won even if Acorn et al had not cheated. Senator Obama's victory is historic, in that he is the first black American to win the highest office in the land. In the generic sense, I am happy that bridge has been crossed.

Now we can not blame racism for our problems, not say "The Man" is holding us back, and we can now get off our collective behinds and take responsibility for our own lives and actions. Granted, there are many who have already taken that step, and are mainstream American conservatives, but I say it as an all-inclusive statement because we are all Americans, as Barrack likes to say.

Now we can say that the psychology of slavery has been overcome, and blacks are now just like the rest of the American society, full citizens able to reach the highest office in the land through peaceful means. There is nothing that American blacks cannot do, and nothing that any other self-identified sub-groups cannot do. Barrack has proven it, so let's get to work.

My brother called me last night to bask in the win of Senator Obama, and to ask a question. He asked if over the next four years Barrack Obama could win my vote. I immediately thought of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous line, which I have used as a guiding light in my life: Judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I already judged President-elect Obama by that standard, and decided not to vote for him for that reason. Too many things strike me as either bad, weak, or hidden to entrust him willingly to the highest office in the land. Need I list them? for posterity, I will:
- Jeremiah Wright and the hateful things he taught the Obamas over the past 20 years. Did he know and not care, or was he that politically deaf that he missed it?
- Bill Ayers. That 60's radical still wants to use his associations to bring an end to Capitalism in the USA, and will use his connections to Obama for that purpose. Mr. Ayers may have succeeded in moving the mainstream of American educational thought to the left, but it is still not in the mainstream of American values. I also believe Barrack will appoint people who think like Ayers to posts in his administration, to our country's detriment.
- Stealing Hillary's election. See HillBuzz.com, and see how it was done. Not the stuff of a candidate on the up and up.
- belief in man-made Global warming, against all the scientific evidence.
- naively thinking that we could negotiate with hostile countries without preconditions. To think that we can come to agreement with nut-jobs like Ahmadinejad of Iran, when what he/they want is the extermination of Israel belies his inexperience, and is a pipe dream. They will not compromise, as we should not either.
- Acorn. Obama's association with Acorn is obscured, and seems to be one of political expedience, and this is not the type of organization that a President should be involved with. Will they be called in to help set the agenda during the transition, as he said would happen if he won the White House?
- Franklin Raines. This former head of Fannie Mae is up to his eyeballs in the financial crisis, including being a CEO who took a large golden parachute, at the expense of a failing business which we had to bail out.

Am I without hope? No, not at all. First, God is still God, and He is still in control. Second, the GOP still has more than 40 seats in the Senate, so they can still filibuster, if it is necessary. Plus, Senator Obama plans to run again, so he will have to balance his extreme Liberal tendencies with his need to get moderate and Republican votes in four years.

To answer my brother's question, President-elect Obama can earn my vote, but it is unlikely he will try to. We will make it through the next four years, but the country will be weakened and damaged. Will we be able to repair it? I'm not sure, but it is worth trying. Next post: the judiciary, abortion, and the rest of the targets of Liberal assault.

McCain got this one Right

I am pleasantly surprised that John McCain got the pick for VP right. Sarah Palin seems like a great choice for several reasons. Everyone has some baggage, so we'll see what the opposition dredges up. But for now, let's review the positive points.

1. She's Pro-Life. Look at her family: she has five (count 'em) kids, including one who has Down's syndrome. That's love, and that's also a temptation to abort when it is convenient.

2. She's pro-drilling for oil in Alaska. She seems like one of those "Everything is on the table" types, which is good, because it will take oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, bio-mass, water, and any other power sources we can come up with to power our future growth. Voluntary conservation is good too, so I do mean everything is on the table.

3. She is for doing the right thing, even if it means bucking her party. Of course if everybody is a Maverick, then there is not party, only a bunch of people going their own ways, but kow-towing to the party to the point of compromising your core beliefs is not good. If there is corruption (Ted Stevens?) get it out. If there are problems, don't just defend them blindly, nor dump them under the bus in knee-jerk fashion. Get the facts, make a decision based on what is right, and then stick with it! Sarah seems to have done this in Alaska.

4. Have you seen her? She's cheerful, looks strictly business, and speaks clearly and forcefully. She took up the mantle of Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton without the liberal baggage and without Bill. According to Mrs. Ferraro, hillary never mentioned her run for VP in 1988, but Sarah Palin did that first. She gets it, knowing her political roots come from both sides. Let's see her finish the task of shattering the glass ceiling that those other ladies cracked. Note that she will do it mostly in dresses as well, not the de-feminizing pants suits. I believe she will attract a lot of Hillary voters, even if they are not all pro-life. They, like she, are pro-woman, and the Democratic ticket has two men, as usual.

5. Sarah Palin brings more executive experience than Joe Biden. I have never heard of Joe Biden running anything but his mouth, his campaigns and that Accela train home every night from DC to Delaware. Mrs. Palin even has more positive executive experience than Barack Obama, dare I say. The only executive experience Mr. Obama has is running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. The summary of his tenure as and executive of one of the two wings of the non-profit was that they used up $15 million in the first year, drew scrutiny for mismanagement, and had to reorganize, disassociating the group from it's original partnership groups, and then ultimately using up the $50+ million dollars with little to show for the money within six years. I'd say that being a mayor of a town, (albeit small) and then being elected governor over a sitting member of your own party is quite an accomplishment. Sarah Palin also governed for a year and a half, and has had a positive impact in that time.

6. Sarah Palin is an avid hunter, and support gun rights. She also understands that reasonable precautions need to be in place to protect the public. Let's see how she presents her position, as I am not yet as familiar with her positions as I will be in the near future.

7. She's from wa-a-ay outside of Washington. You can't get much further than Alaska, and still be in the USA. Alaska is very near Russia, so she may have some exposure to or understanding of how they work. Again, though, let's see what she says about this in the near future.

8. On foreign policy, if she doesn't have much in that area, she can certainly learn about it from John McCain. John McCain may get the border fence and immigration policy wrong, but he understands other things, like the threat of radical Islam and jihad, and how to deal with Russia and China. Sarah Palin may not bring much to the table in this regard, but she has at least as much foreign policy experience as Barack Obama, and she can learn from McCain as president, which is much better than President Obama learning from the VP Biden.

9. Sarah Palin offers change as historic as Barack Obama. With the choice of Mrs. Palin, there is certain to be someone in the White House who has never been there before, either a black man, or a woman in the highest offices in the land. I would also note that if the McCain/Palin ticket wins, Hillary is pretty much out forever. Sarah Palin is young enough to run in 2012 or 2016 (if McCain hangs in there), thus freezing Hillary out. If Obama wins, Biden won't run in 8 years, and if the Obama/Biden team fails in the first four years, Hillary has an opportunity in 2012. I doubt Hillary will be in the running in 2016, as she will be so old, both in years and in ideology. So I think women will figure this out as well, and vote for the woman who is likely to be the president ofter the winner of this fall's election.

More later, as things develop, but boy, this is a big improvement. I think I might even send the RNC some money!

McCain on the Brink

Wow, what a turn of events. I watched John McCain at the Saddle back forum, and he sounded like a guy I could really respect, like, and vote for. I mean, pro-life, sure of himself, all the right moves, or at least as many as can be expected from a political candidate these days.

But these are not the days of Reagan, nor even of George W. Bush. The persona that was presented at Saddleback was not the person who would take a pro-choice VP. It was not the person who would ban drilling in ANWR, nor who would sound wishy-washy, as he so often does in other settings. It also was not the angry person who grudgingly gives lip service to a border fence (or the more often repeated phrase secure the borders first).

I mean, if he selects a pro-life VP running mate, you can pretty much kiss the GOP goodbye. We cannot out-Democrat the Democrats. If voters want a Democrat, they will vote for Obama. He's the true Dem here. Or they could even still engineer the overthrow of the Obama candidacy, and install Hillary as their candidate, as she would love to have happen. But the GOP depending on Democrats that they attract by alienating the GOP base is like a football team putting their defense on the field to beat the defense of the other team. It just doesn't work! You play to your strengths, and beat them fair and square. Yes we can (to borrow a phrase)!

Not to be outdone, the Democrats are trying to get the pro-life vote, while remaining solidly pro-abortion. They put some mealy-mouthed mushy words in their party platform about protecting the life of babies, and supporting pregnancy, a few paragraphs after stating they will never allow Roe v. Wade to be overturned, nor infringed upon in any way. One pundit called it putting some words out there for pro-Obama Republicans to have an excuse to vote for him. It's too thinly veiled to fool us. Anyone who thinks will see thru it.

Barack's Big Speech

Unless you are not politically attuned, you probably have heard of the speech that Barack Obama made today, 24 July 2008. You may have even heard some of the speech. Depending on your perspective, you might think it was brilliant, or you might think it was out of place.
Why might some think it was brilliant? let me see if I can look at this from the liberal perspective. If you are a liberal and know anything about history, you might think that a great man, going to Berlin and giving a speech is great in the tradition of John F. Kennedy in 1963, and maybe even as Ronald Reagan did in 1987. While the allusion to Reagan might not sit well with too many on the Left, both he and JFK spoke eloquently about a wall coming down. They addressed the issue of their day, and confronted it head-on, with clarity and courage. Barack Obama did the same thing, in the same way with today's issues. He alluded to many moments to tear down many walls, including those of racism, sexism, global warming, and equality of wealth. He said that this is the moment to tackle all these large issues, and they are in the opinion of many people, inarguably the most important things to be confronted.
Barack has the courage to mention them, the courage to challenge the world to join with us in a fight that is too large for any one country to win. Barack is the one, the savior, who will address the most important issues of our times. He will bring the war in Iraq to a close.
One must admit, he looked presidential as he stood at the podium, addressing hundreds of thousands of people. He also delivered the speech with eloquence and conviction, looking like a true statesman. Now that he has capped his world tour with this speech, Barack Obama can simply return home, bask in the glow of the media attention he well deserves for standing up to the forces of stagnation, for presenting bold new initiatives that will benefit the citizens of the world!

If you listened to this from another perspective, that of a Conservative, you heard a very different speech. Some key points stood out to those of this viewpoint, especially that of citizenship. Give the man his due, he did say he was a "Proud Citizen of America", but he also said he was a "Citizen of the World". That American pride was more of a fig leaf as he then blasted away at the country he says he is proud of. The speech entails a lot of things but two things are key to the issues at hand: First, a President must be first, last, and always a citizen to the United States of America. While we live in the world, our first concern must be the good of America, because America is not evil, and wishes no evil on those it shares the world with. Being a citizen of someplace implies that your loyalty is there, not in the contrasting or different place. For example, a French citizen is first concerned with and loyal to France. He may consider what is good for China as well, but his first concern is always with France and how what he does affects France. So it must be for Americans, especially the President. The second thing is that he is not yet the President of the Untied States of America. He may challenge the German people, and by extension, all of the European people, but if he loses his bid to become President, there is little chance he will be back over to take up the fight he is challenging them to today. This highlights the arrogance of addressing a people at a historic sight when you are not yet the victor in your own political battle. Both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were President when they made their historic speeches. They were positioned to speak for the American people, as they had been voted into leadership through the established process, and had been in office more than two years. Barack Obama has a lack of understanding of American Exceptionalism. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had a proper view of America as great, a global contributor, and a positive force in the world. I'm not so sure Obama sees the United States that way, though he thinks he can turn America in the right direction again.

Aside from the assumption that he has the authority to challenge Europeans to fight with us for the things he has not yet been given a mandate to do, there is the issue of proving global warming. He mentioned the oceans rising, the ice melting as a result of the cars being driven and fuels being burned around the globe. It is not yet a proven fact that global warming is occurring, and it is even less sure that man-made processes are contributing to said warming. There is recent evidence that smoke from industrial power generation may have clouded the sky, contributing to global cooling. While violence in Darfur and other places is real, and proven, it is not simply because of people not getting along, it is a sort of war. There are political forces at work that drive all such bloodshed, and resolving those issues is not as easy as just talking to the affected parties. Palestinians and Israelites are not ready to just split the difference and settle down, no matter who proposes the idea. They are fighting for their homelands, from each other's perspective. Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel, and there is no middle ground.
When he talks about tearing down borders, he is inviting non-Americans to share the wealth that Americans have worked hard to establish over the centuries, to take advantage of opportunities that they have not earned nor even truly understand. America is more than a job bank. It is more than a place to get government paid health care. There is a process by which a set number of immigrants, as decided by the people through their representative have the right to become Americans, and the chance to share in the American dream. The right to become citizens is not just to be given out carelessly, as those like Barack Obama would allow to cross our borders with the intent of getting as much benefit as they possibly can.
One final item Barack Obama threw into the speech that would infuriate those with a Conservative perspective is that the war in Iraq is to be "drawn to a close", with no mention of winning. Here Mr. Obama stands in the shadow of an obelisk made in tribute to Hitler and his war effort, with no acknowledgment that the peace in Germany came after we won World War II. There, in Berlin, the method of achieving lasting peace should have been foremost in Barack Obama's mind, yet he didn't even mention winning in Iraq. He seemed intent on scoring points by pledging to get us out of Iraq, as though getting out were the best thing for the citizens of the world. If he had only acknowledged that we are winning in Iraq, and that we can finish the job, then leave when a lasting peace, as there is now in Germany, he would have truly spoken momentous words. Yet the history of Germany, which he touched on but did not cover adequately, teaches us that if we win, as we did in WW I, and then leave the country without the ability to repair and support itself, it would end up in the hands of tyrannical dictators (Hitler?). If after the tactical victory in Iraq, as there was in Germany after the second World War, yet we allow a non-democratic rule to take hold of part or all of the recently vanquished foe, the part of the country under such influence would suffer as badly as before the war. Recall how the Russians ran, ruled and ruined East Germany, surrounded Berlin, and tried to strangle Democracy as it sprouted in the fertile soil of post WWII Germany. It took over 30 years to get that right, and Iran would like to do the same to Iraq after the second Gulf War. If Iraqi society has the infrastructure and freedom in place to support itself, the police and the military to defend itself, Iranian-influenced Muslim extremists would fight to rule part or all of Iraq, with dire consequences. The blood of the many brave soldiers, men and women, spilled in Iraq would have been made to be in vain. Countries do not just "bring a war to a close". It's not a sports season, or a retail shopping center that gives up and moves on. Wars are won or lost, no matter what people say. We won the Vietnam war, but then ultimately the South Vietnamese lost it when we withdrew and allowed the enemy poised across the border to come in and take over.

I was disappointed that Barack Obama did not visit the injured soldiers in Germany who had no doubt been prepared to see him. Democrats often say they support the troops, though they do not support the war. Here was a golden opportunity to do just that, and Mr. Obama turned it down. It is amazing to me when political figures fall into their own stereotypes, and prove there is a basis for them. I'm sure this did not win him many new supporters among the military in his quest to become the Commander in Chief, the President of these United States. No matter the reason, and they certainly will spin him one good one when they realize the impact of such a gaffe, a person who is in the area, and has a heart of concern for the troops would have made the visit. If he had such a desire, and it is his campaign, there is no reason they could not have done it. Schedules can be adjusted, less important people can be rescheduled, flights can be delayed. In my mind, this reveals the true nature of Barack Obama: concerned about political speeches, and not concerned about the troops.

One last point: if it was incumbent on Americans to teach their children a foreign language, why did Senator Obama not try to deliver the speech in German? And was it widely published that the crowd that heard Senator Obama's speech was lured to the venue by a free concert immediately preceding his speech?