Five Quick Shots; All On Target

1) Michelle Obama Proud Of America For The First Time?
Michelle said, "I am proud of America for the first time in my life, because you want change". Translation: "I've been embarrassed my entire life about America; what it is; what it represents, but now, now that you're showing a real interest in my socialist husband who is the most leftist Senator in Washington and votes that way with the inanimate, uncompromising consistency of robot, I am finally proud of America. I am proud of you for being fooled into supporting the socialist destruction of the greatest country in world history by completely empty and deceptive rhetoric from my wonderful, wonderful, anti-American husband. And, I know you can have faith and trust in my exact words about "pride" because, as my husband said yesterday when defending his campaign based on a just a few well chosen words, "just words" matter".

Barak Obama's ultra simplistic rhetoric, and largely anti-American soul, make him a far more focused target than Hillary, for what is sure to be effective and withering Republican fire in the fall, and so Republicans must hold off until then; so as not to encourage Obama to remake himself into a more complex, nuanced, and difficult target. Let him enjoy what Bill Clinton called "the fairy tale" until after the convention. Let his memeticist genius grow till then at which point it will be too late to remake himself, as McCain demonstrated is quite possible given time and favorable circumstances.

2)Eating Hillary
So why are the Democrats eating Hillary, a woman who had been their champion and standard bearer for years? It's simple really: they got very confused, something not uncommon for a people who lack the wherewithal to understand freedom despite living in America, the land of freedom.

It seems that what they say is true: many Democrats are suffering or confused by what is often called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Accordingly, they want change, from Bush, and they want it very very badly. In their exuberance for change they are turning out to vote at almost double the rate of Republicans this primary season, even though in general elections the voter turnout is about equal between Democrats and Republicans.

What's happening, apparently, is that in their exuberance for change, Democrats, along with independents and disaffected Republicans, have confused the party primaries, with the general election that follows. In the primaries the only change available to them is from Hillary, the long time front runner, to Obama; not from Bush to Hillary, and so they are making the only change that is now available rather than maturely waiting to make the change they really want. Perhaps there should be a new election law to protect ill feeling Democrats from such stressful choices when those choices are clearly beyond their abilities? It is as if we are asking a child to pick between a tiny piece of candy today and a pound of candy tomorrow. Their behavior is very childish , or perhaps insane even. What else can explain the huge Democratic turnout that has eaten Hillary for no apparent reason?

And, lets not forget, Obama was well behind Hillary for almost a year. If he really is such a charismatic, compelling figure as one narrative would have it, why did it take almost a year for anyone to see what normally would be instantly recognizable?

And, lets not forget too, "the syndrome" was given voice only when it seemed America was going to lose a war against a Nazi-like dictator. When Bush announced, "mission accomplished" and there was great hope, the Democrats were silent, if not apologetic about their opposition to the fight for freedom. Now that there is great hope again, the Democrats are again dead and deafeningly silent, although "the syndrome" lingers. Wouldn't you be ill too, and vote erratically, if you could only cheer at your country's defeat, and creep away in sheepish silence at the first signs of victory over a Nazi-like tyrant? Americans can only hope and pray that the "syndrome" continues to make them act in irrational ways through the upcoming elections.

३)The Rich as Superheros

Quick. Tell me what the Democratic plan for economic growth is? Sadly, they have no plan for economic growth, which is quite bizarre when you consider that economic growth got us from the stone age to the modern age, and when, in theory, we want to keep it going. The only plan they have is to steal from the rich and give to the poor. This was perfectly symbolized by Hillary's Christmas commercial in which she portrayed herself as a Santa Claus putting government programs for everybody, symbolically gift wrapped in little boxes, under a Christmas tree.

She didn't mention that she wasn't making the money herself to buy the programs, or that she planned to tax the rich, even more, for the money with which to pay for the programs, despite the nation's $10 Trillion debt. The point was to make all the little children Democrats vote for her because she would provide them more presents than all the competing Democratic Santa Clauses. It represented a total subversion of our Democracy, a total inability to understand the American provenance, but it is what Democrats do, routinely.

As it turns out, the top one percent of taxpayers in America already pay 40% of all Federal taxes. If the gov't spends about $3 trillion a year that means the rich pay about $1.2 Trillion in taxes. That's enough to virtually pay for the whole country's Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If that doesn't make the rich superhero's who can imagine what would? And, if that is not enough, they invent the products that got us from the stone age to here, and, if that still is not enough, they provide us all with the jobs we need for our very survival. So, doesn't that make them genuine superhero's, and the Democrats our enemies for painting them as evil cash cows in need of taxation and regulation? You have to suspect something is deeply corrupt about Democrats who, in this election season, have no plans for our rich superheros whatsoever except to tax them still more and thereby make them and everyone else less and less productive and responsible. Democrats are the enemy of freedom and individual liberty. They are employing the perfect strategy to undermine our country, while retaining power for themselves in the ugly process.

4)Democratic Super Delegate Fraud

Democrats exist to buy votes from special interest group sellers, and there are many sellers out there. This time the Party nomination itself has turned into a contest between special interests: women and blacks. Sadly, only one special interest can really win and so there is a dilemma for the Democrats to face: how do you buy votes from all the special interest groups when only one or a few groups can really be paid with the superior status they seek over the others?

Ultimately, we can pray, the special interest groups will see the zero sum Democratic fraud, and switch parties. It's seemingly great, for example, to give old people a $400 Billion drug program, but young people may not think it's so great to pay for it especially when they know there will be no younger generation to pay for them when they are old. It's great to let black kids into Berkeley, but not for the white kids who are then excluded. It's great to create labor unions that drive up wages, but then not so great to be a customer of expensive union products. It's great to let Mexicans in the country but not great when they take your job. It's so caring to raise the minimum wage for those who have jobs, but not so great when it leads to fewer new jobs for those who don't have them. It's great to encourage ethanol production until you have to pay the higher price for it and live with the greater pollution and cost from it. It's great to encourage women to play college sports, but not if you're a man whose team was eliminated even when it attracted 100 times more players and fans. In the Democratic end, every special interest group competes with every other special interest group for limited resources. Every aspect of life becomes political and subject to sale to a few Democratic politicians who are beholden to the highest bidder, not the highest truth, if even it is possible to know truth in such circumstances.

Super delegates are just super Democrats with super special interests. According to the NY Times, "Anthony Corrado , a professor at Colby College, and expert on delegate selection said that, "Republicans had not had the fights that the Democrats periodically have because they do not have as many constituencies to satisfy". Every aspect of Democratic politics is permeated by special interest constituencies that inevitably come into conflict with one another in what ultimately has to be a zero sum game for political power. Civil rights, union, feminist, health care, immigrant, peace, environment, social welfare, and urban/regional super delegates can't all get what they want at the expense of each other by buying politicians who themselves are beholden to particular constituencies to whom they must answer. In the end they are better off devoting their personal energy toward achieving their group's goals without being distracted or lulled to sleep by false promises from the federalist Democrats. They would be better off as Republicans, but who can take the first step when Democrats have accumulated so much power in Washington that the notion of private accomplishment can easily be overshadowed or forgotten? In the end, Republicans expect to see Democrats at war with each other as the logical outcome of their subversive belief in gov't rather than freedom.

5)A New Election Law To Regulate Obamatory (Obama oratory)

Obama has a name for blind, dead, dumb, stupid Republicans: Obamacans. He says they are people who see and appreciate the need to work together across party lines for the common good; in a united country. Isn't that just so egalitarian? But, he doesn't say how it is possible when Republicans believe in freedom and Democrats believe in Gov't? How can you give free health care and not give free health care? How can you fight for freedom in Iraq and not fight for freedom in Iraq? How can you raise taxes and not raise taxes? The only real question here is whether there is more psychopathy or simple ignorance?

Obama delights in pointing out that he shared one million votes with George Bush when he was elected to the Senate; so he knows full well that dumb Republicans are a valuable constituency for him, but is it really honest, especially for such a saintly leader, not to point out that he is simply exploiting their incredible ignorance? Is this the politics of hope or just more gutter politics? Is promising to be everything to everybody, regardless of party, ideology, or special interest group affiliation, honest or more cheap, dirty Democratic politics?

There is no working together with an ideological purest like Obama, unless of course you become as purely leftist as he is. How else would it be possible? Obama is the most ultra pure leftist Senator in America; in fact, according to the National Journal, more leftist than the only avowed socialist in the Senate: Bernie Sanders. Obama is actually, then, the least likely person in all of Washington to unite us, but with tricky lies of omission he is making it work, and making a sad spectacle of himself and our democracy in the process. It works, in part, because much of the MSM shares Obama's socialism, in part because they respect him for being such a successful liar politician, and in part because they are trained to cover the democratic process as a legitimate horse race no matter what the candidates may stand for or how they conduct themselves .

Moreover, if the ever so saintly and honest Obama, who is going to unite us around, only, his pretty perorational words, shouldn't there be a law that the rhetoric at least not be plagiarized? I mean come on, we're going to elect a guy based on the way he reads a script of about 10 words? If he gave details on his programs the way Hillary does who would care about the way he reads his lines or from where they came? But, as long as he has only a few scripted lines, and he refuses to spell out the socialist plan concealed beneath the lines, aren't we at least entitled to know who wrote the psychotropic, cult-like lines that fill stadiums and make Democrats swoon and literally faint on command? Accordingly, in the case of Obama anyway, there should be a new election law so that his speech writers, if any, come clean with their identity and with which of the lines they write. Would such a tiny touch of honesty in some aspect of the Obama campaign really be so inappropriate?

Ted Baiamonte
TheDumbDemocrat
The Intellectual Republican
www. thedumbdemocrat

Popping The Obama Bubble

Now that the Kennedy's have formally anointed Obama with the legend of Camelot we have to wonder if he deserves it, or, if "it" is really anything at all. Firstly, JKF gained mythic proportions only by being assassinated. Before that, he became President by the tiniest of margins; in fact, on the day of his assassination he was in Dallas, not as a legend, but as a struggling politician shoring up his sagging political fortunes there in anticipation of his next difficult election.

Since Kennedy's death we have learned that his personal life, and the national security implication of it, was horrendous; in fact, infinitely more horrendous than the personal life of Bill Clinton, who was, let's not forget, impeached for comparitively benign behavior! Kennedy was so bad that the press, even the opposition press, could not report it because it was deemed too injurious to the well recognized foundational values of American social life that were, apparently, held in great contempt by Kennedy. One of the Kennedy past times, for example, was to hold women under water during extramarital sex so that their panic would heighten his orgasmic pleasure. Nowadays, liberals are so apoplectic about water boarding when for Kennedy it was no big deal, even in the White House?

In the end though our President is the symbol of America, the embodiment of our highest dreams and aspirations, and a reflection of our best selves, or so we like to think. When Kennedy was killed a part of America, then, was killed with him and so to this day we are inclined to keep him as a legend or at least as a member of the family. We do this despite a short, marginal Presidency during which very little was accomplished, except perhaps for the precipitation of the Cuban missile crisis which nearly ended the world in nuclear war because Kennedy had uttered a few wimpy Obamasque statements in Austria that did not incite fear or respect in Khrushchev, in the slightest. If maintaining the legend means overlooking the amazing hypocrisy of his personal life and his political life, we do it to protect him, and at the same time, ourselves.

Additionally, and as importantly, Kennedy and his wife were Hollywood pretty. We know what awe that inexplicably inspires in many Americans. The rare combination of Washington power and Hollywood pretty proved too much for America to resist, at least when clouded over by the wake of an assassination. Will the Obama family really excite us this way in the end? It seems unlikely. We should all be thankful that the embarrassingly, anti-democratic, and Hannah Montana quality of Obama's political campaign can't possibly last. It is no wonder Europeans hold us in contempt for our extreme and odd celebrity worshipping, especially when freedom and individual liberty are supposedly such a part of our character.

When America aspired to great personal values, Kennedy's values had to be kept secret. Today, we have given up on personal values. There are no secrets to be kept. We pass out condoms in the schools knowing that we are too weak or too human to even have standards. Our new standard by default is: Que Sera Sera. We no longer melioristicially create our culture, we merely respond to contingent genetic variables over which we have no control. The obvious downside: a 50% divorce rate, 1.3 million abortions a year, 2.4 million in prison, Hip-Hop culture, failing schools, and 30% of kids in poverty does not disparage or even discourage us at all. We celebrate and embrace the new tragic realism of our lives on The Oprah Winfrey show every day. Hence, in stark contrast to JFK, we learned in real time all the sad details of the great stain maker (Bill Clinton), and of Obama's youthful indiscretions. So how can Teddy and Caroline pass on the legend of Camelot when Camelot existed only fraudulently, and in the wake of an assassination?

It was contemptuous of them to try to pass on the legend, but contempt for people and love of gov't is what Democrats naturally do. It is their stock in trade. Obama inherited a dubious legend, and hopefully, if only out of the boredom that can come with a long campaign, it will slowly become apparent that he is no JFK; primarily because the JFK we imagine now never did exist.

Another problem for Obama is that he is anti-defense while Kennedy had the good sense to run to the political right of Eisenhower and Nixon in a successful effort to trick America into believing that Democrats are not cowardly, anti-American surrender monkeys. Hillary had the good sense, and amorality, to attempt this trick too through all of her pre-Presidential years in the Senate and in the early months of her Presidential campaign, but has since been forced to give it up because the Democratic base just won't stand for defending the America they hate so much. Obama though has stood true, secretly, to his anti-Kennedy principles by offering no foreign policy ideas whatsoever despite 9/11, a urgently deteriorating situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and a precarious but momentarily stable situation in Iraq? The hypocrisy is nearly perfect given that their "Bush derangement syndrome" was caused by the war on terror about which they are now so perfectly silent?

If Kennedy is legendary at all it is as tax cutter, who Republicans site incessantly, while Obama has definite plans to raise taxes in every significant category. How could he pay for all the new programs if not by taxing for all the new programs? All he has to do is make the dumber people feel that gov't programs are free, and make the dumb people feel that they'll pay less than their neighbors for the new programs. If you drill down through his web site long enough you can discover all this too, but of course you'll never hear it on the campaign trail through all the anti-democratic, tribalistic "Fired Up, Yes We Can" poetic chanting.

Another problem for Obama is detailed by the renowned black author, Shelby Steele, who claims Obama can't win because he is a phony black man. He has, according to Steele, the reassuring looks and non confrontational attitudes of a house slave - i.e., someone who is content to live among white people and not create guilt or discomfort with any lingering anger he may have over a few centuries of slavery and racism. Eventually, Steele claims, Americans will see this as phony and demand to know what a future President Obama really thinks and feels before they place the levers of Presidential power in his hands.

After Carl Bernstein wrote his recent, comprehensive biography on Hillary he was asked what her biggest liability would be. He said, "her inauthenticity", and all the world agreed with what was obvious. But now that worry has all but disappeared given that Obama has given new meaning to any conceivable understanding of the word with what has to be the most utterly vacuous, vaporware campaign in modern democratic history; a campaign that has now deteriorated into a personality cult as much as anything else.

Hillary, the perfectly inauthentic and legendary triangulater has now challenged Obama to 5 debates, or at least what passes for debates in modern politics, but Obama has declined because he says. "it is time I could be spending getting to know the people." To Obama, a one second touch across a rope line offered to a few thousand adoring supplicants is far more important than telling millions in a debate what he would do as President. Maybe he figures that after a full two years in the Senate everyone ought to already know what he stands for, or that eveyone ought to remember the previous debates in previous months in previous primaries ?

But, he is a Harvard trained lawyer and lawyers are trained to live in a moral vacuum and to be fully prepared to take any side of any issue, if the money is right, aren't they? So then, perhaps Obama's campaign ought to be one of the lawyerly best ever in that sense? Indeed, it does appear to be breaking new ground in terms of shamelessness, exploitation, and contempt for the masses whom he wishes to deceive and disarm with a fleeting touch across a rope line, and then rule from his condescending socialist pulpit. Obama has the "Audacity Of Hope"(the title of his award winning book) but not the audacity to trust his postulants with the truth about what the most liberal Senator in America will do as President?

Obama presents like earnest kid running for class President, albeit with a mellifluous voice and Ted Sorensen writing his poetic lines. In point of fact, Kennedy did and Obama does rely on Sorensen, who wrote the now famous line, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". The line was absurd when Kennedy, a Democrat, used it, but utterly ridiculous for Obama who has huge plans to, in effect, buy millions and million of votes by fraudulently promising to have his socialist gov't do everything on earth for people who will then be increasingly less inclined to to do anything at all for their country. Conversely, it is Republicans who use government to guarantee the freedom from gov't with which people can do things for themselves and their neighbors and, only secondarily, their country.

Even more sad and tragic is that the more upscale a Democrat is the more likely he is to be attracted to Obama's charismatic "Fired Up, Yes We can" nonsense about hope and change. If there is something positive in smart people demanding nothing but empty inspiration from a candidate, who can imagine what it is? And even worse, independents like Colin Powell, for example, who claim to be above it all, free of petty party loyalty and ideology, and therefore free to pick the best man with the best program, are also herding to Obama? If Hitler, Stalin, Jefferson, and Christ had ideologies and party affiliations that reflected those ideologies, what can it mean to be free of party and ideology anyway, if not to be free of consciousness? This is what the mighty Obama encourages?

Republicans too though are moved by charismatic figures. Just look at the way they adore Ronald Reagan. He is quite clearly the standard bearer of the party and almost worshiped within the inner circle of true believers. It should not be a mystery that people like Bob Dole or Gerald Ford who lacked Reaganesque principles and passions are not easily worshipped for standing in the middle; seemingly too feeble to pick a side. You never know with such people if they are real Americans who believe in the American democratic middle or if they would always be in a cowardly but safe middle no matter what the extremes were. After all, the middle is easy and almost deceptively sensible in 21st Century America, but it seemed easy and sensible too, for many anyway, in 1930's Germany when Nazi and Communist parameters defined the political landscape.

So then, how does a real American think about the intellectually blinding charisma of Reagan and Obama? Firstly, he must realize that Reagan and Obama are exact opposites. Reagan operated in the tradition of the West that started, roughly, with the Magna Carta Libertatum and ended with the US Constitution. Any charisma and power was to be used in that tradition to free people from the power of Kings or other charismatic despots. Reagan sought Federal power to destroy it for future generations so that they might live in freedom. Obama is the exact anti-American, anti-Western opposite. He seeks power for leverage with which to continuously expand a gov't which he and his ideological heirs will regally and charismatically control.

Underneath the charisma is, in fact, the most liberal Senator in America according to the "National Journal." This mostly explains why his campaign in America must be the emptiest in American history. It is simply too disingenuous to promote a charismatic, ever expanding gov't in a free country, even when many have already been subverted by our left wing Democratic Pied Pipers. We can only pray Obama will be exposed over the course of a long campaign; that Democrats and Independents won't see him as another Teutonic Knight, Napoleon or Hitler who they want to sheepishly follow into the promised land of another Russian winter. Tragically, that was what human beings did - before America!
Ted Baiamonte
TheDumbDemocrat
The Intellectual Republican
www. thedumbdemocrat