There's My Two Cents: March 2008

Monday, March 31, 2008

Quickie

Due to a family emergency, I will probably not be blogging much in the next day or so...

James Lewis did an outstanding column last week called 'Whites Can't Make Blacks Happy' about the racism that has been injected into this year's presidential contest. He raises some excellent points, so take a look:

One of the creepy things about our "need to have a conversation about race" is the assumption that whites can somehow make blacks feel better, or be happier, or be more self-accepting. Nobody has the power to do that, except what individuals do for themselves, one person at a time.

Most people don't come close to lasting happiness in their own lives. So the popular Leftist charge of America's "institutional racism" comes down to saying that "The Great White Conspiracy is responsible for rescuing you from your bad feelings." That is just cockeyed.

Far too many black people don't feel good about themselves, and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment. Michelle and Barack Obama were indoctrinated with those toxic beliefs at Princeton and Harvard, so that they are now making more than a million bucks a year, living in a mansion in Chicago while still feeling sorry for themselves. Give me a break. (Michelle Obama's salary increased by almost 200,000 dollars in one year at the University of Chicago. How many people get that kind of raise?)

No doubt the Obamas tell themselves that they are the lucky exceptions, and that they are just identifying with poor blacks, who surely are out there in the hundreds of thousands. But that's just the self-serving generosity of politicians handing out taxpayer money. The Obamas are rich, highly educated, extremely successful professional politicians. They are the darlings of white liberals. Are they anything more than that?

For politicians, voter dissatisfaction is the fuel of personal careers. You can't get anywhere by promising all the answers to people who don't need you. So the first order of business is to find dissatisfied voters, and if they're not there, stir up some dissatisfaction. That's why Obama needed the Rev -- to get him in good with a proletariat, any proletariat, in this case a black one. If Obama had stayed back in Hawaii or Indonesia, he would suddenly have discovered his inner Hawaiian or his authentic Balinese. Now he is "authentically Black," and the Rev guarantees his blackness. That's why Obama can't renounce the Rev. The Rev is his meal ticket.

Now a preacher in America is very much like a politician. He or she has to get the congregation stirred up, at least enough to pay for his upkeep. The Rev Wright is a fantastically successful politician. The Trinity UCC is a family business, and with DVD sales and televangelism it's making a mint. That's why the Rev has to be so provocative --- to keep his congregation clapping and cheering. Obama learned his rhetorical cadences from the Rev, and probably much else besides. It's been one pro teaching another.

The very notion of "whites" versus "blacks" being like so many M&M's in different candy boxes is a purely political creation. Humans are enormously variable. It makes about as much sense to divide people into sports fans versus music lovers, or fatties vs. skinnies. If politicians could get voting mileage from those divisions, the Left would be telling us all about the oppressive conspiracy against the fat, or the persecuted skinnies all over the world. "Divide and conquer" still works like a charm.

If you think that's exaggerated, just look at the famous classroom experiment in which blue-eyed kids are separated from brown-eyed kids, and one of the two groups is told it's better than the other. It really makes the "bad" group feel terrible about themselves. That's how easy it is to stir divisions among people. Give human beings a flag and a baseball cap with a flashy logo, tell them it's their team, and you can manipulate them for life.

Politicians are expert manipulators, and manipulation works best when people don't think they are being manipulated. That's Obama's biggest talent -- to make the suckered masses feel good while playing on them like an old banjo. So far there's no there there at all -- no substantive ideas that make Mr. Obama any more interesting than the standard-issue ultraliberal Democrat. Oh yes, there's the color of his skin. Big deal.

No, it all goes back to the usual race politics of the post-Civil Rights era, which always needs to pick at that old scab of racism, remind blacks of their old injustices, and convince them that white racism is still keeping them down. It's a disgusting political trick, and many blacks are catching on. If a genuinely self-determining black person ever runs for president without the usual race games, I'll vote for him or her in a minute.

Let a black man say it -- as so many already have, without media support and coverage. Larry Elder's "personal pledge" is one great example. This is the real key to black liberation, just as it has been the key to all the oppressed and persecuted people who rose from poverty and low self-esteem in America.

1. There is no excuse for lack of effort.

2. Although I may be unhappy with my circumstances, and although racism and sexism and other "isms" exist, I know that things are better now than ever, and the future is even brighter.
3. While I may be unhappy with my circumstances, I have the power to change and improve my life. I refuse to be a victim.

4. Others may have been blessed with more money, better connections, a better home environment, and even better looks, but I can succeed through hard work, perseverance, and education.
I'll vote for that.

This is such an accurate prescription for the ills of racism that it should be obvious to anyone who bothers to actually think about it. Unfortunately, liberals have become very good at employing brute force emotional stimulus to perpetuate untruths to the point where they begin to be viewed as truths. In this case, we're talking about the untruth that racism is rampant in America. The truth is that the majority of the racism in America today has its home thoroughly rooted in the very same Left (used purely as a divider of people to obtain power). Most normal Americans are not racist; if anything, we can see that many whites will actually give the benefit of the doubt to blacks simply to make up for the actual racism of the past. Lewis gets this, and explains it well.

Something that really bothers me is the obvious double standard that we hear quite a lot without understanding it. It's not okay to vote against someone purely because they're black - that would be racist, wouldn't it? Well, then why should anyone be expected to for someone purely because they're black? Is that not racism, too? I'm amazed and disappointed that so many blacks appear to be supporting Obama simply because he's black rather than because they agree with his policies. At the end of the day, that's what it all comes down to - the policies and goals of the person, not the color of the person's skin. It is the policies which will affect you, your family, your pocketbook, and your safety. The color of the President's skin means absolutely nothing. And yet, for many people, it's the other way around.

One more thing I'd like to point out - Lewis' solution. Look at it again. It's all about taking personal responsibility for one's own actions and accomplishments (those of you who are regular readers can probably figure out where I'm going with this now). That bit about responsibility is the key philosophy in conservatism! If you want to eliminate racism (and the perception of racism), you need to embrace conservatism, which looks not at demographics and categories, but at personal responsibility and positive reinforcement of individual achievements. This is another example of what I mean when I say that most Americans live conservatively even if they don't acknowledge it in a political sense. I believe most Americans do look past the color of the skin and focus on what the person has done. That, my friends, is conservative philosophy in action.

So, in reality, minorities should be flocking to conservatives in droves (the fact that there aren't enough of them is another problem entirely). Those minorities who have not realized this are not stopping to think about it; sadly they are too dependent upon those in power who consistently give them crumbs to take the reigns of their own lives themselves and go get the whole cookie. That's the true savagery of this liberally pushed perception of racism: the philosophy that could change their lives is ironically the one that is demonized for ruining it.

There's my two cents.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Link Roundup

Hello - I hope you all had a great weekend! Here's a busy link roundup to get your new week started.

On the home front:

War on Terror:

Election news:

Around the world:

Have a great week!

Friday, March 28, 2008

Fun & Frivolity: Can We Say...Oops?

Two more appropriate situations for using the word 'oops' have never been seen...

DUBLIN (Reuters) - Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary's famed acumen and self-confidence briefly deserted him when he failed to back his own horse Hear The Echo to win the Irish Grand National at odds of 33-1.

The outsider ridden by Paddy Flood and trained by Michael 'Mouse' Morris easily knocked 6-1 favorite Royal County Star into second place at Ireland's top steeplechase on Monday.

"We had no money on him," The Irish Times newspaper quoted O'Leary as saying.

"I thought he was going out for a run to keep himself warm," said O'Leary, whose Gigginstown House Stud produced 2006 Cheltenham Gold Cup winner War of Attrition.

At least he got the prize of 250,000 Euros to console him.

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - A war on gophers waged by two Canadian men went awry this weekend when a device used to blast the rodents in their holes sparked a massive grass fire in a rural area near Calgary, Alberta, causing more than C$200,000 ($197,000) in damages.

Despite a ban on fires in the tinder-dry area of Springbank, just northeast of Calgary's city limits, two men went into a field to kill gophers using a device called a Rodenator, fire officials said on Monday.

The device pumps a mixture of propane and oxygen into gopher holes, which is then ignited, and, according to the manufacturer's Web site, the resulting blast creates a shock wave that kills the gopher and collapses its tunnel system.

"We had a couple of acreage owners out taking care of their rodent problem with this device," said Captain Joe Garssi of the municipal district of Rocky View's fire department.

"They did a few holes successfully and then hit a hole that didn't go in very far. When they filled it with propane it over-filled the hole...and when they ignited it (fire) flashed out of the hole into the grass beside them."

The resulting grass fire scorched about 160 acres of surrounding property and destroyed a number of outbuildings. No homes were damaged.

"The way I look at it, it's 'humans eight, gophers one'." Garssi said, as the two men destroyed about eight of the rodents before sparking the blaze.

I suppose that's one way to look at it!

Have a great weekend!

Aid To Katrina

Oh, this is beautiful!

The National Post has a story about who helped the victims the most in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It's no surprise that it wasn't the government, but liberals everywhere will be greatly dismayed to know that their favorite punching bag, Wal-Mart, was a true hero of the disaster. Take a look at some telling excerpts:

Shortly before Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast on the morning of Aug. 29, 2005, the chief executive officer of Wal-Mart, Lee Scott, gathered his subordinates and ordered a memorandum sent to every single regional and store manager in the imperiled area. His words were not especially exalted, but they ought to be mounted and framed on the wall of every chain retailer -- and remembered as American business's answer to the pre-battle oratory of George S. Patton or Henry V.

"A lot of you are going to have to make decisions above your level," was Scott's message to his people. "Make the best decision that you can with the information that's available to you at the time, and above all, do the right thing."

This extraordinary delegation of authority -- essentially promising unlimited support for the decision-making of employees who were earning, in many cases, less than $100,000 a year -- saved countless lives in the ensuing chaos.

In Kenner, La., an employee crashed a forklift through a warehouse door to get water for a nursing home. A Marrero, La., store served as a barracks for cops whose homes had been submerged. In Waveland, Miss., an assistant manager who could not reach her superiors had a bulldozer driven through the store to retrieve disaster necessities for community use, and broke into a locked pharmacy closet to obtain medicine for the local hospital.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart trucks pre-loaded with emergency supplies at regional depots were among the first on the scene wherever refugees were being gathered by officialdom. Their main challenge, in many cases, was running a gauntlet of FEMA officials who didn't want to let them through. As the president of the brutalized Jefferson Parish put it in a Sept. 4 Meet the Press interview, speaking at the height of nationwide despair over FEMA's confused response: "If [the U.S.] government would have responded like Wal-Mart has responded, we wouldn't be in this crisis."

This benevolent improvisation contradicts everything we have been taught about Wal-Mart by labour unions and the "small-is-beautiful" left. We are told that the company thinks of its store management as a collection of cheap, brainwash-able replacement parts; that its homogenizing culture makes it incapable of serving local communities; that a sparrow cannot fall in Wal-Mart parking lot without orders from Arkansas; that the chain puts profits over people. The actual view of the company, verifiable from its disaster-response procedures, is that you can't make profits without people living in healthy communities. And it's not alone: As Horwitz points out, other big-box companies such as Home Depot and Lowe's set aside the short-term balance sheet when Katrina hit and acted to save homes and lives, handing out millions of dollars' worth of inventory for free.

In addition to the local stores having greater incentive to help the local people (because they knew them and lived with them), one reason for the success of these huge stores' efforts is their decentralized command structure (as indicated by Scott's message). For example, the Coast Guard performed well in the aftermath of Katrina because it leaves a great deal of authority to the individual commanders, who knew the location and were able to make correct decisions on the spot.

This is a fantastic illustration of several things that I want to point out. First, Wal-Mart is not the source of evil in the modern world. Second, it is not filled with brain-dead losers who can't think for themselves - quite the opposite, as those store managers made tough decisions that cost the company money but saved lives. They did the right thing - that's true leadership! Third, this decentralization effect is just one more reason why we don't want an all-powerful federal government. They screwed it up, the local people didn't. The more we rely on the state and local levels of government rather than the federal level, the better off we'll all be.

Especially in times of disaster, when speed and effectiveness is needed most.

There's my two cents.

The 100-Year Lie

I'm sure you've probably heard it:

"John McCain wants to fight the war in Iraq for 100 years!"

Quite predictably, that line from a bunch of Democrats is a deliberate twisting of McCain's actual statement. Charles Krauthammer destroys the Lefties who rely on this mantra to undermine McCain's strength on national security:

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.
Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.
The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq War, McPeak (a war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)
Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.
As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point -- it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.
Alternatively, one might advocate simply bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk, albeit at the sacrifice of some power projection. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.
But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'"
The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:
-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).
-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).
Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).
As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.
Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."
The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."
The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.

Krauthammer is exactly right: this is a blatant lie perpetrated by Democrats who have no understanding -- or perhaps acknowledgment -- of either the war in Iraq or history itself. You'll hear this even more as we draw closer to the general election in November. I just hope McCain will calmly accept every accusation incident as an opportunity to explain what he actually said and to put it into the proper context. This could end up being a fantastic opportunity to not only clarify his position on a key issue, but also to reveal the Democrats for the lying shills they are...IF he does it right.

There's my two cents.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road

George Will writes a very revealing column at RealClearPolitics.com that I think is important to share (given my constant chanting about the differences between liberalism and conservatism). Though liberals are almost always the loudest advocates of the 'poor', their actions don't back up their rhetoric:

Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

Three words: more liberal hypocrisy.

There's my two cents.

Homeschooling Battle Continues

Newt Gingrich writes about the recent decision that homeschooling children in California is illegal. He suggests that this is another example of liberal special interest groups "using the courts to get what they can't get through the ballot box". This effort to criminalize homeschooling should disturb all Americans for the simple fact that it restricts freedom and takes control away from parents (and into the hands of the state). The reality is, too, that "[h]omeschooled children dominate academic competitions and get superior scores on standardized tests. They excel at all the things compulsory education laws are meant to promote, such as school attendance, academics and civic education." Homeschoolers consistently show up students from public schools -- which are also the brainwashing centers of liberalism -- which is why teachers unions and other Left-leaning folks generally hate it so much.

The good news is that there's something you can do about these efforts to kill homeschooling. Go here to check out just one organization that is getting involved. You can also become active in your local area and by calling your state representatives.

Fortunately, it appears that the California ruling is being reviewed by a state appeals court, but the overall effort by teachers unions and other Leftists continues.

HOWEVER, I believe I have found the solution, and it involves another very amusing contradiction of liberalism. I think we can all agree that most families who homeschool their children do so for religious reasons, right? In fact, in elitist circles, I think homeschoolers are usually viewed as backwoods, redneck, Christian hicks, are they not? Well, last I knew we had this little thing called freedom of religion, so all that needs to be done is to keep the playing field equal - as long as it's okay for one faith to homeschool due to religious reasons, it should be okay for any other faith to do so. Simple, right? Well, then sink your mental teeth into this New York Times story about how many Muslims homeschool their children because they don't want to mix with American society for...wait for it...religious reasons! Now, we all know that liberals will fall all over themselves to accommodate Muslims on just about anything, so logically this should be a simple matter of piggy-backing the freedom for Christians to homeschool on the backs of the Muslims' desire to do so.

Bingo!

Boy, it must stink to be a liberal and have to decide if pandering to Muslims is more preferable than allowing Christians the freedom to homeschool and whup their precious 'educational' brainwashing system!

There's my two cents.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Link Roundup

Today's link roundup has a ton of good stuff in it. Check it out!

On the home front:

War on Terror:

Election news:

Around the world:

Now you're caught up. Happy Thursday!

Think It's Not Hurting?

If you think that all this internal slashing and burning between Clinton and Obama isn't hurting, just take a look at the poll numbers. Rasmussen, in particular, shows that McCain is 10 points ahead of both Democrats nationally now. Another item of note is the fact that we are now seeing the highest confidence levels in the War on Terror since 2004. I think it's interesting that 73% of Republicans believe we're winning as opposed to only 30% of Democrats, but that's not really surprising at all, both because of the constant anti-war drumbeat of the Democrats and because of the general pessimism that infects the Democrat party (at least when Republicans are in positions of power).

If nothing else, the constant fighting has surely led to an overall drop in poll numbers for the Dems, as well as an increase for McCain. Looking at the RealClearPolitics.com average poll (which considers six major individual polls), McCain is edging out both Democrats across the nation. If you look at the charts, you can see a definite drop for both Dems (or you could look at it as a definite rise for McCain) in December which has continued pretty consistently until now. Perhaps most significantly, look at the following favorable/unfavorable ratings all three candidates according to Rasmussen:

	Favorable	Unfavorable
McCain	56%	41%
Clinton	44%	54%
Obama	46%	52%

It's simply unrealistic to think that the constant bashing of both Democrats (by each other) has not contributed to the fact that more people dislike both of them than actually like both of them. This trend seems to bear out Rush Limbaugh's theory of causing as much chaos in the Democrat party for as long as possible. We've also seen the numbers of Democrat defectors saying they'll vote for McCain if their preferred Dem candidate doesn't secure the nomination. Add all these things together, and you have a lot of bridge-mending ahead of the eventual Democrat nominee, especially when you consider nothing will be resolved before June at the Democrat convention (which should be quite a fireworks display all by itself).

All of this is also opening the door to some quiet suggestions of Al Gore stepping in to 'save the party' at the convention. Whether he would even accept such a request is still complete speculation, but some are floating the notion of a Gore-Obama ticket. While it should be easy for a strong, bold conservative to destroy the platform of such a ticket and run away with the election, McCain is anything but a strong, bold conservative, so Gore-Obama could be formidable, at least in the PR sense.

I have no doubt, however, that once the MSM focuses on McCain, any potential lead will quickly evaporate, but the further ahead he is when that happens, the better his chances are of actually winning the White House. Of course, given his own base's reluctance to support him, I still think it's an uphill battle for McCain.

Anyway, these numbers are, at this point, just that - numbers. It will come down to the actual voting to really determine things, but it's interesting to watch political cannibalism in action, isn't it?

There's my two cents.

Several Stories With Mini-Comments

I've been hanging onto several smaller stories that I wanted to comment on a little bit without doing a whole write-up. It's important stuff, though, so I didn't want to let them slide by...

Border fence sunset
Michelle Malkin reports on an alert from Grassfire.org that the fence-gutting provision in the spending bill passed just before Christmas sunsets the authorization of the Department of Homeland Security to build a border fence on 12/31/08. So, not only are all three presidential candidates in favor of open borders, but there will no longer be any legal authorization to build the fence as of the first of 2009!

This is just one more bit of proof that our entire government (both parties) have waaaay too many people who are blatant open-borders schlocks willing to give away the country. I got a blast e-mail last night from NumbersUSA with an update on the SAVE Act that Pelosi has stalled in the House. There are now 181 Representatives who have signed onto the discharge petition to force a vote on the SAVE Act, which would accomplish real immigration reform. The story above is more evidence that we need to keep pushing NOW while we have momentum and a real bipartisan bill that would truly help. Call or e-mail your Rep and encourage them to sign the discharge petition (if they haven't already), and to pressure Pelosi to let a vote go forward on the SAVE Act. You can make a difference - our leaders certainly aren't doing it.

Petition for Flight 93 memorial
This is one of those things that I still can't believe is real, even after following it for a while. The short version is that there is a significant effort underway to honor the terrorists who killed everyone aboard Flight 93 on 9/11. As unreal as it sounds, go check out this link and see for yourself what the planners of this memorial have done to twist it into something mocking the true victims. There is also a petition you can sign to get them to join us in the real world of post-9/11.

Mexican trucks not being inspected
Remember a few months ago when there was a big flap about Mexican trucking companies being allowed into the U.S. according to the NAFTA superhighway? The opposition said that to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S. would be very bad in several ways - they have worse emissions, they posed safety concerns, they could cost American trucking jobs, and the obvious DUH factor of being conduits for even more illegal immigration. The supporters (the Bush administration included) bought just enough wiggle room to allow the plan forward by saying they'd make sure that strenuous inspections were conducted to address all of those things. Guess what? It didn't happen. Once again, the government promises immigration control and utterly fails to follow through. Call your Rep, your Senators, and the White House and demand accountability.

Palestine and Tibet
Dennis Prager writes about why Palestine gets so much more press than Tibet. Tibet is at least 1,400 years old, is one of the world's oldest nations, has its own language, its own religion and even its own ethnicity. Over 1 million of its people have been killed by the Chinese, its culture has been systematically obliterated, 6,000 of its 6,200 monasteries have been looted and destroyed, and most of its monks have been tortured, murdered or exiled. By contrast, there has never been a Palestinian country, never been a Palestinian language, never been a Palestinian ethnicity, never been a Palestinian religion in any way distinct from Islam elsewhere. Compared to Tibetans, few Palestinians have been killed, its culture has not been destroyed nor its mosques looted or plundered, and Palestinians have received billions of dollars from the international community. Unlike the dying Tibetan nation, there are far more Palestinians today than when Israel was created. The question is: why the difference? Prager says:
1. terrorism: Palestinian leaders decided murdering Jews was a great way to get attention. Tibet is almost completely pacifist.
2. oil: Palestine is supported by rich, oil-producing Arab states. Tibet is poor, with virtually no support.
3. Jews: much of Palestine's support comes from states that share their hatred of Jews.
4. China: Tibet's oppressors are not white Westerners, so the world looks the other way.
5. the Left: the Left has also always hated Israel.
6. the U.N.: the U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other nation while overlooking true genocides like Darfur and Tibet.
7. TV news: China allows virtually no TV news, so no video means no story.

Prager illustrates that Palestine and Tibet are totally different situations, and yet, the world babies Palestine and ignores Tibet. Hopefully something will change with China's high-profile from the upcoming Olympics.

Even outside the Tibet atrocities, China's human rights and equality record is abysmal, and the Olympics are likely to underscore that to the world.

Democrats and Iraq
The Editors of NRO caution the Democrats as relying on the war in Iraq as a nail in the coffin of the Republican party in November. Not only are they intentionally distorting McCain's statements about being in Iraq for 100 years (he meant that we'd have troops there as we do in other allies like Germany and Japan, decades after we beat them) into a longing for a 100-year long war, they are also critically misreading the situation. Though many Americans are tired of the war, it is clear public opinion is shifting into the positive end of the spectrum. If the Democrats play this card, they need to be careful: "[W]e suspect the public still prefers winning a war to losing one."

This is a very, very good point. The Democrats are hanging on to this anti-war schtick desperately because to let go of it would be to admit they were wrong about it (and Bush was right). Combined with an emphasis on the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, this could be a disastrous issue for the Democrats...IF McCain harnesses it correctly.

Another Reason Dems Aren't Qualified To Lead

Rick Moran writes an appropriately titled article at American Thinker called 'Three Blind Mice' that describes more details of the three Democrat Congressmen who took a trip to Iraq on Saddam Hussein's dime. A summary of the incident:

Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

The three anti-war Democrats made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. While traveling, they called for a diplomatic solution. Prosecutors say that trip was arranged by Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a Michigan charity official, who was charged Wednesday with setting up the junket at the behest of Saddam's regime. Iraqi intelligence officials allegedly paid for the trip through an intermediary and rewarded Al-Hanooti with 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil.

The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators "have no information whatsoever" any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.

Moran suggests that even if these guys can't be called unpatriotic, they should certainly be called 'monumentally dense'. Personally, I would say they're both.

[T]his entire incident will be brushed off as a "non-story." After all, how could they possibly have known that an enemy of America was using them for his own propoganda purposes?

He then references some digging from The Standard as the answer to that question:

McDermott didn't backpedal at all: "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation. . . . It would not surprise me if they came out with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it. First they said it was al-Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back to and saying it's al Qaeda again." When Stephanopoulos pressed McDermott about whether he had any evidence that Bush had lied, the congressman replied, "I think the president would mislead the American people."

An American official floating unsubstantiated allegations against an American president during a visit to Baghdad would be troubling enough. But McDermott compounded his problem by insisting, despite its twelve years of verifiable prevarication, that the Iraqi regime should be given the benefit of the doubt on inspections and disarmament. Said McDermott on "This Week": "I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value."

Moran concludes:

It takes a special kind of idiot to take the Iraqis "at their face value." But the run of the mill stupidity of these three Congressmen in being so incurious about the source of the money they received that got them to Baghdad on the eve of a war should make them either a laughingstock or demonstrably unfit to serve in Congress.

There will be no reckoning over this revelation. It will just go in the books as one more example of why the Democrats as a party cannot be trusted with running the national security apparatus of the United States.

That's got to be one of the biggest understatements of the year!

There's my two cents.

Obama's Plan To Federalize Education

Wow, as if federalized, socialist (i.e. universal) health care wasn't bad enough...!

Lee Cary reports on Barack Obama's plan to federalize our entire educational system. If you thought the NEA and the far-Left agenda constantly pushed in today's education system is bad, just wait until Obama takes a whack at it! Excerpts:

When commentators accuse Obama of trafficking only in vapid bromides it means they've not read his campaign materials. The ethereal vagaries of his pep-rally speeches given on past election nights do not convey the full scope of his plans for federal social activism. Those are only spelled out in his written campaign materials. And reading them can be like wading through a room waist-deep in peanut butter. But they do reveal his domestic agenda.

Nearly all of the various programs summarized below will involve additional federal dollars poured into the vast and dynamic education industry, the Democratic Party's most powerful interest group. When you see the word "encourage" in the same phrase as "federal" or "policy", grab your pocketbook, because they want to spend your tax money.

Not just school boards, but consultants, testing companies, publishers, schools of education and a vast universe of other service-providers stand ready to reap more billions. Every time you "address" a problem you have to have studies, conferences, boards, consultants, facilitators, meeting planners, and on and on. That's just to get started, before anything is actually decided, much less created. Education is big business. Plenty of well-paying jobs, in and outside the schools. It will surprise no one that Obama is looking for "new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay".

You might want to scan through the litany of proposals that comprise much of his education plan, just to gauge the scope of his intentions:

Zero-Five Plan

Early Learning Challenge: Early care and educational programs for pregnant women and children from birth to age five to address gaps in services and enhance quality programs that serve all young children.
Early Head Start: Quadruple funding and improve quality; $250 million dedicated funds to create or expand regional training centers.

Voluntary, Universal Pre-School: Provide funding to accelerate the trend toward voluntary, universal pre-school for all.
Child Care Development Block Grant Program: Increase funding that remained unchanged under the Bush administration.

Child Care Quality: Double resources within the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program to develop quality-rating systems for child care that reflect higher standards and supports for teacher training and professional development, improving student/teacher ratios, providing family support in child care settings, and increasing professional development and teacher training.
Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs: Expand programs to all low-income, first-time mothers, assisting approximately 570,000 first time mothers each year.

Presidential Early Learning Council: Encourage dialogue among programs at federal and state levels, and within the private and nonprofit sectors, to collect and disseminate the most valid and up-to-date research on early learning.

Transform the Teaching Profession

Teacher Service Scholarships: Pays for four years of undergraduate teacher education or two years of post-graduate in return for four years of teaching service.
All Schools Accredited: [What will be the impact on home schoolers and charter schools?]
Teacher Residency Program: Obama will supply 30,000 exceptionally well-prepared recruits to what eduspeak calls high-need schools.

Career Ladder Initiatives: Expanded teacher mentoring programs will pair experienced teachers with new recruits and provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices. These initiatives will provide federal resources to states and districts to help create mentoring programs. Obama will provide $1 billion in funding to create mentoring programs and reward veteran teachers for becoming mentors.
Reward Teachers: Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay. To be developed with teachers, not imposed on them.

Middle School Intervention Strategies: Provide funding to school districts to invest in interventional strategies in middle schools such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
STEP UP Plan: Addresses achievement gap by supporting summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged children.
Professional Development Schools: Obama will provide $100 million to stimulate teacher education reforms built on school university partnerships.

State Leadership Academies: Obama will provide funding for academies to enable principals to develop the sophisticated skills they need and provide ongoing financial support. Obama's plan will also support research about the effectiveness of various approaches to principal training.

Helping At-Risk Children Succeed in School

Additional Learning Time: Obama will create a $200 million grant program for states and district that want to provide additional learning time for students in need.
The Success in the Middle Act: This legislation, sponsored by Obama, would provide federal support to improve the education of middle grades students in low-performing schools. It requires states to develop a detailed plan to improve student improvement.

Redesigned Schools
Reorganization: Obama will support federal efforts to continue to encourage schools to organize themselves for greater success by developing stronger relationships among adults and students, a more engaging curriculum, more adaptive teaching, and more opportunities for teachers to plan and learn together.
Competitive Grants to Help Students Graduate: Offers grants to existing or proposed public/private partnerships entities that are partnerships or entitles pursuing evidence-based models that work.
Positive Behavior Support: Obama will promote a more effective and just method of addressing behavioral problems in school.
R&D Programs for Improving Science Education: Obama will double our investment in early education and educational R&D by the end of his first term. Part of this funding will go toward improving science education.

Expanding After-school Opportunities

Expanding 21^st Century Learning Centers Program: Obama will double funding for this main federal support for after-school programs to serve one million more children each year.

[For more, read the Blueprint and linked documents.]

Not all of these things are necessarily bad, but taken collectively, this is a massive government takeover of American education. Cary suggests that Obama sees the state as the instrument to fix all of America's woes, and applying social engineering to transform the entire educational system will be one of his best tools to do that.

How much more control are we going to give the government? If Obama has his way, we'll attend government-controlled pre-school (after, of course, government-controlled daycare), government-controlled kindergarten, government-controlled elementary school, government-controlled high school, and end with flaming liberal socialist colleges. All the while, we'll have government-controlled health care, where some nameless bureaucrat decides whether you can get medicine, surgery, or treatment for anything that happens to you while your taxes shoot through the roof to pay for all of these 'free' universal services.

Obama is a complete and total disaster waiting to happen. It's no wonder our international enemies support him - he'll destroy our country even more thoroughly than they ever could!

There's my two cents.

Election Thoughts

Here are several stories of election analysis that I wanted to pass along to you. First, the Wall Street Journal reports on how the world is just as split over Obama and Clinton as the Democrat party is. Obama carries Africans and Europeans, as well as Middle Easterners; Clinton carries Mexicans and Chinese.

This is the most useless article I've ever heard.

Who cares what people around the world think? They're not allowed to vote! Of course, plenty of illegal aliens vote anyway, and plenty of rich foreigners exert way too much influence through their campaign contributions, but when it comes to an actual vote, they don't count. This is an American election, after all...

In an article with far more substance, Thomas Sowell writes about the audacity of Obama's rhetoric. Excerpts:

Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.

In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.

Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.

The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.
While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.

Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.

This is the danger in Wright's message: not for whites, but for blacks, who absorb it and believe it whole-heartedly. After listening to Wright's hate-speech for 20 years, Obama seems to have absorbed plenty of it himself.

American Thinker posts an article by Bookworm that delves into Obama's messianic schtick. Excerpts:

To those who worship at his shrine, though, there is nothing ordinary about him. To them, he is the embodiment of all virtues.

The real fawning comes in the way people describe their emotional reactions to this former unknown from Illinois. Take the example of Chris Matthews, an MSNBC talking head whom one might naively credit with a little bit of professional objectivity. After hearing one of Obama's speeches, Matthews giddily said "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

And then there's the fainting: At speech after speech, it seems, ladies swoon merely from being in his presence. There hasn't been this orgy of public fainting since Frank Sinatra or, perhaps, the Beatles.

One might dismiss all of this as the ravings of a celebrity culture, trained to become hysterical in the presence of fame, were it not for the vaguely religious note that keeps appearing when political commentators start writing about him. Andrew Sullivan, a devout Obama supporter, after admitting that Obama has little going for him in terms of such practical matters as experience or knowledge, nevertheless describes the meaning of his candidacy in shamanistic tones.

This kind of soft, worshipful rhetoric is typical for those endorsing Obama. Deprived of a candidate who has actual done anything or even stood for anything, they fall back on emotion-laden platitudes that place Obama on a level above that of ordinary mortals. Already a year ago David Ehrenstein was assuring all of us that Obama can be seen as the "magic negro," capable of functioning as a benign black figure who will make whites feel good about themselves.

Given how rich white liberals have flocked to Obama's banner, it's clear that Ehrenstein was on to something there. It's too bad that Obama's benignity was shot to pieces with the revelation that his "spiritual mentor," long-term pastor and political advisor, Jeremiah Wright, was a racist crackpot, whom Obama revered, ignored or tolerated, depending on which version of the truth Obama feels like spreading around on any given day.

As [indicated by campaign pictures], Obama is no longer an ordinary mortal. Instead, he has been elevated to a symbolic level, where his name is unnecessary (we all know it, don't we?), his goal is unmentioned (I think he's above petty politics), and his qualifications are irrelevant (good thing, too, since he doesn't have any). Instead, all that's left is his almost superhuman visage, which is allied with one magical word: "change." The political poster has been transformed from advertisement to iconography.

For many months now, I've been inclined to slough all of this messiah-shtick stuff off, attributing it to those liberal fans who operate from a strong emotional base that manages to side step reason. Reason, of course, would point out that his politics are indistinguishable from other ultra liberal Democrats and his experience minimal. As Geraldine Ferraro was tacky enough to point out -- how un-Democratic of her -- the only pragmatic advantage he has over other like-minded candidates is his skin color.

Obama's recent race speech, however, indicates that Obama is beginning to believe his own publicity.

Not only have his followers been suckered into his savior-like appeal, but so has he. And that suits him just fine. As Heavy-Handed Politics quotes Sowell, Obama will use these useful idiots as long as possible, all the way to the White House [emphasis mine]:

Did Senator Barack Obama’s speech in Philadelphia convince people that he is still a viable candidate to be President of the United States, despite the adverse reactions to statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright? The polls and the primaries will answer that question. The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it? Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination a year ago. Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead... Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe. Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech—a theatrical masterpiece—will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now ‘move on,’ even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory. Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the ‘useful idiots’ useful.

But all is not rosy in Obama-land. As the Democrats continue to slug it out, McCain continues to benefit. According to a recent Gallup poll, if Clinton goes up against McCain in the general election, 19% of Democrats say they would vote for McCain instead. Similarly, if Obama goes up against McCain in the general election, 28% of Democrats say they would vote for McCain.

While it's impossible to tell how many would actually go through with the defection, these stats have got to be extremely disturbing for Democrat leaders, who have been boasting about a victory since 2006. We'll see how it actually pans out, but this is a sign of deep divisions within the party which, if allowed to fester, could really hurt the party in November.

Of course, McCain is having serious difficulties of his own, gaining little traction with evangelicals, one of the biggest core constituencies of the Republican party. Joel Rosenberg reports on a poll of likely Christian voters that McCain is losing badly to both Clinton and Obama. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a man with almost 10 million weekly listeners, has said publicly that he could never vote for McCain:

The Republican party, Dobson recently warned, “seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the ‘Gang of 14’ to preserve filibusters, and who has a legendary temper and who often uses foul and obscene language.

Rosenberg suggests that a couple ways McCain could regain the trust of this key group would be to emphasize the bigger common enemy of Islamic terrorism and to pull out the stops in support of Israel; McCain's recent trip there could be a first step in that process.

Again, only time will tell us how all of these factors will balance each other out. But, it is clear -- as I have said before -- that conservatives really don't have any good options. As Dobson said: "Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime.”

I agree.

There's my two cents.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Life Is Tough For The Obamas!

For all the talk from Barack and Michelle Obama about how horrible life is in America, things sure have been pretty sweet for them. Add to that the fact that Obama's policies are straight out of the socialism playbook (and therefore anti-capitalism), and you'd think that capitalism would have treated them a bit rougher. But take a look at the facts before you start thinking they can actually sympathize with normal Americans.

Michelle Malkin examines the Obamas' recently released tax returns (this release is a normal procedure for people running for President). Here's how the evils of capitalism and the horrendousness of America has treated the two of them: with a 2006 total income of almost $1 million and a 2005 total income of around $1.7 million. This is not only from high-priced salaries, but also from book sales of Obama's two best-sellers.

Isn't life awful in America?

Byron York has more details about their trials and travails here:

Something else that strikes me about the returns is their relation to Michelle Obama's tales of her and her husband's struggle. When I saw Mrs. Obama at an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio last month, she was telling a group of low-income women — the median household income in the county in which Zanesville is located was $37,192 in 2004, well below the state and national medians — about how hard it can be to keep things together. Her talk often touched on money. "I know we're spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth," she told the women of her own household expenses. "And summer programs. That's the other huge cost. Barack is saying, 'Whyyyyyy are we spending that?' And I'm saying, 'Do you know what summer camp costs?'" The women nodded in agreement, although the Obamas were spending what amounted to nearly a third of a Zanesville resident's annual income on piano and dance lessons.

To show just how much she understood the plight of these women, she spoke a bit about her own history:

"Barack and I were in that position," she continues. "The only reason we're not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books… It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids." A former attorney with the white-shoe Chicago firm of Sidley & Austin, Obama explains that she and her husband made the choice to give up lucrative jobs in favor of community service. "We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she tells the women. "Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond." Faced with that reality, she adds, "many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management."

I suppose one would feel pretty good about encouraging others to go into low-paying helping professions when one has multiple millions like the Obamas. But did she take her own advice before those huge paydays with the books? York answers that question:

And now we have the tax returns from some of those struggling years. We all know that the Obamas did well in 2005 and 2006, when Barack Obama's books were selling and the University of Chicago gave Michelle Obama an unusually large raise, from $121,910 in 2004 to 316,962 in 2005. In those years, according to the tax returns, the Obamas' adjusted gross income was $983,826 in 2006 and $1,655,106 in 2005. But now we see that the Obamas managed to scrape by in the years before that, as well. The returns show them with an adjusted gross income of $207,647 in 2004, the year Barack Obama spent running for the Senate. Their adjusted gross income was $238,327 in 2003. It was $259,394 in 2002; $272,759 in 2001; and $240,505 in 2000.

Do you really think they can empathize with people earning an annual salary that's one fourth of their monthly income?!

Hypocrites!

This is just another example of how liberals believe in one set of rules for them, and another for you, the peons out in the real world. They don't need your input, and they don't really care about your petty little trials - they know what's best for you because they're better than you because they have more education and money than you. All you need to do is just trust them to give you whatever you need...

The Obamas should be an example of the greatness of capitalism and American freedom, but instead they are choosing to use their significant accomplishments to further the racial and economic discrepancies in this country for their own personal gain...regardless of the cost to you, the American citizen.

There's my two cents.

***UPDATE***
Bloomberg looks at the Obamas' charitable giving. From 2000-2004, they contributed less than 1% of their income. When the book sales took off, they increased their giving to about 5%. Given that most rich people give around 2.2% of their income, I suppose this isn't bad, at least not in the last couple years. Still, I read this and think that if my family -- which makes a very vanilla middle-class income -- can scrounge up around 10% of our income for charitable giving, surely someone making six or seven figures could manage the same, couldn't they? For all his generosity with your tax dollars, he isn't nearly as giving with his own money.

Interpret that however you want.