Tortuous

Today for your delectation, I offer the coherent tirade Andrew Sullivan (an ex-conservative who has moved leftward...and leftfield) who writes an open letter to "Dear President Bush" . It's a four page rant in which you could easily ignore pages 2-3, but encapsulates the (still!!?!) current rage against Dubya as exhibited by most of the mainstream media and about 53% of Americans.

The timing of this column is to provide support for the Obama administration's imminent prosecution of CIA officials and interrogators who were doing their job. More on that later.

"In long wars of ideas, moral integrity is essential to winning, and framing the moral contrast between the West and its enemies as starkly as possible is indispensable to victory, as it was in the Second World War and the Cold War."

There is a well established school of thought that suggests that the moral high-ground is THE only place from which a war can be won, justly, thus the comparison to the greatest ideological battles fought in the 20th century against the default evil of Nazism and the still not dead bad-guy of Communism. Here, the moral high ground was aparently not hard to see (although not so obvious to Charles Lindberg, King Edward VIII of England, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg , Obama's friend William Ayers, etc, etc..) The problem I have with the position: "If we don't have the moral high ground, what do we have?" is what use is the moral high ground if you're dead?

Perhaps the reason this position is logically untenable, is that if you look at diaspora of Western society as a whole including old and new immigrant groups, we are constantly told that no one culture or value set is superior to any other (a notion I explicitly deny). So if there is no one set of morals, or absolute values that is the "correct" way to live, then how can you claim any moral high ground if there is no 'ground'?

"I have come to accept that it would be too damaging and polarizing to the American polity to launch legal prosecutions against you, and deeply unfair to solely prosecute those acting on your orders or in your name. President Obama’s decision thus far to avoid such prosecutions is a pragmatic and bipartisan one in a time of war, as is your principled refusal to criticize him publicly in his first months"

Except that Obama IS moving forward on the prosecutions and despite the so called repeated view that "[CIA interrogators] should not be prosecuted if they acted within legal guidelines laid out at the time" it's pretty clear that the Attorney General could not proceed with the prosecution if Obama didn't want him to. And what about the interrogators that did use illegal methods of torture, yet obtained information that prevented a terrorist attack? Will they roll back the security measures and actions taken? If not, then the current administration are morally complicit and have blood on their hands.

"You have also claimed that defending the security of the United States was the paramount requirement of your oath of office. It wasn’t. The oath you took makes a critical distinction: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country. To abandon the Constitution to save the country from jihadist terrorists was not your job."

"It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country." I may be being naive but what is the point of a constitution if there is no country? The charge that the US Government abandoned the Constitution wholeheartedly at multiple levels is a little hard for me to swallow. And somehow, saving the country from jihadists is exactly what I would expect from the elected leader of a country.

"Western freedom begins with the right to protect one’s own body from government power. That’s what habeas corpus means. What was done to Jose Padilla makes a mockery of that freedom and, in fact, establishes a precedent that, if left in place, could destroy it."

Habeas Corpus is protection for an individual citizen against unlawful imprisonment. The Habeas Corpus Act was adopted by the English Parliament in 1679, and was incorporated into the the US Constitution (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.) The full text reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

And even though I Am Not A Constitutional Lawyer (IANACL), I am pretty damn sure that this particular clause refers to the group identified in the first six words of the Constitution

"We the People of the United States."

Which would not include most of the current inmates in Guantanamo.

What follows in page 2 and 3 are descriptions of torture, and of course the mandatory inclusion of Abu Ghraib. What happened at Abu Ghraib was despicable, amoral and criminal. And the conflation of Abu and Gitmo is a convenient mash-up of all things American Evil, and photogenically illustrates the depravity of a superpower gone mad, crushing and torturing poor innocent Iraqi farmers in a repurposed Saddamite prison. The ever so slight problem with this is that Abu Ghraib has NOTHING to do with Gitmo, the torture memos, Rumsfield-Cheny-Bushhitler, the Christian Right and the Crusades. It was an aberration, a disgraceful example of what happens when the chain of command breaks down, and redneck hick reservists are left to rule the roost with no oversight.

Abu Ghraib has as much to do with American ideals and policy as Nazism had to do with the Enlightenment, ie nothing. Linking the lawlessness and the abuse that occurred in one prison in Iraq to the policy in practice of the US Government is disingenuous, but effective since the photos from one can be used as a surrogate for the other. There is a very important debate about State sanctioned torture in democracies, however it is important to distinguish between the actions of those that were carrying out orders, and those that were acting without. It does not diminish the seriousness of the abuse, but to merge these two issues to score an emotional point is a rhetorical flourish that neatly allows you to avoid answering the question: what if it works? What if information gained by the physical abuse of one individual allows you to save the lives of many? Would that change the moral calculation?

To bring the whole thing back to current events, this is currently what is happening on the political scene in the US, with the summary provided by Jennifer Rubin:

"The CIA discovers misconduct, which the CIA inspector general investigates. The information seems to suggest misconduct. They go to DOJ. DOJ tells them to stop and that [Justice] will now look at the issue, gather evidence, and investigate it themselves. They must decide if there is a reasonable belief that they could obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They looked at it. They made a decision and declined [to prosecute]. They go back to the CIA, which can, and in several instances did, review the matters for internal discipline. "

Obama's Attorney General is bringing another department in to investigate the DOJ's handling , and move forward with prosecutions of CIA officials if they possibly can. It is a flagrant waste of time and resources, motivated by partisan intent to punish anyone they can from the hated Bush regime, and in the process make the US and World less secure. Why the the World? Well, as far as I understand, there is cooperation amongst allied intelligence agencies and I know for a fact that Australia relies on it's relationship with the US to supplement their own intelligence needs; how willing do you think international agencies are going to be to help the US if there is the prospect of being prosecuted? Or in other words, why would ASIO give the CIA information gained by dubious means if it meant that sometime down the road, they could be sent to jail for doing their job?

This is not meant as a defense of Guantanamo or torture, but an attempt to show that the Obama administration is pursuing partisan objectives couched in terms of morality that will endanger the World, and there is no end to fellow travelers that are supporting this position.

And besides, exactly how much do you think Obama is doing different from Bush?

"It's now apparent that the biggest sham in American politics is Barack Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo and, more generally, to dismantle the Bush/Cheney approach to detaining accused Terrorists."

About that Joker...

(picture source)

A fantastic Republican rant on the media about Obi as Joker...

Looks like it's not just me...

that believes in a not-so-in-the-closet socialist leader of the free world. (click on the link below the pic for the full story)

(picture source)

The start of a new internet meme perhaps?

Blind Justice?

The big news in the US last week was the confirmation of Obama's pick to the US supreme court, a hispanic woman by the name of Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor is most well known for her saying:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Overlooking the blatant relativist fallacy of that statement, and the Democrats defence that it was a once off taken-out-of-context remark (which by the way...it wasn't), it smacks of an ideologue that puts their worldview before the Law which isn't necessarily a desirable aspect in a 'prospective' Supreme Court judge.

To demonstrate how this worldview translates to action, whilst being an Appellate Court judge on the 2nd Circuit (whatever that means), there came before them a case of Ricci vs Stefano, where the city of New Haven had set aside results of a legal and vetted promotions exam for firefighters because, get this, not enough African-Americans passed with high scores. Fearing a discrimination lawsuit, the city of New Haven decided to throw out the baby with the bathwater and denied promotion to a bunch of whiteys and a hispanic that had passed the test. From the Slate article:

"They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

In other words, Judge Sotomayor sided with the city of New Haven but didn't say why. The high court recently sided with the plaintiffs (the firemen) and Sotomayors lack of, if you'll excuse the pun, judgment was especially noted by the Supreme Court.

So now you have the background, here's a column from the New York Times, Maureen Dowd, who is kind of like The Age's Catherine Deveny, except Maureen can write, is occasionally funny, and despite being a dyed in the wool Bush/Republican hater, she can sometimes see opposing arguments. However, this is not one of those times. Dripping with barely disguised hatred of 'dem old white males, speaking of the serving justices:

"After all, these guys have never needed to speak inspirational words to others like them, as Sotomayor has done. They’ve had codes, handshakes and clubs to do that."

Any of the achievements and/or hardships these guys may or may not have overcome are not expanded on, just the age old trope of old school tie network and shadowy secret societies that put these guys on the bench, not merit.

And for the meat and potatoes:

"President Obama wants Sotomayor, naturally, to bring a fresh perspective to the court. It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men. And Sotomayor made it clear that she provides some spicy seasoning to a bench when she said in a speech: “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on gender and my Latina heritage.”

And for those not familiar with of US Supreme Court history, there's no mention that the "disgraceful W.'s" dad (George H.W. Bush) nominated the second African-American to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Freakin' racist Texans...

Looking past that, the idea that any job can be done better by someone due to their race or ethnicity is quite simply racist if it is 'minority' ethnicities discriminated against, and "diversity" if it is whitey that gets the sharp end of the stick. Artificially enforced sex or racial quotas seems to go against that idea that "all men are created equal" (and yes, that is "men" as in "mankind" which also includes wise latina women). Whilst not arguing that wrongs were not committed in the past, primarily by white males, I don't see how appointing someone on the basis of race rather than merit is a way of redressing those wrongs.

Cyber-rhetoric

On July 4th this year (American Independance Day), a cyber-attack was launched against a bunch of US websites including the Secret Service, Department of Defense, New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. A lot of these websites went down for a couple of days, and by Tuesday 7th July, most of them were up and running. However the attack had shifted to a few South Korean websites including the Ministry for Defense and the presidential Blue House. Given the targets, both the South Korean and US authorities implicated North Korea as the big Bad behind the attacks.

A US politician Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan)

"the lead Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the U.S. should conduct a “show of force or strength” against North Korea for a supposed role in a round of attacks that hit numerous government and commercial websites this week."

At first glance, I thought the honorable Representative was, to put it mildly, speaking out of his a***, giving in to the well established political instinct to be seen to be reacting to things and speaking authoritatively on matters that they know nothing about. The actual attack came from 'infected' computers in over 74 countries (with Australia coming in as number 6 in the total numbers of infected "zombies"), and the relevant authorities have yet to conclusively prove where the attacks originated. Since on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog the attack could just as easily have been initiated by an elite team of super hackers in some super secret bunker working for an 'evil' regime, or some fat kid somewhere, working from his bedroom at his parents house with too much time on his hands and a beef against the US government; not necessarily a small demographic by any stretch.

A North Korean super-hacker?

The ethics of initiating a cyber-attack, or in this case a cyber-counterattack, are still a bit hazy. Whilst the injuries and casualties may be less obvious than a convential armed attack, the effects of a cyber-attack could theoretically be just as damaging. One could be excused thinking that that the inability to view the latest episode of Sea Patrol on ninemsn.com.au could lead to death or injury, but what if the website being attacked was CFA bushfire information line or the Department of Health in the middle of a pandemic?

Most large governments are developing offensive cyber-capacities and for an elected politician to suggest a cyber-attack as "pay back" is perhaps reaching for the gun a bit to early. And given the internet penetration of domestic households in North Korea, one could argue, totally ineffective. However if we look at Rep. Peter Hoekstra's comment in the context of recent geopolitical events, I suspect that the comments are not aimed at the North Koreans but perhaps made to embarass Obama-wan-kenobi into action. On July 4th this year, the North Koreans decided to test fire 7 missiles. This followed a test launch of their long-range ICBM on April 5th this year. Given the collective world-wide yawn on that particular test, Kim Jong "Insane" Il clearly decided he could test a few more.

North Korea fires 7 missiles off coast

Obama's reaction to the April launch:

"We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council."

-- (ooooh scary scary. That'll put fear into the heart of a dude that runs a country with concentration camps)

Biden (US Vice President) reaction to the July 4th launch:

"Look, this has almost become predictable behavior. Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior,"

So the Obama administration has a recent history of belittling the angry squeaks of the NORKS, which in all fairness is not too surprising given the Nork regime's inability to provide electricity to their whole country, or indeed feed all their people, however there is a clear trend of escalation. And for a country that allegedly has nukes and is only separated by 5km of bushland from their 'sworn enemy', it would behove the US to support their ally South Korea with perhaps a bit more teeth in their rhetoric and actions.

Instead, we get this:

"This administration -- and our military -- is fully prepared for any contingencies," Obama told CBS when asked about the possibility that North Korea could fire a missile toward Hawaii on or about July 4, the US Independence Day.

Asked if that meant Washington was "warning of a military response," Obama answered: "No. It's just we are prepared for any contingencies."

No no military response, just 'contigencies'. I predict that the emptiness of Obi's rhetoric will rebound on him, sometime in the next four years, and the world will be a poorer place for it.

Links:

"U.S., South Korea Targeted in Swarm Of Internet Attacks" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070800066.html

Good technical breakdown and analysis of the cyber-attack - http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/mydoom/

The most powerful man on Earth kills a fly...and PETA complain

Regarding this:


is enough for these guys to complain. I have my own problems with the One, but his killing a fly on live TV doesn't even rate. Just goes to show that no matter what you do, someone is going to take offence.

A "humane bug catcher" like the one PETA sent Obama
(picture source)

A giant &@#%ing bird eating spider eating a bird, native of Queensland,
for which PETA's "humane bug catcher" probably wouldn't work.
(picture source)

The politicisation of torture

UPDATE: 3/9/09 - fixed Clinton crosshairs link

It’s curious how you often find reading matter that conforms to your own views. To whit, Thomas Sowell’s column at townhall.com (yes, a conservative site to those a bit squeamish) talking about the revisited (and remanufactured) anger over torture memos, torturing, and all the other evils that the W. Bush regime visited on the world. Specifically about how Obama’s administration has now left open the door for prosecution of US personnel over what has been alleged (and probably occurred) at Gitmo. The crux of the column:

“We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given "rights" that exist neither in our laws nor under international law.”

Why do those voices (predominately coming from the Left) demand rights to those who do not operate under the Geneva Convention? Why is it so important to ensure that head-sawing barbarians have ‘human rights’ that they so explicitly deny anyone who gets in their way?

“These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. “

There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up against a wall and shot. “

Why was David Hicks, who was caught fighting with the Taliban, not shot on the spot? He wasn’t in uniform (the Taliban don’t have a “uniform” nor are recognized officially) and as I have previously argued, the Taliban are hardly the types to subscribe to Geneva Conventions or any other recognizably humane code of conduct, so therefore do not deserve to have such protections given to them.

“In his visit to CIA headquarters, President Obama pledged his support to the people working there and said that there would be no prosecutions of CIA agents for prior actions. Then he welshed on that in a matter of hours by leaving the door open for such prosecutions, which the left has been clamoring for, both inside and outside of Congress.”

The argument of whether to torture or not to torture is a larger topic than this particular post, however the politicization of CIA interrogations carried out in the last 7 years will have a very real impact on how the US (and by proxy the West) conducts itself in future conflicts. Guantanemo and tough interrogation techniques are not symptoms of the US and the West losing their moral bearings, more responding to extraordinary circumstances. Besides, is it so important to hold the "moral high ground" if your dead?

To politicise the governmental advice, because you feel that being the leader of the free world is not vindication enough, seems to be rather childish and spiteful. Clinton literally had crosshairs on Osama, but decided for whatever reason, not to pull the trigger. Fast forward 1 year, and there's a smoking crater in Manhattan and 3,000 dead people. There was never any question of pursuing Clinton or his administration for what could be argued as the worlds most obvious case of gross negligence. Allowing criminal charges to be brought up against lawyers who simply advised the prior administration is waste of time, money and resources that could be put to better use.

In this brand new era of Hope and Change™, I thought we were getting beyond the era of old school politics, but it seems like we're just repeating the same ol' same ol'.

Comrade Obama

This makes me distinctly uncomfortable:

"The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason."

That the CEO of GM (a privately owned company) should have left, I would have it thought an issue for the board, stockholders and the market, not the president of the United States or for that matter any government official. But hey, ask the government for >USD$20billion, ya gotta expect some sort of 'return' on their investment. Something about getting in bed with devil would be appropriate here...

Far be it from me to once again suggest, imply or otherwise state in plain English I believe Obama is really a not-so-in-the-closet-socialist, lets hear from that the PM of that other great shining example of capitalism, the former USSR.

From this article:

"Russia's [PM] Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade"

Nothing to see here, move along. Just business as usual in the land of the free markets and liberal democracy.

And if you think that now the Russkies and Uncle Sam are all rolling around in a geopolitical lovefest, here's the parting shot Medvedvedvedved made speaking of their recent 'expedition' into Georgia (which I have previously written about here, and here):

“"Everything that has happened, I will tell you frankly, that the leader of Georgia is responsible for everything. That is my direct and honest and open opinion.

"A lot of people had to pay for the mistakes of one man. We love and appreciate the Georgian people. But I do not want to have any relations with President Saakashvili."

Not a good time to be Georgian...

NORKS vs DORKS

So the NORKs (press speak for North Koreans) are preparing to launch a long range ICBM, ostensibly to launch a satellite, but probably to test the range of their BigDong TaepoDong 2 (TD-2) missile. At the time of the announcement of the test (in complete contravention of a UN resolution...but we all know how much they’re worth), initially the US, Japan all got their knickers in a twist and threatened to shoot it down, and South Korea threatened to file a UN Security Council violation. As the missile’s projected trajectory takes it right over Japan, it is understandable why the Japanese are more than just a little concerned.

However, despite having the capacity to do so courtesy of two US Navy destroyers in the region , the clear thinking and brave new administration of the Obama whitehouse has pretty much stuck it’s hands over it’s ears and gone “la-la-la-la-la can’t see anything la-la-la”.

From the article:

“Appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting host Chris Wallace to ask: "And there's nothing we can do about it?"

"No," Gates answered, adding, "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."

The North has said it would consider any interference an "act of war"

UPDATE: So I wrote this blog last week thinking I had till wednesday, but the crafty Norks got ahead of me, and it was launched Sunday.

"U.S. and South Korean officials claim the entire rocket, including whatever payload it carried, ended up in the ocean after Sunday's launch"

However, now, after the fact, the Obama administration "urges action". Not wanting to restate the obvious, but it seems that the US did indeed have the means for "action" prior to and during the launch.

Chairman Obama

I realise that with a few issues *cough UN cough Global Warming cough* it may seem that I am seeing reds under the beds everywhere, however in my defence, many people with many more brains, fore and hindsight, and most importantly, experience, than your humble author have attempted to alert the free world to the dangers of Communism. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the West rejoiced thinking that the evil of collectivism had been defeated once and for all.

Unfortunately, we were wrong.

A common question I hear every time I rail against Commies: "What's so wrong about Communism anyway?"

Apart from the 100% epic fail rate of any country that has adopted Communism and the serious mountains (and I mean MOUNTAINS) of human corpses that result from any flavour of Communism, the terrible standard of living for most, and the abject human misery that always follows, well yes, there's nothing wrong with Karl Marx's totalitarian ideas.

And if you think I'm exaggerating, just check out for yourself the document that started it all...The Communist Manifesto. I would recommend checking out the bit about what Marx thinks about family units and how children should be reared (hint: by the State, not the parents)

All this is kind of by the by, because I'm sure some University Professor could argue I'm not nuancing enough and anyways that was "Communism:old skool", not the new and radically improved "Communism:Friendly State version".

I have previously written about the socialist tilt of Obama's ideological mentors, his slightly confused supporters, but here's an interesting article that compares what Obama is doing right now, with the current election 2008 manifesto of the US Communist party (aka the CPUSA, document available here)

So what's the score? Of 44 items on the CPUSA's list,

* 22 are already enacted.
* 21 are in work.
* 1 is being violated.

Yay...go Bailout. I would be hard pressed to say we are seeing the beginning of the United Socialist States of America, however 22 out of 44 items of the CPUSA already enacted?? Gotta be more than a coincidental leaning...

Hubris

"We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name."
-- President Barak H Obama in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, 27th Jan, 2009

In an attempt at outreach to the "Muslim world", Prez Obama did an interview on Al-Arabiya TV channel. The intent was noble, the message...well I can't do any justice to the fisking by Charles Krauthammer.

A taster:

"Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Read it all.

Links:

YouTube interview: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=HO_lLttxxrs

Al-Arabiya transcript: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/27/65087.html

Excuse me sir, i think that's the wrong flag....

You know how it is, being young, beautiful US citizen having elected the first 'black' US president, swept up in the moment of "Change" and "Hope" and letting your hair down and screaming and waving the Hammer and Sickle flag in support....hang on...what?

Agent of Change? Or Unreformed Socialist?

(source: http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez/2008/10/9)

Unless you've been living in Tasmania, you may have noticed that the US presidential election is weeks away. And the sheer volume of media coverage on Sarah Palin should give you cause for concern.

The more someone tells me I have to believe something, the less inclined I am to believe it. My current denial of man-made global warming is as a direct result of being bombarded with messages since I was about 5 that we (and by we, I mean the West and it's offspring, capitalism) are entirely responsible for all environmental degradation since the dinosaurs.

The 24/7 media "investigations" into every minute aspect of Sarah Palin's life is raising a constant source of non-scandals that is keeping the mainstream media way too busy to look into the real scandals of their chosen presidential candidate.

If you recognise even two of the names in the cartoon above, then clearly you're getting your news from sources other than the papers. If John McCain had been associated with any of those characters, he would have been publicly crucified and hung out to dry (and rightly so I might add).

However, instead of trying to work out what actually triggered the current financial crisis and the consequent USD$700 billion government bailout, (and exactly how much a particular presidential candidate had in causing it) we are treated to some real hard-hitting scoops on the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

The media bias in this election has got to such a stage that there is now an increasing. amount. of. journos. (registered Democrats some of them) that are horrified that among other things, instead of investigating Obama's ties with unrepentant domestic terrorists, they are going after a private citizen Joe the Plumber who had the temerity to ask the Chosen One a question.

In this media saturated modern age, perception is everything and that is exactly what the Obama campaign is counting on. The possibility that the next US president could be a fully committed socialist is astounding in the fact that there appears to be absolutely zero interest by the media in investigating it.



Links
Mark Steyn (as the last loyal right-wingnut pundit) on the current state of the campaign:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-most-one-2205757-world-people

"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. We are deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.
Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside. "
Bill Ayers manifesto: http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

Government Computers used to dig dirt on Joe:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101

Obamareality

"Hating George W. Bush is not only dull and unoriginal, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the world in which we live in.

You want liberty but you don’t want to defend it... right. "
--Sameh El-Shahat, 11 July 2008

Yes yes I know, dissing the chosen one will most definitely make me persona non grata with everyone, who like Fox Mulder, just want to believe.

However it has to be said, if you just scratch the surface of this handsome, incredibly well spoken, presidential candidate, what lies beneath is a scary amalgam of some very unsavoury ideals.

Massive government programs....check
Ability to guilt white americans into voting for him, unless they want to be seen as racist.....check
Moving beyond that ol' school politicking and all about the consensus....yeah right

If only we could all vote for Him and the world will be a better place. From an article on AtlasShrugs(h/t: AugeanStables)

"Suddenly American power, in the right hands, would not be evil. American society, systematically portrayed as racist, communitarian, and imperialist, could become a beacon to the world…if only the right race wins. And Western European nations, faced with overwhelming problems of immigration, Islamization, and demographic decline, should redeem themselves by doing like the Yankees."

and a bit later on

"...the key to Obamania: the vain hope that not only replacing but symbolically erasing George W. Bush will make that indefinable global conflict go away."

I wonder if Obama can redeem our white English settler guilt for genociding the Aborigines and make the government say Sorry....oh wait a minute.