Republican Anh 'Joseph' Cao waves as he holds his daughter Betsy Cao, 4, with his wife Kate Hieu Hoang, right, at his victory party after defeating Rep. William Jefferson, D-La. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
After losing his re-election bid in Louisiana’s 2nd district with a 50-47 percent result, indicted Democrat William (dollar bill) Jefferson did not concede his loss to the Republican challenger Anh “Joseph” Cao, the first Vietnamese-American in Congress. Instead, he blamed the voters for not turning out.
‘I think people just ran out of gas a bit,’ he said. ‘People today flat didn’t come out in large numbers.’
Speaking to Jefferson’s bribery and racketeering charges, one Democrat voter who voted for Jefferson highlighted one of our key principles of the justice system afforded to Democrats who get into trouble with the law.
‘People are innocent until proven guilty,’ said Faye Leggins, 54, an educator and Democrat who moved back to the city six months ago.
The voters of Louisiana let Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) off the hook by doing what she should have done years ago. Of course, if Jefferson were a Republican, we wouldn’t be talking about this 552 days after an indictment.
The 2008 Election isn’t quite over. A few senate seats are still out there. Al Franken is trying very hard, and succeeding, to steal his election win in Minnesota over Norm Coleman. And the Georgia runoff election is another one. I think Republicans have already lost a filibuster proof senate, even if Saxby Chambliss and Norm Coleman end up winning their seats because of the several RINOs in the Senate already. Nevertheless, here is what is at stake and what we can expect in the next four years. This ad is being run in Georgia. December 2 is the runoff election date.
Why is it no surprise that the IAEA, the supposed nuclear watchdog of the United Nations (aka Useless Nations) is taking the side of two countries China and Russia, over the United States, its allies, and most of Europe, when it comes to providing nuclear technology to Syria before an IAEA investigation into Syria’s nuclear arms ambitions is complete?
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief clashed with some Western nations on Monday over their bid to block aid for a planned Syrian nuclear power plant, saying U.S. intelligence pointing to secret Syrian atomic work was unproven.
Diplomats at a 35-nation meeting of International Atomic Energy Agency governors said Washington, major European Union nations and other Western allies favored shelving the project while Syria was under IAEA investigation over the U.S. reports.
New testicle eating champion crowned
And for the ‘you gotta be kidding’ category, try this.
Yes it's what you think they are. And yes they're biting them. And, yes again, they're from New Zealand.
Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long — that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn’t a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn’t it imply a “post-racial” America? And shouldn’t those of us — white and black — who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?
White Guilt Emancipation Declaration
We, black American citizens of the United States of America and of the National Black Republican Association, do hereby declare that our fellow white American citizens are now, henceforth and forever more free of White Guilt.
This freedom from White Guilt was duly earned by the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, to be our president by a majority of white Americans based solely on the color of his skin.
Freedom is not free, and we trust that the price paid for this freedom from White Guilt is worth the sacrifice, since Obama is a socialist who does not share the values of average Americans and will use the office of the presidency to turn America into a failed socialist nation.
Granted this November 4, 2008 – the day Barack Hussein Obama was elected as the first black president and the first socialist president of the United States of America.
Below is a video of the Charlie Rose show the night after the election. Rose’s guests are Newsweek’s Editor Jon Meacham and Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas. The video is further evidence, or justification if you will, that what got this man elected as our next President and Commander in Chief was more a charade or illusion than what we know. And where the media is concerned, Rush Limbaugh characterizes it this way . . .
[t]his is just indication all they knew that they didn’t report about Obama and his associations and his alliances and how Obama was playing the game.
At 2:30 (two minutes, 30 seconds) into the video, Evan Thomas honestly puts the whole Obama campaign into its proper perspective, one day after the election, by going to the roots of community organizing and its founder, Saul Alinsky. From the transcript, Thomas says . . .
Saul Alinsky is, uh, really was a model from this, er, famous community organizer in Chicago, and this whole idea that Alinsky had that it’s not gonna work if you offend large groups of people. You know, we think of community organizers as having their fist out and, you know? Ah, no, no, no, no, no. You have to win over the majority by being peaceful and nonthreatening. Saul Alinsky used the word “nonthreatening.” This is key to Obama. There’s no militancy involved. This is very important and — and his chief strategist, Axelrod, really understood this. Especially if you’re running a black guy for president, you cannot threaten the whites.
At 6:15 into the video, the discussion goes into the ‘creepiness’ of Obama’s performance . . .
MEACHAM: He’s very elusive, Obama, which is fascinating for a man who’s written two memoirs. At Grant Park he walks out with the family, and then they go away.
ROSE: Mmm. Mmm-hmm.
MEACHAM: Biden’s back, you know, locked in the bar or something.
ROSE: (haughty chuckle)
MEACHAM: You know, they don’t let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage?
ROSE: Mmm.
MEACHAM: No adoring wife, no cute kid. He is the messenger.
THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all this. I mean, he’s such an admirable —
ROSE: Slightly. Creepy. Cult of personality.
THOMAS: Yes.
ROSE: What’s slightly creepy about it?
THOMAS: It — it — it just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He’s a deeply manipulative guy.
At 8:30 into the video, Meacham recounts Obama’s writing in the Audacity of Hope, where he begins to set the stage. At around 9:30 into the video, Rose and his guests begin to get that tingly feeling in their legs in describing Obama’s ascension to greatness, ‘watching us watch him.’
In their continued adoration of Barack, Evan Thomas says, around 10:30 into the video, that Obama says in his book, ‘I’m not sure I am Barack Obama.’ Meaning, according to Rose, that Obama knows that he has created a persona that he thinks the American people want, then questions whether he fits the image he has created on the ‘projection screen’ of American opinion. From the transcript . . .
ROSE: Watching him last night in that speech, he finishes —
MEACHAM: Yeah.
ROSE: — and he sort of — it’s almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance.
MEACHAM: He watches us watching him.
THOMAS: Watching him!
ROSE: Exactly!
THOMAS: He does —
MEACHAM: It’s amazing.
ROSE: It is amazing.
THOMAS: He writes about this metaphor being a screen upon which Americans will project. He said they want of Barack Obama; I’m not sure I am Barack Obama.
ROSE: Mmm.
THOMAS: He has the self-awareness to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person, and he’s self-aware enough —
ROSE: Ahhhhhh.
Listen as Jon Meacham explains that Barack’s ‘whole life is a narrative’ at 15:10 into the video.
The video then turns to a discussion as to whether the United States is still a ‘center-right’ country. What is illustrative here is that Europe is used as the measure of whether or not it is. Whether he will be able to ‘expand the power of the state.’ We know how popular Obama was, and is, to Europeans. They are, in a political sense, soul brothers.
Evan Thomas says that after the economy tanked in mid September, Obama was ‘risk averse, he was laying back in the weeds.’ But that’s alright because as Rose then proclaims, ‘we’re in an age of Obama right now.’ Where were these geniuses a few months ago? Oh right, they were carrying the water for him. They were ‘in an age of Obama.’
Rose ends the segment with this question, ‘Who will be the principle opposition? Where will the voice of the opposition come from?’ Jon Meacham suggests that it will be Gov. Sarah Palin. He and Thomas then proceed to trash Gov. Palin with their anonymous sources from within the McCain campaign over the clothing issue. Real presidential stuff you know. And befitting of Newsweek.
Update 1/23/2013: For reasons known only to the Charlie Rose Show, this video from Nov. 5, 2008, “A conversation with Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas” is no longer playable. Here is the link to it, http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9341 Is it now a media cover-up?
Watch twenty minute video segment here.
In discussing Obama’s victory at 11:30 in the video, Meacham makes an incorrect statement that shall be corrected here. He says that Obama got the majority vote which had not been done since George H.W. Bush twenty years ago. In 1988 Bush 41 got 53.4% of the vote. Actually, George W. Bush got 50.7% in 2004. Obama ended up with 52.6%.
There is plenty to blame John McCain for, for his loss in the race to be President. No question the Obama campaign and his organization won, but there is something to be said about not that Obama won it, but McCain lost it. He lost it by handicapping his own campaign when he decided from the start that he wasn’t going to bring up all of Obama’s nefarious alliances involved with his political career. No surprise that the media wasn’t going to either.
Another of his shortcomings was his attacks on his own supporters who did bring them up, and also to those who dared to use Obama’s own middle name. He was quick to defend Obama at every occasion. That chivalrous action was not appreciated, except by his opponent.
Now that the campaign is over, his own campaign staff is trashing Gov. Palin. We are still being told about anonymous sources from within his campaign that are showing their respect, or lack thereof, for Gov. Palin. And also showing their lack of respect for the one who hired them, McCain himself. Loyalty? Forget it. Some weasels are still talking about her wardrobe, now questioning her intelligence, to the willing ears of the media. The Left should be grateful that the McCain campaign is taking the first shot at handicapping Palin for any future political endeavor. The question here is, why isn’t John McCain out there coming to her defense? Why isn’t he out there telling his own people to stop?
If there is anything to be learned from this whole episode, it is that John McCain is just as much a chameleon as Barack Obama. And the next time the good senator reaches across the aisle, he should just stay there.
Now that Sen. Barack Obama has become President-elect Barack Obama, and Congress has beefed up its Democrat majority, what can we expect?
We have elected the most liberal senator in Congress. Do we expect that he will govern that way too? He talks eloquently about uniting this country. It makes everyone feel good when he talks that way. Who could argue with rhetoric like that? Yet, I haven’t heard him elucidate exactly what it is about the American people that need uniting.
Now, as Obama moves through his transition to the White House, this effort to square the political circle becomes the defining challenge in the months ahead. Which Barack Obama will dominate as he begins to govern?
Too much of the ambitious liberal, and he rekindles partisan squabbles he was supposed to transcend.
Too much the cautious mediator who reaches across the aisle to compromise with Republicans, and he risks losing the energy and idealism that attracted millions to his candidacy.
The historical significance of America’s choice is inescapable. Has Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream been realized? And what impact will this have on the race industry for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? An industry that ought to go bankrupt, with no federal bailout.
For a legislator that has no record of reaching across the aisle, President-elect Obama certainly has his work cut out for him.
The results are in. Although Escambia County remained red, the state went blue this time. City Council got some fresh faces to work with the new mayor-elect Mike Wiggins. The sheriff’s department got a new face as well in David Morgan. So the team is set. Let’s support them. Now let’s move forward.
On the national side, looking at the percentage of popular vote over the last twenty years, Barack Obama didn’t do too bad. At least he got over the 50% mark. As in the mid-term elections in 2006, any talk of a ‘mandate’ is wishful thinking. And by mandate, I mean that in a political sense, not a night out in San Francisco. We shall see how good a job he can do, among other things, as a uniter. He wasn’t my choice. But he will be our President. Now let’s move forward.
All the results are not yet in, but this is how it stands right now.
Obama is at 51%.
George H.W. Bush, 53.4% in 1988
Ronald Reagan, 50.7% in 1980, and 58.8% in 1984.
Bill Clinton, 43% in 1992
Bill Clinton, 49.2 % in 1996
George W. Bush, 47.9% in 2000
George W. Bush, 50.7% in 2004
The only scary thing I noticed in the presidential rundown is that there are 58 people living here that voted for Cynthia McKinney.
The Obama campaign is responding to posts like this ‘How Obama Supports The Coal Industry‘ by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves. Consider this, have you ever known anyone, let alone a presidential candidate, that needed so many people to explain what he says? Or rather, to explain away what he says? Their problem is simple. When he actually says what he means, his surrogates come out to say that no, that’s not what he means. The whole Obama campaign has been an illusion in so many ways. But I digress.
To this subject, the Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, as far as coal power plants go, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ His position is to take coal power plants off the table. That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the ‘caps and trade system’ to penalize any company that wants to build a coal-fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
Have your candles ready. It is hard to believe how Pennsylvania could be a blue state when one considers Obama’s position on coal. Keep in mind that 49 percent of all electrical power in the United States is generated by coal-powered generators. This audio clip is Barack Obama speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, SF Gate.
Barack Obama: I haven’t been some coal booster.
Joe Biden: No coal plants here in America, build them if they’re going to build them over there.
And once again, speaking to his character, saying one thing while meaning another to someone whose vote you want, the Huffington Post saw it for what it was last May.
UPDATE 11/3/08, 23:02: The Obama campaign is responding to the above news by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves.
The Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the caps and trade system to penalize any company that wants to build a coal fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
It is bad enough that the United States spends over $700 billion per year on oil resources from the Middle East and elsewhere, when we have enough resources of our own which could be developed right here in the United States, creating jobs all over the country in the process.
The confluence of two problems, energy dependency and the financial market meltdown, seem to have the world looking to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia for help. President Bush took a trip to Saudi Arabia with his hand out for more production and lower oil prices. Now British Prime Minister Gordon Brown goes there looking for money for the International Monetary Fund’s ‘bailout reserves.’
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday he is confident that Saudi Arabia will contribute to the International Monetary Fund’s bailout reserves after he promised business leaders in the Gulf that they would have a say in any future new world economic order.
When you are the one in control of the oil spigot, with cash reserves that are as large as your oil reserves, it is not hard to imagine, nor is it surprising, to see this kind of attitude ‘from those that don’t like us very much.’
A senior British government source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said that during talks the Saudis had been concerned about becoming a “milk cow” to prop up “basket case” economies in other parts of the world.
Both the energy and economic ‘crises’ can be solved by restoring common sense to both. By using our own resources and by paying attention to sound business practices by not offering mortgages to people that have no ability to pay. Those people are called ‘renters.’ In the meantime, with help from Saudi Arabia or not, the world will have to pay the consequences of our bad decisions.
On Tuesday, Nov 4, Americans can choose which of the two candidates, which of two parties, have the answer to today’s problems. Or at least an inclination as to which way to proceed. The choice seems pretty clear to me. One party wants to cut oil dependency by a small percentage, the other party wants to eliminate it. One party wants to make home ownership a ‘right,’ and the other wants to enable every citizen to get their own home based on their own efforts.
Socialism is easy, the government makes decisions for us, and innovation and productivity are depressed. Freedom is hard, you have to make your own decisions, innovation, productivity and the rewards that come with it are unlimited.
