Obama in 2001: How to bring about “redistributive change."

A disturbing radio interview with Obama done in 2001. He talks explicitly about "redistributing wealth." You should listen to it, and read the post.

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin.

The Sarahcudda wins again!

And they tried to criticize McCain for his choice of running mate?! Somebody find me a cluebat!

Hat tip to The Breda Fallacy for the video.

Powell endorses Obama

(Link in title)

Well. Like everybody else, I am surprised. I think that this will seriously affect the election. Colin Powell is still widely respected by people in both parties, and many who are still undecided will follow him.

This looks like it will be very bad for McCain.

On Joe the Plumber, Obama's Campaign, and the MSM

One of the most interesting things about the whole Joe the Plumber situation is what it shows us about Obama's campaign and the MSM. Instead of looking at Joe's question and Obama's answer, they are doing everything they can to smear Joe in an effort to divert people's attention away from the real issue.

Frankly, whether Joe is a stand-up guy or a tax-avoiding, unlicensed hack is irrelevant. His question, whether serious or rhetorical, is insightful and probing. Obama's answer, unscripted and unplanned, shows us a disturbing side of his beliefs, and his plans for the nation.

Let's make Joe's question a little more generic. Same question, just not as specific to Joe. "If my business makes more than $250,000 a year, your new plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Now let's look at Obama's answer.

"I don't want to punish your success, it's just that I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (emphasis mine)

Think about that. If you're successful, he wants to make sure that other's have a "chance at success" too - by forcibly taking the money you worked for, and earned, and giving it to people who haven't earned it, and who may not have worked for it at all.

That's not what taxes are for. Taxes are supposed to pay for government, and for the things government is supposed to provide, like roads, courts, police, and other infrastructure. The things that private enterprise cannot do well, or is unwilling to do because it's not profitable.

What Obama plans is called socialism, and that is disturbing. But his campaign and the MSM don't want us to know that, so they are trying to distract us by getting people to focus on the person who asked the question, and not the question itself, or the answer.

Disturbing? You decide.

More Reading (I do that a lot)

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

Currently Reading

Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein

Meep!

An Profound Insight

From Robb at Sharp As A Marble.

Each time you allow your representatives to tack on more and more "regulations", you limit your freedom more and more. Each time you vote to increase the power of the government, even when you think that particular increase is beneficial, it will never go away and always be added on to, generally by people who you didn't want to have that power in the first place.

People who try to understand the U.S. Constitution tend to forget that the government under that constitution was not our first government. The founding fathers wanted the weakest government they could get away with, because they didn't trust government. The first U.S. government, under the Articles of Confederation, was so weak it couldn't do what was needed. There's a reason the Constitution is designed to limit the power of the government.

The founders knew even then that government, when not heavily restricted, will eventually grow beyond necessity and into tyranny. It is the nature of the beast, and that is why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to limit the powers of the Federal government.

Nope, no bias here!

If this is true, it's shameful. ABC news apparently heavily edited Charlie Gibson's interview with Gov. Palin, and tried to do so in a way that makes her look unprepared, and dangerously hawkish.

At least one of the clips I've seen is obviously edited. Many of her answers seem to be abruptly cut off, or start too abruptly. His questions seem the same. The interview doesn't "flow" like a real discussion would. One is at about 0:58 into the clip, after he explains what he means by "the Bush Doctrine." The camera is on her face, and her hands are in her lap. The camera cuts to a side view, and her right hand is suddenly up at chin level. According to the transcript, here is what was cut out (in bold):

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

The most noticeable one is immediately after that, at about 1:11 in the clip. Again from a front view of her face, this time with her hand visibly and being used to emphasize her point, the camera switches to a side view, and now her hands are suddenly in her lap. What was left out is part of the above quote (in bold).

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

I encourage you to read the whole transcript. Pay attention to what was edited out of what was actually broadcast. Form your own opinion of Gov. Palin, and how the media is trying to twist her image to make her look like someone she isn't.

[h/t to DirtCrashr, via a comment at SayUncle]

Never Forget

9-11-01

Never Forget