Wolf here.

Election day is less than three weeks from now, is time flying, or what?

For those worried about a possible Obama win, let’s remember all those silent majority types out there from whom we don’t hear until they let their votes do the talking, and remember that the lefty media, which is most of the Fourth Estate when you come right down to it, has a tendency to ignore the conservative majority in this country in order to mislead the public into believing that the bulk of the voting population shares their twisted socialist, anti-moral, anti-God, anti-America political outlook.

Keep in mind that despite the “Gore is kicking ass” and “Kerry is kicking ass” forecasts the media hammered us with in 2000 and 2004, right up to the last seconds the poll results were coming in, George W. Bush won both elections.

Keep in mind that the opposition faced by gen-u-ine Americans, those of us who cherish such things as the U.S. Constitution, limited government, the knowledge that ours is a nation founded on the principals of Judeo-Christianity, the knowledge that as Americans we are a decent, moral people who do not deserve the guilt trips being perpetually laid on us by the liberal minority that festers in the dark corners and under stones along the backsides of this great country and the certainty that sensible, patriotic Americans will rally their votes to ensure that the false messiah is sent back to Illinois with his political antiChrist tail locked firmly between his legs.

The Democrats, who have become no more than a cheap possession of the far left, have shown us that they no longer rate their status as a major American political party. Their inept, politically self-serving stewardship of Congress since the midterm elections has been one indicator. Their total “who cares if our candidates are corrupt, immoral liars with dubious connections? They’re Democrats, so we’ll vote for them anyway!” commitment to politics over patriotism is another indicator.

That silent majority I mentioned above is alive and well and will be voting come Election Day, and voting conservative. America will not allow herself to crumble under the heavy hand of leftist politics, America will not allow herself to succumb to a snake oil salesman from Illinois, America will stay the course.

Wolf here.

This one’s short, just checking in.

First off, Seth left me this link to pass on in my first post at Hard Astarboard:

http://andrightlyso.com/2008/09/29/with-sarah-palin-its-all-about-joy-message-to-the-mccain-campaign/

I read it, and all I can say is that it’s right on the money.

I can’t say I completely grasp what all the concern’s about among conservatives. Obama can’t win this election anyway, most pro-Obama buzz is coming out of the lefty media and big liberal cities, where dwell some of the least earthbound minds in these United States. Because liberals make the most noise, they give the mistaken impression that that there are a lot more of ‘em than there actually are.

The same technique has been used in warfare before.

The reality of the situation is that there are far more voters in this country who don’t have their heads buried deep in their nether regions, and these voters will elect McCain no matter how much of a racket the lefties make in the meantime.

Still in all, whenever I see a New Yorker who appears to be of some means and education walking around wearing an Obama button, I think something like “there’s another uninformed or simply downright stupid person who’s living in another world, one I personally wouldn’t want to visit”.

I wonder how many of these fools, after Obama loses in November, will come down with McCain Derangement Syndrome.

I’ll be opening an email account shortly for the sole purpose of responding to comments to my posts. One was provided by another of Seth’s friends, but I didn’t think it would be appropriate given certain subtleties which I prefer to maintain where my own background is concerned.

I’ll try and have this done before or on the weekend.

Wolf

…the very fact that the likes of a Barack Obama being even remotely considered for, let alone being an official candidate for, the office of the President of the United States of America is a sign that our country is in dire straits where any semblances of sanity, common sense or so much as the most fleeting perception of reality figure into the scheme of things.

It has nothing whatever to do with his skin color, his age or even his experience, or lack thereof, in politics and everything to do with the things he says, his complete lack of honesty, those things he purports to represent and the various details of his background and the mentors and influences within.

Liberals can say what they want in response to speculation that a major reason Obama came out over Hillary Clinton during the primary season was his skin color, but face it, that speculation is spot-on. The left will call you a racist for uttering such a sentiment, your actual beliefs notwithstanding, but even given a variety of other reasons, including the more-than-accurate observation that most Americans are quite weary of the Clintons, the fact remains that it’s the truth.

I’ve heard many blacks, for example, say that they are planning to vote for B. Hussein Obama for the sole reason that he is a black man, and to their way of thinking it’s about time we had a black President. White liberals say they’ll vote for him because a vote for John McCain would be a vote for another Bush Administration, but that’s not the only reason…

The liberal mainstream media, along with their portside following, take whatever opportunities they can get away with to infer that the only reason any caucasion would not vote for Obama is racism.

Of course.

In the 12 August 2008 Best Of The Web Today James Taranto links to a New York Magazine Article by Patricia J. Williams that implies just that in its own liberal-reasoned way.

Patricia Williams, a law professor at Columbia, has proved that skeptics of Barack Obama are racist. The evidence is close to home–right there in her imagination. In New York magazine, she explains:

On a short flight to New York recently, I was sitting behind two white, well-dressed twentysomethings chattering loudly and uninhibitedly about going to clubs and travel plans and the possibility of living in New Jersey. Then came the question: “So who are you voting for?”

“I was for Hillary, but now . . . I’m kind of undecided,” volunteered the first woman.

“Are you a Democrat?” asked the second.

“Yeah. But I think I might go with McCain. It’s just that, well, I don’t know. You know.” Her voice dropped. I leaned forward to hear better. “You kind of hate to say it aloud, but . . .” Here her voice dropped again, to a murmur lost in the roar of the jet engines, and I missed whatever came next.

Let’s start with this concession: I have no idea what that young woman actually said. In a perfect world, I suppose that would be the end of the story and I would go back to minding my own business. In the context of contemporary political discourse, however, it did cross my mind that if this conversation were presented on one of those “finish the sentence” cultural-literacy tests, then pretty much every American, of whatever creed, color, or class, would have exactly the same guess as to how the woman completed her thought.

I think there’s some consensus, in other words, about the one thing in America we really “hate to say” aloud. Yet by refraining from saying audibly that-which-must-not-be-spoken, was the young woman’s political choice rendered rational, neutral, pure?

Conversely, if I were to spell it out here, would I be the one accused of “playing the race card”?

That’s it! These ladies are racist because (1) eavesdropper Williams fills in the blank in their conversation with something invidious, and (2) she imagines that everyone else fills in the blank the same way. Just imagine if President Bush had used similar methodology to determine that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. People would be calling for his impeachment!

When a liberal or a black acquaintance hints that I may be a bigot because I don’t endorse Obama, I invariably point out that should J.C. Watts run for President, I would vote for him without reservation.

This never fails to be ignored, including by those who know fully well whom J.C. Watts is, because the liberal rule of thumb is that if a black man is not a Democrat, he is not only not a true black man, he is also a traitor to all black people everywhere.

Go figure.

That said, though John McCain (you know, the guy to whom the MSM gives only a fraction of the campaign coverage they give Obama, even while B. Hussein is on vacation) is only my choice for POTUS because he is the lesser of two evils, the Arizona senator is, exponentially, a more realistic and certainly more desirable Presidential candidate than Obama, pale skin and all.

…the majority on the Hill, as we well know, and therefore “leadership” of Congress, belongs to the Democrats.

Thirty two years ago was less than four years before I became a Republican (thank Jimmy Carter for that change in my personal political views!), but even if I had been a Republican at the time I wouldn’t have been nearly as concerned as I am now about a Democrat majority in Washington, D.C. The folks on the left side of the aisle still, for the most part, were either conservative Democrats or at least maintained a semblance of responsibility to the Constitution, the document that had, since the beginnings of the United States of America, defined their jobs in the House and the Senate among many other things. There was only so far they might have gone.

Since then, particularly since the Clinton years, the latter has changed.

Today’s Democrats have sold out completely to the far left, to the hardcore socialists and America haters, the multiculturalists and the mongers of political correctness who have no use not only for the Constitution, but for our nation’s moral and religious values, the laws that protect our sovereignty and our liberty, our market-based economy or our role as a global peacekeeper and protector of the freedom of other, weaker countries under attack by predatory neighbors intent on crushing them under the boot of oppressive governance.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans, born and raised in this greatest of nations, so easily support those politicians who, dancing to the music of their portside masters, advocate agendas whose fruition would run counter to every principle that has made America what it is.

Are these people simply naïve, or do they truly want to lose the liberties they’ve been able to take for granted since they were very young? Do they really want to pay thousands of extra dollars in taxes a year so that ever-expanding federal bureaucracies can inefficiently manage their health care long before it becomes a serious issue for them, along with numerous other aspects of their lives? Do they really want big government to have the authority to micromanage their more important personal affairs, or to be able to rule on issues that run contrary to the beliefs of their own communities?

I was approached on the street by a poll taker of some sort the other day who wanted to know my opinion on homosexual rights.

I replied truthfully that like abortion, medical marijuana and other issues that don’t effect the running of our country as the Constitution specifies, I believe that same sex relationship agendas belong under the heading of States’ Rights and should not be made a federal issue.

She appeared neither happy with nor understanding of my reply, but that’s the way it is. She received an honest answer, which, by the way, I didn’t see her record on the clipboard she was carrying. Oh, well, must’ve been one o’ them thar one-way polls.

But…the reason for this post is actually to do with what is probably the prime reason for not electing a Democrat, any Democrat, let alone a serious left-winger like Obama, to the White House this time out.

As I noted above, the current crop of Democrats in Congress are more marionettes for the extreme left than they are statesmen (or stateswomen) of any kind. They espouse a number of agendas, including those I mentioned earlier in this post, as well as amnesty for criminal aliens, adoption of U.N. and E.U. policies that challenge our own sovereignty and form of government; destructive regulation of the marketplace; adherence to accords, based on the anthropogenic global warming myth, that would deal a crippling blow to our economy; bombardments of new taxation that would not only create hardships for the average American family, but would also target corporations whose only practical responses would be massive layoffs and curtailment of expansion; Unrestrained pork barrel waste of our taxes…I could probably go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point thus far.

So…

Imagine where this far left Democrat majority, especially if they gain more seats this November, could take us with an even farther left (B. Hussein Obama, anyone?) Democrat in the Oval Office – no worries of the dreaded “veto pen” standing in their way as they spend our money, regulate our economy and tax us to death at their whim – a completely socialist America, down to the finest detail, within four years.

Meanwhile, there’s Obama’s ridiculously naïve foreign policy, complete with his intention to legitimize enemies of America whose only want, need and ambition is to see us dead by establishing “friendly” diplomatic ties with them, to think about…

Everywhere I go on the conservative side of media, both pajama and otherwise, I read, view and hear of the evils of B. Hussein Obama and why electing him President would spell certain disaster for America.

I tend to agree (tend, hell, where agreement is concerned, I’m with those sentiments 100%!), but…

I wonder if all this mention of Obama versus much less reference to John McCain is in the best interests of conservatives.

My point?

The “name you know” philosophy.

I mean, we read OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!

McCain…

OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA

McCain…

Granted, there’s little else to refer to regarding the Arizona senator in the positive column than his support for the War on Terror and his commitment to homeland security. Well, there is his honesty, which is conspicuously absent in the Democrats’ offering and the undeniable fact that he speaks from the heart, and that his message doesn’t adjust itself constantly like the Illinois guy’s seems to.

Once the debating begins, McCain will outshine Obama in flying colors, partially because he is infinitely more experienced at the game of politics and partly because B. Hussein O. will not be able get around discussing issues in more detail with empty rejoinders to match his hitherto empty rhetoric.

McCain should be able to mop up the floor with Obama in any debate situation without having to resort to charactar defamation and the like.

This will not set well with the irresponsible, Land-of-the-Lotus-Eaters propagandists of the mainstream media, who will indubitably respond by attacking McCain’s charactar and every other chink in his armor, surreal or imagined, that they can come up with.

Even before Obama got the nomination, members of the media were attacking McCain’s age, “speculating” on whether, while serving as President, he might suddenly become a victim of Alzheimer’s or some other advanced age related disease. They were “speculating” upon what mental illnesses he might have developed as a result of his years as a POW, what with the tortures, the possibilities of Helsinki Syndrome and what have you, and how they might effect his performance as POTUS.

Undoubtedly, they were deeply concerned about his reaction to the dreaded 3:00 A.M. telephone call. Yeah, right.

When I was employed at a Nevada casino several years ago, the founding owner was a man in his eighties. Having outlived his partners, he was forced to deal with their young whippersnapper heirs over matters of casino policy and so forth. Since he believed in adhering to the old, surefire ways that had made the business a thriving success rather than change to meet their greedy, grab it-all-now, spoiled brat ambitions, they attempted to convince themselves that he was senile. Having had a number of lengthy conversations with him, I knew different.

That 80+ year old man not only wrote and published a book about his experiences in Nevada dating back to the 1930s, he was well known for driving his Land Rover through the roughest wilderness in the state for pure enjoyment. He was sharp and he was a man who could think on his feet.

And they call McCain old?

Rubbish!

When the campaigning gets hot and heavy during late summer and early fall, we can expect a solid media onslaught of unfair, unjustified, uncivilized, unfounded, aggressive anti-McCain rhetoric intended to throw the voters off the by-then established reasons why Obama should not, for any reason, be elected President and why McCain, while a million miles short of the ideal man for the job, will be the best choice on the November ballot.

We will need to be prepared to answer those MSM attacks not with counter-rhetoric against Obama, but with solid defenses of McCain. To do otherwise would cause the conservative side of the equation to look as pre-adolescent as the Democrat side, and it has long been my own opinion that two things that separate the right side of U.S. politics from the left is the right’s realistic outlook and mature means of expressing the same.

In short, I believe we will need to think less anti-Obama and more pro-McCain.

…let’s just concentrate on getting the Hispanic vote!

In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas — which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator — Clinton said of a border fence, “there may be limited places where it would work. But let’s deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier.”

“This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree,” said Obama. “I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it’s on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier.”

Both Clinton and Obama argued that the Bush administration was being too aggressive in pushing to build the border fence mandated by the 2006 law.

By “too aggressive”, they surely mean “verbally” aggressive. How much fence have they built in the last year and a half?

The agreement among the senators came in response to a question asked by CNN’s John King, one of the moderators of the debate.

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

The law mandated that the secretary of Homeland Security build more than 700 miles of double fencing along specific segments of the U.S.-Mexico. Then House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R.-N.Y.), the principal sponsor of the law, explained its purpose in a floor speech on the day of the 2006 House vote. “It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing,” King said, according to the Congressional Record.

Above emphasis mine.

All 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of U.S. senators faced reelection contests just one month after passage of the Secure Fence Act.

Yeah, sure… Voting for the bill was one thing, especially before an election, while actually allocating the funding to see it to fruition, after the election, is another thing entirely.

While Obama apparently has the black vote sewn up, he and Hillary are still vying for the Hispanic vote, yet neither wants to dumpsterize the vote of those favoring the enforcement of our immigration laws, so they offer straw-grasping alternatives neither would actually embrace, once elected, to the legislation they themselves voted for, in order to wear both hats.

That either specimen is actually a seriously considered candidate for leader of the free world is a telling example of how little today’s Democrats value even an iota of honesty in their political choices. But then, that became abundantly clear when they re-elected Bill Clinton.

…for Rudolph Giuliani.

As I wrote in a couple or so comments here and elsewhere, while I’m most likely, at this point, going to vote for Mitt Romney, I am still considering going with Giuliani. There are a few things I have yet to consider.

For the most part, Julia Gorin is in lockstep with some of my own foremost thoughts in this column.

She is totally correct in her premise that Giuliani would be the first true friend of Israel to occupy the White House in a very long time. This is not to say that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him don’t (and didn’t) have good intentions where Israel is concerned, it’s just that both, like Ehud Olmert, are extremely naive when it comes to addressing the sort of pure malevolence that dominates the “Palestinian” side of the equation over there. Rudy, on the other hand, is infinitely more capable of calling a terrorist a terrorist and taking him to task for it. The former mayor of New York would take a hard-nosed approach to dealing with both Fatah and Hamas, rather than kissing up to the likes of Abbas or, in Clinton’s case, the late, unlamented Arafat.

Julia also opines, accurately, that one of the issues that has driven away conservative voters is Giuliani’s being pro-choice, and she believes that we should compromise on this in order to avail ourselves of his more powerful assets. When you come right down to it, such issues are more in the purview of Congress than they are of POTUS, anyway — and that, friends, shouldn’t even be. It is, after all, a social issue when you come right down to it; Spiritual, moral, however you want to package it, it should be a state’s right to make such determinations, not the federal government’s.

For the record, I am pro-life to the max, and don’t even see where legalizing open season on human fetuses (as Dubya once said, and I agree with him, fetuses have souls, just like the rest of us) should have ever been a topic for consideration, much less an enacted “right”. I believe that most of the alienation of any pro-abortion Presidential candidate by conservatives because of his/her beliefs on abortion rights is more a resentment thing than a logical reason to reject everything else the candidate stands for.

When I moved to New York in the second half of the 1990s (I had been living away from my home town since before Dinkins was elected to abuse the office of mayor, but friends living in New York had kept me abreast of the mess he was making of the city. Even under Ed Koch, during whose administration I did live in N.Y., the city was dirty and crime ridden), Giuliani was in his second term as mayor. The streets and subway stations were noticeably cleaner than I remembered, street crime was down by spectacular margin, as were the numbers of undesirables loitering about at all hours, city employees in positions of public contact were more polite, friendlier and more professional and as a whole, the city seemed healthier than it had previously. Rudy’s “quality of life” policies were working just fine, as was his overall management of the great metropolis.

“Giuliani supports same sex marriage” — I’m not sure where this story originated, but it is unfounded as the only comments the former mayor has made, on record, where the subject is concerned is that while he supports social unions (as does George W. Bush), he believes that all that is required for marriage is one man and one woman. Period. Another obnoxious rumor bites the dust…

There is, however, a single issue upon which will probably, ultimately hinge my “to vote for, or not to vote for” decision where Giuliani is concerned: Illegal immigration. He supported New York’s being a sanctuary city.

The excuses reasons he supplied in the above linked video were beyond flimsy: It would have cost little or no significant quantities of money and manpower for city and/or hospital employees to check the legal status of a questionable subject (a perfectly good use for a telephone or a computer network) and then, if said subject was found to be an illegal or a probable illegal, to call the immigration folks. We’re talking New York City here, where virtually every federal agency has an abundance of staffing! Granted, they’re all pretty busy, but by not investigating and reporting illegal aliens, the Giuliani mayoral administration was permitting ongoing felonies that have a direct negative impact upon both the U.S. economy and public safety.

New York City employees belong to unions. Most of them enjoy pay and benefits that the average working stiff would give his or her left (fill in the blank) for. As such, there are numerous people sitting around whose days contain more non-productive time than they do “nose to the grindstone” moments. I know this because I have several very old, very close friends who are employed by the City of New York whose boasts about the largesse of the agencies they work for are almost identical.

The Giuliani administration could have enforced immigration laws within the confines of their purview without making the fiscal and other sacrifices Rudy would have us believe this would have entailed.

Now…

Here’s the thing:

The candidate we nominate to run in the general election will almost certainly be facing Hillary, going toe-to-toe with the Clinton political machine. This will not be like playing checkers with Brother Juniper, it will be a no-holds-barred, back alley kind of fight facaded by a minimum of political niceties. The Clintons will also have the full and unmitigated support of the mainstream media.

I am of the opinion that Giuliani, who was toughened by years as a federal prosecutor and then District Attorney, City of New York — to say nothing of mayor of what is arguably the most intense city on earth — would have a better chance of beating Hillary than would any other Republican candidate.

Here is where the next question arises: The Republican nominee has won, now what will he do with the Presidency?

…weighs in on RINO McCain. She is spot-on, to the twentieth power.

No matter who those of us with a conservative point of view vote for to face Hillary in the general election, it is inconceivable that it be McCain!

“So who,” I find myself asking, “then?”

Truthfully, I haven’t a clue.

The only two true across-the-board conservatives have departed from the race, but McCain’s still there, and he seems to be garnering increasingly more support with his particular line of Bravo Sierra.

With eleven days left to decide, I can’t say that I’m all that thrilled at the prospect of selecting the “best” option from among the dubious pickings that remain. We are, after all, talking about electing the next President of The United States, not the next Dog Catcher General, and on a more immediate note, the candidate who has to face, debate and defeat Hillary Clinton (if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I hope the devil and his retinue are dressed very warmly, indeed!) on a “no matter what” basis.

I hate to have to steal a line from my dear, profoundly missed late grandmother, but oy vey!

…along, evidently, with Marie’s.

I’ll accept it and “move on” (no relation to the communist dot org), but I will forever be mystefied.

I mean, everyone’s clamoring for another Gipper Administration, but those of uncompromising, across-the-board conservatism that come along are shunted aside in favor of candidates who cross the aisle on a lot of issues that are of major concern to most Republicans. The more we whittle away the more solidly conservative layers of the candidacy, the closer we get to a McCain nomination. Under less serious circumstances (by this I mean that electing a POTUS is anything but picayune), I would call McCain running in the general election unacceptable, but I would have no choice but to vote for him in an effort to prevent the Klinton Karamazov, along with their socialist agendas, criminal enterprises and Chi-Com friends from moving back into that big white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Looking at the remains of the pre-nomination Republican field, I don’t look forward to what comes after. The stretch to the general election will be both unpleasant and, going further(from a rhetoric point of view), an embarrassment to our country.

We actually had a genuine Reagan conservative right there, before our very eyes and votable for, and we failed to take advantage of it.

Oh, well. In the Silver Lining Department, I’ll at least be able to witness certain events of January, 2009 with a clear conscience!

…not to raise taxes, why won’t they sign the pledge?

Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative taxpayer group, regularly asks Republican politicians to sign a pledge not to raise taxes. Three Republican presidential candidates have not signed the pledge, which one strategist said might hurt them during the primaries.

“I worked on Bob Dole’s campaign in 1988 and he didn’t sign and it killed his campaign in the final week,” David Johnson, a Republican strategist and president of Strategic Vision. “That’s how the first President Bush was able to turn around and win the New Hampshire primary.”

New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have not signed the pledge.

Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and RINO McCain all have excuses for not signing, but to me, the bottom line is that if their hearts are pure on the matter of not raising taxes, they will sign the pledge.

The fact that they won’t sign on indicates that they have doubts, that they are leaving their options open rather than committing themselves to hard-copy promises that might come back to haunt them if they do agree to tax increases on their watch.

A track record is one thing, a stated intention still another, but signing an agreement with The American People, legally binding or not, is a much stronger declaration of intent than a few words spoken in a campaign speech or a debate, wherein a politician will more often than not promise whatever is necessary to get elected, the operative theory being that once they’re in office they can worry about any verbal obligations acquired on the campaign trail: Especially when the office in question is the most powerful political position on earth.

“They are kind of caught in a Catch-22,” Johnson said. “They know that this is a way to win the New Hampshire primary, but they don’t want to go on record saying they will never raise taxes and then, if they’re nominated and elected, have to go back on that pledge and have it used against them like the first President Bush did with his famous ‘no new taxes.’”

“I think it’s going to hurt these candidates in New Hampshire,” said Johnson. “New Hampshire is a very anti-tax state.”

“Voters, traditionally when the economy is bad, go for candidates who promise not to raise taxes and who promise to lower taxes,” he said, noting that by refusing to sign the pledge, the three candidates are creating a situation that could play well for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

I suppose that we shall see what we shall see….