Search This Blog

Sunday, November 02, 2008

My First Democrat

(Image courtesy of Zombietime) Sounds like the job description for "community organizer."

There is the first Democratic candidate I supported for President, and then there is the first one I voted for and they are two different guys. I wasn't old enough to vote in 1968, when I supported a Democratic candidate for the first time. This narrative will be about the first Democrat and tomorrow I will address the second one.

I was eight years old in the year JFK beat Nixon. My parents let me watch part of a debate and I liked Kennedy because he looked younger. Nope, wasn't too politically savvy back then... About as savvy as a lot of Obama supporters now, who are voting for him because of his appearance, unfortunately.

When I was in third grade my dad gave me my first novel written for adults (no, not X-rated!), The Wreck of the Mary Deare by Hammond Innes. I couldn't put it down and became an avid reader. In fourth grade the father of one of my best friends gave me a book by Ayn Rand to read and I read everything I could find written by her. I remember reading The City Boy by Herman Wouk and being moved by the emotions and drives and motives of the main character. I also remember following the War in Vietnam on the news, in the papers and even in our Weekly Readers. *

In 1964 I went door-to-door handing out flyers for Barry Goldwater and asking adults to vote for him. I realize now they probably thought my parents had put me up to it. In actuality I was sure Goldwater would win the War in Vietnam before I even entered high school but Lyndon Johnson would surely screw it up. Boy, did he ever!

In 1968 I was a big supporter of Bobby Kennedy, campaigning for him in our mock school primary and passing out literature door-to-door, this time as a Sophomore. People believed I meant it this time around, I am sure! He was the man for the job in my mind.

Understand that Joe Kennedy, Sr. was a crook. He made lots of money during Prohibition as a bootlegger and therefore necessarily had gang ties of various kinds. He was an anti-Semite and a fascist and certainly a hater of communism and a believer in the coming end of democracy. His radical beliefs cost him a position in the Roosevelt administration but didn't end his ambitions. He planned on being a kingmaker and that his oldest son, Joe Jr., would be President. Joe was sadly taken in battle during WWII. John then became the one his father would push towards power.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F Kennedy wasn't around long enough to accomplish what he wanted to do. Strong on national defense and service to the nation and also mankind, he is a fascinating character. Of course, his continual adulteries are a sign that all was not what it seemed to be within JFK. Nevertheless, it is a terrible tragedy that he was assassinated. There are three significant reasons why:

1) He was a natural leader. His father and political cronies had propelled him into office on the strength of better makeup on national TV and the Daley Machine getting the dead vote out in big numbers in Chicago. He was surrounded by a host of Eastern elitist advisors and cabinet members. He was saddled with a Vice President needed to bring in votes from Dixiecrats and the Southwest. But he truly only trusted his brother Bobby and Bobby was no elitist. I think John Fitzgerald Kennedy had a chance to become a great President and that chance was taken away from us.

2) He was replaced by a buffoon of the grossest kind, a back-room politics guy who was not particularly intelligent nor wise. Lyndon Baines Johnson knew how to persuade people to make tit-for-tat deals and he knew how to play all the political games. But he may have been the dumbest and most inappropriate President ever! He managed to finagle a Silver Star for a 13 minute plane ride during WWII while otherwise avoiding any action at all. He was famous for making his hounds howl by lifting them up by the ears. He launched a Great Society program that wound up making government-supported serfs out of the inner-city poor and spent government money like a drunken sailor.

3) JFK had told his associates to plan to get uninvolved in Vietnam. President Eisenhower had sent advisors over in support of the French and JFK had upped the ante in terms of men and materials but saw that Indochina had been a pawn in struggles with China and neighboring states for centuries and didn't believe his alliances with the French extended far enough to drag the country into another war so soon after the end of the Korean War. He believed that the Democratic Party's angst over "losing China" was misplaced and that there were other and bigger fish to fry. But JFK's top advisors were often able to play LBJ like a fiddle. Therefore LBJ fiddled around with Vietnam and turned it into a meat grinder. Read The Best and Brightest by David Halberstam sometime from the perspective of 2008.

I believed that Robert Kennedy was strong enough mentally, intellectually and emotionally to handle the job of President. I was not in favor of Nelson Rockefeller, was disgusted with George Wallace as a racist, figured Ronald Reagan could never win because he was a Hollywood actor and just disliked Richard Nixon as someone who just didn't ring true to me. I thought of him as a used-car salesman.

Bobby Kennedy had an uphill fight to beat Hubert Humphrey, because the Daley Machine and mainline Democratic bosses wanted HHH to win. But Kennedy had a surge in the primaries and his victory in California could well have carried him to a win at the convention over the liberal Gene McCarthy and Daley choice Humphrey. Kennedy confided that he had assurances from Daley that the Machine would support him over Humphrey if he came into town with the momentum in a convention split between Humphrey and McCarthy factions.

Then Sirhan Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy and all hopes I had for the 1968 race were to die with him. I didn't believe in any of the other candidates.


I don't label Barack Obama as a Muslim just because his middle name is Hussein. He did sign a document supporting Sharia Law for his cousin in Africa...and he did attend Muslim schools for four years. But he was a kid when he went to those schools, he had to go where his parents sent him. As for the document? I will save that for later. But I don't think he is Islamic. I think he is opportunistic and radical but not Muslim.

I don't label Obama as a socialist, he did it to himself. He joined the Socialist New Party when he first ran for public office. He filled out a position paper as a new lawmaker taking radical leftist positions. He attend a church based on Marxist principles mixed with racial politics for twenty years. He labeled himself.

He numbered William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi and Frank Marshall Davis as friends and mentors, so I don't have to call him out as a radical. He has shown himself to be a radical. Why shouldn't he sign on to his cousin enacting Sharia Law? We all know the rulers in such states live as they please anyway. It is merely the people who suffer.

He went back on his promise to take and be limited to Federal Matching campaign funds. He lied about his position on the Born Alive law. He lied about his level of association with Ayers. He lied about his involvement with ACORN and their illegal activities. He is a liar, I don't have to make anything up.

Barack Obama has his website rigged to deliberately take illegal contributions and, despite proof of this, refuses to fix the problem. A proper investigation into this already begun has already proven that he has taken illegal foreign donations and fake donations. He got a shady business deal on giant suburban mansion in association with slumlord crook Tony Rezko and made sure Rezko was benefitted in return. He is a man of questionable character.

But what truly angered me and should anger you is when I found out that William Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorn, both terrorists, had written a book called Prairie Fire and that they dedicated the book, in part, to Sirhan Sirhan!

Excerpt: "Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions. Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all."

Zombietime says, "Page 40 of the manuscript is typical: It outlines the Weather Underground's strategies for overthrowing the United States. Among the many strategies are: eliminating the feeling of patriotism among the general public, destroying the government from within, and starting a mass insurrection among the lower classes."
(I guess that is why Obama dislikes those of us who are still "clinging to our guns and religion?")
"And why is this relevant? Because if he believed it in 1974, and still believes it in 2008, then he almost certainly continued to believe it in 1995-2006, the period during which Barack Obama had his associations with Ayers. There is no evidence whatsoever that Ayers went through some "right-wing phase" (which would have been totally out of character) nor had any diminution of his political fervor. As far as anyone can tell, and according to Ayers himself, he has had a consistent and unchanged philosophy from the 1960s up until the present."

Dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, killer of Robert Kennedy. The first Democrat I supported for President was killed by someone admired by a colleague and confidant and mentor of the 2008 Democratic candidate!!! Something has gone terribly wrong with the Democratic Party in 2008. Robert Kennedy might find himself running in the Republican primaries if he had been born forty years later. I don't think he would recognize what is passing for a Democrat these days.

LET ME TELL YOU ALL SOMETHING IMPORTANT! Whereas Barack Obama wants to fundamentally change this country and believes that the Constitution is flawed (he has said those things), the American people will not agree. Many in his own party will not agree. When people begin to understand what he wants to do in terms of redistribution of other people's incomes and his plan to tear down the Constitution by appointing judges who wish to alter it by means of their decrees, some members of his own party will oppose him.

If we are fortunate, he will not be elected and we, as a country, will not face this grave danger to the very foundation of America. We will not be propelled into a deep depression and we will not be besieged by terrorist attacks on our outposts and on our very soil. John McCain can win. Tuesday is not here yet!

But if the worst happens, and Barack Obama is elected, I will still love my country. I will still fight to be heard. I will still seek to rally opposition to the terrible plans he is making to change the United States of America into the Socialist Republic of America. I believe that conservatives and moderates and many Democrats will join me in opposing his ideas.

People do the work and the government should do what it can to give us a chance to do it and otherwise stay the heck away. Put out the fires, lock up the bad guys, fight wars, defend the shores, pass the laws that are necessary and quit spending so much! That is what we need from government. Marxist dogma may sound good to the elitist ear, but in practice it winds up dividing us into poor people, poorer people, the political elite and organized crime. Ever hear of a country called Russia?

If the worst happens, it is even more important for every blog and every radio talk show host and every thinking American to keep an eye on Washington than ever before. Ideological and class warfare is about to begin. Me? I am and will remain on the side of an America that is the land of the free and the home of the brave, where a man can worship God if he wishes and where a man gets to keep the majority of what he earns from his ingenuity and toil. Where a man can own his own shotgun, put a welcome home sign on his garage, watch football on Sunday afternoon and know that he won't be jailed for having an opinion.


Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me with that response to Lobo and me in your last post? (I'm posting here so this doesn't just get buried) I know you want to believe Obama broke the law and you are willing to bend things to fit your belief in many other aspects of life, but in no way did Obama break any law regarding his aunt.

He didn't help support her, he didn't try to help her get a visa and, since she lost her first bid at staying legally, didn't notify authorities to have her deported. That is a violation of the law as an attorney

That is your original quote. It says Obama violated the law-- and he violated the law as an attorney. You would think you would be able to point to some ethical code he broke.

The Lobo posted this:

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act

Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) "Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."...

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

Encouraging and Harboring Illegal Aliens

It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any illegal alien who is in the United States in violation of law. Harboring means any conduct that tends to substantially facilitate an alien to remain in the U.S. illegally. The sheltering need not be clandestine, and harboring covers aliens arrested outdoors, as well as in a building. This provision includes harboring an alien who entered the U.S. legally but has since lost his legal status.

Does this apply to attorneys? Well, yes, but not just attorneys. Regardless, in what way did Obama conceal, harbor, or shield from detection his aunt??????????????? He didn't. You don't have to take my word for it: do you have any friends who are attorneys? Send these two laws to them, and ask them about it.

From your quote, it sounds like you thought him not reporting his aunt to authorities to be deported means he violated the law as an attorney. You also threw around "officer of the court" in that paragraph. Do you really think attorneys have to report any crimes to authorities? Do you think that is part of their job? Or their ethical code? I can tell you it isn't--- I am an attorney and I've aced the ethics exam needed to be admitted into any state and received an A in my ethics course.

JUST ADMIT YOU MADE UP THE LINE ABOUT HIM VIOLATING THE LAW AS AN ATTORNEY. This is just like when you made up that figure, and creeper had to hound you for weeks until you finally broke and said you made it up.

Posts and defenses like last post is why I accuse you of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


radar said...

1) This comment is in the wrong thread.

2) The way I read the law he is guilty of it, although it is one of those statutes that is rarely enforced. You, an attorney, knew the law but tried to be snarky and pretend you were unaware of it.

3) Be as shrill as you want but nothing you said changes the fact that this is the law and he was in violation of that law. Your logic is seriously flawed.

If I knew how to move this to the correct thread, I would do it. But I totally disagree with your conclusion, you are wrong.

Anonymous said...

You know, you basically flip-flopped here-

First, he does not do anything about his Aunt and, according to you, that is violating the law as an attorney and an officer of the court.

Now, he violated the law by actually doing something, namely concealing, harboring, or shielding from protection. If that is the case (which it isn't- you haven't provided any facts to back up that claim), then he wouldn't be violating his duty as an attorney, he would be violating the law as a regular American citizen.

You can read the law anyway you want, but any lawyer will tell you the laws Lobo cited require affirmative acts to violate them. Words like "inducing", "encouraging", "concealing",... are acts one has to take. The law rarely makes it an affirmative duty for someone to act (like mandated reporters of suspected child abuse, or the filing of tax returns), where nonaction becomes an violation of the law.

When you get something wrong, it is OK to say you were wrong, whether you thought it was right when you wrote it or you were just repeating thought you heard elsewhere. When newspapers do that, I gain respect for them-- I know I can count on them to correct mistakes and can continue to read them with the hope they are printing what they believe to be the truth.

But, this conversation has grown tiresome, and I can type until my fingers fall off and you probably still won't believe me. That's fine. The election is tomorrow, and whoever is going to win is probably going to win at this point. Arguing over stuff like this is probably a waste of my time and your's.


radar said...

You sure wasted a lot of time posting that you and I disagree, which is what I already said. Lobo and Radar 2, Lava 1.

You are still in the wrong thread.

Anonymous said...

I didn't just post that you and I disagree. I posed reasons why you are wrong. I posted reasons why you flip-flopped on what you originally said. You failed to respond.

If you want to stifle any argument and discussion by not actually responding to an argument and declaring yourself the winner, then fine. Do that.

You can be a smart guy sometimes radar, which is why I read you blog and post here. I find the debate/discussion here interesting a lot of the times-- posting on someone's blog who agrees with me would be just a series of high fives-- that isn't fun. But other times, you just want to make conclusory statements and not actually back up claims you make. When challenged, you barely respond with anything but conclusory statements that you are winning on a hypothetical scoreboard(like here, you don't want to actually explain how Obama broke the law). By having a blog with an open comments section, I assume you want a discussion to happen. Am I wrong? Or do you just want the high fives from like minded folks? I can stop reading and posting if that is the case.


PS. and where has creeper gone? His debates with you were one of the main reasons I continued to read this blog.

Anonymous said...

Valiant effort Lava. I feel for you. You lasted longer than most it appears (creeper, tax, cranky (by-the-way man, that "god hates you" post was laugh out loud funny), schoen(?), and a few others I can't remember). You, Lava, I believe based on previous posts, are also christian, so maybe you were more sympathetic to Radar because of that fact, or maybe I'm way off... Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your reason for visiting this Blog in the first place. Creeper - hmmm, come to think of it, maybe HE has a blog out there somewhere? - But, alas, I fear that Creeper, like everyone (including you and I, Lava), eventually, realized that Radar is not at all fair or reasonable when it comes to anything that interferes with his faith (be it ice cores, or evolution, or global climate change, or Barack Obama, or whatever the heck else it is that he thinks contradicts his literal interpretation of the bible). He will simply state that Black is White (like when he says "The way I read the law he is guilty.." Seriously, WTF???) and then, of course, he'll tell you that it's just our "worldview" that's stopping you from recognizing this fact. But wait, it gets even better, when Radar gets "NAILED" (to quote Stephen Colbert) he simply buries the posting, and connected comments section, under heaps of garbage posts. So as to try to appear unchallenged in his little world, just in case any new visitors might stumble by. It's pathetic really.
I've just been stopping by lately to check out the histrionics that our dear Radar is going through as he slowly realizes that Obama has won this election. And no matter how many hate-filled smear-mongering posts he literally throws up on this blog (not-to-mention the intentionally comical ones - Sometimes it's like, "WTF??? Am I reading the Onion here? Nope, that's just Radar sounding exactly like a parody, of himself"), Barack Hussein Obama II is going to win tomorrow and there's not a Gosh Darned thing he can do about it.
In the end, I think you have it Lava. Radar really really wants, and needs, the insular "high fives". So he keeps the comments section open (they rarely occur by-the-way). But when someone challenges him, he first tries to take them on, but when he realizes he's outclassed, he just pukes up a bunch of garbage and buries challenge altogether. Hoping that the smart person would just go away, which they sometimes, probably ofttimes, do.
To conclude Lava, a great big "High Five" to you, from one sometimes-reader of this frustrating blog, to another.


radar said...

Knucklehead, indeed.

Okay, I know Lava knows better but you don't, so I am not sure which is worse?

Obama's aunt is mentioned in "his" book and he claims a relationship with her. Obama's aunt tries to remain in the country illegally and is legally required to leave. Her nephew is running for President.

It is highly likely that she asked for his help, a sitting US Senator. It would be unbelievable that she would not and stretch credibility to the brink. But having it publicized that he has an aunt living in poverty while he claims to care for the poor would be bad publicity. It is probable that he asked her to sit tight until he could get through the election process. The idea that he didn't know and didn't communicate with her doesn't pass the smell test and Lava knows it.

The US media didn't dig this up, nor did the Republicans. It was a British news source that found out where the aunt was and also her situation. So don't blame this on the McCain camp.

A caring nephew would have helped her by advising her to leave the country and giving her some support as well. He has millions of dollars and throws money around like confetti.

But Obama didn't tell her to obey the law, didn't help her to do it and didn't help her at all, from what evidences we can see at the moment. That he likely broke the law seems obvious, although in cases like this you almost never even seek prosecution. There are bigger fish to fry than attorneys who do not report illegal immigrants or help them remain in the country. We would run out of attorneys...

There's a thought. JK!

But you, Lava, think it is logical that he didn't even know where she was? You think he didn't advise her? That makes you smart and that you have out-classed me? Ni-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ice!

Canucklehead, I guess there are no logic classes taught in your part of the world? Thus, my blog would frustrate you terribly. You hate what I am saying and have no good argument and neither does Lava.

radar said...

Oh, and Creeper will probably stay away until the election is over and creation versus evolution posts begin again.

Anonymous said...

I'm still so confused as to how he broke the law in your knowing of her? By talking to her? By advising her?

If he advised her in his role as an attorney (which is what your original allegation was-- obama violated his duty as an attorney and officer of the court), he would have had a duty not to tell anyone about her, including the authorities. In fact, he could have been disbarred for turning her in. Additionally, a lawyer cannot make their client do anything. Any rational lawyer lays out the options for their client- If obama did advise her as an attorney, I imagine he would have laid out the option like (I may have some facts in here wrong, I don't know much about immigration or the facts of his aunt) "You can leave the country as you are supposed to do. If you don't do that you will be in violation of the law. If you stay and are caught here illegally, these things will happen to you...." Would anyone who has committed a crime or is committing a crime ever see a lawyer if that lawyer would just turn them in?

Knowing of and talking to her are not affirmative acts like concealing, as required by the statutes.

Happy election day everyone!


Anonymous said...

"Canucklehead, I guess there are no logic classes taught in your part of the world? Thus, my blog would frustrate you terribly. You hate what I am saying and have no good argument and neither does Lava." - Good one man. More unintentional humor from our host (don't forget, that's the other reason I stop by this blog). As if logic means anything to you Radar. You are a biblical literalist, so you will ignore logic in the face of your so called proof.
Again we see the "Black is White, Dammit!" statement from Radar. To claim that I or Lava have "no good argument" is patently silly. Of course Lava has a good argument, you just don't like it and because she NAILED you with it, you buried the post, and then bellyached when she brought the discussion closer to the top of the page. I have said it before Radar, I post for others that might happen upon this blog, not for you. That is also why creeper was actually doing a service by responding to your garbage. To show those sheltered individuals within your insular community that there are real facts behind the science of evolution and global warming. You are probably a lost cause Radar. At least until you deal with your own personal "demons". Which I'm also guessing are affecting your physical health. I say, drop the hate and maybe you'll get well Radar.


radar said...

Funny. I don't blog to get atta-boys, I do it to make people think. Sometimes I get really dumb replies and those then become part of the post. I don't delete people who disagree even when they say little or nothing of consequence.

Canucklehead, you are no danger to anyone unless you are a judge. You have a brain filter that screens out everything you don't want to believe. I hope you keep believing in breath in, breath out!

I have readers from all over the globe, most of whom do not comment. In the last year I have had visitors from every continent except Antarctica. Some people do read this blog.

I never ask my friends to comment, although I am in touch with plenty of very popular bloggers who would gladly make a comment to prop me up if I asked. So what? We are all doing what we can to spread information. It is what Americans call "freedom of speech."

Lava gave us a good reply just before yours, asking questions that an attorney might ask in the situation. Lava, since we cannot interview either Obama or his aunt we cannot know. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't violate the law. I can't prove it. You can't disprove it. I can infer it based on the evidence we have. So I suggested it.

Funny how you want to concentrate on that instead of important issues like voter fraud, Obama's intent to bankrupt the coal industry, his illegal political contribution machine and yadda yadda yadda that all have much more relevance to the election.
We are in danger of electing the new Hugo Chavez and you want to keep talking about whether we can prove he committed a crime concerning his aunt's immigration status. So last word from me on Obamaunt...