Thursday, October 30, 2008

School Days and Barack Hussein Obama

From today's Heritage Foundation's 'Education Notebook' today we get their take on how important Barack Hussein Obama regards having CHOICE -- That is CHOICE in education. Since he could afford it he doesn't want to send his kids to public schools. No, he sends them to a University of Chicago lab school at the cost of only $18,000 per kid per year.

But when it comes to vouchers for others' kids to get out of the public schools (as he chose), our soon-to-be president-elect doesn't believe in them.

Does this somehow contradict his "Spreading the wealth around" axiom?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Obama's Stealth Socialism

This comes a little late and probably few have read it or read it, but here is an editorial from July's Investors Business Daily on 'Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism. It's scary--kind of appropriate for Halloween and a national election -- but certainly worth reading as it portrays how Barack Hussein Obama intends to spread your money around.

P.S. Yes, the photo, once again, is Karl Marx.

Campaign Finance Reform

It's amazing to us that campaign finance reform (one of soon-to-be returning U.S. Senator McCain's maverick contributions to our society) continues to be an issue given the recent 'reforms'.

Yet, today we read in the Washington Post that soon-to-be President-elect Barack Hussein Obama's campaign is accepting untraceable donations (see: ). Yes, from prepaid debit cards that could be purchased by folks who want to circumvent the $2300 per person per election maximum contribution limits or even from foreign operatives that want to illegally give money to his campaign. The story tells us that one woman was shown as having given more than $174,000 to Barack Hussein Obama's campaign and states that she denied even making a contribution. Others have used false names to contribute using prepaid debit cards.

We're told by the Barack Hussein Obama campaign that they are on top of this. No doubt you can take that to the bank.

Anyway, it just seems that no matter how you try to regulate campaign fiances there is always a new way around it. In this case, McCain's solution just shows that perhaps there is no solution other than to simply allow unlimited donations and require real disclosure--whatever that is.....

Redistributing the Wealth

A friend sent this to us and we thought it might lend some constructive ideas to those of you might find yourself in need of a way to let folks know about how redistribution of the wealth works. It probably didn't happen but it may give you some ideas. Enjoy:

"Today on my way to lunch, I passed a homeless guy on the street with a cardboard sign that said "Vote Obama, I need the money". I laughed to myself. Once inside the restaurant, the waitress had on an "Obama 08" tie. Again I sort of chuckled to myself as she gave away her political preference. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, a spontaneous thought came to mind, I decided not to tip the waitress and explained to her that I was exploring the "Obama Redistribution of Wealth Concept". She stood there in disbelief as I told her I was going to redistribute her tip to someone outside whom I deemed more in need, namely the homeless guy on the sidewalk. Well, it was a little tense and then she just sort of stormed away.

I went outside and gave the homeless guy $10 (I gave him a little more than the tip would have been) and told him to thank the waitress inside because I decided he could use the money more than her. The homeless guy was very grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized that the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn but the waitress was pretty angry that I had given away the tip money that she had earned even though the actual recipient of the money seemed to need it more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."
P.S. The guy in the photo is Karl Marx

What to expect from President Obama

There is a good column by Michael Barone on what you can expect over the next four years (hopefully, only four) from President Barack Hussein Obama. It's not very encouraging unless your a fan of the economics of Wilson and Roosevelt (FDR). To add to any sense of depression(no pun intended)or impending doom, check it out at:

There is another worthwhile read this morning by Tony Blankley, "Is Obama Secretly Sensible, Don't Bet on It!" that you might find interesting at:

Then, of course to add even more speculation, we have Patrick Buchanan's column, "Obama's first 100 days' which will add further to your funk if you happen to be a conservative. Although we sometimes believe old Pat can be great at letting us know the sky is falling, this time he may be right. Read his column at:

Finally, we have a column by Thomas Sowell, "Obama and the Law" which should give many of you even more heartburn as you anticipate the coronation of Barack Hussein Obama. See it at:

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

And Our August Hall Of Shame Nominee is Found Guilty

Our August Hall of Shame Nominee,as you may recall, was Senator Ted Stevens(R),Alaska. Well, yesterday he was convicted of violating federal ethics laws for his failure to report the thousands of dollars of gifts and services his construction buddies provided him for his home in Alaska.

We're glad that justice has caught up with this sleazeball. On the other hand his conviction should (and we can only wonder about the sanity of Alaska voters if it doesn't) provide the Democrats one more seat in their thrust toward a filibuster-proof U.S. Senate.

Barack Obama's Dream Cabinet -- Doug Patton

October 27, 2008

If the elite media and their skewed polls are to be believed, Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States. If that is the case, let us imagine for a moment what an Obama administration might look like if this radical leftist actually were to follow his heart and appoint people to his cabinet who share his view of the world. Here, then, are some highlights of some key members of Barack Obama’s possible dream cabinet (in alphabetical order).

Secretary of Agriculture — U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin would be the logical choice here. Harkin, a far-left Iowa Democrat who has served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has never met an ag subsidy he didn’t love.

Attorney General — If Obama thought he could get away with it, he probably would place his wife, Michelle in this position, just as President John F. Kennedy did with his brother, Bobby. However, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy of the Peoples’ Republic of Vermont would be equally vigilant on behalf of the rights of criminals and would therefore be a suitable second choice.

Secretary of Defense — How about U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who, while running for president himself, once proposed a “Department of Peace”? (What Dennis the Menace has never understood is that the funny-looking five-sided building across the Potomac is our department of peace.)

Secretary of Education — The obvious choice for this post is Professor William Ayers from the University of Illinois. This man is considered to be an expert in the field of education. He has written 17 books and is highly respected within the academic community. He is well known to Barack Obama, having served on at least two boards with him. He is also a self-proclaimed Marxist, anarchist and domestic terrorist who brags about having set off bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol building and at New York City police headquarters. He and Barack Obama share a desire to pollute young American minds with leftist propaganda.

Secretary of Energy — Perhaps President Obama could get former Vice President Al Gore to fill this important post. Gore could just shut down what’s left of our refineries and grind the nation to a halt. Of course, it’s going to be hard to blame that on the Republicans if they are not in power. Oh well, they’ll think of something.

Secretary of Health and Human Services — Is Jack Kevorkian still alive? Old Jack really would be perfect to carry out Obama’s creepy anti-life policies.

Secretary of Homeland Security — As long as we have Bill Ayers in the cabinet, why not include his lovely wife, Bernadine Dohrn? Another domestic terrorist, Dohrn actually did prison time for her crimes.

Secretary of State — Without question, the state department is the most visible cabinet post in any administration, and no one personifies Barack Obama’s view of American foreign policy better than Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is widely known as a political dissident, anarchist and socialist intellectual. Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War, Chomsky has established himself as a harsh critic of American foreign policy. He would be the perfect secretary of state to carry out Barack Obama’s feeble foreign policy initiatives.

Secretary of the Treasury — Although Obama has mentioned Warren Buffet as a potential treasury secretary, why go with George Soros light when you can have the real deal? Given the opportunity, why wouldn’t Obama offer the job to the crazy, Hungarian-born billionaire who has invested so much in getting him elected?

For White House Budget Director, Prez Obama might have a tough choice between two highly qualified members of the U.S. House of Representatives, namely Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank. Rangel, of course, is the black congressman from Harlem and current chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He once equated tax cuts with racism. His appointment would fill a race quota. Then there’s Frank, of Massachusetts, who was at the heart of the debacle with sub-prime mortgages that eventually brought down Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. His presence in an Obama administration would fill a gay quota. (Appearances are everything to Dems, you know.)

Then there are the eventual Supreme Court appointments, but I can’t even allow myself to focus on any names beyond Hillary Clinton. Who knows? Obama might even get this motley crew approved by a Democrat Senate.

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at

Monday, October 27, 2008

Let the wealth be spread (redistributed)

For those of you who haven't heard it, here is a radio interview with Barack Hussein Obama from 2001 where he shares his real feelings about redistributing the wealth.

Check it out at: (you may have to copy link and insert it in your browser)

Words of Wisdom for Barack Hussein Obama from the Gipper

Courtesy of our friends at The Patriot Post, today, a quote from Ronald Reagan that would be good for soon-to-be President-elect Barack Hussein Obama and those of his liberal ilk to keep in mind, learn, or understand:

"“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business. Begin with the food and fiber raised in the farm, to the ore drilled in a mine, to the oil and gas from out of the ground, whatever it may be—through the processing, through the manufacturing, on out to the retailer’s license. If the tax cannot be included in the price of the product, no one along that line can stay in business.”

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Speaking of San Francisco

The Associated Press tells us:

"In this live-and-let-live town (San Francisco) town,where medical marijuana clubs do business next to groceries and and an annual fair celebrates sadomasochism, prostitutes could soon walk the streets without fear of arrest.

"San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K. It would forbid local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.


San Francisco and Boston

We know that California is quickly becoming the socialist mecca of our country and that San Francisco, led by it's wacky Mayor Newsom, is it's true capitol, not Sacramento. The folks in California just keep making decisions for people because their citizens are apparently unable to think for themselves. This is evidenced by the City Council of Los Angeles barring new fast food restaurants in Southeast L.A. because people there are overweight, diabetic and unhealthy and obviously unable to make smart choices about what to eat. Then you have RINO Governor Schwarzenegger signing a bill to ban trans fats at all restaurants in the state by 2010 or 2011. And somehow we failed to catch the fact that our dear friends in San Francisco had banned drug stores from selling cigarettes in July.

Wow, unless you want to be for gay marriage (obviously a state imperative) or support the killing of embryos through active state-funded research you aren't capable of thinking for yourself.

But back to our lead, Boston. Yes the fine council members in Boston, following their left coast rivals, now want to prevent selling of cigarettes at Boston drugstores and on college campuses (We wonder if Harvey Perlman would consider that an affront to free speech?).

When will it end? Obviously, no one is capable of making decisions for themselves any more. The slippery slope will continue to erode our rights as the process continues.

We're still waiting for an edict as to what color socks we should wear each day of the week.

For more on Boston, see:

Foot in Mouth Award

Today's award goes to Former PA Governor Tom Ridge who in a momentary lapse with the press inferred that things might be different in Pennsylvania if John McCain has chosen him as his running mater rather than Sarah Palin.

Ridge told reporters upon being asked if he should have been McCain's VP pick, "I think the dynamics would be different in Pennsylvania. I think we'd be foolish not to admit it publicly."

For doing so, he got to 'clarify' his comments later.

Friday, October 24, 2008


Contributor Patrick McPherson shared his opinion with you earlier in the week regarding the Ayres/University of Nebraska debacle. We agree for the most part with his opinion.
With that said, we were not impressed by the 'hyped' excuses of security issues that the university provided regarding the threats that would have created a problem for bringing Ayres here. The fact that the threats have been turned over to the university police should say something because, if indeed, they were terroristic they should have been turned over to the Nebraska State Patrol or the FBI as contributor McPherson suggested. Otherwise they weren't treats, just comments of disdain and outrage.
But here is the real news today--It's that State Auditor Mike Foley followed up on the statement that no taxpayer funds would be used to bring Ayers here to speak. Guess what, Mr. Perlman and his dean of the education school LIED!!!! They were going to pay Ayers a $1000 honorarium and ask the university foundation to pay his travel expenses!!
Interestingly, Foley had to use a state law to threaten Perlman and company, a law that required them to reply within four days--a deadline which they failed to meet, the information coming some four hours later by e-mail. Foley now wonders, as do we, if that honorarium has been paid for Ayer's non-appearance. We think Mike will find out--soon.

The fact that Perlman and company thought that Ayers was the kind of speaker they felt was desirable to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the school of education speaks volumes. The fact that they've contrived the reasons for cancelling the 'engagement' to avoid further criticism and donor threats of removal of financial report says a lot. The fact that they lied about taxpayer funds says even more.
We agree, it's time for Perlman to go.

Senator Brad Ashford

It's no secret that we at the Objective Conservative are not particularly enthralled with Senator Brad Ashford most of the time. His ideas are often quirky or simply too liberal for us.

Will today, we want to compliment Senator Ashford on his decision to introduce laws to help enforce immigration laws in Nebraska. The Omaha World Herald (Oct. 23 addition) tells us that Ashford, "plans to call for a mandatory system that electronically checks whether a Nebraska worker is in the country legally."
Interestingly, while Ashford apparently thinks this will cause illegals to leave Nebraska (it has in Arizona and elsewhere) he also brings up the interesting and we think accurate proposition that this will take the suspicion away from those immigrants who are here legally. What a refreshing thought because most who are against illegal immigration are at least hopefully just as zealous in their patriotic view that all legal citizens should be treated with respect and equally.

While we don't totally agree with all of Senator Ashford's thought process, he's right on here. If you didn't read the story you can find it at:

You conservatives might want to let Brad know that you think he should pursue this come January.

Political Correctness

Seems that the Gruci Brothers Fireworks guys are not supporters of political correctness:Check Spelling

"The internationally known fireworks company, Grucci, has pulled out of an annual Christmas event on Long Island because the town of Patchogue decided to break with its 15-year tradition of holding a Christmas Boat Parade: This year it decided to rename the event the Patchogue Holiday Boat Parade. "

Good for them.

More Ethanol

Ethanol might not be a total solution to our energy problems and some may not like government subsidies for it, but in our view anything that contributes to a plan to make this country energy independent (of those that hate us and take a substantial annual sum of more than $700,000,000,000 from our citizens) is worth pursuing. Hence, we're glad to see a discussion occurring on whether to raise the ethanol levels in gasoline from 10% to 13% or 15%. Everything helps and we should do it stat.

What is sad is that is that neither this country nor John Sidney McCain nor Barrack Hussein Obama nor our congress has yet to develop a substantive energy plan to make this country independent of foreign sources within the next ten years. This does mean ethanol, nuclear, wind, etc. It should have been done 30 years ago and every president and congress since then has failed this country miserably by their inability to do so.

Protecting Chickens

From today's New York Times:
"On Nov. 4, California voters will be asked to decide on Proposition 2, an animal rights ballot measure that would grant the farm animals in California the opportunity to spread their hooves and claws, rather than being confined to restrictive cages, as many chickens, sows and veal cattle now are."

It's California. Enough said, but if you care to read about it, see:
We do find it interesting that Californians are interested in protecting the rights of a bunch of chicken, but seem to not care about protecting the rights of the unborn human being.......

Words of Wisdom

From our friends at the Patriot Post:

"But this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates, John Sidney McCain and Barack Hussein Obama; it is a referendum on the ability of a majority of Americans voters to discern between one candidate who possesses the presidential character and integrity of a statesman, and one who does not.

In fact, Obama could not even qualify for a basic security clearance if he was applying for a government job because of his close association with unrepentant terrorists
William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. These “useful idiots,” apologists for socialist political and economic agendas, used their radical celebrity to launch Barack Obama’s political career and are his mentors to this day."

We couldn't agree more.....

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Foot in Mouth Award

The Objective Conservative thinks it's time to establish a new award, The Objective Conservative Foot in Mouth Award. There are many politicians on both sides of the aisle that immediately come to mind for this, but our first award goes to Congressman John Murtha. Murtha said earlier this week that, " You know, I — there's no question, western Pennsylvania is a racist area. When I say a racist area, I mean they — the older people are hesitant, you know, they're slow in seeing change, real change."

Murtha, surprisingly now finds himself in a contested battle to retain his seat even with all of the pork this guy has delivered to Pennsylvania. We can only hope that his foot in mouth comments help to drive this porker out of his thus far comfortable house seat. It would be good for all Americans as the pork would stop flowing to Pennsylvania over their states.
Incidentally, if you didn't check out our story on Murtha on October 20th, you can find it below in 'older posts.' This guy is a master at manipulating folks to give him and his causes money.

For another good piece on Congressman Murtha, check out Michelle Malkin's view at:

The Democratic Wave or Dark Prospects for the GOP

Well, we are already on record as acknowledging that Barack Hussein Obama will be the next President of the United States. Sadly, things aren't looking very good for the GOP prospects in the United States Senate where it will be lucky to retain 40 to 43 seats--no thanks to our former Hall of Shame member Ted Stevens who will probably be convicted of accepting bribes shortly.

While we originally thought that Barack Hussein Obama would beat John Sidney McCain by about 10-15 electoral votes, it is looking a lot worse today. Larry Sabato whose report you should read at is is showing Barack Hussein Obama with 318 electoral votes today, well on a way to a landslide.

Sorry folks for our pessimism, but we are the Objective Conservative and while we make no apologies for our "right" slant, we also need to be objective/realistic.

For further evidence supporting our pessimistic view you might check out today's article by political analyst Stuart Rothenberg at:

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Ask Not What You Can Do For Your Country Rather Ask What Your Country Can Do for YOU

Well, that seems to be the case as evidenced by Barack Hussein Obama's promise to give 95% of the populace a tax break despite the fact that 30 to 40% pay no federal taxes now. As we've noted before, what happens when that number is 50% and all those recipients vote for the guy who promises them more and more freebies at no cost to them? That's when the United States of America becomes another Great Britain folks.

In that same vein, we read Rasmussen Reports this morning and find the following:
"41% Say US Should Encourage Auto Sales
Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans think the federal government should provide tax incentives for anyone who buys a car from a U.S. auto company, as two of the Big Three automakers talk merger to survive in the current economic climate. Thirty-two percent oppose the tax incentives, and 25% are undecided."

We're not certain who Americans think U.S. automakers are. Seems to us that Toyotas, Mercedes, BMW's, Nissans and others are built in this country by Americans. Seems to us that Ford Escorts, Chrysler minivans and a whole host of other "American" vehicles are built in Mexico and Canada. If some congressman or senator can come up with an appropriate definition perhaps he should get a Nobel Prize.

Seriously, what does this say about the American public? Seems to us it is just another indication of wanting the government to do more for me. "I need a new car, so the government should help me buy it."

We're now paying for the mentality of President Clinton and a bunch of liberals (and fiscally irresponsible Republicans) who believed that everyone should own a home and the government should help them get it.

Yes, it's time that we Americans expect even more of our government.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Joe the Plumber's Tax Hike

Below you will find one of the better articles we've seen on our friend Joe the Plumber as well as a good analysis of what Barack Hussein Obama's tax policy will do to (not for) not only poor Joe but nearly 3 million businesses in this country.

Joe the Plumber's Tax Hike, and YoursRyan Ellis, Director of Tax Policy, Americans for Tax ReformFriday,

October 17, 2008

"The latest American to get his fifteen minutes of fame this week is Joe Wurzelbacher, better and more famously known as “Joe the Plumber.” Joe challenged Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently on the campaign trail over the senator’s plan to raise taxes on small businesses making more than $250,000. Joe wants to purchase a plumbing company that today nets $280,000 per year, and he wanted to know why the possible next President of the United States wanted to raise his taxes.

"It’s a good question. So, we at Americans for Tax Reform ran the numbers. According to our calculations (and there are always assumptions involved when you’re translating campaign rhetoric into 1040 reality), Joe the Plumber will face a net tax hike of over $4,000 per year. This is $4,000 that Joe won’t have to hire an apprentice, purchase new plumbing equipment, or save for his retirement.

"How do his taxes get hiked? First and most significantly, Obama has said repeatedly that he will strip away the Bush tax cuts from any household making more than $250,000 per year.
Secondly, Obama has said he would raise the self-employment tax (which pays for Social Security and Medicare) for those making more than $250,000. Because he has been very non-committal on details, ATR assumes that the full 15.3 percent self-employment tax rate will apply to Joe’s marginal income.

"The results are staggering for Joe: his overall tax bill goes up by over $4,000 per year. But Joe’s not alone. According to the IRS, there are about 28 million small business owners in the United States. Nearly 3 million of them earn at least $200,000 per year. These are the businesses that Obama is targeting with his tax hike.

"But wait, you might be saying. That’s a pretty small percentage of all small business owners (and the Obama campaign would remind you of that same point). What that simplistic treatment leaves out, though, is that fully two-thirds of all small business profits are earned by these three million small business owners. So when Obama raises their top marginal tax rate to (perhaps) over 50 percent, he’s raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small business profits earned in the United States to Jimmy Carter levels.

"Small businesses by and large pay their income taxes on their owners’ tax returns. These 28 million owners control all the sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S-corporations in the country. It’s literally impossible to raise taxes on “the rich” without raising taxes on small business income. The worst case scenario is a top small business tax rate of 54.9 percent (the result of combining a full 15.3 percent self-employment tax with a top marginal income tax rate of 39.6 percent).

"According to the Census Bureau, these small businesses (in this case, defined as employing less than 100 people) give a paycheck to 42 million Americans. In 2006, the IRS reported that net small business profits exceeded $700 billion. How many trillions of dollars in goods and services did small businesses purchase?

"The point is that Joe the Plumber and others like him are the beating heart of the U.S. economy. If you tell these entrepreneurs that the government is going to take 50 percent of everything they make after a certain amount of income, they’re going to stop working. Joe the Plumber might not make as many house calls. He might not bother hiring that extra assistant plumber. Why should he? He can stay home, watch the Ohio State Buckeyes on TV, and not have to give half his enjoyment to anyone, least of all the government.

"Multiply that across the entire economy. From Joe the Plumber’s Ohio, to Barack Obama’s Illinois, to Nancy Pelosi’s California, a great iron curtain of lost productivity will descend over America’s small business sector. Your Mom and Pop store up the block might not be open on Saturdays anymore. People will make a rational decision that it doesn’t make sense to work that extra hour or invest in that extra piece of equipment if it means that the government will be keeping half of my profit.

"As the great engine of U.S. small business productivity grinds to a halt, America will slowly but surely turn into Western Europe without the charm. “Cowboy capitalism” will be replaced with a nationwide imitation of modern-day Detroit.

"That’s what the Obama tax hike is all about. You can’t tax the Monopoly man without screwing Joe the Plumber and flushing the U.S. economy down the toilet."

October Hall of Shame -- Rep. Tim Mahoney (D), FL

We didn't pay a lot of attention to it, but you may have noticed that we updated our Hall of Shame to add an October nominee. Yes, none other than great family man Congressman Tim Mahoney (D), Fl. Yes, at least this slimeball is a Democrat. Heaven only knows our Hall of Shame seems to be pretty evenly populated with Republicans and Democrats.

Fittingly, after apparently paying off his mistress so she would go away, we read this morning that Mahoney's wife has filed for divorce. In a way that is much more palatable than watching bums like this stand at the podium with their ever-loving wives who have forgiven them for their transgressions.

No Disclosure on Sweetheart VIP Treatment

In a editorial you might not have expected from our conservative friends at the New York Times, they take on Senator Dodd for his failure to disclose more information about the sweetheart deal he received from Countrywide as a VIP. If you recall we at the Objective Conservative discussed this affront to our taxpayer back on June 24th (Countrywide-gate) .


Monday, October 20, 2008

The Firestorm in Nebraska - Doug Patton

October 20, 2008

Imagine that after his arrest, Timothy McVeigh had been released from custody because of misconduct by police and/or an overzealous prosecutor. Imagine that after his release, McVeigh had bragged about setting the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Now picture McVeigh spending the next decade amassing degrees from prestigious universities and procuring grants to dispense funds to extreme right-wing groups. Imagine that he had become a tenured professor at a major university and an expert on education issues — and that he wrote a book about his experiences as a terrorist.

On the cover of a magazine, he is photographed stomping on an American flag. In the interview within that magazine, he is quoted as saying, “Guilty as hell! Free as a bird! America is a great country!” He is also quoted as saying that he does not regret blowing up the Murrah Building; in fact, he says, he wishes he had done more. Perhaps an abortion clinic bombing. Perhaps another federal building. Perhaps the White House.

Now imagine clear evidence is found that McVeigh had been associated with John McCain on several levels. Perhaps they served on a board together. Maybe McCain had helped McVeigh dispense some of those funds to right wing groups. Everyone this side of the planet Neptune knows that this would be a topic of discussion in numerous front-page articles in The New York Times and on every media outlet in America — and rightly so.

But that aside, what do you think the chances would be that other universities around the country would invite Timothy McVeigh to come and lecture their students? Well, that is exactly what happened at the University of Nebraska, but the unrepentant terrorist turned college professor and education expert in question is not Timothy McVeigh. He is William Ayers, Marxist professor and friend of Barack Obama, and he was invited to Lincoln to speak at the university next month.

The university’s department of education is having a celebration marking one hundred years of service to the community and the state. Ayers was scheduled to speak on November 15. The invitation was extended to him in February of this year. The excuse given for this inexcusable invitation is that Ayers is an “expert in education issues” and that those extending it did not know about Ayers’ terrorist past. Right.

This man’s past as the founder of the Weather Underground, a 1970s offshoot of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) — a past that included bombing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and a New York City police headquarters building — has been known to everyone paying the slightest bit of attention for at least the last year. His association with Obama has been public knowledge since before the Democratic Primaries last winter and spring.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman, Attorney General Jon Bruning, University Regent Randy Furlic and even U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson were all highly critical of the decision to invite Ayers. Furlic, in an op-ed in the Omaha World-Herald, compared the Ayers invitation to inviting Osama bin Laden to discuss religion or Josef Mengele to speak on medical ethics.

NU Chancellor Harvey Pearlman seemed to have been caught off guard by the firestorm of criticism when the invitation was announced. Pearlman has a typical insular academic’s view of the world. He just doesn’t get it. In the end, he cancelled the invitation, citing security reasons. No one in Nebraska really buys that excuse, but at least Ayers will not be speaking here.

The entire firestorm over the invitation to Bill Ayers to speak at the University of Nebraska misses a very large point. From the time Bill Ayers plotted the bombing of the Pentagon, the Capitol and New York City police headquarters through his years as a student to his current status as an “education expert,” he has never changed his view of the world. Ayers is, at heart, a radical, America-hating terrorist who wants to destroy the Republic as we know it. He tried to destroy it in the 1970s by setting bombs. He failed. Now he wants to destroy it by poisoning the minds of American students and convincing them to hate their country as much as he does.

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at

Fire Perlman - Postscript - Patrick McPherson

Friday, I wrote the following diatribe (See 'Fire Perlman' below) which I unabashedly forwarded to our regents, Harvey Perlman, J.B. Miliken and others. Since then the university has 'disinvited' the 'reformed' terrorist Ayres under the guise that it could not protect him from Nebraska terrorists (donors, incensed citizens, political leaders).

Earlier today, Chancellor Perlman said that the university did the right thing by inviting Ayers in the first place. That statement shows how out of touch Super Athletic Director and Coach of Academic Free Speech Perlman is. Free speech be damned--He just doesn't get it. Nebraskans have a higher standard for those it wants its children to hear at THEIR university. Their donors, their governor, and at least one of their regents (Randy Ferlic) understand this. Apparently, Perlman still does not.

With that said, we are told that the event has been cancelled because of the inability of the University to protect this terrorist. Apparently, there have been threatening e-mails and threatening telephone calls. As I understand it, there are laws against such behavior. It will be interesting to see whether the university turns those e-mails and phone records over to the FBI or State Patrol so that prosecution of those free speech hating Nebraska terrorists can be pursued. On the other hand, maybe Perlman will refuse to turn over those records to protect the free speech of these would-be terrorists.

One should judge the university's lie/excuse/guise by whether anyone is prosecuted for these nefarious threats. Otherwise the cancellation is based on a ruse contrived by Perlman & Associates. In the interim the governor should demand that the university turn all records of threats over to the State Patrol immediately!

For the parents of kids whose parents send them to learn on Harvey's tutelage, perhaps they should arm thier children (lawmakers will have to make that legal next year) so their kids can protect themselves since obviously the university's ability to protect anyone at all is suspect.

The bottom line here folks, is Harvey Perlman SHOULD STILL BE FIRED. HE IS AN INCOMPETENT LEADER (I use the term 'leader' loosely) WHO CAN'T PROTECT HIS VISITORS (apparently) AND AN ACADEMIC ELITIST WHO THUMBS HIS NOSE AT EVERY NEBRASKA TAXPAYER BY HIS REFUSAL TO ADMIT THAT HE HAS TERRIBLE JUDGMENT, WHICH HE CALLS ACADEMIC FREEDOM. I STAND BY MY DIATRIBE (below) OF FRIDAY. IT'S TIME TO FIRE PERLMAN or at least send him back to the law school (which is where his tenure will provide safe haven).

Lawmakers, their corporate donors and their pet projects

It's no secret we are not fans of Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania. He has raised the earmark process to a science with project after project named after him and sent back to his district. While the substance of an article in yesterday's New York Times is not about him only it is about how our fine lawmakers find ways to 'encourage' their biggest donors to fund various pet charity projects. It just seems that many of our lawmakers aren't above extorting dollars to benefit their charities (and ultimately themselves) or many corporations that aren't above giving dollars to lawmakers' pet charities simply to enhance their power with those lawmakers.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Time to Fire Perlman -- Patrick McPherson

It should be obvious (from past diatribes) that I am not a fan of Harvey Perlman, an academic elitist who has demonstrated his total lack of judgement and respect for Nebraska tax payers in the past.

If you recall, I condemned Perlman's cavalier response to the football coaching/athletic director situation a year ago. After finally deciding to fire Steve Pederson (another non-tradition respecting elitist) having given Pederson a raise and contract extension only a couple of months earlier before discovering his 'management problems', this seemingly omniscient (AROGANT) guy told Nebraskans that if they were unhappy with him they couldn't get the cost of his blunders out of his paycheck and he could, of course, always go back to the law school (isn't tenure wonderful?). Of course that wasn't enough to move our fine Regents or NU President J.B. Miliken to get rid of this jerk.

Well, now is the time to fire Perlman.
Perlman's total inability to relate to reality, his total elitist approach to his job, his total disregard for the concerns of the average Nebraskan who supports the university and sends his kids there could be no better illustrated than by his allowing the UNL College of Education and Human Science to invite an avowed terrorist to speak there.

This is not about academic freedom, it's about common sense and just as Perlman has proven he has no common sense when it comes to his football knowledge, he has now proven he has no common sense when it comes to evaluating the propriety of inviting a scumbag like Bill Ayers to speak at our state university. Taking the same reactive approach that he used with the football situation rather than a proactive one, he sat on this mis-decision since February rather than simply do the right thing and say he made a mistake by allowing the invitation and then dis-inviting this guy who still says he wish he had planted more bombs.

Thankfully, Regent Ferlic has condemned Ayer's appearance by noting that his appearance "speaks volumes of the arrogance" of Chancellor Perlman. Maybe even President Miliken has woken up by saying that the decision to allow Ayers to speak reflects "remarkably poor judgement." Let's hope the other regents follow.

I could go on and on about the poor judgements of Perlman in other instances, but frankly this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Perlman will stick Nebraskans (once again) by using his tenured position to return to his treasured law school where he will no doubt continue to practice his academic elitist mentality and decision making, if he can't be fired for cause--although I think there is plenty of cause.
Voters should ask those running for election or re-election to the position of regent in the fall where they stand on Perlman.

Let's hope that President Miliken and the Regents have the guts to finally step up to the plate and rid Nebraska's University of this embarrassment. Otherwise, it's time to start cleaning house with Miliken and the Regents.

If that doesn't work than it's time for the governor and our state senators to make the university pay for its bad judgement.

More on 95% tax cuts

To follow up a little on contributor McPherson's editorial below, you might check out this article in the American Spectator by Philip Klein:

In it he reflects on questions to the Barack Hussein Obama campaign and their responses which apparently give a new meaning to the term 'tax cut'.

The National Credit Card and other Reflections - Patrick McPherson

Taxpayers for Common Sense has a good editorial today talking about the continued run up of the our national credit card. I'd suggest you take a look at it at:

While their article is relevant, it seems to me that it just continues to fall on the deaf ears of our congress and, frankly, both of our aspiring presidential candidates neither of whom could give any rational answer of substance as to how they might cut back spending in their future terms as the nation faces an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) dollars next year.

When you hear Barack Obama telling the populace that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the citizens (no, I didn't say taxpayers and there is a difference), you have to be aware of the fact that more than 30% of them don't pay taxes now! More than 29,000,000 are on food stamps according to recent numbers. It is all of these people who are included in Barack Obama's tax break because despite the fact that they don't pay taxes now, the government will give them money, real money and more benefits, under Obama's plan.

Now with that said, why would any of these folks who have been encouraged to vote (often, several times) by ACORN and the Obama machine vote for anyone else? Why look a gift horse in the mouth? Yes, continue to spread the wealth around.

The sad thing is that congress and our current president have been afraid to face the reality of the impending failures of Medicare and Social Security as well as cut spending on benefits and government in general. As we elect Barack Obama and Jim Esch and provide more transfer-of-wealth dollars to a greater percentage of the public, future presidents and congresses will be even less likely to take away from those who elect them. After that number becomes 50%, as we spread the wealth around and punish those who pay taxes, the national credit card will reach a point where even bankruptcy won't solve the problem of a nation headed toward 2nd world status.

It seems to me that it's time for everyone in this country to have ownership in it and its spending by having everyone pay taxes (tax every one's income and the value of their government benefits--at 10%). When everything becomes free, it has no value--you just want to keep it free and get more. That's not much of a way to build ownership (patriotism) in a country or concern about its future.

Sadly, the prospects for change under Barack Obama, or John McCain for that matter, are minuscule. Even sadder, with the dire financial circumstances our country finds itself in today (most created by a national credit card that has given away more than it could to more than needed or deserved its largess) we seem to be afraid to face the consequences of what will be an even more consequential disaster because of our failure to face reality.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

The case against Obama

A good piece, Part One, by Larry Elder on future President Barack Hussein Obama can be found at

Interestingly, he hits on a topic that John Sidney McCain, current and future U.S. Senator, mentioned last night but not in enough detail---Spreading the wealth. As Elder notes, its impossible to give tax cuts to 95% of the population because 30% doesn't pay taxes now. So how does that 30% get their money back? By tax transfers of money from those who pay taxes to those who do not. Some tax cuts for those who pay taxes......

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Intellectual Flyover Country -- Doug Patton

October 13, 2008

Columnist David Brooks is the sort of writer who passes for a conservative at The New York Times. In reality, he is an urbane, pseudo-erudite hack, as evidenced by his latest column.

Brooks contends that the reason conservatives are no longer winning elections is because we have eschewed intellectualism and promoted social class warfare, thereby “driving away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts.” In the last two decades, according to Brooks, conservative politicians and “talk-radio jocks” have “divided the nation between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.”

Brooks also asserts that “George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party.” That argument is absurd. It is precisely because of Bush’s excesses, not the GOP’s, that he has a 29 percent approval rating: excesses in spending, a nearly trillion-dollar bailout bill, and lax border security. Bush deserves credit for three accomplishments in eight years: modest tax relief, a pair of solid Supreme Court appointments and especially for seven years of terror-free life for the American people. After that, the list of his accomplishments goes downhill quickly.

Yet Brooks lists “anti-immigration fervor” and “isolationism” as the “excesses” from which Bush supposedly saved his party. Question: In what world does David Brooks live that he believes such things? Answer: The solipsistic echo-chamber of New York City.

Brooks criticizes John McCain for choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, as if that is the source of McCain’s current problems. He seems to believe that Palin adds to the GOP’s exclusion of the groups he thinks have been driven from the party. “Nobody,” Brooks writes, “so relentlessly divides the world between the ‘normal Joe Sixpack American’ and the coastal elite.”

But the most astounding part of Brooks’ analysis is his statement that Republicans are guilty of alienating whole professions — lawyers, doctors, tech executives, even bankers — all of whom now donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.

As a lifelong resident of flyover country, I hardly know where to begin to refute Brooks’ snobbery. So let’s stop dancing around the subject. The reason these groups feel alienated from the Republican Party is that they are embarrassed by those of us who want to defend innocent human life and traditional marriage. They simply cannot believe that these issues are more important to us than a temporary drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

But their embarrassment goes much deeper than that. The gulf is primarily a spiritual one. Those of us who believe in fighting for the defense of life and — dare I say it? — for the preservation of normal, traditional, monogamous human sexual relationships do so out of a belief that someone much greater and wiser than we are, namely the Creator of the Universe, has said this is how we should live. This is not an arbitrary position we have taken in order to deny “reproductive rights” to women or “equal rights” to homosexuals. These are strongly held views given to believers by God, universal truths, if you will. No religious tradition in the world believes in killing babies or in homosexual marriage.

So let’s be totally honest. George W. Bush has failed the Republican Party and, more importantly, the American people, in almost every regard. He has spent our money in a manner that would make a drunken sailor ashamed, grown the federal government at a faster rate than any president since FDR, colluded with Ted Kennedy and his ilk on education policy, and given us stimulus checks with the caveat to spend them on plasma TVs and IPhones, rather than existing debt (or the terrorists win). And he has spent eight years asleep at the wheel on illegal immigration.

The Republican Party has not rejected intellectualism. The definition of the word has been hijacked by the William Ayer’ and the Ward Churchill’s of the world, with their pithy rejoinders that 9/11 victims were “little Eichmanns.” One need only read Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or Christopher Buckley to know that conservative intellectualism is alive and well.

What sets conservatives, and by extension the GOP, apart is that we have always encouraged vigorous debate and the civil discourse necessary for the continuation of this American experiment. It is the foundation of our republic and the catalyst to our best ideas. But we succeed in our intellectual pursuits only because they stand firmly on the solid rock of our morality, our spirituality and our admission of and submission to the God that grants our souls the right to breathe. The sinking sand of liberal dogma will never be a suitable substitute.


© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at

Thursday, October 9, 2008

That fine line again

From the New York Times( ) and others today we hear that the government is preparing to take ownership interests in other banks after virtually nationalizing Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and A.I.G. (another $37,000,000,000 this week).

As we have said, there is a fine line between capitalism and socialism when regulations allow any business to become to big to fail with the only alternative being a national(ization) bailout. And yet, that's exactly what our government is doing by disposing of Wachovia, with the result allowing three banks to control more than 30% of the countries deposits, 40% of the country's loans and 50% of the countries credit card issuance.

While we don't believe in onerous regulation, we certainly don't believe that the major institutions of this country should be owned by or run by bureaucrats who no doubt will only find ways to enrich themselves through the process while changing the meaning of capitalism for the greatest country to ever exist upon this earth.

It may be a fine line between avoiding economic collapse and choosing what amounts to nationalization. It should have never come to this point. Let us hope that this is not a harbinger of even worse things to come or something to be used as an excuse to nationalize other businesses at some point in the future. Precedent is a hard thing to overcome.
While we are already of the belief that your next president's middle name will Hussein, we would recommend you check out an article by Larry Sabato, "Is the electoral dam breaking for Obama?" at:

Basically, Sabato suggests that only a major foreign policy issue or terrorist attack is likely to change what we see as a daily deterioration in John Sidney McCain's numbers. Not very likely.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Truth in Debates

For those of you who are interested in who told the truth, stretched the truth or misspoke in last night's debate, check out this fact check site:

It would appear that both candidates were equally culpable.

As to the debate itself, we think McCain won it, despite his proposal to buy up bad mortgages which we already believed was part of the $700,000,000,000 bailout (see the fact check site for more on this). Sadly, without some new crisis to change the topic off of the economy, John McCain will still be serving in the U.S. Senate come next January 22.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

President Obama -- According to Thomas Sowell

Columnist Thomas Sowell has a four part essay today. In one of those he describes Barack Hussein Obama, our soon-to-be president, thusly:

"The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House."

You can find his three columns below at these sites:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Pat 3:

Part 4:

By the way, we agree with Sowell's assessment.

Friday, October 3, 2008

President Obama

Yes, with barely a month to go before election day, it appears that Barack Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. While Sarah Palin held her own last night, Joe Biden did himself and his party no harm. In last week's debate between John Sydney McCain and Barack Hussein Obama, Obama held his own.

Last night's debate didn't change things and without a major gaffe on Barack Hussein Obama's part the next two presidential debates won't change what is happening. The 'sky is falling' mentality has pervaded American society. The national polling numbers have moved toward Obama after the country learned it was on the cusp of another Great Depression courtesy of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress (yes, we know who has been in charge for the last two years, but that doesn't matter). The battle-ground state polls are moving rapidly and decisively toward Obama.

Come November 4, conservatives will go to bed early experiencing nightmares of the next four years after early declarations of victory by NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN as liberals relish and celebrate the advent of four years of control over our lives. The only bright spot for Republicans may be that they may not become a super minority in the Senate (less than 40 votes).

Sorry folks, but that's the way we at the Objective Conservative see it.

Councilman Brown and KFAB

We find it a little interesting that Councilman Brown blames KFAB for violence in his district. According to KFAB's website:
'Politican Blames KFAB For Violence'
"Omaha City Councilman Frank Brown's comment came during a Tuesday news conference to discuss the recent string of murders in his district.
"Brown was asked by 1110 KFAB's Tom Becka about the number of shootings in his district. Brown said the violence is a community-wide problem and not confined to his district. He said the siutation would improve if there were more jobs for young people and he challenged KFAB's hiring practices."

Frank Brown has been a City Councilman representing his district for over 10 years. Maybe someone should ask what he has done to prevent violence in his district which has seen a severe increase in frequency over those ten years.

P.S. Perhaps KFAB should have someone proof reading their entries--note that they don't seem to be able to spell 'politician' or 'situation.'

Thursday, October 2, 2008

To whom could the Bishop be talking?

From Catholic Vote. com we get the following excerpts:

"Tonight's VP debate has everybody talking. Alaska Governor and hockey mom Sarah Palin will face off against Senator Joe Biden, who often talks about his Catholic roots in Scranton, PA.

"Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's "Electric City" will be buzzing this weekend.

"Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino has ordered all parishes in Scranton to read his pastoral letter on abortion in substitute for the homily at all Masses this Sunday.

"Martino’s letter will ask Catholics to consider the profound importance of protecting innocent human life. His letter directly addresses the most common arguments used to justify support for pro-abortion political candidates.

"Martino wrote, “It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of ‘social justice.’”

"His letter continues: “Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life.”

"Bishop Martino is right. Too often today we’re given sham reasons for not protecting innocent human life. There are many important issues, from health care to the economy, but what’s more important than your life? This is the message of our film at – some issues are foundational – beginning with the right to life!

Another argument used against the pro-life cause is the War in Iraq. Bishop Martino tackled question that head on.

“Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed,” the Bishop of Scranton wrote."

Do you here him Joe Biden? Maybe Nancy Pelosi should listen also.........

More money but no improvement in education

From our friends at the Heritage Foundation and their 'Education Notebook' we are told the following:

"National test scores reveal that many students are failing to master basic skills. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 33 percent of fourth-graders score below basic on reading, as do 26 percent of eighth-graders. According to the Department of Education, fourth-graders not performing at a basic level are unable to make general conclusions about what they read. At the eighth-grade level, this means students are unable to make simple inferences or interpret ideas. For both grade levels, these are crucial skills to master to ensure future academic success.
"In addition, a poor grasp of basic content knowledge means children are exiting high school unprepared for college or the workforce, if they even graduate at all.

"National graduation rates have stagnated around 73 percent, with numbers significantly lower for minority students. In 2006, only 61 percent of Hispanic students and 59 percent of black students graduated. An independent analysis found that, in some of our nation’s biggest cities, fewer than half of all students finish high school. In the Baltimore City and Cleveland Municipal City school districts, only about one-third of all students graduate. Indianapolis has a graduation rate of only 30 percent, and a mere 24.9 percent of Detroit students complete high school.

"These shockingly low graduation rates should incite a national outrage. And while some politicians will surely call for investing more tax dollars for public school as the solution, a lack of funding is not the source of the problem.

"Detroit, for example, spends more than $13,000 per year on each student. In addition, the city school districts of New York, Philadelphia, Dallas, Denver, and Atlanta all spend well over $10,000 per pupil yet have graduation rates below 50 percent."

So, throwing more money at the problem just doesn't work. And as they suggest (see: ) the answer really needs to reside in the home and with the parents and with them having the money we are wasting.

Lydon Johnson gave us the great society which was going to cure poverty and it took trillions of dollars and more than 30 years to find out that it didn't work. Unfortunately in the process, Johnson's War on Poverty' also destroyed many families that might have been poor before but that were at least in tact. It's hard to see how more dollars to education will cure the problem which has now become a catch 22.

In the Omaha area, one can only hope that the 'Bright Futures Initiative' and others will have an impact.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Government looking out after me

It's bad enough that we are all becoming owners of banks and we (or our kids) will have to ante up the $700,000,000,000 that we are told we have to lest we be beset by the mother of all depressions that we are being warned about by a Republican president who has lost all financial credibility, by two presidential candidates that can't say no or 'what if we don't', and by the likes of our Treasury Secretary, FDIC Chairman (excuse our lack of gender correctness) and the moguls of Wall Street, but now we learn that they want to help us make our food intake decisions, particularly if you happen to live in or visit California.

It was bad enough when the Los Angles City Council said that there would be no more fast food restaurants in southeast L.A. because people there are overweight, but now the good conservative govenator Schwarzenegger has signed a bill requiring all restaurants with more than 20 locations to post calorie counts for each of their items on their menus or indoor menu boards. Surely, those who eat Big Macs or Whoppers will cease and desist from their destructive eating habits.

While these left coast nuts sanction life styles that promote AIDS, while good pro-life Catholics like Nancy Pelosi promote the culture of death by abortion, it's nice to know that they want us to lead happier, if leaner, healthy lives--those of us that are allowed to survive.

I sure can't wait until someone passes a law that tells me what color socks to wear each day in order to simplify my life........