here is a great post I saw in response to an article about Obama's new assertion that the "wealthy" are selfish for not wanting to pay more taxes to Lord Obama to distribute as he wants.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had t o be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
Her father responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Just Amazing
If you read one thing all election season, read this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/28/a-game-changer-by-obama-himself/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/28/a-game-changer-by-obama-himself/
Inalienable Rights
Our entire system of government is based on the idea that we have certain inalienable rights. These rights are inherent to the individual and they DO NOT come from the government. Instead, our constitution is set up to protect us from the government's suppression of our rights. Key to the entire American philosophy is the idea is that we inherently have rights and they government does not give them to us, but instead we give the government authority.
Obama seems to disagree. Not only does he advocate positive rights (i.e., rights that come from the government), he seems to have no problems curtailing our inherent rights. This is very dangerous thinking, my friends. It gives the government too much power over the citizen.
To Obama philosophy on our inalienable rights:
"...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..." Barack Obama, 2008 Primary.
I would also recommend you look at my past posts regarding Obama's suppression of free speech. You can now add the shutout of a news channel that dared to ask a question and the attacks on Joe the Plumber because he also tried to ask a question.
And now surfacing are a whole bunch of Obama quotes regarding an activist court that would create positive rights. This is a scary concept. It means that power no longer comes from the people, but the power comes from the government, vaguely reminicent of a Divine Right Monarchy,
But don't take my word for it:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_ideas_for_a_radical_court_135633.htm
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/
But remember, don't ask Obama about it because he will attack you and ruin your life. Just ask Joe the Plumber or the newscaster or Florida (and apparently Pennsylvania as well).
oh, and a side note, more Obama terrorist connections (this time to Khalidi a former leader of the PLO):
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY
Obama seems to disagree. Not only does he advocate positive rights (i.e., rights that come from the government), he seems to have no problems curtailing our inherent rights. This is very dangerous thinking, my friends. It gives the government too much power over the citizen.
To Obama philosophy on our inalienable rights:
"...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..." Barack Obama, 2008 Primary.
I would also recommend you look at my past posts regarding Obama's suppression of free speech. You can now add the shutout of a news channel that dared to ask a question and the attacks on Joe the Plumber because he also tried to ask a question.
And now surfacing are a whole bunch of Obama quotes regarding an activist court that would create positive rights. This is a scary concept. It means that power no longer comes from the people, but the power comes from the government, vaguely reminicent of a Divine Right Monarchy,
But don't take my word for it:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_ideas_for_a_radical_court_135633.htm
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/
But remember, don't ask Obama about it because he will attack you and ruin your life. Just ask Joe the Plumber or the newscaster or Florida (and apparently Pennsylvania as well).
oh, and a side note, more Obama terrorist connections (this time to Khalidi a former leader of the PLO):
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Campaign Financing
So I may be violating copyright laws again (If the author has problems, please tell me and I'll take it down. I don't know where this story came from. I got it in an e-mail so I can't track down permission):
October 02, 2008
Are Foreign Donations Powering the Obama Campaign?
Rick Moran
Just how much in donations from foreign countries is pouring into the Obama campaign coffers is a question one FEC auditor would like to have answered. The problem is that evidently, his bosses at the FEC are refusing to move on the charges which would almost certainly require them to ask the Justice Department and the FBI to look into the matter. This would, their reasoning goes, take on the appearance of a "criminal investigation" and would impact the coming election.The anonymous investigator (who won't reveal his name for fear of retribution) says that "I can't get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it."The American Spectator's Washington Prowler writes:
The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign's fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. "Without formal approval, I can't get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking." And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system."The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?" says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. "There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost.
Obama was forced to return $33,500 to a pair of Palestinian brothers who bought T-Shirts on the campaign's website - a clear violation of FEC rules and the law. The campaign claims to have returned the money but the brothers deny they have received a refund. There have also been numerous questions about other donations that appear to come from the Middle East - not surprising given Obama's connections to Tony Rezko (whose Middle East connections are mindblowing), Nadhmi Auchi, and other wealthy Arabs who might see an Obama presidency in a favorable light. Then there was the curious case of a supposedly home grown video that was produced by a PR firm in Los Angeles owned by a huge, left wing, French media conglomerate. The money for the film and for the PR firm evidently came from Europeans. There is little doubt that foreigners are licking their chops at the prospect of an inexperienced, naive, weak American president who will subsume American interests and cater to the whims of the UN while deferring the big questions to the Europeans. This isn't even taking into account Obama's strange policy toward Israel (where he says one thing but all his advisors say exactly the opposite) and the belief among Muslims that because he grew up in Indonesia, he will not be as forceful in prosecuting the war on terror.There are dozens of reasons foreigners are pulling for Obama to win. There is little doubt that money from overseas is pouring into the Obama campaign. And it is a dead certainty that the FEC won't do a damn thing about it until after the election.
October 02, 2008
Are Foreign Donations Powering the Obama Campaign?
Rick Moran
Just how much in donations from foreign countries is pouring into the Obama campaign coffers is a question one FEC auditor would like to have answered. The problem is that evidently, his bosses at the FEC are refusing to move on the charges which would almost certainly require them to ask the Justice Department and the FBI to look into the matter. This would, their reasoning goes, take on the appearance of a "criminal investigation" and would impact the coming election.The anonymous investigator (who won't reveal his name for fear of retribution) says that "I can't get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it."The American Spectator's Washington Prowler writes:
The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign's fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. "Without formal approval, I can't get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking." And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system."The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?" says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. "There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost.
Obama was forced to return $33,500 to a pair of Palestinian brothers who bought T-Shirts on the campaign's website - a clear violation of FEC rules and the law. The campaign claims to have returned the money but the brothers deny they have received a refund. There have also been numerous questions about other donations that appear to come from the Middle East - not surprising given Obama's connections to Tony Rezko (whose Middle East connections are mindblowing), Nadhmi Auchi, and other wealthy Arabs who might see an Obama presidency in a favorable light. Then there was the curious case of a supposedly home grown video that was produced by a PR firm in Los Angeles owned by a huge, left wing, French media conglomerate. The money for the film and for the PR firm evidently came from Europeans. There is little doubt that foreigners are licking their chops at the prospect of an inexperienced, naive, weak American president who will subsume American interests and cater to the whims of the UN while deferring the big questions to the Europeans. This isn't even taking into account Obama's strange policy toward Israel (where he says one thing but all his advisors say exactly the opposite) and the belief among Muslims that because he grew up in Indonesia, he will not be as forceful in prosecuting the war on terror.There are dozens of reasons foreigners are pulling for Obama to win. There is little doubt that money from overseas is pouring into the Obama campaign. And it is a dead certainty that the FEC won't do a damn thing about it until after the election.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
So I got this in an e-mail
Below is a letter I got in an e-mail. Hopefully no one sues me for copyright infringement.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008 , you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right ... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today .... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'they cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America 's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America ..
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are praying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adol f Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future. ama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you. Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
To Barack Hussein Obama,
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
On July 14, 2008 , you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right ... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today .... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'they cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
The drain to America 's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America ..
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are praying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adol f Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future. ama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you. Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
When did negative become positive?
i happen to love to read the comments to articles. You know, to gage the general populace and see how they are feeling. And I have noticed a trend. The left is getting more vicious in their attacks (the left as in posts that take up the lefts argument). They launch into bitter and vitrolic attacks on Palin and McCain while holding up Obama as the second coming. Now this is not to say that the right doesn't get mean. It does, but the comments seem to be more reserved and more targeted at what Obama said or what his policy means. It is the left after all wearing shirts that say "Palin is a c***." It is Obama that tinges his speeches on "hope" with negative undertones that incite panic in the populace (just read the speeches, not hear him say them and you will see what I mean). It was Obama that told his supporters to get in people's faces. It is Obama's side that tries to inject racism to the point that I have heard people clarify their support for McCain with the statement: "I'm not racist, I just don't like Obama's policies and I've always voted Republican." You should not have to clarify your vote. You should not have KKK carved into your car because you support McCain.
The left just rips on Palin. Which, I have got to say, is getting old. She is not stupid. She just spent the last two years running Alaska and highest approval of any governor in the U.S. She took on corruption in oil and won. These are accomplishments and aren't ones Obama is even close to claiming. He spent his two years in Senate running for President and doesn't even known what committees he is on. At least Palin does her job.
And Biden, my God, that man can't stop screwing up to save his life. Luckily, the media likes Obama so less of his screw ups make it into American's homes (which is why everyone should periodically stop by drudgereport.com or pajamasmedia.com). So far he doesn't know how to count, doesn't know the constitution, doesn't know that Lebanon and Syria are two different countries, thinks Obama didn't say he would sit down with the leader of Iran. And don't forget today's announcement that Obama would be tested, that no one would like what Obama chooses to do, but it would be OK because Biden would be there (because his track record on foreign policy decisions has been so awesome up until now - but wait, he doesn't admit the surge is working).
On a side note, since Obama didn't even know that Russia has veto power on the UN security counsel, I am not thrilled with Obama as a potential leader of the free world.
Of course, why I fear an Obama presidency is more basic. I believe strong businesses are essential for growing the economy and I believe it is inherently unfair for the government to give 40% of Americans checks for money they did not earn, while taking that money away from businesses who could employ people if they only had the money to do so. I also fear his assault on voting rights and freedom of speech. And they are assaults.
On freedom of speech: He threatens channels that he will get advertisers to back out if they run certain anto-Obama commercials, he organizes "truth squads" that only target anti-Obama propaganda, he starts lawsuits for "slander" against individuals who air anti-Obama commercials, he favors legislation that will allow Congress to promote a McCarthy era attack on conservative radio, and of course he believes that state and local governments have a right to restrict our rights. I have problems with this. Freedom of speech is inherent to a functioning democracy and even the smallest efforts to suppress an opponents speech is scary to me.
On voting: He also pours hundreds of thousands of dollars into ACORN, an entity whose policies promote voter fraud (and it is voter fraud - there is already at least one incident in Ohio during early voting of actual voter fraud), he trains ACORN members (and he did train them, he had to change his fight the smears web-site after someone found documented proof - makes you wonder about other lies or misleading statements he has made but not meet caught at yet), and, honestly, if ACORN only targets historically democratic neighborhoods for their get out the vote drives but ignore republican areas - isn't that voter dilution?. Obama (and all democrats) also sponsor a bill that would help to take away the right to private vote for union formation, leaving workers vulnerable to union boss pressure that will try to strongarm them into choosing unions. Apparently, Obama is only for voting when the voting favors the outcome he wants.
Now you will notice that I have targeted my criticisms on Obama on his issues, not through derogatory name calling. That is how it should be done.
As a side note, discussing past affiliations (affiliations that a candidate misled the American people about) is not some grossly inappropriate tactic. It is simply telling Americans what the media won't. When stuff is made up, that just crosses the line to be like almost every ad that Obama has run.
The left just rips on Palin. Which, I have got to say, is getting old. She is not stupid. She just spent the last two years running Alaska and highest approval of any governor in the U.S. She took on corruption in oil and won. These are accomplishments and aren't ones Obama is even close to claiming. He spent his two years in Senate running for President and doesn't even known what committees he is on. At least Palin does her job.
And Biden, my God, that man can't stop screwing up to save his life. Luckily, the media likes Obama so less of his screw ups make it into American's homes (which is why everyone should periodically stop by drudgereport.com or pajamasmedia.com). So far he doesn't know how to count, doesn't know the constitution, doesn't know that Lebanon and Syria are two different countries, thinks Obama didn't say he would sit down with the leader of Iran. And don't forget today's announcement that Obama would be tested, that no one would like what Obama chooses to do, but it would be OK because Biden would be there (because his track record on foreign policy decisions has been so awesome up until now - but wait, he doesn't admit the surge is working).
On a side note, since Obama didn't even know that Russia has veto power on the UN security counsel, I am not thrilled with Obama as a potential leader of the free world.
Of course, why I fear an Obama presidency is more basic. I believe strong businesses are essential for growing the economy and I believe it is inherently unfair for the government to give 40% of Americans checks for money they did not earn, while taking that money away from businesses who could employ people if they only had the money to do so. I also fear his assault on voting rights and freedom of speech. And they are assaults.
On freedom of speech: He threatens channels that he will get advertisers to back out if they run certain anto-Obama commercials, he organizes "truth squads" that only target anti-Obama propaganda, he starts lawsuits for "slander" against individuals who air anti-Obama commercials, he favors legislation that will allow Congress to promote a McCarthy era attack on conservative radio, and of course he believes that state and local governments have a right to restrict our rights. I have problems with this. Freedom of speech is inherent to a functioning democracy and even the smallest efforts to suppress an opponents speech is scary to me.
On voting: He also pours hundreds of thousands of dollars into ACORN, an entity whose policies promote voter fraud (and it is voter fraud - there is already at least one incident in Ohio during early voting of actual voter fraud), he trains ACORN members (and he did train them, he had to change his fight the smears web-site after someone found documented proof - makes you wonder about other lies or misleading statements he has made but not meet caught at yet), and, honestly, if ACORN only targets historically democratic neighborhoods for their get out the vote drives but ignore republican areas - isn't that voter dilution?. Obama (and all democrats) also sponsor a bill that would help to take away the right to private vote for union formation, leaving workers vulnerable to union boss pressure that will try to strongarm them into choosing unions. Apparently, Obama is only for voting when the voting favors the outcome he wants.
Now you will notice that I have targeted my criticisms on Obama on his issues, not through derogatory name calling. That is how it should be done.
As a side note, discussing past affiliations (affiliations that a candidate misled the American people about) is not some grossly inappropriate tactic. It is simply telling Americans what the media won't. When stuff is made up, that just crosses the line to be like almost every ad that Obama has run.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Obama Tax Delusion
Obama’s Tax policy is not a tax cut. There is no reduction in the percentage that people have to pay to the government. What he has proposed is a complicated system of tax credits. Some of these tax credits are actually reverse related to your income, so the more you earn, the less you qualify for in terms of credit. (In case you think, Oh Obama said he would make taxes easier - he is getting to do it by granting the government access to all your private financial information).
Now the numbers. Obama’s tax credit plan only targets 80% of Americans, not 95% (this 95% number seems to have just appeared on the campaign trail one day). 38% of Americans already don’t pay any Federal taxes, but they are eligible for Obama’s tax credit. This means half of those that qualify for Obama’s “tax cut” are actually going checks from the government for doing nothing.
Let me illustrate. Let’s take Bob. Bob works, but his income isn’t that high. He sits in the bottom 40% income bracket. Bob pays nothing, zero to the federal government in taxes. He represents half of those targeted by Obama’s tax plan. He qualifies for certain tax credits totaling, let’s say $2,000.00. Now Bob pays nothing to the federal government, but come tax return time the government is going to hand him a check for $2,000.00, apparently just for being Bob.
Now, let’s take Sue. Sue pays $6,000 in federal taxes per year. Because she earns more, and so actually pays taxes, she is eligible for less money back from the government than Bob who pays nothing. So if Sue was eligible for the same set of tax credits, she would get less money credited to her. So under the Obama plan she’s eligible for let’s say $1,500.00 back. The end result for Sue is that she pays $4,500.00 to the government. After all, the government needs some of her middle class money so it can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently because he’s Bob.
Now let’s take Joe the plumber. He wants to start a business, but that business will sit in the 20% bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes on so he can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently for being Bob. So now Joe can’t afford to start his business. This means that Joe can’t hire and employ people. This means that if Bob loses his job, he isn’t going to be able to find another one as business can’t grow anymore. Well, at least Bob got a check from the government for $2,000.00. That’ll help when he can’t find a job.
The end result: Obama’s plan essentially expands the welfare rolls to 40% of the population (most of whom have jobs) on the backs of small businesses and the middle class. Good job, Obama you’ve made us Obamunists.
Next article, the scary similarities between Obama's economic policy and the economic policy's that launched us into the great depression. Oh, and in case you are like the democrats in the House and hadn't heard (or read an unbiased account of the Great Depression), The New Deal was not successful and actually caused the Depression to drag on for 10 years and caused a depression within a depression.
Now the numbers. Obama’s tax credit plan only targets 80% of Americans, not 95% (this 95% number seems to have just appeared on the campaign trail one day). 38% of Americans already don’t pay any Federal taxes, but they are eligible for Obama’s tax credit. This means half of those that qualify for Obama’s “tax cut” are actually going checks from the government for doing nothing.
Let me illustrate. Let’s take Bob. Bob works, but his income isn’t that high. He sits in the bottom 40% income bracket. Bob pays nothing, zero to the federal government in taxes. He represents half of those targeted by Obama’s tax plan. He qualifies for certain tax credits totaling, let’s say $2,000.00. Now Bob pays nothing to the federal government, but come tax return time the government is going to hand him a check for $2,000.00, apparently just for being Bob.
Now, let’s take Sue. Sue pays $6,000 in federal taxes per year. Because she earns more, and so actually pays taxes, she is eligible for less money back from the government than Bob who pays nothing. So if Sue was eligible for the same set of tax credits, she would get less money credited to her. So under the Obama plan she’s eligible for let’s say $1,500.00 back. The end result for Sue is that she pays $4,500.00 to the government. After all, the government needs some of her middle class money so it can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently because he’s Bob.
Now let’s take Joe the plumber. He wants to start a business, but that business will sit in the 20% bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes on so he can give Bob a check for $2,000.00, apparently for being Bob. So now Joe can’t afford to start his business. This means that Joe can’t hire and employ people. This means that if Bob loses his job, he isn’t going to be able to find another one as business can’t grow anymore. Well, at least Bob got a check from the government for $2,000.00. That’ll help when he can’t find a job.
The end result: Obama’s plan essentially expands the welfare rolls to 40% of the population (most of whom have jobs) on the backs of small businesses and the middle class. Good job, Obama you’ve made us Obamunists.
Next article, the scary similarities between Obama's economic policy and the economic policy's that launched us into the great depression. Oh, and in case you are like the democrats in the House and hadn't heard (or read an unbiased account of the Great Depression), The New Deal was not successful and actually caused the Depression to drag on for 10 years and caused a depression within a depression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
