Friday, October 31, 2008
Liberal Causes Often Overlook the Real Problem
I find the use of language for liberal causes disturbing. I recently came across an article in Daily Herald describing the work of some Aurora University students attempts to educate the public on gun violence. Let me start off by saying gun violence is a concern of mine, but to narrow down violence based on one inanimate object when there are clearly other issues appears as an attack of that object rather than the actual problem.
Let's face it, baseball bats are violent if they are used improperly. Kitchen knives are violent if they are used improperly. There are never baseball bat or kitchen knife violence prevention. Prevention only revolves around guns, which is the case of a violence prevention forum held at the university.
"Some of the people who come in have experienced gun violence on the streets," said Amy Nitsche, a student hosting the event. "A lot are in their late teens to their late 20s. One was a victim of a drive-by shooting."
Tragic as it is, these events aren't because of guns. In fact if you want to get to the root of the problem find out why they carry guns in the first place, and it's usually because they are members of gangs who are involved in the drug trade. Perhaps, if we worked on enforcing laws and seeing to serious sentences for these thugs, we wouldn't always be pointing the fingers at guns.
Students love to feel like they are making a difference in the world, and they often get behind these causes without any real thought about the socioeconomic conditions around the areas that see this type of violence. It's been proven that states which have passed conceal and carry laws, have also seen a reduction in crime. Students trying to fit into the university setting will never admit to such truth; therefore, they are left feeling like they can save the world.
"This is what the social work field is all about. People don't see social workers in the political arena. But we're trying to spread the word." ---an incredibly naive view.
Let's face it, baseball bats are violent if they are used improperly. Kitchen knives are violent if they are used improperly. There are never baseball bat or kitchen knife violence prevention. Prevention only revolves around guns, which is the case of a violence prevention forum held at the university.
"Some of the people who come in have experienced gun violence on the streets," said Amy Nitsche, a student hosting the event. "A lot are in their late teens to their late 20s. One was a victim of a drive-by shooting."
Tragic as it is, these events aren't because of guns. In fact if you want to get to the root of the problem find out why they carry guns in the first place, and it's usually because they are members of gangs who are involved in the drug trade. Perhaps, if we worked on enforcing laws and seeing to serious sentences for these thugs, we wouldn't always be pointing the fingers at guns.
Students love to feel like they are making a difference in the world, and they often get behind these causes without any real thought about the socioeconomic conditions around the areas that see this type of violence. It's been proven that states which have passed conceal and carry laws, have also seen a reduction in crime. Students trying to fit into the university setting will never admit to such truth; therefore, they are left feeling like they can save the world.
"This is what the social work field is all about. People don't see social workers in the political arena. But we're trying to spread the word." ---an incredibly naive view.
The Reagan Quote of the Day (10/31/2008)
My hero, every since I was a young child, has been Ronald Reagan. He revived the American spirit, oversaw the recovery of the economy, and brought peace from the Cold War through building up our military which brought the Soviets to the bargaining table. I will probably never see a president in my lifetime that measures up to Reagan.
A few years ago, I was on a date with a Republican chick, who coincidentally was a Kappa Alpha little sister to my cousin. We discussed what was going on in the Republican party. I said the party needs to return to the conservative roots of Ronald Reagan. I was surprised by her answer. She said Reagan was great, but the Republican party needs to move beyond Reagan. I lost total respect for her in those words. Needless to day, I never called her back after the date.
When I met Sarah Palin a week ago. I wanted to tell her that each day she is in the office of the Vice President, to ask herself, what would Reagan do. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to get those words out. Maybe she will read this one day.
Each day, I am going to post a quote from our great President. When I hear his voice say these words, it really does bring about powerful emotions from the deepest part of me. We need a leader like Reagan now more than ever.
Today's Reagan Quote of the Day: I learned from my father the value of hard work and ambition, and maybe a little something about telling a story.
From my mother, I learned the value of prayer, how to have dreams, and believe I could make those dreams come true.
In an election where Obama has attacked the American Dream (Joe the plumber's dream) and called for the government to condition Americans to rely more on the government, we need to remember to dream and make those dreams come true with the hard work and ambition that Reagan learned from his father.
A few years ago, I was on a date with a Republican chick, who coincidentally was a Kappa Alpha little sister to my cousin. We discussed what was going on in the Republican party. I said the party needs to return to the conservative roots of Ronald Reagan. I was surprised by her answer. She said Reagan was great, but the Republican party needs to move beyond Reagan. I lost total respect for her in those words. Needless to day, I never called her back after the date.
When I met Sarah Palin a week ago. I wanted to tell her that each day she is in the office of the Vice President, to ask herself, what would Reagan do. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to get those words out. Maybe she will read this one day.
Each day, I am going to post a quote from our great President. When I hear his voice say these words, it really does bring about powerful emotions from the deepest part of me. We need a leader like Reagan now more than ever.
Today's Reagan Quote of the Day: I learned from my father the value of hard work and ambition, and maybe a little something about telling a story.
From my mother, I learned the value of prayer, how to have dreams, and believe I could make those dreams come true.
In an election where Obama has attacked the American Dream (Joe the plumber's dream) and called for the government to condition Americans to rely more on the government, we need to remember to dream and make those dreams come true with the hard work and ambition that Reagan learned from his father.
Chairman Obama has Fired the Warning Shots!
Chairman Obama has fired the warning shots. I believe that many people have heard them, but I am sure there are many that are still doped up with the rhetoric of hope and change that they do not listen for them or choose to ignore them. These warning shots are alarming, and if I hope I don't wake up the day after Election Day knowing that soon I will have to remind you that I told you so.
Over the past month, and honestly, throughout Dear Leader Chairman Obama's political career, we have seen how he handles those who speak out and those who oppose. In the past names like Jack Ryan and Alice J. Palmer resonate. Most recently, it's Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Barbara West, and a reporter from each of the following newspapers: NY Post, Dallas Morning News, and Washington Times. An Obama win guarantees that Sean Hannity will soon join the list.
What is common with this list of names? They have either asked Obama or Biden the tough questions, opposed his views, or were part of endorsements for Obama's competition. Either way, the punishments established by the Obama campaign should spread concern among every American. Let's look at why.
You know Samuel J. Wurzelbacher as Joe the plumber. Joe was just an average guy enjoying a little football with his kid. Just so happens that Obama chose Joe's suburban Ohio neighborhood to take a walk in. Joe asked the question that may have meant Obama's defeat. Well, it really wasn't Joe's question, it was Obama's redistribution of wealth answer, an answer that sounds like Karl Marx and has the liberals spinning.
Within a few hours of airtime, the word started to get out about Obama's share the wealth ideas. The spin was in. The democrats and their media slaves began to villainize Joe. Through the use of a government computer and database, the ugly about Joe began to come out. In a few short days, we knew more about Joe than we do Dear Leader Chairman Obama. Interestingly enough, CHARLIE ROSE and TOM BROKAW DISCUSSED ON ROSE'S PBS SHOW HOW LITTLE THEY REALLY KNOW ABOUT OBAMA JUST A DAY AGO. Why is that? Well, Tom your cronies at NBC and the other networks decided to laugh at Joe. Obama started to laugh at Joe with jokes. Every American alive should be offended that the American Dream, Joe's desire to own his own company and succeed doing so, just became a punch line of Dear Leader Barack Obama.
We learn from Joe, as well as Jack Ryan, that if you oppose Dear Leader Chairman Obama, they are going to dig up dirt about you in an effort to discredit and shut you up.
Next case: Barbara West
She interview Joe Biden. She basically asked what the difference was between Obama's redistribution of wealth and Marxist philosophy. Biden laughed at her asking a legitimate question. I guess Biden thinks the American people are too stupid to remember the basics of Communism. After all, it's been more than ten years since the USSR fell.
The Obama campaign struck back. They banned West's Florida television station any further interviews with Obama or Biden.
Lesson learned: don't ask questions that expose the true philosophies of the Obama campaign or we will make sure you don't ask another.
Final Case: The Three Reporters
Today, three reporters were kicked off the Obama campaign airplane. You ask the reason they were thrown off? Their newspapers endorsed John McCain. Once again we see the pattern of disagree with Obama, and Obama is going to play a four-year-olds game of I'm not talking to you.
What are these warning shots? They are shots that the first amendment may not protect opposition speech if Obama is elected. Not that Obama will come out and cancel the first amendment, but he does have access to government computers to perform background checks, he does have power over a failed biased media, and he has a history of taking his opponents out by whatever means possible, just shy of assassination attempts.
If you speak out against an Obama administration and make waves among the masses, will you have your background checked? Will the IRS be used? Will Obama use police force? These are obvious hypothetical situations that we don't know yet. We only have the warning shots to remind us that our first amendment rights might come under attack. This should be a concern to you.
Over the past month, and honestly, throughout Dear Leader Chairman Obama's political career, we have seen how he handles those who speak out and those who oppose. In the past names like Jack Ryan and Alice J. Palmer resonate. Most recently, it's Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Barbara West, and a reporter from each of the following newspapers: NY Post, Dallas Morning News, and Washington Times. An Obama win guarantees that Sean Hannity will soon join the list.
What is common with this list of names? They have either asked Obama or Biden the tough questions, opposed his views, or were part of endorsements for Obama's competition. Either way, the punishments established by the Obama campaign should spread concern among every American. Let's look at why.
You know Samuel J. Wurzelbacher as Joe the plumber. Joe was just an average guy enjoying a little football with his kid. Just so happens that Obama chose Joe's suburban Ohio neighborhood to take a walk in. Joe asked the question that may have meant Obama's defeat. Well, it really wasn't Joe's question, it was Obama's redistribution of wealth answer, an answer that sounds like Karl Marx and has the liberals spinning.
Within a few hours of airtime, the word started to get out about Obama's share the wealth ideas. The spin was in. The democrats and their media slaves began to villainize Joe. Through the use of a government computer and database, the ugly about Joe began to come out. In a few short days, we knew more about Joe than we do Dear Leader Chairman Obama. Interestingly enough, CHARLIE ROSE and TOM BROKAW DISCUSSED ON ROSE'S PBS SHOW HOW LITTLE THEY REALLY KNOW ABOUT OBAMA JUST A DAY AGO. Why is that? Well, Tom your cronies at NBC and the other networks decided to laugh at Joe. Obama started to laugh at Joe with jokes. Every American alive should be offended that the American Dream, Joe's desire to own his own company and succeed doing so, just became a punch line of Dear Leader Barack Obama.
We learn from Joe, as well as Jack Ryan, that if you oppose Dear Leader Chairman Obama, they are going to dig up dirt about you in an effort to discredit and shut you up.
Next case: Barbara West
She interview Joe Biden. She basically asked what the difference was between Obama's redistribution of wealth and Marxist philosophy. Biden laughed at her asking a legitimate question. I guess Biden thinks the American people are too stupid to remember the basics of Communism. After all, it's been more than ten years since the USSR fell.
The Obama campaign struck back. They banned West's Florida television station any further interviews with Obama or Biden.
Lesson learned: don't ask questions that expose the true philosophies of the Obama campaign or we will make sure you don't ask another.
Final Case: The Three Reporters
Today, three reporters were kicked off the Obama campaign airplane. You ask the reason they were thrown off? Their newspapers endorsed John McCain. Once again we see the pattern of disagree with Obama, and Obama is going to play a four-year-olds game of I'm not talking to you.
What are these warning shots? They are shots that the first amendment may not protect opposition speech if Obama is elected. Not that Obama will come out and cancel the first amendment, but he does have access to government computers to perform background checks, he does have power over a failed biased media, and he has a history of taking his opponents out by whatever means possible, just shy of assassination attempts.
If you speak out against an Obama administration and make waves among the masses, will you have your background checked? Will the IRS be used? Will Obama use police force? These are obvious hypothetical situations that we don't know yet. We only have the warning shots to remind us that our first amendment rights might come under attack. This should be a concern to you.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Christian County Democrats Didn't Return My Call
Yesterday, I called the Christian County Democrats in Nixa, Missouri, to request a ride to the polls. According to flyer that came in the mail from Dear Leader Chairman Obama, the Obama campaign offered to give voters a ride to the poll. I gave them my name, my number, and I said I was anxious to vote for McCain. Excactly one day later, I have not heard from the Christian County Democrats. I wonder why.
First Confused About Russia, Now Confused About the Economy
Remember a couple of months ago when the Russians invaded our friends in Georgia. Obama didn't seem like he knew what to do. During the crisis, Obama shifted several times in the actions that he would take, and coincidently when it was all said and done, it sounded like the same action that John McCain said he would have taken on day one of the crisis.
Leave it to Bill Clinton to hand Repbulicans another blessing. I figure if he keeps opening his mouth, his chances of moving back to the White House improve. During the recent collapse of the banks, we find out through Clinton that Obama isn't the economic genious that the media wants us to believe he is.
“You know what he did?” Clinton said, pointing out Obama’s reaction to the financial crisis. “First he took a little heat for not saying much. I knew what he was doing. He talked to his advisers – he talked to my economic advisers, he called Hillary. He called me. He called Warren Buffet. He called all those people, you know why? Because he knew it was complicated and before he said anything he wanted to understand.”
It's complicated. Remember in 2000, when the political term of the year directed towards George W. Bush was lack of GRAVITAS? Well, Obama excels at not having GRAVITAS. Crisis after crisis, we find out that Obama just isn't ready for the job. What is wrong with the American people? What's Obama going to do when Iran finally strikes with the furry of a nuclear weapon? You better have some depth in your leadership to make the right decision in a timely manner that protects the United States, and I am just not seeing it from the messiah.
Leave it to Bill Clinton to hand Repbulicans another blessing. I figure if he keeps opening his mouth, his chances of moving back to the White House improve. During the recent collapse of the banks, we find out through Clinton that Obama isn't the economic genious that the media wants us to believe he is.
“You know what he did?” Clinton said, pointing out Obama’s reaction to the financial crisis. “First he took a little heat for not saying much. I knew what he was doing. He talked to his advisers – he talked to my economic advisers, he called Hillary. He called me. He called Warren Buffet. He called all those people, you know why? Because he knew it was complicated and before he said anything he wanted to understand.”
It's complicated. Remember in 2000, when the political term of the year directed towards George W. Bush was lack of GRAVITAS? Well, Obama excels at not having GRAVITAS. Crisis after crisis, we find out that Obama just isn't ready for the job. What is wrong with the American people? What's Obama going to do when Iran finally strikes with the furry of a nuclear weapon? You better have some depth in your leadership to make the right decision in a timely manner that protects the United States, and I am just not seeing it from the messiah.
Sarah P. Reveals Obama Campaign Efforts to Lower the Morale of Conservative Voters
Rush Limbaugh mentioned this on his show today, and I found it to be very interesting. I know as I have been campaigning for John McCain through this wonderful electronic media, I have found many of the examples cited to be happening. It's worth a read; although I can't verify the facts. This was taken from the Web site Hillbuzz, a Hillary friendly site hoping she gets the chance to run in 2012 due to a McCain win.
# sarah p Says: October 27, 2008 at 5:04 am
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over. I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama.” We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence. We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People make posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad.” Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending. We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scary to a McCain supporter.
Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple."
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.
PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.
# sarah p Says: October 27, 2008 at 5:04 am
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over. I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama.” We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence. We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People make posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad.” Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending. We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scary to a McCain supporter.
Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple."
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.
PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.
Obama Speech Writer Quits
Since you are going to hear this in the mainstream liberal media, I thought this little tidbit was worth posting. Obama speech writer Wendy Button quit the Obama campaign after becoming disillusioned by the messiah. She is now voting for John McCain.
It seems the negativity that Obama accuse McCain of, was really going on in the Obama camp and wore on Button after a while. It started with the sexist ways Hillary Clinton was attacked and then Sarah Palin was attacked. These orders came from democratic campaign managers, and apparently Button has had enough. I applaud her for standing up for what she believes to be right insteand of continuting drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.
It seems the negativity that Obama accuse McCain of, was really going on in the Obama camp and wore on Button after a while. It started with the sexist ways Hillary Clinton was attacked and then Sarah Palin was attacked. These orders came from democratic campaign managers, and apparently Button has had enough. I applaud her for standing up for what she believes to be right insteand of continuting drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.
An Obama Fact About Redistribution of Wealth
Dear Leader Barack Hussien Obama is by no means a poor man. He is a wealthy man. He lives in a house out of the reach of most Americans in a very nice south Chicago neighborhood known as Hyde Park. He has gotten book deals. He has received cushy political deals, including taking money from Fannie Mae as it was failing. Chairman Obama has the means to make a real difference in people's lives by redistributing some of his wealth through charitible means. Why doesnt' he?
Earlier this year, we learned about Obama's brother who lives on $12 a year in a hut. It get's better though. Today, we learn in The Times of London, an Aunt that was important enough to praise in his book Dreams of My Father, lives in a slum of Boston. Unbeleivable. Here is a man that told Joe the Plumber that he wants to give everyone a chance at success, and yet he obviously overlooks the needs of members of his family. To insure success for everyone, Obama wants to share your wealth; however, it's obvious that Obama doesn't share his own wealth. Wake up America!
The Fairness Doctrine: An Attack on Free Speech
In 1987, Ronald Reagan saved AM radio, the format in which many years before he made a living broadcasting sports. Reagan lifted the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine demanded that privately owned radio stations, that are in business to make a profit, had to provide equal time to opposing views even if it meant no one listened. If no one listens, no one advertises. If no one advertises, the radio station goes out of business.
In the signing of a pen, Reagan helped revolutionize a format that was certainly on its death bed. In the following years, talk radio led by Rush Limbaugh reached heights never before seen. AM stations became profitable because people tuned in. When the news media began to fail delivering unbiased news towards the end of the Bush 41 administration, people turned to talk radio to deliver a different view.
Now democrats, who are looking at gaining a super majority in this year's election, are looking to "hush Rush" and other conservative talkers by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. If Biden's interview with Barbara West is any indication of how an Obama administration will deal with those who disagree, then free speech will be tested over the next four years. Something tells me her career is over.
New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingham is leading the charge to reenact the Fairness Doctrine. Bingham has gone so far as insulting its listeners. After years of liberals failing to equal the listenership of conservatives with radiio like Air American, once again we see that if liberals can't beat you, they will go out of their way to destroy you.
The Fairness Doctrine is an attack on free speech and free enterprise. Conservative talk radio fills in the holes that the liberal news media don't wish to report. If it wasn't for conservative talk radio, you wouldn't know the half of what the politicians in Washington were doing; perhaps, that's the real reason they want to "hush Rush." Of course, NBC, CNN, CBS, and the rest of the biased networks won't have to equal their coverage. In fact, you can probably count on their coverage getting worse because there won't be anything to keep them in check. This is scary stuff. Think of what the liberal media will be able to get away with.
When you step into the voting booth this year, you need to consider what might happen to your first amendment rights. You need to consider very carefully the power of the government and the media if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated and their critics are shut up.
In the signing of a pen, Reagan helped revolutionize a format that was certainly on its death bed. In the following years, talk radio led by Rush Limbaugh reached heights never before seen. AM stations became profitable because people tuned in. When the news media began to fail delivering unbiased news towards the end of the Bush 41 administration, people turned to talk radio to deliver a different view.
Now democrats, who are looking at gaining a super majority in this year's election, are looking to "hush Rush" and other conservative talkers by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. If Biden's interview with Barbara West is any indication of how an Obama administration will deal with those who disagree, then free speech will be tested over the next four years. Something tells me her career is over.
New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingham is leading the charge to reenact the Fairness Doctrine. Bingham has gone so far as insulting its listeners. After years of liberals failing to equal the listenership of conservatives with radiio like Air American, once again we see that if liberals can't beat you, they will go out of their way to destroy you.
The Fairness Doctrine is an attack on free speech and free enterprise. Conservative talk radio fills in the holes that the liberal news media don't wish to report. If it wasn't for conservative talk radio, you wouldn't know the half of what the politicians in Washington were doing; perhaps, that's the real reason they want to "hush Rush." Of course, NBC, CNN, CBS, and the rest of the biased networks won't have to equal their coverage. In fact, you can probably count on their coverage getting worse because there won't be anything to keep them in check. This is scary stuff. Think of what the liberal media will be able to get away with.
When you step into the voting booth this year, you need to consider what might happen to your first amendment rights. You need to consider very carefully the power of the government and the media if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated and their critics are shut up.
Obama's Assault on Small Businesses: The Open Ballot
If you work for a small business, which most of Americans do, you should be concerned about the Obama economic plan. Small businesses will be attacked like no other time in history. If you think we are talking about a mom and pop joint on Main Street, think again. The government's definition of small business will surprise you.
The definition of a small business, according to the government, varies based on the industry. Once you start reading the definitions, you begin to realize there is nothing small about small businesses. Some of the definitions define the amount of employees, and that includes businesses hiring 500 people. The defninition also includes income, which can be millions of dollars. Dear Leader Chairman Obama wants you believe that small businesses will not be affected with his tax plan.
When Chairman Obama began talking about his tax plan, he stated people making over $300,000 will not have their taxes raised. Most small business owners profits are considered personal income. By the time the debates rolled around, that number was $250,000. Earlier this week, the number coming from the messiah's mouth was $200,000. Then Biden began talking about the tax plan, and that number fell to $150,000. Are you starting to get the picture of who is going to spread the wealth? I guarantee you those numbers are going to continue to drop to pay for Obama's additional trillion dollars of big government (welfare) handouts.
You will be affected by these increases. The small-business owner might cut your job. They might not be able to give you the promotion or raise. They might have to make cuts in your benefits, if there are any left at all. (The democrats are working on destroying the 401K system). Talk about trickle down economics? These tax increases will trickle down to you in many forms in ways that you don't like. Then, when Chairman Obama and the democrats let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, your taxes are going up. OBMAMA CAN'T WAIT TO GET HIS HAND IN YOUR POCKET!
Since it's the day before Halloween, do you want to hear something really scary? CHAIRMAN OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY THE CLOSED BALLOT FOR COMPANIES THAT ARE LOOKING TO UNIONIZE. What's this mean to small businesses? It means that unions will be able to walk into any small business, including your local McDonalds, and force unionization through and open vote. The will use the strength of the open ballot to scare people to unionize. That is, you will be placed in a meeting hall and called out one by one to vote yes or no to unionize. If you vote no, and the rest decide to unionize, you will be blacklisted by the union from the very beginning.
We have seen what the unions have done to our failing car manufactuers. The news has been gloomy for Detroit's big three, and they are slaves to greedy union demands that drive the prices of cars up to pay someone over $60 in salary and benefits to place a seat in a car on an assembly line. One of the reasons Daimler hung Chrysler out to hang was because the union pension plans of former Chrysler employees were drying out the company. As these companies lay people off to save their brand name, I have to ask how would it be different if the unions would just give a little.
What can we expect when the unions are giving that much power? I predict higher prices, people forced to pay union dues, and a number of small businesses closing the door. Obama's open ballot is madness. If you don't believe this, it's all in the Employer Free Hire Act that Obama wants to turn into law. Democrat George McGovern has opposed this act, and I have seen him explain it on several commercials.
It's no wonder the stock market has been acting crazy as the election nears. With these type of programs getting ready to attack the fundamental strength of our economy, investors are paying close attention and are preparing to move their money into safer investments. You aren't going to hear this from the biased media who have worked for nearly two years to get Obama elected and four years to get a democrat elected. You are going to have to move yourself from the front of your television and look on your own. I have given you a starting point. Go educate yourself before you vote.
The definition of a small business, according to the government, varies based on the industry. Once you start reading the definitions, you begin to realize there is nothing small about small businesses. Some of the definitions define the amount of employees, and that includes businesses hiring 500 people. The defninition also includes income, which can be millions of dollars. Dear Leader Chairman Obama wants you believe that small businesses will not be affected with his tax plan.
When Chairman Obama began talking about his tax plan, he stated people making over $300,000 will not have their taxes raised. Most small business owners profits are considered personal income. By the time the debates rolled around, that number was $250,000. Earlier this week, the number coming from the messiah's mouth was $200,000. Then Biden began talking about the tax plan, and that number fell to $150,000. Are you starting to get the picture of who is going to spread the wealth? I guarantee you those numbers are going to continue to drop to pay for Obama's additional trillion dollars of big government (welfare) handouts.
You will be affected by these increases. The small-business owner might cut your job. They might not be able to give you the promotion or raise. They might have to make cuts in your benefits, if there are any left at all. (The democrats are working on destroying the 401K system). Talk about trickle down economics? These tax increases will trickle down to you in many forms in ways that you don't like. Then, when Chairman Obama and the democrats let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, your taxes are going up. OBMAMA CAN'T WAIT TO GET HIS HAND IN YOUR POCKET!
Since it's the day before Halloween, do you want to hear something really scary? CHAIRMAN OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY THE CLOSED BALLOT FOR COMPANIES THAT ARE LOOKING TO UNIONIZE. What's this mean to small businesses? It means that unions will be able to walk into any small business, including your local McDonalds, and force unionization through and open vote. The will use the strength of the open ballot to scare people to unionize. That is, you will be placed in a meeting hall and called out one by one to vote yes or no to unionize. If you vote no, and the rest decide to unionize, you will be blacklisted by the union from the very beginning.
We have seen what the unions have done to our failing car manufactuers. The news has been gloomy for Detroit's big three, and they are slaves to greedy union demands that drive the prices of cars up to pay someone over $60 in salary and benefits to place a seat in a car on an assembly line. One of the reasons Daimler hung Chrysler out to hang was because the union pension plans of former Chrysler employees were drying out the company. As these companies lay people off to save their brand name, I have to ask how would it be different if the unions would just give a little.
What can we expect when the unions are giving that much power? I predict higher prices, people forced to pay union dues, and a number of small businesses closing the door. Obama's open ballot is madness. If you don't believe this, it's all in the Employer Free Hire Act that Obama wants to turn into law. Democrat George McGovern has opposed this act, and I have seen him explain it on several commercials.
It's no wonder the stock market has been acting crazy as the election nears. With these type of programs getting ready to attack the fundamental strength of our economy, investors are paying close attention and are preparing to move their money into safer investments. You aren't going to hear this from the biased media who have worked for nearly two years to get Obama elected and four years to get a democrat elected. You are going to have to move yourself from the front of your television and look on your own. I have given you a starting point. Go educate yourself before you vote.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I Thought Obama was Going to Restore our Image in the World
The media isn't commenting on this, but I couldn't pass it up. Over the past few months, I have heard how Dear Leader Chairman Obama is going to restore our image in the world. Some of the Kool-Aid drinking Obama supporters claim because Obama is such a good speaker our image will be instantly improved. Wow!
Over the past couple days, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has been quite critical of Dear Leader Obama. Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content." Why isn't the news media reporting this? Wasn't Obama supposed to make our friends in Europe love us again? Perhaps the French are a little brighter than I gave them credit for. Obviously, they understand the threat that Iran poses, and they know that a weak president will only make them a larger threat to NATO countries.
Let's see: which countries like Obama? The countries that hate us. That's why people like Lybia's Khadafi are endorsing Obama (it's true).
Which countries are worried about Obama? Well, let's give Sarkozy a hand. He deserves it for speaking up. I am sure many countries in NATO, and I know Israel too, are concerned about the experience about Obama.
Over the past couple days, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has been quite critical of Dear Leader Obama. Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content." Why isn't the news media reporting this? Wasn't Obama supposed to make our friends in Europe love us again? Perhaps the French are a little brighter than I gave them credit for. Obviously, they understand the threat that Iran poses, and they know that a weak president will only make them a larger threat to NATO countries.
Let's see: which countries like Obama? The countries that hate us. That's why people like Lybia's Khadafi are endorsing Obama (it's true).
Which countries are worried about Obama? Well, let's give Sarkozy a hand. He deserves it for speaking up. I am sure many countries in NATO, and I know Israel too, are concerned about the experience about Obama.
Okay for Obama when it Came to Jack Ryan, but...
Currently, the Los Angeles Times sits on a video tape of Dear Leader Chairman Obama paling around with a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Rasheed Khalidi. The Palestinian Liberation Organization is a known terrorist organization, once led by Yassir Arafat, who want nothing more than the death of Israel.
Why is the LA Times holding the tape? My guess, if there was nothing incriminating in the tape, it would be released. Has Obama said something that would lose the Jewish vote in the video? Has he praised the work of the PLO? Rumors are that these things are contained in the video. We will probably see the video at some point, but will it be too late?
Now what does this have to do with Jack Ryan? Jack Ryan may have been the one man who prevented Obama from achieving national prominance. He was a popular Republican candidate running for the Illinois Senate Seat vacated by Carol Mosely Braun. Ryan was a threat to defeat Obama for the Senate seat, so Obama did what he does best. He played dirty.
Ryan's divorce records were sealed in the California courts. A little birdie told Obama that there might be something a little dirty in the divorce records. Obama's attorneys went to court to have the records released and they won. What were in the divorce records were a little embarrassing, but it had nothing to do with adultery. Ryan wanted to have sex with his wife in a public place at one time in their marriage, and Obama decided to destroy this man and his chances for this very reason.
Isn't it funny how dirty Obama plays? American should learn a lot by this and other examples out of the Obama playbook. When someone asks him a tough question, he boycotts the media source that the question came from. When someone asks about his past associations, he avoids admitting any close relationship. He sat in an anti-America, anti-white, racist church led by Jeremiah Wright for twenty years, and he quit it in a day with a plea he didn't understand what Wright was preaching. When he wants his opponent destroyed, he goes all out to destroy them--Jack Ryan, Joe the Plumber, and Alice J. Palmer.
I wonder what threats were made to the LA Times to keep the video from being released? We know how Obama plays ball, and it's dirty. One can only imagine what's in store for his opposition, including people like Sean Hannity who Obama has personally attacked, if he wins. It's no wonder many Americans are preparing for an Obama presidency by taking measures to defend their country and their Constitution.
Why is the LA Times holding the tape? My guess, if there was nothing incriminating in the tape, it would be released. Has Obama said something that would lose the Jewish vote in the video? Has he praised the work of the PLO? Rumors are that these things are contained in the video. We will probably see the video at some point, but will it be too late?
Now what does this have to do with Jack Ryan? Jack Ryan may have been the one man who prevented Obama from achieving national prominance. He was a popular Republican candidate running for the Illinois Senate Seat vacated by Carol Mosely Braun. Ryan was a threat to defeat Obama for the Senate seat, so Obama did what he does best. He played dirty.
Ryan's divorce records were sealed in the California courts. A little birdie told Obama that there might be something a little dirty in the divorce records. Obama's attorneys went to court to have the records released and they won. What were in the divorce records were a little embarrassing, but it had nothing to do with adultery. Ryan wanted to have sex with his wife in a public place at one time in their marriage, and Obama decided to destroy this man and his chances for this very reason.
Isn't it funny how dirty Obama plays? American should learn a lot by this and other examples out of the Obama playbook. When someone asks him a tough question, he boycotts the media source that the question came from. When someone asks about his past associations, he avoids admitting any close relationship. He sat in an anti-America, anti-white, racist church led by Jeremiah Wright for twenty years, and he quit it in a day with a plea he didn't understand what Wright was preaching. When he wants his opponent destroyed, he goes all out to destroy them--Jack Ryan, Joe the Plumber, and Alice J. Palmer.
I wonder what threats were made to the LA Times to keep the video from being released? We know how Obama plays ball, and it's dirty. One can only imagine what's in store for his opposition, including people like Sean Hannity who Obama has personally attacked, if he wins. It's no wonder many Americans are preparing for an Obama presidency by taking measures to defend their country and their Constitution.
Let's See if they Call Me Back
I got the junkiest piece of junk mail that I probably will ever see in my life. It was an 8 X 10 card with the messiah, Dear Leader Chairman Obama standing above a star struck audience (with their eyes closed). I wrote return to sender on the card and put it back into my mailbox. I hate junk mail.
It had a phone number on it that is unique to Missouri. I decided to call it. To my surpise the messiah answered, darn a recording. I would love to go Joe the Plumber on his butt! Obama babbled for a minute or so, and then a perky, young female voter's voice gave me the menu options. I chose IV: get a ride to the polls. I entered my zip code and it transfered me to the local office of the Obama gestapo.
I left the following message. Hello, my name is Clay. I need a ride to the polls on election day so I can vote for John McCain. My phone number is XXX-XXXX. I really appreciate your help and look forward to your phone call. I wonder if they will call me back, and if they don't, you will know.
It had a phone number on it that is unique to Missouri. I decided to call it. To my surpise the messiah answered, darn a recording. I would love to go Joe the Plumber on his butt! Obama babbled for a minute or so, and then a perky, young female voter's voice gave me the menu options. I chose IV: get a ride to the polls. I entered my zip code and it transfered me to the local office of the Obama gestapo.
I left the following message. Hello, my name is Clay. I need a ride to the polls on election day so I can vote for John McCain. My phone number is XXX-XXXX. I really appreciate your help and look forward to your phone call. I wonder if they will call me back, and if they don't, you will know.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Correct Way to Redistribute Wealth.: Through the Generosity of Capitalism
I applaud the owner of the Miami Dolphins. He gets it.
Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said no date has been set for selling up to 45 per cent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the upcoming election is among the issues weighing on his decision.
Why? Because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes. "He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."
I'd rather see him give it to charity than to let the bums in Washington spend it more government. That's a far more admirable way to spread the wealth. Huizenga is a patriot in my book!
Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said no date has been set for selling up to 45 per cent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the upcoming election is among the issues weighing on his decision.
Why? Because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes. "He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."
I'd rather see him give it to charity than to let the bums in Washington spend it more government. That's a far more admirable way to spread the wealth. Huizenga is a patriot in my book!
Responses to the Obama Challenge
The Obama Challenge was a challenge to Obama supporters to offer five legislation accomplishments of Obama and the positive impact they had on the United States. I have had some responses.
Here they are:
From saddlestitch:
McCain is dangerous for this country and Palin would be an absolute disaster!!!!!
Those of their ilk have had control for the last 8 years and see what has happened!!!
IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!
It didn't work under Reagan...
It didn't work under Bush.....
It will not work under McCain.....
I voted for Obama...I made an intelligent , educated decision.....Obama ran a great campaign...McCain's campaign was a mess...
Obama did not spend all his time calling McCain a skirt chasing angry old man...All McCain did was attack Obama's character.....
McCain had no ideas and Plain has no brain...a great team!!!!
This country will be much better off if the republican party slowly dies and the right wing evangelicals have a come to Jesus meeting with GOD!!!!
My response: No accomplishments, just like I predicted. Same talking points, and this guy wants to go as far back as Reagan. Why is it democrats call the economy the worst ever when a Republican is office, but they seem to overlook what a mess Jimmy Carter created? This guy is voting because of emotions and all he has to back it up is name calling. This is typical of what I have seen when you ask people why they are voting for Obama.
Let's look at another attempt:
Republicans just do not seem to understand......WE WANT CHANGE!!!
We want a democrat in office ..not a republican!!
THAT CHANGE!!!
We want a liberal not a conservative in office!!!!
THAT CHANGE!!!
We want a president who did not come from a family of privilege like both Bush & McCain..
THAT CHANGE!!!!!
We want a president that can make intelligent decisions based on sound thinking and discussion.
THAT CHANGE!!!
We want a president that opposes the war in Iraq!!!
THAT CHANGE!!!!
We do not want more of the same eight years!!
THAT CHANGE!!!
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ALL THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.
My response: Do you know in the late 1920's the Germans wanted change too. They chose a leader based who ran on the premise that he was change from the kaisers. He had a light resume, and people blindly supported him. His name was Hitler. Taking a lesson from history and applying it to this case, I can't change my vote from McCain to Obama.
A third attempt:
It would appear that you are basing your decisions solely on one's legislative accomplishments. I on the other hand try to expand my criteria. You know as well as I that most of Obama's legislative accomplishments were at the state level in Illinois. I can provide those if you wish, but I do not see the need. I have found Obabma to have quite capable decision making prowess. With superior judgment...he chose Joe Biden as a running mate...seems like a sound decision...not that he doesn't make a mistake or two now and then...while McCain chose a light weight..Sarah Palin...doesn't bode well for his decision making capabilities...
Obama has run a well organized campaign..a well oiled machine while McCain has run a sloppy campaign....does this reflect on one's ability to lead..maybe as much as one's legislative accomplishments.....
McCain has been running for president for over eight years....Obama for 18 months....you would think McCain would have a decent head start...oh wait...he did have a head start...Obama caught up and passed him....because of his legislative accomplishments...I think not...hard work..YEP....good message...YEP.....I am a liberal democrat and very, very, very proud of it....Obama comes closer to saying what I want to hear.....can he accomplish all he suggests...NOPE...but then agian neither can McCain.....I find it interesting that McCain tried calling Obama a liberal to hurt his chances at success...didn't work.....so then he decides to call him a socialist...also didn't work....then he tries to call him a communist..also hasn't worked...I'm sure that he'll try for the anti-Christ moniker next...McCain & Palin both seem desperate at this point and it isn't pretty.....If McCain had run a more positive campaign...and chosen a better running mate...I think he would be ahead in the polls right now...instead he chose to run a negative campaign and a character assasination campaign and chose an air head for a running mate ...it appears his legislative accomplishments didn't do much for him...maybe he should have run on that platform...
My response: Sir, it's Joe Biden who is making the stupid statements in this election not your so called lightweight. Palin has an executive record that is far superior to Obama's.
As for the campaign, a well-oiled campaign doesn't assure me that our precious Constitution will be upheld by a radical like Obama. Obama is a liberal and a socialist. It wasn't name calling. His tax plan started taxing people at $250,000, and last I heard Obama is quoted saying $200,000 while Biden said $150,000. The facts are that Obama is a real threat to small businesses in this country. He is sponsoring the Employer Free Hire Act which will more than likely FORCE SMALL BUSINESSES TO UNIONIZE. Both these policies will cost millions of Americans their jobs when small business people make cuts to survive in an Obama economy.
Sir you say that if McCain had run a more positive campaign, well if you remember correctly, he aired the most positive commercial of the campaign. The commercial congratulated Obama. I haven't seen that kind of class from Obama. I see lies in his commercials such as the commercial stating that employer benefits would be taxed. Under McCain's plan, most people wouldn't need employer health benefits. It's misleading. Regardless, of what you claim about McCain's campaign, you would still give the negative talking points you have spewed in your conversations. After all, you said you were a proud liberal democrat. I wonder when our Constitution no longer matters because we have liberal judges who legislate from the bench instead of upholding our Constitution if you will still be a proud liberal democrat. I wonder when people like Bill Ayres gets what they want from and Obama administration and all the foreign questionable relationships that Obama holds cost Americans their country and possibly their lives if you will still be a proud liberal democrat. People like you and the media say those past relationships don't matter, but we both know Obama wouldn't even pass a normal security clearance for any government job. These things do matter sir, and your rhetoric isn't taking these matters seriously enough because you don't want to look at the truth.
Are you going to cite that you heard something on NBC and there is nothing to look into? Sir, NBC is owned by GE, who is currently not looked upon favorably by the Bush administration due to its business interest with Iran. Of course, NBC is going to report without any bias--considering GE stands to lose billions. The CEO and other higher ups in the company should be charged with treason. Yes, it's defined in the Constitution, and what they are doing fits.
And yet another Obama supporter can't give me what I asked for.
Here they are:
From saddlestitch:
McCain is dangerous for this country and Palin would be an absolute disaster!!!!!
Those of their ilk have had control for the last 8 years and see what has happened!!!
IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!
It didn't work under Reagan...
It didn't work under Bush.....
It will not work under McCain.....
I voted for Obama...I made an intelligent , educated decision.....Obama ran a great campaign...McCain's campaign was a mess...
Obama did not spend all his time calling McCain a skirt chasing angry old man...All McCain did was attack Obama's character.....
McCain had no ideas and Plain has no brain...a great team!!!!
This country will be much better off if the republican party slowly dies and the right wing evangelicals have a come to Jesus meeting with GOD!!!!
My response: No accomplishments, just like I predicted. Same talking points, and this guy wants to go as far back as Reagan. Why is it democrats call the economy the worst ever when a Republican is office, but they seem to overlook what a mess Jimmy Carter created? This guy is voting because of emotions and all he has to back it up is name calling. This is typical of what I have seen when you ask people why they are voting for Obama.
Let's look at another attempt:
Republicans just do not seem to understand......WE WANT CHANGE!!!
We want a democrat in office ..not a republican!!
THAT CHANGE!!!
We want a liberal not a conservative in office!!!!
THAT CHANGE!!!
We want a president who did not come from a family of privilege like both Bush & McCain..
THAT CHANGE!!!!!
We want a president that can make intelligent decisions based on sound thinking and discussion.
THAT CHANGE!!!
We want a president that opposes the war in Iraq!!!
THAT CHANGE!!!!
We do not want more of the same eight years!!
THAT CHANGE!!!
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ALL THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.
My response: Do you know in the late 1920's the Germans wanted change too. They chose a leader based who ran on the premise that he was change from the kaisers. He had a light resume, and people blindly supported him. His name was Hitler. Taking a lesson from history and applying it to this case, I can't change my vote from McCain to Obama.
A third attempt:
It would appear that you are basing your decisions solely on one's legislative accomplishments. I on the other hand try to expand my criteria. You know as well as I that most of Obama's legislative accomplishments were at the state level in Illinois. I can provide those if you wish, but I do not see the need. I have found Obabma to have quite capable decision making prowess. With superior judgment...he chose Joe Biden as a running mate...seems like a sound decision...not that he doesn't make a mistake or two now and then...while McCain chose a light weight..Sarah Palin...doesn't bode well for his decision making capabilities...
Obama has run a well organized campaign..a well oiled machine while McCain has run a sloppy campaign....does this reflect on one's ability to lead..maybe as much as one's legislative accomplishments.....
McCain has been running for president for over eight years....Obama for 18 months....you would think McCain would have a decent head start...oh wait...he did have a head start...Obama caught up and passed him....because of his legislative accomplishments...I think not...hard work..YEP....good message...YEP.....I am a liberal democrat and very, very, very proud of it....Obama comes closer to saying what I want to hear.....can he accomplish all he suggests...NOPE...but then agian neither can McCain.....I find it interesting that McCain tried calling Obama a liberal to hurt his chances at success...didn't work.....so then he decides to call him a socialist...also didn't work....then he tries to call him a communist..also hasn't worked...I'm sure that he'll try for the anti-Christ moniker next...McCain & Palin both seem desperate at this point and it isn't pretty.....If McCain had run a more positive campaign...and chosen a better running mate...I think he would be ahead in the polls right now...instead he chose to run a negative campaign and a character assasination campaign and chose an air head for a running mate ...it appears his legislative accomplishments didn't do much for him...maybe he should have run on that platform...
My response: Sir, it's Joe Biden who is making the stupid statements in this election not your so called lightweight. Palin has an executive record that is far superior to Obama's.
As for the campaign, a well-oiled campaign doesn't assure me that our precious Constitution will be upheld by a radical like Obama. Obama is a liberal and a socialist. It wasn't name calling. His tax plan started taxing people at $250,000, and last I heard Obama is quoted saying $200,000 while Biden said $150,000. The facts are that Obama is a real threat to small businesses in this country. He is sponsoring the Employer Free Hire Act which will more than likely FORCE SMALL BUSINESSES TO UNIONIZE. Both these policies will cost millions of Americans their jobs when small business people make cuts to survive in an Obama economy.
Sir you say that if McCain had run a more positive campaign, well if you remember correctly, he aired the most positive commercial of the campaign. The commercial congratulated Obama. I haven't seen that kind of class from Obama. I see lies in his commercials such as the commercial stating that employer benefits would be taxed. Under McCain's plan, most people wouldn't need employer health benefits. It's misleading. Regardless, of what you claim about McCain's campaign, you would still give the negative talking points you have spewed in your conversations. After all, you said you were a proud liberal democrat. I wonder when our Constitution no longer matters because we have liberal judges who legislate from the bench instead of upholding our Constitution if you will still be a proud liberal democrat. I wonder when people like Bill Ayres gets what they want from and Obama administration and all the foreign questionable relationships that Obama holds cost Americans their country and possibly their lives if you will still be a proud liberal democrat. People like you and the media say those past relationships don't matter, but we both know Obama wouldn't even pass a normal security clearance for any government job. These things do matter sir, and your rhetoric isn't taking these matters seriously enough because you don't want to look at the truth.
Are you going to cite that you heard something on NBC and there is nothing to look into? Sir, NBC is owned by GE, who is currently not looked upon favorably by the Bush administration due to its business interest with Iran. Of course, NBC is going to report without any bias--considering GE stands to lose billions. The CEO and other higher ups in the company should be charged with treason. Yes, it's defined in the Constitution, and what they are doing fits.
And yet another Obama supporter can't give me what I asked for.
Monday, October 27, 2008
California has Stepped Over the Boundaries of Church and State
California voters will got to the polls next week and decide whether or not to continue legal same-sex marriages (Proposition 8). Gay couples have been rushing to California in case the proposal fails in front of the voters. I can't help but ask one question. In a society in which prayer in school is controversial, banned, and which religion steps over the boundary of separation between church and state, why isn't this seen as government crossing over the religion boundary? After all, the concept of marriage is defined not by the United States government, not by the California government, but by God. Marriage is a religious-based institution.
Matthew 19:4 “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh."
The Bible doesn't say let two men be joined. It doesn't say let two women be joined. It says a man and a woman.
Long before the United States was founded on the principle of separation of church and state, the church enforced these beliefs because they were laws given from God. How is it that any local, state, or federal government can redefine something that the church through God has defined for many centuries. Civil unions is one thing, but an actual marriage comes from God since it is written in the scripture that God brings a man and a woman together.
I find it ironic that the same group of people who have fought to keep prayer out of school, including the prayer before the Friday night football game, on the basis of separation of church and state now don't have any regard for the boundary of church and state. Consistency doesn't rule for them, only convenience of their own personal beliefs that they want to force on everyone else.
I have friends who support Gay marriage. Many of these same friends spit on the church and curse at christians. How can they believe in marriage if they don't believe in God and the history of marriage as written in the Bible? They can't answer that, and it's a source of friction for them (I find it easy to back them into corners they can't get out of).
Separation of church and state can't be something that is used to enforce one set of rules and avoided to redefine another set of Bibically based rules. One day, we might see our religious institutions under attack and perhaps found to be illegal as they were in the Soviet Union. That would be a sad day for all of us. I hope California voters have the sense to look at this issue as it should be looked at, and keep the government from redefining the sacred laws of God.
Matthew 19:4 “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh."
The Bible doesn't say let two men be joined. It doesn't say let two women be joined. It says a man and a woman.
Long before the United States was founded on the principle of separation of church and state, the church enforced these beliefs because they were laws given from God. How is it that any local, state, or federal government can redefine something that the church through God has defined for many centuries. Civil unions is one thing, but an actual marriage comes from God since it is written in the scripture that God brings a man and a woman together.
I find it ironic that the same group of people who have fought to keep prayer out of school, including the prayer before the Friday night football game, on the basis of separation of church and state now don't have any regard for the boundary of church and state. Consistency doesn't rule for them, only convenience of their own personal beliefs that they want to force on everyone else.
I have friends who support Gay marriage. Many of these same friends spit on the church and curse at christians. How can they believe in marriage if they don't believe in God and the history of marriage as written in the Bible? They can't answer that, and it's a source of friction for them (I find it easy to back them into corners they can't get out of).
Separation of church and state can't be something that is used to enforce one set of rules and avoided to redefine another set of Bibically based rules. One day, we might see our religious institutions under attack and perhaps found to be illegal as they were in the Soviet Union. That would be a sad day for all of us. I hope California voters have the sense to look at this issue as it should be looked at, and keep the government from redefining the sacred laws of God.
Hope?
The main campaign theme this year has been hope. Blue bumper stickers with the words HOPE on them describing the campaign of Barack Hussein Obama. Honestly, I felt this was one of the positive aspects of the Obama campaign. Friendly letters on a blue background provided rhetoric that many Americans held onto.
Now I know HOPE is just a rhetorical tool probably in the flavor of cherry, sugar already added, just add some tears of happiness and drink. This week, I saw a normal American ask a serious question to a presidential candidate only to watch the media and a campaign put this man and his American dream down.
His name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. You know him as Joe the plumber. Joe's dream is to one day buy a gentlemen out and own his own plumbing business. He wants to do it without the handouts. And in a few short days since asking Dear Leader Chairman Obama about his tax plan, we know more about Joe than we do the Dear Leader.
Dear Leader and Biden have attacked the plumbing industry. Sure, not directly, but their condescending tone towards what they think a good plumber is what caught my ear. The media has really gone after this guy. In fact, it's safe to say that they have probably researched more about the private life of Joe than they have Dear Leader Obama. Isn't that sad.
You see, in one answer, Obama told the world who he really is. I think many Americans finally spit out the Kool-Aid before they swallowed it on election day. Our country doesn't like socialism. It wasn't that long ago, that Americans stood up to Hillary's bus tour of Clinton cabinet officials touring the country outlining the government takeover of the health care system. My mother and I protested as the bus rolled into southwest Missouri. We weren't the only ones. Her healthcare proposal failed. Now the media and the Dear Leader Obama spin machine has to get our minds off of Chairman Obama's redistributing the wealth statement.
It's sad the same people with the HOPE rhetoric is coming down on this man's hope, his American dream. I have heard the petty news media cite that he isn't a plumber because he isn't licensed by the union. So because he doesn't pay into a union, he isn't a plumber even though he is skilled and works? Give me a break! I have heard the media exclaim that his name isn't even Joe, and then they call out his real name--Samuel Joseph. Oh, Joe isn't short for Joseph CBS? They have even gone as far as telling us this guy owes back taxes. Hey, I do too, but that doesn't mean my American dream isn't important! And it doesn't mean that Joe's American dream isn't important either.
Newspaper circulation is down. Ratings for all three major networks are down. Keep attacking Joe's dream. Keep attacking regular Americans and their dreams and these numbers will continue to fall. I think the media looks at Americans who live in fly-over country (between New York and LA) as unimportant. Look how they have treated Joe. Look how the Obama campaign has discounted Joe's likelihood of achieving the American dream.
Is this what HOPE is? Tear down someone with an American dream who doesn't agree with Chairman Obama? We should celebrate people like Joe. Yet, the liberal media researches everything about him, but won't dare dig too deep into what really went on in the Annenburg Project, ACORN, and Kenya. Do you know that if Obama tried to get into the New York Police Department, and probably any other law enforcement department in the United States, that he would not pass the background checks because of his associations with William Ayres. Yet, we could be just over 100 days from passing the nuclear football to him. I am just puzzled about where the hope is. If you attack one American dream, the rest might not be too far behind.
Now I know HOPE is just a rhetorical tool probably in the flavor of cherry, sugar already added, just add some tears of happiness and drink. This week, I saw a normal American ask a serious question to a presidential candidate only to watch the media and a campaign put this man and his American dream down.
His name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. You know him as Joe the plumber. Joe's dream is to one day buy a gentlemen out and own his own plumbing business. He wants to do it without the handouts. And in a few short days since asking Dear Leader Chairman Obama about his tax plan, we know more about Joe than we do the Dear Leader.
Dear Leader and Biden have attacked the plumbing industry. Sure, not directly, but their condescending tone towards what they think a good plumber is what caught my ear. The media has really gone after this guy. In fact, it's safe to say that they have probably researched more about the private life of Joe than they have Dear Leader Obama. Isn't that sad.
You see, in one answer, Obama told the world who he really is. I think many Americans finally spit out the Kool-Aid before they swallowed it on election day. Our country doesn't like socialism. It wasn't that long ago, that Americans stood up to Hillary's bus tour of Clinton cabinet officials touring the country outlining the government takeover of the health care system. My mother and I protested as the bus rolled into southwest Missouri. We weren't the only ones. Her healthcare proposal failed. Now the media and the Dear Leader Obama spin machine has to get our minds off of Chairman Obama's redistributing the wealth statement.
It's sad the same people with the HOPE rhetoric is coming down on this man's hope, his American dream. I have heard the petty news media cite that he isn't a plumber because he isn't licensed by the union. So because he doesn't pay into a union, he isn't a plumber even though he is skilled and works? Give me a break! I have heard the media exclaim that his name isn't even Joe, and then they call out his real name--Samuel Joseph. Oh, Joe isn't short for Joseph CBS? They have even gone as far as telling us this guy owes back taxes. Hey, I do too, but that doesn't mean my American dream isn't important! And it doesn't mean that Joe's American dream isn't important either.
Newspaper circulation is down. Ratings for all three major networks are down. Keep attacking Joe's dream. Keep attacking regular Americans and their dreams and these numbers will continue to fall. I think the media looks at Americans who live in fly-over country (between New York and LA) as unimportant. Look how they have treated Joe. Look how the Obama campaign has discounted Joe's likelihood of achieving the American dream.
Is this what HOPE is? Tear down someone with an American dream who doesn't agree with Chairman Obama? We should celebrate people like Joe. Yet, the liberal media researches everything about him, but won't dare dig too deep into what really went on in the Annenburg Project, ACORN, and Kenya. Do you know that if Obama tried to get into the New York Police Department, and probably any other law enforcement department in the United States, that he would not pass the background checks because of his associations with William Ayres. Yet, we could be just over 100 days from passing the nuclear football to him. I am just puzzled about where the hope is. If you attack one American dream, the rest might not be too far behind.
My Five-Minute, Second Grade Science Lesson
People breath in oxygen. Our bodies use the oxygen and it produces carbon dioxide as a waste product. We breathe out the carbon dioxide and the trees and the grass and all the rest of the vegetation take the carbon dioxide in and use it for healthy cellular functions. Are you following me? Once they consume the carbon dioxide it is turned into oxygen and released back into the air for human and animal inhalation.
Now boys and girls, we are being told that carbon dioxide is bad. Some people are calling it a pollutant. I have a question for them. If it's a pollutant, then why aren't the trees gettting sick? If it's a pollutant, then why are mean mommys and daddys making their kids eat polluted vegetables at the dinner table? If our waste product that is essential for life on earth is called a pollutant, then why isn't the trees waste product a pollutant too?
Would someone please answer these questions for me? You see, I read today that Dear Leader Chairman Obama (the great socialist following the tradition of other great socialist like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao) wants to declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant. As a concerned environmentalist, I am standing up for the trees here. These trees will die without carbon dioxide. How is something that is essential for life on earth a dangerous pollutant. The only dangerous thing I see in this paragraph is Chairman Obama.
This summer, I visited the Magic House in Kirkwood, MO. The Magic House is part of the St. Louis city museum campus. I noticed a sign hanging on the wall that said that just the grass along side the entire federal interstate highway system consumes enough carbon dioxide and produces enough oxygen for over 22 million people to live. Now, I have flown over this country a number of times. From spring through summer and parts of fall, it's very green and wide open when you fly over it. The only exception is when I flew to Phoenix a in 2001. What I am trying to say is the amount of grasses and other vegetation that isn't alongside federal interstates, and I am speaking of interstates only (other highways and roadways not included) has to be enough, according to this sign to balance out and over acheive.
Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. It is vital for life on earth! Would someone tell that nimrod running for president this?
Now boys and girls, we are being told that carbon dioxide is bad. Some people are calling it a pollutant. I have a question for them. If it's a pollutant, then why aren't the trees gettting sick? If it's a pollutant, then why are mean mommys and daddys making their kids eat polluted vegetables at the dinner table? If our waste product that is essential for life on earth is called a pollutant, then why isn't the trees waste product a pollutant too?
Would someone please answer these questions for me? You see, I read today that Dear Leader Chairman Obama (the great socialist following the tradition of other great socialist like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao) wants to declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant. As a concerned environmentalist, I am standing up for the trees here. These trees will die without carbon dioxide. How is something that is essential for life on earth a dangerous pollutant. The only dangerous thing I see in this paragraph is Chairman Obama.
This summer, I visited the Magic House in Kirkwood, MO. The Magic House is part of the St. Louis city museum campus. I noticed a sign hanging on the wall that said that just the grass along side the entire federal interstate highway system consumes enough carbon dioxide and produces enough oxygen for over 22 million people to live. Now, I have flown over this country a number of times. From spring through summer and parts of fall, it's very green and wide open when you fly over it. The only exception is when I flew to Phoenix a in 2001. What I am trying to say is the amount of grasses and other vegetation that isn't alongside federal interstates, and I am speaking of interstates only (other highways and roadways not included) has to be enough, according to this sign to balance out and over acheive.
Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. It is vital for life on earth! Would someone tell that nimrod running for president this?
401 K Madness: The Democrats are in the Science Lab Experimenting Again
One of the prime reasons for the new acquisition of wealth for the middle class and strength of the stock market, especially over the last 16 years has been due to the increase of investments in 401K retirement accounts. My personal account is aggressively invested in the stock market, and I am not worried about this current downtime. It will rebound. The economy goes through cycles that are beyond the control of presidents. Even the Clinton administration went through a recession late in his term. We seem to forget that.
The nice thing about a 401K is initially it's tax free and your employer usually makes a contribution to it too. You know, your employer, that evil rich guy Obama wants to tax because he probably makes over $250,000 a year.
This recession is a little easier to point the blame at. The housing market and the insanity of the loans made to purchase homes is forcing the market into a downward cycle. It's a good time to invest if you are a long-term individual. This isn't the madness though that I speak of. That madness that I speak of revolves around dumb economic principles that are being prescribed by members of our government.
The first one I would like to examine is one by by Barack Hussein Obama. He wants to give individuals the right to remove $10,000 of their investments out of the market without any penalties. This shows you what a novice Obama really is. Do you know what is going to happen to the markets if a majority of people (or even a minority) removes $10,000 of investments out of their 401K? You think it dropped like a rock today, just wait until that happens. The markets will be in serious jeopardy. The markets currently are dropping because people are removing their investments out of the market. When you give that type of freedom to people who don't understand the markets, you are going to weaken the US economy even more.
I heard something even more insane today. House democrats want to cease giving tax breaks to those who invest in their retirement accounts. Currently, money you invest in your 401K isn't subject to immediate taxes. Don't smile yet. They will get their share when you remove the money from your investment account either at retirement or at a higher rate before your retirement. You seriously didn't think the government was going to let you slide on this, did you?
This is just part one of the plan, and part one will hurt the US Markets and those who invest in their futures like me. There is also talk among a smaller group of democrats that want to nationalize the 401K program all together. Why shouldn't we be surprised. Can you image that? The same government that steals money from you in the form of FICA (the failing Social Security program) now wants to manage your 401K. Wow! The arrogance of these people!
401Ks are making it possible for regular middle-class people to retired comfortable and not have to rely on the piddly retirement program that the federal government has failed miserably at, Social Security. Not only that, but early on in the Bush administration he tried to save Social Security by allowing a small percentage of it to be invested in a 401K like account to expand the size of our retirement income. The democrats scared the public to defeat it, and now they want to take over 401K programs all together. Does anyone else see how crazy this is? I am sickened by it!
I have a solid 401K plan with a manager that I can call at anytime of the day to ask questions and reroute my investments. Like I want to give up that for a government bereaucracy that will be doomed to fail because the GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF CORRUPTION! Some days it's like you wake up and the world has gone crazy. More days are becoming like this.
The nice thing about a 401K is initially it's tax free and your employer usually makes a contribution to it too. You know, your employer, that evil rich guy Obama wants to tax because he probably makes over $250,000 a year.
This recession is a little easier to point the blame at. The housing market and the insanity of the loans made to purchase homes is forcing the market into a downward cycle. It's a good time to invest if you are a long-term individual. This isn't the madness though that I speak of. That madness that I speak of revolves around dumb economic principles that are being prescribed by members of our government.
The first one I would like to examine is one by by Barack Hussein Obama. He wants to give individuals the right to remove $10,000 of their investments out of the market without any penalties. This shows you what a novice Obama really is. Do you know what is going to happen to the markets if a majority of people (or even a minority) removes $10,000 of investments out of their 401K? You think it dropped like a rock today, just wait until that happens. The markets will be in serious jeopardy. The markets currently are dropping because people are removing their investments out of the market. When you give that type of freedom to people who don't understand the markets, you are going to weaken the US economy even more.
I heard something even more insane today. House democrats want to cease giving tax breaks to those who invest in their retirement accounts. Currently, money you invest in your 401K isn't subject to immediate taxes. Don't smile yet. They will get their share when you remove the money from your investment account either at retirement or at a higher rate before your retirement. You seriously didn't think the government was going to let you slide on this, did you?
This is just part one of the plan, and part one will hurt the US Markets and those who invest in their futures like me. There is also talk among a smaller group of democrats that want to nationalize the 401K program all together. Why shouldn't we be surprised. Can you image that? The same government that steals money from you in the form of FICA (the failing Social Security program) now wants to manage your 401K. Wow! The arrogance of these people!
401Ks are making it possible for regular middle-class people to retired comfortable and not have to rely on the piddly retirement program that the federal government has failed miserably at, Social Security. Not only that, but early on in the Bush administration he tried to save Social Security by allowing a small percentage of it to be invested in a 401K like account to expand the size of our retirement income. The democrats scared the public to defeat it, and now they want to take over 401K programs all together. Does anyone else see how crazy this is? I am sickened by it!
I have a solid 401K plan with a manager that I can call at anytime of the day to ask questions and reroute my investments. Like I want to give up that for a government bereaucracy that will be doomed to fail because the GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF CORRUPTION! Some days it's like you wake up and the world has gone crazy. More days are becoming like this.
Don't Be Fooled, The Middle Class Will Pay More Taxes Under Chairman Obama's Secret Plans
When it comes to using rhetorical language, Dear Leader Chairman Obama is one of the best I have seen. He is constantly bombarding his words around the truth, and he is doing it again at the cost of Joe the plumber and all the rest of the middle class.
Chairman Obama assured Joe, that under his plan, Joe would not receive a tax increase. In other words, Chairman Obama has no plans of introducing legislation that will raise taxes. There are two things that you should consider though.
If the Democrats receive a super majority in Congress, Obama might not have to beg to raise the middle classes taxes to pay for his proposed trillion dollars worth of new, bigger government. A Pelosi/Reid led Congress can propose to raise taxes without Chairman Obama ever saying a word. If the Democrats control with a super majority, there will be nothing to keep them in check. Even the alternative media, consisting of talk radio and bloggers, will be under attack with the Fairness Doctrine raises its ugly head. The Fairness Doctrine is a threat to first amendment rights, and it will be used to shut their opponents up.
There is something much bigger that is being missed here. Chairman Obama will get his tax increase without him or any other democrat in Congress proposing any new legislation to increase taxes. Your middle-class tax increase is coming with the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Obama knows this, and he is getting away with telling people the middle class will not be funding his new programs. It’s not going to be the richest Americans funding it all. This is just more class envy rhetoric that Obama’s slime ball campaign manager, David Axelrod, is famous for.
This should be so obvious. The media has reported this. Obama is on record in saying that these tax cuts are doomed. It’s simple math. If you take away a tax cut, you are going to pay more. Once again, the dope of change and hope is addictive, and obviously people are not thinking because they are too doped up to think.
Chairman Obama assured Joe, that under his plan, Joe would not receive a tax increase. In other words, Chairman Obama has no plans of introducing legislation that will raise taxes. There are two things that you should consider though.
If the Democrats receive a super majority in Congress, Obama might not have to beg to raise the middle classes taxes to pay for his proposed trillion dollars worth of new, bigger government. A Pelosi/Reid led Congress can propose to raise taxes without Chairman Obama ever saying a word. If the Democrats control with a super majority, there will be nothing to keep them in check. Even the alternative media, consisting of talk radio and bloggers, will be under attack with the Fairness Doctrine raises its ugly head. The Fairness Doctrine is a threat to first amendment rights, and it will be used to shut their opponents up.
There is something much bigger that is being missed here. Chairman Obama will get his tax increase without him or any other democrat in Congress proposing any new legislation to increase taxes. Your middle-class tax increase is coming with the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Obama knows this, and he is getting away with telling people the middle class will not be funding his new programs. It’s not going to be the richest Americans funding it all. This is just more class envy rhetoric that Obama’s slime ball campaign manager, David Axelrod, is famous for.
This should be so obvious. The media has reported this. Obama is on record in saying that these tax cuts are doomed. It’s simple math. If you take away a tax cut, you are going to pay more. Once again, the dope of change and hope is addictive, and obviously people are not thinking because they are too doped up to think.
The Wisdom of Michelle Obama
As long as it's not hers, right? The receipt is signed by Michelle Obama covering $447 lunch. Barack's brother only lives in Kenya on $12 a month. Think about that.
Please Applaud This Democrat: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights
I appluad this democrat reporter, Orson Scott Card, who knows that putting country first is more important that protecting a candidate's election hopes. If some of this sounds familiar, well, if you read my blogs, this confirms many of the thoughts I have shared with you. It's worth the time to read, especially as you watch your investments lose money daily.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's ownadultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's ownadultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina.
General Electric and the NBC Bias
As we restore peace and install democracy to Iraq, to the east is a turmoil that continues to threaten American troops, the stabilization of Iraq, and our friend Israel. Iran is on course to developing nuclear weapons, and there is one American company that continues to do business with Iran and terrorist Ahmadinejad. General Electric is contributing to Iran's threats.
GE sells far more than just light bulbs. They manufacture high tech items like jet engines. Some of the items that GE is selling to the Iranians are related to military technology.
Obviously, it has been the policy of the Bush administration to consider Iran as a terrorist state; therefore, GE's continued relationship with Iran can be considered treason, based on Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Clearly GE is providing Ahmadinejad comfort and Ahmadinejad is clearly an enemy of the United States and her friends. The actions of GE have been questioned by some media sources (not all of them), by government officials, and by its stock holders.
Why have some media outlets ignored GE's continued business with Iran? Simple--GE owns NBC. That's right. Obviously the Bush policies don't coincide with the direction that GE wants to do its business, even if that direction puts the United States at risk. It's highly possible that NBC's shameful and biased coverage of the election could very well be driven by GE executives like CEO Jeffrey Immelt who stand to profit millions of dollars though deals with Iran. While Immelt's corporation makes millions, what cost will the American people pay for his greed?
I know I won't be purchasing any GE products. Maybe you should consider these facts the next time you shop.
GE sells far more than just light bulbs. They manufacture high tech items like jet engines. Some of the items that GE is selling to the Iranians are related to military technology.
Obviously, it has been the policy of the Bush administration to consider Iran as a terrorist state; therefore, GE's continued relationship with Iran can be considered treason, based on Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Clearly GE is providing Ahmadinejad comfort and Ahmadinejad is clearly an enemy of the United States and her friends. The actions of GE have been questioned by some media sources (not all of them), by government officials, and by its stock holders.
Why have some media outlets ignored GE's continued business with Iran? Simple--GE owns NBC. That's right. Obviously the Bush policies don't coincide with the direction that GE wants to do its business, even if that direction puts the United States at risk. It's highly possible that NBC's shameful and biased coverage of the election could very well be driven by GE executives like CEO Jeffrey Immelt who stand to profit millions of dollars though deals with Iran. While Immelt's corporation makes millions, what cost will the American people pay for his greed?
I know I won't be purchasing any GE products. Maybe you should consider these facts the next time you shop.
Barack Obama's Lie About the Second Amendment
If there is one document in this world that I cherish nearly as much as I cherish the Bible, it's the United States Constitution. This brilliant document provides the Joe the plumbers out there protection from a big government that's out of control--a government that threatens its people by withdrawing our rights and through unfair taxation (which today, many Americans applaud both and it's sad). I wish more people would take the time to read through the Constitution, because our modern government has tested the boundaries of the Constitution and has often trespassed beyond its limits.
The forefathers added the Second Amendment to the Constitution for normal Joes to protect themselves from the beast that our forefather recognized that power develops into.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yesterday, I heard a misleading advertisement and following the advertisement the following words were said "I am Barack Obama and I approved this message." What was the message? The message proclaimed that Obama will protect your second amenedment right. He claims to be a believer of the second amendment. That's funny...
I just moved back from Missouri from Chicago, the home of Dear Leader Chairman Obama. I lived there for 12 years, and during that 12 years, I enlightened myself with gun control as legislated by the Illinois General Assembly and Mayor Daley and his cronies of the Chicago City Council.
This civics lesson began when I went to buy a rifle at Bass Pro Shop in Gurnee, IL. Gurnee is a suburb between Chicago and Kenosha, WI. I studied the rifles for a few minutes before a gentleman asked me if I needed help. I asked to see a Remington. He asked me if I was from Illinois. "Yes, I am."
He asked to see my FOID card. "What's that," I asked. It's the Illinois State Police way of knowing who owns guns and rifles in the state and how much ammunition they buy. I told him I didn't have one, and he said, I can't even hand you this. I said fine, and left the store knowing I was heading to Missouri the next week for my sister's wedding.
The next week I went to Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, MO. I asked to see the same rifle. The guy behind the counter handed it to me. I said I will take it. He asked for my driver's license. When he saw it was an Illinois license, he asked for my FOID card. The transaction stopped, and even my dad couldn't buy the rifle that day because of his association with me.
When I got back to Chicago, I dropped by my local police department, picked up the form, filled it out, attached a picture to the form, and wrote a check for the fee. Within a few weeks, my shiny new government ID showed up in my mailbox. I protested getting one, but there was no other way for me to enjoy a sport I love without it.
After all this, I began to study the gun control laws in Chicago. The first thing you should know is, Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country; yet, they lead this year in violent gun crimes. In a society where the law-abiding citizens can't protect themselves, crime rises. In a society like Texas, where conceal laws exist, crime goes down. The second thing you need to know about Chicago is, if you legally own a hand gun and you cross the Chicago city limits with that hand gun, you will be arrested. Citizens of Chicago cannot protect themselves legally with a hand gun. They are against the law, so much for the second amendment, huh Mayor Daley? (Let's not forget, that Mayor Daley has a huge problem with crime right now that he can't seem to get a finger on.)
Most importantly, what you need to know is that in all 12 years that I lived in Chicago, Barack Obama was either running for or held public office. Not once that I recall, did he question the Daley administration on protecting the second amendment, nor did he attend any NRA rallies or make any public comments that would be consistent with the commercial he is airing in parts of the country like Missouri. If Obama really cared about the second amendment, then why during his community organizing days did he not promote the second amendment and work on relaxing gun laws so they were consistent with the Bill of Rights in Chicago? Why didn't he challenge Mayor Daley and his gun controls laws in the city. We recently saw the Washington DC gun laws were unconstitutional.
Obama denies he's a threat to the Second Amendment, but look up the facts. He tried to ban handguns in the state of Illionois. His commercial, like his campaign, is a huge lie!
If Obama was really is as passionate about the second amendment as the commerical states, he has no record of protecting the right to bear arms. I bet, if looked deep enough, I could probably find where he probably supported Mayor Daley's efforts to remove guns from the city of Chicago. We know the one problem there, Mayor Daley hasn't gotten the guns from the gangs and innocent people suffer even more because they can't protect themselves. Don't be fooled by these commercials--it wasn't that long ago that Chairman Obama called the people of Pennsylvania bitter, clinging to their guns and religion.
The forefathers added the Second Amendment to the Constitution for normal Joes to protect themselves from the beast that our forefather recognized that power develops into.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yesterday, I heard a misleading advertisement and following the advertisement the following words were said "I am Barack Obama and I approved this message." What was the message? The message proclaimed that Obama will protect your second amenedment right. He claims to be a believer of the second amendment. That's funny...
I just moved back from Missouri from Chicago, the home of Dear Leader Chairman Obama. I lived there for 12 years, and during that 12 years, I enlightened myself with gun control as legislated by the Illinois General Assembly and Mayor Daley and his cronies of the Chicago City Council.
This civics lesson began when I went to buy a rifle at Bass Pro Shop in Gurnee, IL. Gurnee is a suburb between Chicago and Kenosha, WI. I studied the rifles for a few minutes before a gentleman asked me if I needed help. I asked to see a Remington. He asked me if I was from Illinois. "Yes, I am."
He asked to see my FOID card. "What's that," I asked. It's the Illinois State Police way of knowing who owns guns and rifles in the state and how much ammunition they buy. I told him I didn't have one, and he said, I can't even hand you this. I said fine, and left the store knowing I was heading to Missouri the next week for my sister's wedding.
The next week I went to Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, MO. I asked to see the same rifle. The guy behind the counter handed it to me. I said I will take it. He asked for my driver's license. When he saw it was an Illinois license, he asked for my FOID card. The transaction stopped, and even my dad couldn't buy the rifle that day because of his association with me.
When I got back to Chicago, I dropped by my local police department, picked up the form, filled it out, attached a picture to the form, and wrote a check for the fee. Within a few weeks, my shiny new government ID showed up in my mailbox. I protested getting one, but there was no other way for me to enjoy a sport I love without it.
After all this, I began to study the gun control laws in Chicago. The first thing you should know is, Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country; yet, they lead this year in violent gun crimes. In a society where the law-abiding citizens can't protect themselves, crime rises. In a society like Texas, where conceal laws exist, crime goes down. The second thing you need to know about Chicago is, if you legally own a hand gun and you cross the Chicago city limits with that hand gun, you will be arrested. Citizens of Chicago cannot protect themselves legally with a hand gun. They are against the law, so much for the second amendment, huh Mayor Daley? (Let's not forget, that Mayor Daley has a huge problem with crime right now that he can't seem to get a finger on.)
Most importantly, what you need to know is that in all 12 years that I lived in Chicago, Barack Obama was either running for or held public office. Not once that I recall, did he question the Daley administration on protecting the second amendment, nor did he attend any NRA rallies or make any public comments that would be consistent with the commercial he is airing in parts of the country like Missouri. If Obama really cared about the second amendment, then why during his community organizing days did he not promote the second amendment and work on relaxing gun laws so they were consistent with the Bill of Rights in Chicago? Why didn't he challenge Mayor Daley and his gun controls laws in the city. We recently saw the Washington DC gun laws were unconstitutional.
Obama denies he's a threat to the Second Amendment, but look up the facts. He tried to ban handguns in the state of Illionois. His commercial, like his campaign, is a huge lie!
If Obama was really is as passionate about the second amendment as the commerical states, he has no record of protecting the right to bear arms. I bet, if looked deep enough, I could probably find where he probably supported Mayor Daley's efforts to remove guns from the city of Chicago. We know the one problem there, Mayor Daley hasn't gotten the guns from the gangs and innocent people suffer even more because they can't protect themselves. Don't be fooled by these commercials--it wasn't that long ago that Chairman Obama called the people of Pennsylvania bitter, clinging to their guns and religion.
The Obama Redistribution of Wealth Reality Check Game: Episode I, Nixa, Missouri Tomato Man
Do you remember the rules to the Reality Check game? If not, I posted them earlier this week. The idea is to find an Obama supporter who will be negatively affected by Obama's redistribution of wealth belief.
I was driving home from my mother's house, I found my first sign, and this one was perfect. This was a no brainer. Next to the Obama sign was a tomatoe sign. I could already see this playing out.
Today, I drove over there. I parked my car in front of his house and not in the driveway. I figured that was safe. I walked up to the door and rang the doorbell. A gentlemen comes out of his garage, and I let him know I am here for some tomatoes. He grabbed a grocery bag, and walked me to the scale where there were a lot of tomatoes sitting. Perfect!
"Wow, you have a WEALTH of tomatoes. I don't have the WEALTH of tomatoes that you do."
He smiled at me. "Yeah me and my partner grew them about 15 miles down the road," he said.
He started telling me that he sells them for $2 a pound. I looked at him confused. "I don't understand. I saw your sign out there that said tomatoes, and then I saw your other sign, and I thought you were all for redistributing your wealth of tomatoes." He looked at me puzzled.
I went on to explain. "I see your for Obama. He supports the redistribution of wealth. Do you support his redistribution of wealth plan?"
He said, "yes I do."
I said, "Let me get this straight, you think it's okay for Obama to take someone's hard work and money spread it around."
"Yes, I do," he said, "and you aren't going to change my mind."
"OK, but when it comes to your hard work that you have in these tomatoes, it's not okay to spread them around, right?"
"Why you... you better get out of here before I kick your ass!" He then proceeded to chase me out of his driveway.
I'm onery, but I proved my point. Obama supporters are okay with the redistribution of wealth, as long as it's not theirs. Stay tuned for episode II. My little sister now wants to play. This might be a subject for my first You Tube video.
I was driving home from my mother's house, I found my first sign, and this one was perfect. This was a no brainer. Next to the Obama sign was a tomatoe sign. I could already see this playing out.
Today, I drove over there. I parked my car in front of his house and not in the driveway. I figured that was safe. I walked up to the door and rang the doorbell. A gentlemen comes out of his garage, and I let him know I am here for some tomatoes. He grabbed a grocery bag, and walked me to the scale where there were a lot of tomatoes sitting. Perfect!
"Wow, you have a WEALTH of tomatoes. I don't have the WEALTH of tomatoes that you do."
He smiled at me. "Yeah me and my partner grew them about 15 miles down the road," he said.
He started telling me that he sells them for $2 a pound. I looked at him confused. "I don't understand. I saw your sign out there that said tomatoes, and then I saw your other sign, and I thought you were all for redistributing your wealth of tomatoes." He looked at me puzzled.
I went on to explain. "I see your for Obama. He supports the redistribution of wealth. Do you support his redistribution of wealth plan?"
He said, "yes I do."
I said, "Let me get this straight, you think it's okay for Obama to take someone's hard work and money spread it around."
"Yes, I do," he said, "and you aren't going to change my mind."
"OK, but when it comes to your hard work that you have in these tomatoes, it's not okay to spread them around, right?"
"Why you... you better get out of here before I kick your ass!" He then proceeded to chase me out of his driveway.
I'm onery, but I proved my point. Obama supporters are okay with the redistribution of wealth, as long as it's not theirs. Stay tuned for episode II. My little sister now wants to play. This might be a subject for my first You Tube video.
The Obama Redistrubtion of Wealth Reality Check Game
Let's play a game. This game is going to take some courage, but I assure you it will be fun. There might even be some surprise rewards in it. Here's how we play.
During my numerous fall bicycle rides on the south side of Springfield and the north side of Ozark, I have noticed many beautiful homes that many would consider mansions. They usually have huge front yards, nice gates, and of course very large homes with usually a Volvo, BMW, or Mercedes sitting out front. You want to look for the ones with Volvos in front of them because you should also notice that there will be an Obama sign in the front yard.
Here are the rules of the game:
1. When you see a house that matches the above description, go up to the door and ring the door bell (more than likely the bell will be a medley and not a simple ring).
2. When the person answers introduce yourself and shake their hand.
3. Next ask them if they would go ahead and write that check to you and let them know you really need it at this time.
4. When they give you a crazy look at them, point out the sign in the front yard and let them know that you thought they might be excited to get the policies of Obama started and figured they might want to begin redistributing their wealth before the election as proposed by Obama and exposed by Joe the Plumber.
This should be a reality check to everyone involved in the game. Give it a try.
During my numerous fall bicycle rides on the south side of Springfield and the north side of Ozark, I have noticed many beautiful homes that many would consider mansions. They usually have huge front yards, nice gates, and of course very large homes with usually a Volvo, BMW, or Mercedes sitting out front. You want to look for the ones with Volvos in front of them because you should also notice that there will be an Obama sign in the front yard.
Here are the rules of the game:
1. When you see a house that matches the above description, go up to the door and ring the door bell (more than likely the bell will be a medley and not a simple ring).
2. When the person answers introduce yourself and shake their hand.
3. Next ask them if they would go ahead and write that check to you and let them know you really need it at this time.
4. When they give you a crazy look at them, point out the sign in the front yard and let them know that you thought they might be excited to get the policies of Obama started and figured they might want to begin redistributing their wealth before the election as proposed by Obama and exposed by Joe the Plumber.
This should be a reality check to everyone involved in the game. Give it a try.
Biden's Nostradamus Quatrain
I commented on this briefly yesterday concerning on of two major gaffes for the Chairman Obama campaign over the last week. In case you haven't been paying attention, Joe Biden made a startling prophecy in the tradition of Nostradamus.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, and he's (Obama) gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Now this concerns me for three reasons, and it should concern you too. Let's look at them:
1. The conspiracy theorist, like Alex Jones, just might be correct and world politics are scripted and we really are being led to a one-world government. Joe just happened to let the cat out of the bag.
2. More probable than 1, Joe Biden sat with the other three candidates on a national security meeting at the White House and has just leaked top-secret information of a possible terrorist attack. This should concern you because this guy has a history of opening his mouth and saying stupid things, and information that is classified top-secret can get Americans killed if it is leaked. As Vice President, his security clearance is going to increase. (Notice it's not Sarah Palin saying stupid things, it Joe Biden.)
3. This is the most serious way to look at this. Biden is actually admitting that Obama is weak on foreign policy and he is viewed weak by our enemies. What's even more alarming is Biden says that Obama is going to need his supporters more than ever because the action that they will take if the United States or one of her allies is attacked (picture a 9/11 act) is one that most Americans will not agree with. I can only imagine that this means Obama will appease those who attempt to harm us rather than confront them in a forceful manner that sends a solid message as W. did after 9/11.
Something stinks with this major gaffe. It's alarming, and the media once again is failing to provide any sort of critical discussion about the meaning. In fact, NBC darted around the statement all together, only airing that Obama has a spine of steel.
I ask you after seeing this statement, not to mention Biden's earlier comment to Obama, "the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Are you convinced that Obama has the leadership qualities to stand up to the forces that want to destroy this country? Are you willing to carry the weight of American lives if you are wrong and vote for personality over what is being presented to you? Hope is a fine, positive word, but if there is another terrorist attack because Obama is seen as weak and they know that he will try and open up communications rather than remove the threat, where is the hope when the dreams of Americans are destroyed forever by a terrorist state?
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, and he's (Obama) gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Now this concerns me for three reasons, and it should concern you too. Let's look at them:
1. The conspiracy theorist, like Alex Jones, just might be correct and world politics are scripted and we really are being led to a one-world government. Joe just happened to let the cat out of the bag.
2. More probable than 1, Joe Biden sat with the other three candidates on a national security meeting at the White House and has just leaked top-secret information of a possible terrorist attack. This should concern you because this guy has a history of opening his mouth and saying stupid things, and information that is classified top-secret can get Americans killed if it is leaked. As Vice President, his security clearance is going to increase. (Notice it's not Sarah Palin saying stupid things, it Joe Biden.)
3. This is the most serious way to look at this. Biden is actually admitting that Obama is weak on foreign policy and he is viewed weak by our enemies. What's even more alarming is Biden says that Obama is going to need his supporters more than ever because the action that they will take if the United States or one of her allies is attacked (picture a 9/11 act) is one that most Americans will not agree with. I can only imagine that this means Obama will appease those who attempt to harm us rather than confront them in a forceful manner that sends a solid message as W. did after 9/11.
Something stinks with this major gaffe. It's alarming, and the media once again is failing to provide any sort of critical discussion about the meaning. In fact, NBC darted around the statement all together, only airing that Obama has a spine of steel.
I ask you after seeing this statement, not to mention Biden's earlier comment to Obama, "the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Are you convinced that Obama has the leadership qualities to stand up to the forces that want to destroy this country? Are you willing to carry the weight of American lives if you are wrong and vote for personality over what is being presented to you? Hope is a fine, positive word, but if there is another terrorist attack because Obama is seen as weak and they know that he will try and open up communications rather than remove the threat, where is the hope when the dreams of Americans are destroyed forever by a terrorist state?
The Ignorance of Colin Powell
It wasn't any big surprise the Colin Powell endorsed Dear Leader Chairman Obama. The rumors have been out there for a few months now. If this is an October surprise, I think it's more of a dud. I listened to his endorsement, and he didn't really say anything to convince me that he was sold on a socialist presidency.
I did catch two really stupid things that Powell said. Remember, Powell is a career Army officer, and I respect him for that, but with someone who served so many years, he really is misleading in his statements. Powell said that he got sick of the digging in Obama's past to the questions about his past associations. Has Powell forgotten that it is a requirement in the United States military to screen the people who enlist, both officers and enlisted personnel?
When I enlisted, I had to meet requirements to get in. Not only that, but Dear Leader Chairman Obama will receive the highest security clearance in the land if he gets elected, God help us. Let's show you where Powell is dishonorable in his statements. Let's say you decided that you were going to enlist in the military and that your job was to work with a top-secret weapon. Guess what? For the next few weeks, FBI comes around your neighborhood to ask your friends and neighbors if they know of any associations with domestic or foreign radicals, they do an extensive background check from credit to where you have traveled in the world, to memberships, to a criminal background. If you were friends with a man named William Ayres, who bombed the nation's Capitol, do you realize you would not receive you security clearance.
Powell knows this. It was essential for the security of the United States when he led soldiers in the United States Army. Makes you wonder if money changed hands, a position was promised, or if the race card is in play. I used to respect Colin Powell, but he is misleading the public for what I guess will be his own personal gain.
The second statement Powell made that shows his complete ignorance of the candidate that he is endorsing is that he said Dear Leader Chairman Obama has been a Christian all of his life. Apparently, he didn't read one of the books, possibly written by William Ayres, which Obama admits to growing up in the Muslim faith. For a man as regarded as highly as Powell is in intelligence, one would think he would be better prepared for an endorsement that will obviously draw criticism, but these two statements proves to me that Powell didn't research these candidates like he claims.
Let's examine the Christian statement for a bit. Obama is on record saying that we are no longer a Christian nation. Much has been discussed about Obama's claim to faith. He became a Christian in his late twenties. One would wonder what motivated Obama to do so. Was it a planned calculated move because of the politics of religion in this country? The message in the church he attended for twenty years is a message of hate against white people. Don't believe me? Go to YouTube and do a search for Jeremiah Wright and listen for yourself. You see, when the truth came out about Obama going to a white-hating church, he conveniently left the church claiming he didn't realize the messages were anti-American and anti-white. One could say that Jeremiah Wright is the equivalent of a KKK grand dragon playing for the other team. If Obama left a church he had been devoted to for twenty years so easily, how does Powell get away with claiming that he was a Christian all of his life? Powell essentially opens up a can of worms when he brings up Obama's churching. If Powell is as smart of a man as he claims he is, isn't it interesting that he brings up these two cans of worms and passes them off as meaningless? Powell is wrong on both accounts, and I am not buying into his research of the two candidates. In fact, these two statements cost Powell credibility.
I did catch two really stupid things that Powell said. Remember, Powell is a career Army officer, and I respect him for that, but with someone who served so many years, he really is misleading in his statements. Powell said that he got sick of the digging in Obama's past to the questions about his past associations. Has Powell forgotten that it is a requirement in the United States military to screen the people who enlist, both officers and enlisted personnel?
When I enlisted, I had to meet requirements to get in. Not only that, but Dear Leader Chairman Obama will receive the highest security clearance in the land if he gets elected, God help us. Let's show you where Powell is dishonorable in his statements. Let's say you decided that you were going to enlist in the military and that your job was to work with a top-secret weapon. Guess what? For the next few weeks, FBI comes around your neighborhood to ask your friends and neighbors if they know of any associations with domestic or foreign radicals, they do an extensive background check from credit to where you have traveled in the world, to memberships, to a criminal background. If you were friends with a man named William Ayres, who bombed the nation's Capitol, do you realize you would not receive you security clearance.
Powell knows this. It was essential for the security of the United States when he led soldiers in the United States Army. Makes you wonder if money changed hands, a position was promised, or if the race card is in play. I used to respect Colin Powell, but he is misleading the public for what I guess will be his own personal gain.
The second statement Powell made that shows his complete ignorance of the candidate that he is endorsing is that he said Dear Leader Chairman Obama has been a Christian all of his life. Apparently, he didn't read one of the books, possibly written by William Ayres, which Obama admits to growing up in the Muslim faith. For a man as regarded as highly as Powell is in intelligence, one would think he would be better prepared for an endorsement that will obviously draw criticism, but these two statements proves to me that Powell didn't research these candidates like he claims.
Let's examine the Christian statement for a bit. Obama is on record saying that we are no longer a Christian nation. Much has been discussed about Obama's claim to faith. He became a Christian in his late twenties. One would wonder what motivated Obama to do so. Was it a planned calculated move because of the politics of religion in this country? The message in the church he attended for twenty years is a message of hate against white people. Don't believe me? Go to YouTube and do a search for Jeremiah Wright and listen for yourself. You see, when the truth came out about Obama going to a white-hating church, he conveniently left the church claiming he didn't realize the messages were anti-American and anti-white. One could say that Jeremiah Wright is the equivalent of a KKK grand dragon playing for the other team. If Obama left a church he had been devoted to for twenty years so easily, how does Powell get away with claiming that he was a Christian all of his life? Powell essentially opens up a can of worms when he brings up Obama's churching. If Powell is as smart of a man as he claims he is, isn't it interesting that he brings up these two cans of worms and passes them off as meaningless? Powell is wrong on both accounts, and I am not buying into his research of the two candidates. In fact, these two statements cost Powell credibility.
Why William Ayres Matters
Why William Ayres MattersThe same anti-American ideals that drove William Ayres and the Weather Underground to blow up the Capitol building, bomb civilian houses, and even murder people even as late as 1981, are the same anti-American ideals that Ayres is indoctrinating into the Chicago public school system with the help of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama may have been only eight when the Capitol was bombed, but he was an adult when Ayre's Weather Underground murdered innocent civilians in 1981. Obama wasn't eight when this picture of Ayres was taken disrespecting a flag that both my grandfathers fought for against socialists who believed in similar ideas in which both Obama and Ayres believe in today.
Ask yourself, why would someone who hates America and has performed these vile acts against her be motivated to help Obama get elected? Obama kicked his political career off in the living room of Ayres house. Obama funded Ayres projects with American tax dollars. Obama funneled money away from the board that Ayres sat on, the Annenberg Project. The money was supposed to better education in the Chicago schools, but Ayres and Obama had other plans for it. It was funneled to ACORN so ACORN can help push Ayres radical agenda of socialism into the public school system. The relationship goes much further than a guy who lives on Obama's block and who served on a board together.
Chicago is a huge city--HUGE. Just so happens that the only house that Obama found to buy was down the street from William Ayres? It just so happens that in a metropolitan area of 8 million people that Michelle Obama just so happened to work with Bill Ayres's wife? Wake up America! Have Americans really become that stupid and complacent that we just accept these things as a coincidence. Hey America, was it just coincidence too that those radical Islamist just so happened had box knives on them when they boarded those airplanes too? Are you too lazy to ask questions? Or are you Obama supporters afraid of what you might find out about your messiah?
I hope you get my point. The press has tried to hide these radical relationships of Obama, and there are many as I have pointed out. It's funny, in the world I live in, I was taught that if you are going to hang out with losers, you are going to be labeled a loser. You could consider that when you think about Obama and his history of friends and associations from William Ayres to Jeremiah Wright to Michael Klonsky, there are is a long list of losers. What's that say about Obama? I don' t think it gets broken down any easier than that.
Clay Bowler
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Barack Obama Challenge: Convert My Vote
Over the past few months, I have noticed like many others, that Obama supporters really don't know their candidate. They are addicted to the dope known has hope and change, and many of them just rant the same talking points like "it will just be Bush's third term." I don't see much substance in the comments and the talking points. Here's your challenge. I will change my vote if one Obama supporter would list five legislative accomplishments of Obama (you can go back to the Illinois Senate if you want) and how those accomplishments had a profound and positive impact on the United States. The challenge is out there. Win my vote without knocking McCain/Palin or an Obama talking point. You better be prepared to defend you list.
Clay Bowler
Clay Bowler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Join the Constitution Party!
I Took the Founders Red Pill!
What's Right
-
An Honest Scientist!3 days ago
-
Another program gone while3 days ago
-
What the Hell America4 days ago
-
When Will The SHTF In The USA10 months ago
Blog Archive
- May 2013 (14)
- April 2013 (20)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (120)
- January 2013 (178)
- December 2012 (136)
- November 2012 (119)
- October 2012 (158)
- September 2012 (263)
- August 2012 (288)
- July 2012 (138)
- June 2012 (209)
- May 2012 (197)
- April 2012 (192)
- March 2012 (198)
- February 2012 (196)
- January 2012 (221)
- December 2011 (243)
- November 2011 (223)
- October 2011 (84)
- September 2011 (17)
- August 2011 (187)
- July 2011 (464)
- June 2011 (587)
- May 2011 (888)
- April 2011 (441)
- March 2011 (340)
- February 2011 (392)
- January 2011 (361)
- December 2010 (431)
- November 2010 (706)
- October 2010 (658)
- September 2010 (560)
- August 2010 (300)
- July 2010 (96)
- June 2010 (105)
- May 2010 (304)
- April 2010 (565)
- March 2010 (626)
- February 2010 (564)
- January 2010 (779)
- December 2009 (550)
- November 2009 (433)
- October 2009 (256)
- September 2009 (367)
- August 2009 (430)
- July 2009 (317)
- June 2009 (342)
- May 2009 (349)
- April 2009 (363)
- March 2009 (374)
- February 2009 (296)
- January 2009 (302)
- December 2008 (176)
- November 2008 (111)
- October 2008 (30)
