President-Elect Barack Obama, in a radio address, announced his plans to revitalize the U.S. economy through massive investments in public infrastructure projects.
Why am I more scared and dubious than ever about the prospect of four years of President Obama?
Obama plans to kick-start the economy by "investing" in roads and bridges, "moderniz(ing) and upgrad(ing) school buildings," requiring "every doctor’s office and hospital in this country (to use) cutting edge technology," making sure "every child should have the chance to get online," and making "public buildings more energy-efficient."
Call me skeptical, but if one doesn't happen to work in IT or construction, how does this plan help?
How does making sure Johnny can access his My Space page at school help the nearly 10% of homeowners facing foreclosure?
How does making Johnny's school greener help avert the "deepest and longest recession since World War II"
We need to ...save or create at least two and a half million jobs, Obama announced, so that the nearly two million Americans who’ve lost them know that they have a future.
Fuzzy math aside, if I were an unemployed accountant in Dubuque, what in Obama's plan will make me believe I will be able to find a job any time soon? What is in the plan for the out-of-work factory worker in Omaha, unless she makes high-speed network components? What about the retail-store owner in Bangor?
Obama mentioned nothing about taxation in address. No mention of tax cuts to stimulate the economy nor tax increases to pay for this massive project, estimated by Sen. Charles Schumer to cost upwards of $700 Billion.
Does Obama still plan to "cut" taxes for "95%" of American citizens, as he has often claimed? Is there any plan to cut the second highest business taxes in the world?
More troubling, perhaps, is the "use-it-or-lose-it" threats behind Obama's economic spending plans. “If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money,” he said.
While designed to get the money flowing quickly, forcing the states to quickly spend all funding can only result in the states spending millions on projects that are not necessarily needed at the time. States will blow the cash on unnecessary pork projects before ceding it back to Washington.
And how will he pay for these grandiose plans? By increasing the deficit, of course.
"If you're going to run deficit spending, then it better be in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our sewer lines, our water system, laying broadband lines," he told CNN's Rachel Maddow last month.
Fear not, Obama's plans will save money in electricity by "installing efficient light bulbs." Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world, " he laments. "We need to change that."
Obama, the lightbulb change we need.
But, as usual, Obama keeps his goals modest, claiming that his plan "won’t just save jobs, it will save lives." There is no hubris in this man, is there?
While improving roads and buildings are laudible goals, having infrastructure improvements as the major (only?) components of his economic recovery plans is laughable.
If you are expert in screwing in lightbulbs, Obama has a job for you...
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Al-Qaida Insults Obama with Racial Epithet
In a new video, Al-Qaida #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri, referred to Obama as either a "house negro" or "house slave," depending upon the translation.
One might be tempted to jest that Obama promised to make the world like us again, and this is not a good start. Or, quip that now may not be the best time for Obama to meet al-Zawahri "without precondition."
But, what this video shows is that Al-Qaida will never like the United States nor the rest of the Western world, until we are under sharia law.
When Al-Qaida was railing against George W. Bush, liberals liked to think that the terrorists were singling him and his administration out as the target.
This video should prove to the world and to the liberals in this country that Al-Qaida are not fighting against a particular president or his policies.
Al-Qaida wants the U.S. and its way of life destroyed, and replaced by a Muslim regime.
No matter who the president might be.
One might be tempted to jest that Obama promised to make the world like us again, and this is not a good start. Or, quip that now may not be the best time for Obama to meet al-Zawahri "without precondition."
But, what this video shows is that Al-Qaida will never like the United States nor the rest of the Western world, until we are under sharia law.
When Al-Qaida was railing against George W. Bush, liberals liked to think that the terrorists were singling him and his administration out as the target.
This video should prove to the world and to the liberals in this country that Al-Qaida are not fighting against a particular president or his policies.
Al-Qaida wants the U.S. and its way of life destroyed, and replaced by a Muslim regime.
No matter who the president might be.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Ayers: Lucky for Not Killing Anybody
Bill Ayers, in an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air", described his radical activities in the 1960s and 70s as "not destructive" and declared he was "lucky" that no one was hurt or killed as a result.
These statement illustrate the immeasurable denial or outright dishonesty of this man in describing his past.
The NPR website lists a few of his "non-violent" activities, including bombings on the New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.
In 1969, states Wikipedia, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby.
It is impossible to believe that anyone could view these acts as justifiable and non-violent. There are people who think that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center were justified, too.
As for being "lucky" that his group, the Weather Underground, didn't hurt anybody, Ayers seems to have a stunted memory:
Ayers seems to be neglecting the explosion in the bomb-factory apartment that killed his own girlfriend, Terri Robins.
Because of this accident, soldiers at Fort Dix were "lucky," because the bombs being built in that townhouse were meant for them.
Ayers brags that "we didn't do enough;" there are countless people "lucky" to be alive because Ayers couldn't do more.
These statement illustrate the immeasurable denial or outright dishonesty of this man in describing his past.The NPR website lists a few of his "non-violent" activities, including bombings on the New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.
In 1969, states Wikipedia, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby.
It is impossible to believe that anyone could view these acts as justifiable and non-violent. There are people who think that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center were justified, too.
As for being "lucky" that his group, the Weather Underground, didn't hurt anybody, Ayers seems to have a stunted memory:
While Ayers was not directly involved with these activities, for him to justify these crimes for any reason is a disgrace.On February 16, 1970, a bomb exploded at a San Francisco, California, Police Department substation, fatally wounding Sergeant Brian McDonnell. McDonnell died of his wounds two days later. A second officer, Robert Fogarty was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel. Although the case has never officially been solved, members of the Weather Underground, including Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were prime suspects.
On October 20, 1981, several members of the Weather Underground undertook the robbery of a bank to finance their terrorist activities. During the robbery the group murdered an armored car guard and two members of the Nyack, New York, Police Department – and Sergeant Edward O’Grady, a Vietnam War veteran. Unlike with Sergeant McDonnell’s murder, this case was quickly solved and several members of the group were sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Ayers seems to be neglecting the explosion in the bomb-factory apartment that killed his own girlfriend, Terri Robins.
An initial search turned up a 1916 37-mm. antitank shell. In the following days, a brick-by-brick search of the rubble uncovered 57 sticks of dynamite, four 12-inch (300 mm) pipe bombs packed with dynamite, and 30 blasting caps. The pipe bombs and several eight-stick packages of dynamite had fuses already attached. Also found were timing devices rigged from alarm clocks, maps of the tunnel network underneath Columbia University...
Because of this accident, soldiers at Fort Dix were "lucky," because the bombs being built in that townhouse were meant for them.Ayers brags that "we didn't do enough;" there are countless people "lucky" to be alive because Ayers couldn't do more.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Does the Automaker Bailout Actually Bailout the Unions
The major U.S. automakers have requested $50 billion in "loans" to keep the companies from going under.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats seem warm to the idea of fronting cash to Ford, GM, and Chrysler. She believes that the failure of one or more of the major American automobile manufacturers would have a devastating impact on our economy.
Why are the automakers in such desperate straits?
The companies blame a drop in sales due to the high costs of gasoline over the summer.
But, one reporter from NPR cites poor planning as part of the cause:
Could it be that union lobbyists are pressuring Washington to keep the Big 3 out of bankruptcy court? In a bankruptcy filing could lead to a judge voiding these "uncompetitive" union contracts.
According to Wikipedia:
After bailing out the mortgage companies, banks, insurance companies, and now the automakers, who is next, credit card companies?
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats seem warm to the idea of fronting cash to Ford, GM, and Chrysler. She believes that the failure of one or more of the major American automobile manufacturers would have a devastating impact on our economy.
Why are the automakers in such desperate straits?
The companies blame a drop in sales due to the high costs of gasoline over the summer.
But, one reporter from NPR cites poor planning as part of the cause:
Many people, however, blame the auto companies for their own problems. U.S. automakers built high-profit sport utility vehicles, but the market for SUVs declined when gas prices spiked.The editors at National Review Online agree, and further the complaints about the automakers:
(T)hey invested too heavily in the manufacture of sport-utility vehicles as rising oil prices spurred a demand for more fuel-efficient cars that they were unprepared to meet. (And) Uncompetitive labor contracts coupled with the rising cost of health care have left the big three with unmanageable liabilities.Whatever the cause, why not allow the companies to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, as Circuit City did recently?
Could it be that union lobbyists are pressuring Washington to keep the Big 3 out of bankruptcy court? In a bankruptcy filing could lead to a judge voiding these "uncompetitive" union contracts.
According to Wikipedia:
Some contracts, known as executory contracts, may be rejected if canceling them would be financially favorable to the company and its creditors. Such contracts include labor union contracts...If the Big 3 automakers are in trouble because of declining sales and mis-management, let them file for bankruptcy like any other business.
After bailing out the mortgage companies, banks, insurance companies, and now the automakers, who is next, credit card companies?
Obama: Do Not Follow in EU Missteps
Throughout the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, there was much talk about how Europe and the world thought of the United States.
Obama seemed driven to gain European approval, including his infamous speech in Berlin.
With Obama's election, it would seem that the Continent likes us again.
There has been unprecedented outreach from Europe to Obama, from mainline citizens to the upper reaches of the European Union. Margot Wallström, the vice-president of the European Commission within the EU, invited Obama to work closely with the organization:
I invite the new US president to join the EU in shaping the future we all want...
There was even some tongue-in-cheek chatter about Obama being the president of the EU, should they move to a single president.
For his part, Obama fueled the U.S./European connection by pledging to his Berlin audience to "act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation..."
However, two articles posted on the BBC website give me grave concerns about Obama's alignment with Europe.
The BBC reports that the United Kingdom could face an unacceptable risk of major blackouts within ten years due to an EU directive that will force the closure before 2015 of nine of our major coal and oil-powered plants. Obama has already made leanings in this direction, previously announcing that he will bankrupt the coal industry in the U.S. and reportedly plans to halt some domestic oil drilling as one of his first actions in office.
Will Obama's actions yield the same dire forecast as the EU directives? It cannot be predicted, but I would rather not find out the hard way.
Another interesting BBC article describes the drastic results of a government body over-regulating and micro-managing an industry. The EU has actually drawn up plans to regulate oddly-sized or misshapen fruit and vegetables being sold in Europe. Shops will not be able to sell misshapen produce such as apples, lettuces, sweet peppers, grapes and tomatoes, unless properly labelled. This ridiculous edict will certainly do little but drive up costs and create a scarcity of these fruits and veggies.
This is an exterme example, to be sure; however, in the wake of the financial "crises" facing the country, Obama will likely be under great pressure to increase regulations on myriad industries. This odd ruling about funny-looking fruit should serve warning to Obama and U.S. citizens that all government regulation is not beneficial.
Let us hope that Obama doesn't try too hard to please Europe by acting with the same seriousness as the EU in shaping the future of the US.
Obama seemed driven to gain European approval, including his infamous speech in Berlin.
With Obama's election, it would seem that the Continent likes us again.
There has been unprecedented outreach from Europe to Obama, from mainline citizens to the upper reaches of the European Union. Margot Wallström, the vice-president of the European Commission within the EU, invited Obama to work closely with the organization:I invite the new US president to join the EU in shaping the future we all want...
There was even some tongue-in-cheek chatter about Obama being the president of the EU, should they move to a single president.
For his part, Obama fueled the U.S./European connection by pledging to his Berlin audience to "act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation..."
However, two articles posted on the BBC website give me grave concerns about Obama's alignment with Europe.
The BBC reports that the United Kingdom could face an unacceptable risk of major blackouts within ten years due to an EU directive that will force the closure before 2015 of nine of our major coal and oil-powered plants. Obama has already made leanings in this direction, previously announcing that he will bankrupt the coal industry in the U.S. and reportedly plans to halt some domestic oil drilling as one of his first actions in office.
Will Obama's actions yield the same dire forecast as the EU directives? It cannot be predicted, but I would rather not find out the hard way.
Another interesting BBC article describes the drastic results of a government body over-regulating and micro-managing an industry. The EU has actually drawn up plans to regulate oddly-sized or misshapen fruit and vegetables being sold in Europe. Shops will not be able to sell misshapen produce such as apples, lettuces, sweet peppers, grapes and tomatoes, unless properly labelled. This ridiculous edict will certainly do little but drive up costs and create a scarcity of these fruits and veggies.
This is an exterme example, to be sure; however, in the wake of the financial "crises" facing the country, Obama will likely be under great pressure to increase regulations on myriad industries. This odd ruling about funny-looking fruit should serve warning to Obama and U.S. citizens that all government regulation is not beneficial.
Let us hope that Obama doesn't try too hard to please Europe by acting with the same seriousness as the EU in shaping the future of the US.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama: What is Mandatory Voluntary Community Service?
According to the new Obama website, Change.gov:
When you choose to serve... the web site starts, you are connected to that fundamental American ideal... And to help you make that decision to "choose to serve," Obama will force you to serve.
This is a significant change from his position outlined in the "National Service Plan Fact Sheet," the ominously titled "Plan for Universal Voluntary Citizen Service."
Kids doing community service, learning how to help others around them, is laudable. Having the federal government mandating and controlling that service is troubling.
As with most things Obama, there are more questions than answers:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.Isn't "community service" what they give some convicted felons as a punishment?
When you choose to serve... the web site starts, you are connected to that fundamental American ideal... And to help you make that decision to "choose to serve," Obama will force you to serve.
This is a significant change from his position outlined in the "National Service Plan Fact Sheet," the ominously titled "Plan for Universal Voluntary Citizen Service."
Kids doing community service, learning how to help others around them, is laudable. Having the federal government mandating and controlling that service is troubling.
As with most things Obama, there are more questions than answers:
- What are the penalties for not "choosing" to serve? Will you not be able to graduate without serving? What about private school students? Private college students?
- Who will run these service programs? Will it be those honorable community groups like ACORN?
- Who will determine what is "acceptable" service?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama: The First Change is Lowered Expectations
Just hours after the Barack Obama victory, Democrats are already backing away from the "Change" mantra that hurtled Obama to the White House.
According to The Hill website, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is toning-down the rhetoric of the campaign, instead calling for fiscal responsibility.
A wave has swept this country, a wave of hope, hope for the future, a befuddled Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Not a mandate for an ideology, a mandate for change, for hope.
Reid had not yet gotten the memo, as he prattled off the list of objectives: fixing the economy, developing renewable energy, helping middle class, improving the schools, and defend country. Plus one odd charge about kids not being able to go to school when they want to.
However, the TimesOnline reported before the election that Team Obama "have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency," fearing that Obama could not live up to expectations.
Expectations that he fostered!
According to the Times, Obama told a Colorado radio station:
The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference, he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how “hard” it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.
Obama's plans are certainly muted by the relative small margin of victory, pulling only 5% more voters than John McCain. Obama's margin of victory was lower than the victories of Reagan ('80,'84), Bush ('88), Clinton ('96) and only slightly higher than Clinton in 1992.
His electoral college victory was middle-of-the-pack, trailing Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton also.
As Harry Reid said, tonight one journey begins and another long, long journey begins...
According to The Hill website, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is toning-down the rhetoric of the campaign, instead calling for fiscal responsibility.A wave has swept this country, a wave of hope, hope for the future, a befuddled Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Not a mandate for an ideology, a mandate for change, for hope.
Reid had not yet gotten the memo, as he prattled off the list of objectives: fixing the economy, developing renewable energy, helping middle class, improving the schools, and defend country. Plus one odd charge about kids not being able to go to school when they want to.
However, the TimesOnline reported before the election that Team Obama "have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency," fearing that Obama could not live up to expectations.
Expectations that he fostered!According to the Times, Obama told a Colorado radio station:
The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference, he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how “hard” it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.
Obama's plans are certainly muted by the relative small margin of victory, pulling only 5% more voters than John McCain. Obama's margin of victory was lower than the victories of Reagan ('80,'84), Bush ('88), Clinton ('96) and only slightly higher than Clinton in 1992.
His electoral college victory was middle-of-the-pack, trailing Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton also.
As Harry Reid said, tonight one journey begins and another long, long journey begins...
Obama Fills His Cabinet with Clinton Leftovers
Like his fellow Washington Democrats, Obama seems to be straying from the "Change" theme, which he mentioned some 15 times in his DNC acceptance speech.
...the change we need doesn't come from Washington, Obama told us. Change comes to Washington.
So why is Obama calling on a cadre of Washington hacks and insiders for his cabinet? NBC news is suggesting that Washington long-timers like Robert F. Kennedy, Colin Powell, Tom Daschle,Dick Lugar, Bill Richardson and John Kerry are on his list. He recently hired Clinton flak Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Former DNC chief Ed Rendell may be tapped for Secretary of Energy.
Apparently, he is turning to Washington to develop the change that "doesn't come from Washington." Where are the Washington outsiders?
"I'm running because I don't want to do business as usual," Obama told a crowd of union members earlier in the year. Why is he lining up the usual suspects to help run that business?
With the litany of ex-Clinton aides on Obama's list, who knew that the hope he spoke about so often meant Hope, Arkansas.
...the change we need doesn't come from Washington, Obama told us. Change comes to Washington.So why is Obama calling on a cadre of Washington hacks and insiders for his cabinet? NBC news is suggesting that Washington long-timers like Robert F. Kennedy, Colin Powell, Tom Daschle,Dick Lugar, Bill Richardson and John Kerry are on his list. He recently hired Clinton flak Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Former DNC chief Ed Rendell may be tapped for Secretary of Energy.
Apparently, he is turning to Washington to develop the change that "doesn't come from Washington." Where are the Washington outsiders?
"I'm running because I don't want to do business as usual," Obama told a crowd of union members earlier in the year. Why is he lining up the usual suspects to help run that business?
With the litany of ex-Clinton aides on Obama's list, who knew that the hope he spoke about so often meant Hope, Arkansas.
MSNBC's Matthews: My New Job is to Make Obama Presidency Work
Chris Matthews has yet again shown us how far he and other "journalists" have moved away from unbiased reporting into liberal slant or even unfettered support of a politician.
On MSNBC's Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough, Matthews told Scarborough that his job is to do everything I can to make this new presidency work.
Matthews was not talking about taking a new job as Obama's press secretary. Sorry, Chris, the job's already taken..
When questioned by a clearly surprised Scarborough: Is that your job as a journalist?
Yeah, that's my job... This country needs a successful presidency, more than anything right now.
More than the truth? More than to know what's really going on in Washington?
How can you not root for the success of a new president? Matthews asks, as if a journalist "rooting" for a politician is standard practice.
I don't understand, he quipped about the hosts' chagrin, unaware of just how true that statement is.
In the same segment, Richard Stengel of Time Magazine quoted Walter Cronkite: Reporters have to be skeptical so that the public doesn't get cynical. Walter Cronkite must be turning in his grave.
We know that Matthews did everything in his power to help get Obama elected; will Matthews now do everything to ensure Obama's success? Does that include spinning negative stories or not covering them at all?
And, how far will his efforts go? Will his new job require him to coddle the Democrats in Congress? Or just continue trashing Republicans?
This seems a far cry from the lofty personal goals Matthews describes on his Hardball website:
My main ambition as a journalist is to cut through the public relations and find the truth in what politicians are saying and doing.
It appears now that his ambition as a journalist is to participate in the public relations of this politician; to promote a politician, rather than find the truth.
On MSNBC's Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough, Matthews told Scarborough that his job is to do everything I can to make this new presidency work.
Matthews was not talking about taking a new job as Obama's press secretary. Sorry, Chris, the job's already taken..When questioned by a clearly surprised Scarborough: Is that your job as a journalist?
Yeah, that's my job... This country needs a successful presidency, more than anything right now.
More than the truth? More than to know what's really going on in Washington?
How can you not root for the success of a new president? Matthews asks, as if a journalist "rooting" for a politician is standard practice.
I don't understand, he quipped about the hosts' chagrin, unaware of just how true that statement is.
In the same segment, Richard Stengel of Time Magazine quoted Walter Cronkite: Reporters have to be skeptical so that the public doesn't get cynical. Walter Cronkite must be turning in his grave.
We know that Matthews did everything in his power to help get Obama elected; will Matthews now do everything to ensure Obama's success? Does that include spinning negative stories or not covering them at all?And, how far will his efforts go? Will his new job require him to coddle the Democrats in Congress? Or just continue trashing Republicans?
This seems a far cry from the lofty personal goals Matthews describes on his Hardball website:
My main ambition as a journalist is to cut through the public relations and find the truth in what politicians are saying and doing.
It appears now that his ambition as a journalist is to participate in the public relations of this politician; to promote a politician, rather than find the truth.
The Age of Obama Continues: Biggest Post-Election Stock Market Drop
According to Bloomberg this morning:
There is no true evidence to directly tie the drop to the election, but the drop does come on the heels of the biggest election day rally.
In the days before the election, there was talk of a McCain comeback victory, which could have been the reason behind the stock market rise during that period.
It could be coincidence; but on Wall Street there is little room for chance over strategy.
The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.
There is no true evidence to directly tie the drop to the election, but the drop does come on the heels of the biggest election day rally.In the days before the election, there was talk of a McCain comeback victory, which could have been the reason behind the stock market rise during that period.
It could be coincidence; but on Wall Street there is little room for chance over strategy.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Age of Obama Has Begun: Rocket Barrage Fired From Gaza Strip by Palestinian Militants
In the hours before Barack Obama won the U.S. presidency, Palestinian and Israeli forces clashed in Gaza.
Let us not forget that Hamas endorsed Obama.
Is this the beginning of the world coming together to stand as one?
Obama: No Landslide; No Mandate
The election of Barack Obama was not a landslide; Obama does not have a mandate.
The election was decided by 5% of the voters (51.9 to 46.8); which, if the numbers are correct, is roughly 3% of the overall population of the United States.
The Electoral College system makes it seem like an overwhelming victory; but don't be fooled.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Obama pledged a slate of programs and hand-outs. How will the voters who support these programs feel when he can't produce what he promised?
What will happen to the middle-of-the-road people who just wanted change, not radical change, if he implements some of the more extreme positions he is reputed to support?
How long before the shine comes off the apple; before the honeymoon is over; before the REAL Obama appears before our eyes? How many of the 51.9% will jump off the bandwagon?
In Massachusetts in 2006, we (they) elected Gov. Deval Patrick, in a change election (after 16 years of Republican rule). Patrick also promised a spate of new programs and initiatives. Lower property taxes, 1,000 new police officers. All we have gotten so far are broken promises, an even larger budget, and a front-row view as he turned a $2B surplus into a $1B deficit in two short years. Patrick has seen his poll numbers plummet.
Congratulations on your victory, Sen. Obama. However, you do not have the full support of the majority of people in this country; just enough to get elected. I hope you understand that.
The election was decided by 5% of the voters (51.9 to 46.8); which, if the numbers are correct, is roughly 3% of the overall population of the United States.
The Electoral College system makes it seem like an overwhelming victory; but don't be fooled.It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Obama pledged a slate of programs and hand-outs. How will the voters who support these programs feel when he can't produce what he promised?
What will happen to the middle-of-the-road people who just wanted change, not radical change, if he implements some of the more extreme positions he is reputed to support?
How long before the shine comes off the apple; before the honeymoon is over; before the REAL Obama appears before our eyes? How many of the 51.9% will jump off the bandwagon?
In Massachusetts in 2006, we (they) elected Gov. Deval Patrick, in a change election (after 16 years of Republican rule). Patrick also promised a spate of new programs and initiatives. Lower property taxes, 1,000 new police officers. All we have gotten so far are broken promises, an even larger budget, and a front-row view as he turned a $2B surplus into a $1B deficit in two short years. Patrick has seen his poll numbers plummet.
Congratulations on your victory, Sen. Obama. However, you do not have the full support of the majority of people in this country; just enough to get elected. I hope you understand that.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Black Panthers: Is This the National Civilian Security Force Obama Speaks About?
One a few rare occasions during his campaign, Barack Obama has talked about the need for a "civilian national-security force" to bolster the U.S. military.
We are now hearing reports of Black Panther "uh...security" details "with billy-clubs" stationed outside some voting places in Philadelphia. No indication of why they are there nor who asked them to be there.
Whom are they trying to keep out?
Is this the type of civilian national-security force that Obama wants to institute? Or maybe, he can get the Nation of Islam to help out; they are already experienced from guarding Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
We all know how well things went at that Rolling Stones concert at Altamont Speedway in 1969 when the Hells Angels were enlisted to do security.
Let's hope we don't have to find out.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” he said.The problem is, no one (including Obama himself) seems to know what that means.
We are now hearing reports of Black Panther "uh...security" details "with billy-clubs" stationed outside some voting places in Philadelphia. No indication of why they are there nor who asked them to be there.
Whom are they trying to keep out?
Is this the type of civilian national-security force that Obama wants to institute? Or maybe, he can get the Nation of Islam to help out; they are already experienced from guarding Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
We all know how well things went at that Rolling Stones concert at Altamont Speedway in 1969 when the Hells Angels were enlisted to do security.
Let's hope we don't have to find out.
You Need a Reason to Vote Against Obama?
If you need (yet another) reason to vote against Obama, listen to what this young woman thinks will happen during an Obama presidency:
"I don't have to worry about putting gas in my car; I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. If I help him, he is going to help me..."
If Obama wins, then more free stuff for me!
Can't think of a better reason to vote for a candidate.
To paraphrase: Don't even dream about doing something for your country; ask how much free stuff I can grab instead.
I fear, though, this young lass is not too far from the truth...
"I don't have to worry about putting gas in my car; I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. If I help him, he is going to help me..."
If Obama wins, then more free stuff for me!
Can't think of a better reason to vote for a candidate.
To paraphrase: Don't even dream about doing something for your country; ask how much free stuff I can grab instead.
I fear, though, this young lass is not too far from the truth...
You Need a Reason to Vote for McCain?
For all those who don't like Barack Obama, but are not sure about John McCain, take a minute to listed to what this young man has to say. Truly inspirational.
Vote for McCain for this man, and for all the troops throughout the world. No one in uniform should have to utter the phrase Commander-in-Chief Obama.
Vote for McCain for this man, and for all the troops throughout the world. No one in uniform should have to utter the phrase Commander-in-Chief Obama.
Obama: My Condolences on the Passing of Your Grandmother
I was saddened to hear that Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, passed away on Monday. Obama spoke frequently of his grandmother, who helped raise him as a child.It is a disappointment that she won't be here to see how Obama's campaign turns out, either becoming the proud grandparent of a U.S. president or to be there to console and support him in a loss.
It was nice to hear that she was able to cast an absentee-ballot for Obama before she passed.
As someone who has lost a family member at a time that should have been filled with joy, I understand some of the emotional turbulence that Obama may be feeling.
And, I hope that we see apologies from all the right-wingers, like Michael Savage, who questioned Obama's motives for visiting Dunham last week.
All my best wishes to Barack Obama and his family as they work through what must be a bitter-sweet time for them.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama: The Economist Endorses Obama Because He is Black
The Economist Magazine, on their website, tells us to vote for Obama because he is black!
And, after all, John McCain is old!
To be fair, the Economist has a far better argument for supporting Obama: he has run a better campaign. Period. That's it.
The magazine goes so far as to tell us to take a chance on Obama, and voting for him is a gamble.
Take a shot; what the hell? It is just our country, our constitution, our money, our way-of-life, our very lives themselves at stake. What the hell.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. The magazine proudly reports.
And I am sure that the Economist would hire as Editor-in-Chief someone with no editorial experience, but whose resume was printed on nice paper and who wore the better suit. Right.
Take the leap. What does the Economist care? When the economy tanks under Obama, more people are likely to subscribe to their magazine.
I was thinking about subscribing to this magazine. But, if this editorial is evidence of the level of insight they lend to other issues, I'll go with Mad Magazine instead.
Remind me who brought race into this campaign?
Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham.Hey! I thought we couldn't use his middle name! It's racist, after all!
And, after all, John McCain is old!
And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?).
To be fair, the Economist has a far better argument for supporting Obama: he has run a better campaign. Period. That's it.
Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent.Nothing else. No fact, figures, or evidence to support their endorsement. No evaluation of his economic proposals. Why would I turn to the Economist magazine for that?
The magazine goes so far as to tell us to take a chance on Obama, and voting for him is a gamble.
Take a shot; what the hell? It is just our country, our constitution, our money, our way-of-life, our very lives themselves at stake. What the hell.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. The magazine proudly reports.
And I am sure that the Economist would hire as Editor-in-Chief someone with no editorial experience, but whose resume was printed on nice paper and who wore the better suit. Right.
Take the leap. What does the Economist care? When the economy tanks under Obama, more people are likely to subscribe to their magazine.
I was thinking about subscribing to this magazine. But, if this editorial is evidence of the level of insight they lend to other issues, I'll go with Mad Magazine instead.
Remind me who brought race into this campaign?
NY. Rep. Jerrold Nadler Confirms RedInABlueState on Obama!
In this YouTube video, New York U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler confirms what I told you on these pages several weeks ago.According to Nadler, Sen. Barack Obama, this guy whio is "half-white and half-black" who went to an "Ivy-League school." He got into "community organizing" for purely political reasons and joined Rev. Wright's church to "form a political base," not necessarily for spiritual reasons.
From RedInABlueState on October 13, 2008:
I contend that Obama associated himself with Wright and his church to establish his street cred. Remember, here is a guy who was born to a white mother, raised by his "typical white person" grandmother, and a product of Ivy League schools. He would seem to be a guy who would want for something to establish a connection with the South Side of Chicago. What better than a race-baiting, hate-monger?
And, how could Obama just get up and walk out, as so many detractors have criticized him for not doing? Walking out would have offended Wright, who would likely have the power to hurt Obama's political aspirations. So, Obama put his political gain over doing the right thing, stated with this anti-American preacher so as not to offend someone who could help him.
Even more evidence that Obama is not who he wants us to think he is.
Obama: Is Paying for "Skyrocketing" Electricity Rates Patriotic, Too?
Do you use electricity in your home?
If so, get ready to pay A LOT more for your electricity under president Barack Obama.
In Obama's own words, under his plans, "electricity would necessarily skyrocket."
Obama's plans would "bankrupt the coal industry;” Again his own words.
Where the U.S. creates more than 50% of its electricity from coal, "bankrupting the coal industry" would devastate electricity rates in this country.
Obama's camp defends these suggestions stating that Obama is talking about the "need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies."
So, until these new technologies become available, open your checkbook and get ready to pay more to light your house, run your computer, play those video games, and in many cases, heat your home.
It's not too late.
Vote N'Obama on November 4.
If so, get ready to pay A LOT more for your electricity under president Barack Obama.
In Obama's own words, under his plans, "electricity would necessarily skyrocket."
Obama's plans would "bankrupt the coal industry;” Again his own words.
Where the U.S. creates more than 50% of its electricity from coal, "bankrupting the coal industry" would devastate electricity rates in this country.
Obama's camp defends these suggestions stating that Obama is talking about the "need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies."
So, until these new technologies become available, open your checkbook and get ready to pay more to light your house, run your computer, play those video games, and in many cases, heat your home.
It's not too late.
Vote N'Obama on November 4.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Campaign 2008: An Open Message to Obama's Young Supporters
It took me a long time to understand why the youth in this country have so readily embraced Sen. Barack Obama's vague promises of "hope" and "change."
It took me a while, but I think I know part of the reason for your unyielding admiration for this man: many of you have never been disappointed by a politician before.
A large number of you are following a political race closely for the first time. You have never seen a politician make promises or instill faith only to see those promises ignored and that faith broken.
Many of you were not yet born to witness Richard Nixon's crimes and cover-up.
You did not hear Jimmy Carter's similar pledge of hope and change yield one of the most ineffectual presidents in our country's history.
You may have been only infants when conservative icon Ronald Reagan got involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.
You could have been in grade school when we all read George H.W. Bush's lips only to see him raise taxes anyway.
You were not paying attention to Bill Clinton's promise of middle-class tax relief only to see him institute the largest tax increase in this country's history -- a tax increase that hit virtually every tax payer.
You might not have heard George Bush announce his "compassionate conservative" credentials, only to build a liberal-leaning administration of bigger government, expanding programs, and nation-building.
To the youth in this country, please do not fall for Obama's shell game, his pyramid scheme of an economic policy that will hurt this nation.
You did not see H.W. Bush's tax increase have no effect on the recession of the late 1980's/early 1990's.
You did not see Clinton's massive tax increase continue to stretch that recession for a few further years.
Raising taxes and restricting free trade during a recession will hurt this economy; it will not help!
Reagan instituted a massive tax cuts package (slashing the capital gains tax) that finally kick-started the Ford/Carter recession into an economic bump we are still in today.
The U.S. Congress in 1995 cut income taxes and reversed Clinton's capital gains tax increase to eradicate the Bush/Clinton recession, finally.
It is true, these tax cuts did go to the "wealthy" more than others; but the cuts also helped stop two recessions and everyone benefitted in the long run.
I graduated college in 1990 and stepped into a recession. I took my honors degree to a job at a gas station and as a security officer at a local hotel. It wasn't until after the tax cuts in the mid-1990s did the economy come back and I was able to find a job where I could use my degree.
Do not fall for Obama's used-car salesman techniques. If he implements his plans, the economy will suffer, and you will too.
You do not need to vote for McCain, vote against Obama and his policies that are doomed to fail and will doom this country.
It took me a while, but I think I know part of the reason for your unyielding admiration for this man: many of you have never been disappointed by a politician before.
A large number of you are following a political race closely for the first time. You have never seen a politician make promises or instill faith only to see those promises ignored and that faith broken.
Many of you were not yet born to witness Richard Nixon's crimes and cover-up.
You did not hear Jimmy Carter's similar pledge of hope and change yield one of the most ineffectual presidents in our country's history.
You may have been only infants when conservative icon Ronald Reagan got involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.
You could have been in grade school when we all read George H.W. Bush's lips only to see him raise taxes anyway.
You were not paying attention to Bill Clinton's promise of middle-class tax relief only to see him institute the largest tax increase in this country's history -- a tax increase that hit virtually every tax payer.
You might not have heard George Bush announce his "compassionate conservative" credentials, only to build a liberal-leaning administration of bigger government, expanding programs, and nation-building.
To the youth in this country, please do not fall for Obama's shell game, his pyramid scheme of an economic policy that will hurt this nation.
You did not see H.W. Bush's tax increase have no effect on the recession of the late 1980's/early 1990's.
You did not see Clinton's massive tax increase continue to stretch that recession for a few further years.
Raising taxes and restricting free trade during a recession will hurt this economy; it will not help!
Reagan instituted a massive tax cuts package (slashing the capital gains tax) that finally kick-started the Ford/Carter recession into an economic bump we are still in today.
The U.S. Congress in 1995 cut income taxes and reversed Clinton's capital gains tax increase to eradicate the Bush/Clinton recession, finally.
It is true, these tax cuts did go to the "wealthy" more than others; but the cuts also helped stop two recessions and everyone benefitted in the long run.
I graduated college in 1990 and stepped into a recession. I took my honors degree to a job at a gas station and as a security officer at a local hotel. It wasn't until after the tax cuts in the mid-1990s did the economy come back and I was able to find a job where I could use my degree.
Do not fall for Obama's used-car salesman techniques. If he implements his plans, the economy will suffer, and you will too.
You do not need to vote for McCain, vote against Obama and his policies that are doomed to fail and will doom this country.
Obama Changes His Tax Plans Yet Again!
Obama has already changed his tax plan, sliding the income level down.
In his glowing, but ineffectual, 30-minute political ad last night, Obama told us that people with incomes below $200,000 will get a "tax break."
Last week, that number was $250,000.
Sen. Joe Biden, earlier on the same day, announced that the level would be $150,000 in order to get a tax cut. Of course, the Obama campaign and the news media decided that it was just a "Biden gaffe," not a reflection of Obama policy.
But, one has to (or should) ask, if he is already dropping the level at which you are "wealthy," how low will that threshold go after the election?
According to some reports, Obama has supported increasing taxes for incomes as low as $42,000.
The good news, I guess, is that you are getting closer to being rich every day; I'll bet you didn't even know it.
Like McCain said, when watching a television "infomercial," let the buyer beware.
In his glowing, but ineffectual, 30-minute political ad last night, Obama told us that people with incomes below $200,000 will get a "tax break."
Last week, that number was $250,000.Sen. Joe Biden, earlier on the same day, announced that the level would be $150,000 in order to get a tax cut. Of course, the Obama campaign and the news media decided that it was just a "Biden gaffe," not a reflection of Obama policy.
But, one has to (or should) ask, if he is already dropping the level at which you are "wealthy," how low will that threshold go after the election?
According to some reports, Obama has supported increasing taxes for incomes as low as $42,000.
The good news, I guess, is that you are getting closer to being rich every day; I'll bet you didn't even know it.
Like McCain said, when watching a television "infomercial," let the buyer beware.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Is this a Preview of Things Under President Obama?
Argentina recently elected a new president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The parallels between President Fernandez and Sen. Barack Obama are interesting.
Fernandez, like Obama, is a short-term politician, serving time as a local politician before serving in the country's senate. During only her second term, Fernandez ran for president.
Fernandez started her public life as an activist; similarly, Obama started his political career as a "community organizer", an activist activity to be sure.
Like Obama, Fernandez is often complimented on his looks, receiving compliments for her "striking physical appearance." Many believe they both got votes based on their appearance alone.
Both politicians are lauded for making history in their respective countries: Fernandez is the first woman elected to the country's presidency; Obama, of course, is aiming to be the country's first black president.
Their politics and attitudes also have some overlap.
According to a October 2007 Boston Globe article, Fernandez stated that "she is not against business profit."
This comment is eerily similar to Obama telling "Joe the Plumber" It's not that I want to punish your success... Both politicians seem to be apologizing for policies that do harm business profits and do punish success.
Fernandez continued in her conversation to "urge companies to be socially responsible."
Again, this attitude mirrors Obama's comment that paying taxes higher taxes is akin to neighborliness, and Joe Biden's call that paying higher taxes is patriotic.
I make these comparisons as I wonder if Fernandez' presidency is a preview to an Obama administration.
One of Fernandez' first acts as president was to increase the tax on farm exports. Like Fernandez, Obama wants to raise taxes and restrict trade.
Instead of helping the economy, Argentina's increased farm tax caused major problems in the economy, leading to protests, higher prices, and inflation. According to a USA Today article, had the taxes not been increased, the (tax) windfall could have financed needed utilities and energy sector infrastructure or funded programs for the country's 10 million poor.
Fernandez justified the tax increase because farmer's profits "should be spread to help the poor." Similarly, Obama has been preaching the notion of "spreading the wealth."
More recently, Fernandez just announced plans for Argentina to take over private pension systems in her country. The move, not yet enacted, has already sent the Argentine stock market tumbling, inciting double-digit percentage declines in stock markets.
But, Obama would never let that happen in the U.S.A., now would he?
According to James Pethokoukis in USA News and World Report: House Democrats recently considered ideas that would eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, (the plan) would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker, which would yield a shockingly low 3%, and set mandatory saving requirement.
While this is just an idea being floated before the house, the lawmakers seem serious about killing 401K tax incentives; because, in the words of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the tax breaks are not "generating what we now say it should."
Part of the concern in Argentina is that there are no limits on how the government can use the seized funds; although lawmakers in the country are trying to limit how the government uses and invests the money.
Do you feel comfortable that the U.S. government would keep those funds apart from the general funds and not spend the money on other programs, considering that social security funds are used for other purposes?
I have to wonder, are we about to elect a man whose politics mirror the avowed socialist president of Argentina?
Scary times, indeed.
Fernandez, like Obama, is a short-term politician, serving time as a local politician before serving in the country's senate. During only her second term, Fernandez ran for president.Fernandez started her public life as an activist; similarly, Obama started his political career as a "community organizer", an activist activity to be sure.
Like Obama, Fernandez is often complimented on his looks, receiving compliments for her "striking physical appearance." Many believe they both got votes based on their appearance alone.Both politicians are lauded for making history in their respective countries: Fernandez is the first woman elected to the country's presidency; Obama, of course, is aiming to be the country's first black president.
Their politics and attitudes also have some overlap.
According to a October 2007 Boston Globe article, Fernandez stated that "she is not against business profit."
This comment is eerily similar to Obama telling "Joe the Plumber" It's not that I want to punish your success... Both politicians seem to be apologizing for policies that do harm business profits and do punish success.
Fernandez continued in her conversation to "urge companies to be socially responsible."
Again, this attitude mirrors Obama's comment that paying taxes higher taxes is akin to neighborliness, and Joe Biden's call that paying higher taxes is patriotic.
I make these comparisons as I wonder if Fernandez' presidency is a preview to an Obama administration.
One of Fernandez' first acts as president was to increase the tax on farm exports. Like Fernandez, Obama wants to raise taxes and restrict trade.
Instead of helping the economy, Argentina's increased farm tax caused major problems in the economy, leading to protests, higher prices, and inflation. According to a USA Today article, had the taxes not been increased, the (tax) windfall could have financed needed utilities and energy sector infrastructure or funded programs for the country's 10 million poor.
Fernandez justified the tax increase because farmer's profits "should be spread to help the poor." Similarly, Obama has been preaching the notion of "spreading the wealth."
More recently, Fernandez just announced plans for Argentina to take over private pension systems in her country. The move, not yet enacted, has already sent the Argentine stock market tumbling, inciting double-digit percentage declines in stock markets.
But, Obama would never let that happen in the U.S.A., now would he?
According to James Pethokoukis in USA News and World Report: House Democrats recently considered ideas that would eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, (the plan) would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker, which would yield a shockingly low 3%, and set mandatory saving requirement.While this is just an idea being floated before the house, the lawmakers seem serious about killing 401K tax incentives; because, in the words of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the tax breaks are not "generating what we now say it should."
Part of the concern in Argentina is that there are no limits on how the government can use the seized funds; although lawmakers in the country are trying to limit how the government uses and invests the money.
Do you feel comfortable that the U.S. government would keep those funds apart from the general funds and not spend the money on other programs, considering that social security funds are used for other purposes?
I have to wonder, are we about to elect a man whose politics mirror the avowed socialist president of Argentina?
Scary times, indeed.
Monday, October 27, 2008
No Media Bias Here -- Part III
No Media Bias Here
Well, no there is....I read this 2002 piece for Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting by some fellows named he mainstream media are no more liberal than the conglomerates that own them or the advertisers that pay their bills.
They cite as absolute proof two surveys done by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting -- their employer! (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is neither, from what I can tell.)
The article reads like parody. One laughable charge involves a CBS Evening News report on a flat-tax proposal. The story was one-sided, giving no time to flat-tax supporters, but was it really proof of liberal bias?
A story with flat tax opponents and no flat tax supporters is not biased? This is what the writers consider "fair" and "accurate"?
I think I would put more stock in Michael Malone's piece on ABCNews.com:
Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.
Should I take the word of a man who has worked at Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Fortune and Forbes? Or from two guys who wrote books bashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly...
Obama: Free Speech Under Attack
First, we saw what happened when "Joe the Plumber" deigned to ask Obama a tough question.
We know that Obama and the Democrats want to shut down talk radio using the "Fairness" Doctrine.
We know that Obama has turned to the Justice Department to criminalize campaign speech from Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin.
Now, Barbara West, a reporter at WFTV in Orlando, Florida, is feeling the wrath of the Obama campaign for asking tough questions.
West asked simple but tough questions of Sen. Joe Biden relating to Obama's own words, Biden's own words, and Obama's own policies.
She brought up issues that many people, including myself, have wondered about Obama and his policies.
Did Biden answer the questions? Yes, but not truthfully.
Is Obama a benefactor to ACORN? How is he a benefactor? quips Biden. Namely, Obama helped ACORN by giving $830,000 to the organization for "lighting" and "staging." Lie #1. (This answer by Obama was a lie, too; he "corrected" the record to show the money was for get-out-the-vote efforts.)
Is Obama practicing Marxism in his desire to "spread the wealth"? Are you joking? Is this a joke? He is not talking about spreading the wealth, retorts Biden. Lie #2. He said those very words a few weeks ago, and made inferences to this back in 2001 also.
You said... the world will test Barack Obama. Everyone has acknowledged...the United States is going to be tested, whether it's John McCain or Barack Obama. Lie #3. In his own words, the world will test Obama; he has says nothing about testing McCain.
John McCain was wrong on Iraq, Biden challenges. Obama was right. Lie #4. Obama opposed the surge and said it was not working. So far, the surge has been working. McCain supported it; Obama opposed it. (Good luck finding his opposition to the surge on his Web site.)
What do you say to the people who think that Barack Obama wants to turn the US into a socialist country. I don't know anybody who thinks that... Biden reports. You need to get out more, Joe, and get among the "real" people out there.
For her efforts, the Obama campaign has canceled any future appearances from the campaign, including a scheduled appearance by Biden's wife.
I ask again, why does Obama want to stifle free speech? Why does Obama want to avoid answering questions?
If Obama and his associates will not answer simple questions about his policies -- and the candidates' own words -- what will they do if Obama gets into a scandal? How forthcoming will Obama be if he gets tough questions about a real crisis.
We know that Obama and the Democrats want to shut down talk radio using the "Fairness" Doctrine.
We know that Obama has turned to the Justice Department to criminalize campaign speech from Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin.Now, Barbara West, a reporter at WFTV in Orlando, Florida, is feeling the wrath of the Obama campaign for asking tough questions.
West asked simple but tough questions of Sen. Joe Biden relating to Obama's own words, Biden's own words, and Obama's own policies.
She brought up issues that many people, including myself, have wondered about Obama and his policies.
Did Biden answer the questions? Yes, but not truthfully.
Is Obama a benefactor to ACORN? How is he a benefactor? quips Biden. Namely, Obama helped ACORN by giving $830,000 to the organization for "lighting" and "staging." Lie #1. (This answer by Obama was a lie, too; he "corrected" the record to show the money was for get-out-the-vote efforts.)
Is Obama practicing Marxism in his desire to "spread the wealth"? Are you joking? Is this a joke? He is not talking about spreading the wealth, retorts Biden. Lie #2. He said those very words a few weeks ago, and made inferences to this back in 2001 also.
You said... the world will test Barack Obama. Everyone has acknowledged...the United States is going to be tested, whether it's John McCain or Barack Obama. Lie #3. In his own words, the world will test Obama; he has says nothing about testing McCain.
John McCain was wrong on Iraq, Biden challenges. Obama was right. Lie #4. Obama opposed the surge and said it was not working. So far, the surge has been working. McCain supported it; Obama opposed it. (Good luck finding his opposition to the surge on his Web site.)What do you say to the people who think that Barack Obama wants to turn the US into a socialist country. I don't know anybody who thinks that... Biden reports. You need to get out more, Joe, and get among the "real" people out there.
For her efforts, the Obama campaign has canceled any future appearances from the campaign, including a scheduled appearance by Biden's wife.
I ask again, why does Obama want to stifle free speech? Why does Obama want to avoid answering questions?
If Obama and his associates will not answer simple questions about his policies -- and the candidates' own words -- what will they do if Obama gets into a scandal? How forthcoming will Obama be if he gets tough questions about a real crisis.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Massachusetts is Suppressing Military Voters
According to WTKK FM talk show host, Michael Graham, officials in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are engaged in knowing and intentional voter suppression.
Reports Graham: Secretary of State, Bill Galvin, has been ignoring federal law designed to protect the voting rights of uniformed military personnel deployed to Iraq and elsewhere.
According to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice, Galvin's office has been in violation of the Uniformed Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) since its inception in 2002.
This violation, Graham challenges, indicates that Galvin refused to obey the law and make sure Massachusetts military members got their ballots and had their votes counted.
While no such assertion was stated in the DoJ complaint, the DoJ did state that: Without (UOCAVA compliance), Congress and the public cannot determine whether states are fulfilling their obligations to let uniformed service members and overseas citizens fully participate in our elections.
Galvin, it appears, is not reporting accurate and complete information about whether our uniformed service members and overseas citizens are being given an effective opportunity to have their votes counted.
While we cannot prove that Galvin is truly suppressing military votes, his office cannot prove that they were not.
This transgression seems odd from someone who lobbied for ballots in Boston to be translated into Chinese to protect the rights of Chinese-speaking voters.
Could Galvin, a Democrat, have reason to prevent the military from voting in the fact that the large majority of soldiers are planning to vote for Sen. John McCain? Recall that Al Gore and the Democrats tried to suppress military votes in Florida during the 2000 election.
He won't say.
When confronted by Graham, who called Galvin's office, Galvin's spokesperson refused comment. Later, the spokesperson called Graham's producer, demanding that the talk-master stop talking about the subject. According to Graham's blog, The Secretary was filing a complaint against me with the Federal Communications Commission because he didn't like what I was saying.
Not unusual that a Democrat would try to shut down dissent.
Could it be that Galvin would not allow the people defending our democracy participate in our democracy?
Reports Graham: Secretary of State, Bill Galvin, has been ignoring federal law designed to protect the voting rights of uniformed military personnel deployed to Iraq and elsewhere. According to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice, Galvin's office has been in violation of the Uniformed Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) since its inception in 2002.
This violation, Graham challenges, indicates that Galvin refused to obey the law and make sure Massachusetts military members got their ballots and had their votes counted.
While no such assertion was stated in the DoJ complaint, the DoJ did state that: Without (UOCAVA compliance), Congress and the public cannot determine whether states are fulfilling their obligations to let uniformed service members and overseas citizens fully participate in our elections.
Galvin, it appears, is not reporting accurate and complete information about whether our uniformed service members and overseas citizens are being given an effective opportunity to have their votes counted.
While we cannot prove that Galvin is truly suppressing military votes, his office cannot prove that they were not.
This transgression seems odd from someone who lobbied for ballots in Boston to be translated into Chinese to protect the rights of Chinese-speaking voters.
Could Galvin, a Democrat, have reason to prevent the military from voting in the fact that the large majority of soldiers are planning to vote for Sen. John McCain? Recall that Al Gore and the Democrats tried to suppress military votes in Florida during the 2000 election.
He won't say.
When confronted by Graham, who called Galvin's office, Galvin's spokesperson refused comment. Later, the spokesperson called Graham's producer, demanding that the talk-master stop talking about the subject. According to Graham's blog, The Secretary was filing a complaint against me with the Federal Communications Commission because he didn't like what I was saying.
Not unusual that a Democrat would try to shut down dissent.
Could it be that Galvin would not allow the people defending our democracy participate in our democracy?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Obama: Is This the Change You Counted On?
Sen. Barck Obama has not won the presidency and he is already changing his tax plan.
Obama has promised large tax cuts and tax credits to help the less-fortunate by increasing taxes on the "wealthy."
However, it seems that Obama is ready, willing, and able to change his tax plan to reduce the number of people on the receiving end. Specifically, Obama has changed the requirements for eligibility in his $13 billion-a-year Universal Mortgage Credit.
From the Obama website:
Obama and Biden will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
Apparently, Obama is now requiring recipients of the tax credit to have worked "sometime in the last year."
Why, according to Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, did Obama add a work-requirement to the tax credit? Because it was the right thing to do? So that the credit would be more fair? So that the credit did not reward people for not working?
Well, not exaclty:
"(McCain) started saying this was welfare," said Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that...we'll simply add a work requirement."
Because McCain was criticizing him, Obama changed the plan, affecting millions of people. Wow...
True leadership on display.
But wait! Not so fast! The work-requirement was always there, says Goolsbee:
"Our thing has never been welfare. It was always our intention that there was a work requirement."
You see, they always planned to require recipients to work, but just never told us.
Just what other "change" has Obama not told us about?
When you consider Omaba's plan to cut taxes for "95% of all Americans," keep this in mind. That number will certainly "change" and it won't go higher, that's a promise.
Obama has promised large tax cuts and tax credits to help the less-fortunate by increasing taxes on the "wealthy."
However, it seems that Obama is ready, willing, and able to change his tax plan to reduce the number of people on the receiving end. Specifically, Obama has changed the requirements for eligibility in his $13 billion-a-year Universal Mortgage Credit.
From the Obama website:
Obama and Biden will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
Apparently, Obama is now requiring recipients of the tax credit to have worked "sometime in the last year."
Why, according to Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, did Obama add a work-requirement to the tax credit? Because it was the right thing to do? So that the credit would be more fair? So that the credit did not reward people for not working?
Well, not exaclty:
"(McCain) started saying this was welfare," said Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that...we'll simply add a work requirement."
Because McCain was criticizing him, Obama changed the plan, affecting millions of people. Wow...
True leadership on display.
But wait! Not so fast! The work-requirement was always there, says Goolsbee:
"Our thing has never been welfare. It was always our intention that there was a work requirement."
You see, they always planned to require recipients to work, but just never told us.
Just what other "change" has Obama not told us about?
When you consider Omaba's plan to cut taxes for "95% of all Americans," keep this in mind. That number will certainly "change" and it won't go higher, that's a promise.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Gen. Powell's Non-Endoresment of Obama
This is an endorsement?
On the recent economic crisis:
I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this...period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this...
Wow. Intellectual curiosity. But, again, no experience in handling "problems like this."
Powell said of John McCain:
I found that (McCain) was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem.
At least McCain had an approach. Let us not forget, Obama offered no solution whatsoever!
Not a single word about Obama's accomplishments, experience, or prior successes. That's because there aren't any to mention!
When you evaluate Powell's endorsement, consider this endorsement from the Republican National Convention in 2000 from Powell:
Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president. The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.
Those words sound eerily similar to his comments on Obama, no?
(Obama) is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
So, Gen. Powell, you're voting for Hannah Montana?
From a transcript of Colin Powell's Meet the Press "interview" on Sunday Oct. 19:
And I come to the conclusion that because of (Obama's) ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities;and we have to take that into account;as well as his substance;he has both style and substance;he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.
He has style and substance! That qualifies him to be President of the United States? I don't think that qualifies someone to be High School class president!
On foreign policy:
...he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing...
He talks a real good game. I will sleep better at night knowing that Obama "educated himself." Great.
I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.
Let me repeat Gen. Powell's own words, "the experience Obama does not have."
Hardly an endorsement of Obama's ability (or lack thereof) to handle a crisis.
And I come to the conclusion that because of (Obama's) ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities;and we have to take that into account;as well as his substance;he has both style and substance;he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.He has style and substance! That qualifies him to be President of the United States? I don't think that qualifies someone to be High School class president!
On foreign policy:
...he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing...
He talks a real good game. I will sleep better at night knowing that Obama "educated himself." Great.
I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.
Let me repeat Gen. Powell's own words, "the experience Obama does not have."
Hardly an endorsement of Obama's ability (or lack thereof) to handle a crisis.
On the recent economic crisis:
I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this...period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this...
Wow. Intellectual curiosity. But, again, no experience in handling "problems like this."
Powell said of John McCain:
I found that (McCain) was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem.
At least McCain had an approach. Let us not forget, Obama offered no solution whatsoever!
Not a single word about Obama's accomplishments, experience, or prior successes. That's because there aren't any to mention!
When you evaluate Powell's endorsement, consider this endorsement from the Republican National Convention in 2000 from Powell:
Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president. The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.
Those words sound eerily similar to his comments on Obama, no?
(Obama) is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
So, Gen. Powell, you're voting for Hannah Montana?
Is Obama Ready for a "Crisis?"
As I mentioned yesterday, and has been discussed in the partisan press (though not nearly enough), Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden all but promised a "generated international crisis" after Obama's presumed election.I now hear pundits, bloggers and "journalists" discussing whether Obama would be ready for the crisis.
That's not the question to ask!
The question to ask is: Why elect a president whose very election will guarantee an 'international crisis' strikes us?
I don't want an international crisis! I don't want to know if Obama has the "mettle" to endure a crisis. How do we prevent this crisis from happening, Joe???
Seems simple to me: Vote for the guy whose national defense policy mirrors the policy of the current president, on whose watch there has been no "generated crisis" from The Middle East or Russia for the last seven years!" Vote John McCain.
Interesting note, the CNN story somehow failed to mention Biden's saying the crisis would come from the Middle East or Russia. Hmmmm. (Nope, no liberal bias here!)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Biden Hints at Impending "International Crisis"
At a fundraiser on Sunday, vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) suggested that a President Barack Obama would be "tested" by a "generated international crisis" from the Middle-East or Russia within six months of his election.
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has access to top secret national defense intelligence. What exactly does he know, and what does his saying it mean?
More enigmatic is his hint at an Obama response to the crisis:
"And (Obama's) gonna need help. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Is Biden talking to the (presumably) left-wing supporters at this fund raiser, or is he asking for the help of all of the American people?
Is he hinting that Obama's response would be aggressive, disappointing the left-wing anti-war crowd; or would Obama's response be tepid, disappointing Middle America?
Is he telling us that electing President Obama equals asking for a terrorist attack? Would this "crisis" focus on Obama himself or the U.S. as a whole? A military attack or a financial hit?
Is he tipping his hand to the presumed makers of this crisis that we are onto them and they should not proceed?
"The world is looking," he announced.
Does this mean "the world" does not fear Obama or see him as a strong leader, one who could help his country survive such an event? Does this mean the world sees Obama as weak, and is licking their chops at the chance to attack an Obama-led U.S. rather than a U.S. in the hands of Bush or McCain?
Is Biden, himself, suggesting that Obama is weak, and giving us yet another reason to vote against him.
Or, is he suggesting that the world is misunderestimating Obama at its own peril?
Please comment below and let me know what you think. This is a very interesting development....
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has access to top secret national defense intelligence. What exactly does he know, and what does his saying it mean?
More enigmatic is his hint at an Obama response to the crisis:
"And (Obama's) gonna need help. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Is Biden talking to the (presumably) left-wing supporters at this fund raiser, or is he asking for the help of all of the American people?
Is he hinting that Obama's response would be aggressive, disappointing the left-wing anti-war crowd; or would Obama's response be tepid, disappointing Middle America?
Is he telling us that electing President Obama equals asking for a terrorist attack? Would this "crisis" focus on Obama himself or the U.S. as a whole? A military attack or a financial hit?
Is he tipping his hand to the presumed makers of this crisis that we are onto them and they should not proceed?
"The world is looking," he announced.
Does this mean "the world" does not fear Obama or see him as a strong leader, one who could help his country survive such an event? Does this mean the world sees Obama as weak, and is licking their chops at the chance to attack an Obama-led U.S. rather than a U.S. in the hands of Bush or McCain?
Is Biden, himself, suggesting that Obama is weak, and giving us yet another reason to vote against him.
Or, is he suggesting that the world is misunderestimating Obama at its own peril?
Please comment below and let me know what you think. This is a very interesting development....
Friday, October 17, 2008
"Joe the Plumber" Gets Trashed for Daring to Challenge Obama
First Palin, Now Joe the PlumberThis will teach anyone about speaking out against the Anointed One Barack Obama.
After Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, every aspect of her life was ravaged by the left-wing, from her hobbies to her children. Every manner of vicious lie, hateful allegation, ludicrous rumor, and demented fantasy was spun about her and her family. She was ravaged by the press, musicians, (so-called) comedians, and every other left-wing Obama advocate.
Enter Joe the Plumber. An average Joe; just another typical white person, no doubt, who had the nerve to challenge his Highness asking questions about Obama's policies and actually challenging answers.
Now, the media mavens who have tired of lying about Palin are in full-on offensive mode against Joe. They are digging into his taxes, his profession, his income, his voter registration status, his family ties, and anything else they can get their hands on. Is anyone watching Joe's trash barrels?
"Reporters camped out by his house overnight and by mid-morning there were 21 people on his driveway surrounding him, holding cameras and notebooks," reports MSNBC.com. Only 21 people? Obama alone sent more than 30 people to dig through Palin's trash.
"I don’t have any Joe the Plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year..." sneered Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, clearly not understanding that the business Joe wanted to buy would earn that much, not Joe himself.
“How many plumbers do you know making a quarter of a million dollars a year?” chortled Obama, continuing to spread the falsehood.
The McCain camp rallied to Joe's defense: "This is why voters still have so many questions about Barack Obama. Instead of answering tough questions, his campaign attacks average Americans for daring to look at the reality behind his words," said Tucker Bounds, spokesman the McCain-Palin campaign.
Whether Joe was a GOP plant or a real person with real questions, he is talking for all of us in Middle America. He is asking the questions and making the statements far too many of us are unwilling to make. Obama's casual dismissal of Joe shows his disdain for the common folk.
Who would you rather have in the White House? Obama who ridicules a hard-worker like Joe because he doesn't agree with Obama? Or, John McCain who rushes to Joe's defense and supports people who ask the hard questions.
First Obama wants to punish Joe's success; now Obama is going to punish Joe for asking him a question.
If Joe the Plumber can't ask a critical question of Obama, who can? Will this full-on assault be launched on anyone who dares question a President Obama? If a politician stand up and challenge a policy, will his career be done? Will talk radio be shut down by the "Fairness Doctrine?" Where is the evidence to the contrary?
Is this really the America you want?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama Admits His Socialist/Marxist Policies
As I told you several weeks ago, Sen. Barack Obama is finally coming to terms with his Marxist/Socialist tendencies.In a now-famous conversation with gentlemen come to be known as "Joe the Plumber," Obama said this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Well, not exactly. That was Karl Marx, the philosopher upon whose thinking Communism has developed. Barack is not that far away from Marx.
Joe, it seems, wants to buy the plumbing business where he has worked. However, he fears, in his new position, Obama's tax plans would cost Joe dearly.
It's not that I want to punish your success, Obama told Joe. But, Obama will punish Joe anyway.
This country was was built and has thrived on individuals who work hard and take chances. Obama wants to punish those individuals for those very actions.
I don't mind paying a little more (in taxes), Obama told the crowd at the third presidential debate. Good for you, Barack. You do that; you pay more and leave the rest of us alone. That is what charities are for. Of course, Barack don't know much about charity.
At least no one can question Obama's patriotism!
I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody, he told Joe.
Obama is finally admitting -- in his own words -- that he wants to take money from people who are successful and give it to those who are less-so.
Maybe we should leave Joe alone and let him spread his wealth to his employees for putting in a hard day's work instead of turning the "wealth" over to the government to distribute as they see fit!
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Or, to think of it in another way: Those who can, pay more taxes; those who can't, get more handouts.
McCain Wins Third Debate in a TKO
I know my opinion is not in-line with all the pundits in the partisan press, it is clear to me that Sen John McCain clearly won the third and final U.S. presidential debate.
(A quick review of the Internet sites of some major media outlets will tacitly confirm McCain's victory. Look at the MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Boston Globe web sites; stories of the debate are buried, if present at all. )
Throughout the night, McCain had Obama on the defensive, criticizing Obama for his desire towards "spreading the wealth" among the people, taking more tax dollars from the successful and giving it to the less-so.
Joe was trying to realize the American dream, McCain challenged, referencing a gentleman who spoke with Obama a few days ago. We're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama and let him spread the wealth around.
McCain followed with a quip reminding us that the Obama and Democrats have a low threshold for defining someone as rich. Congratulations, Joe, you are rich. He probably didn't even know that.
Obama criticized McCain for suggesting an across-the-board spending freeze, a move put in place in New York City (and in households across the nation), preferring to take a scalpel to the budget.
However, when pressed on what programs he will cut, after 20 months on the campaign trail, Obama STILL cannot name a single item that he will cut. He continues to throw the suggestion that he will go line-by-line through the budget to cut programs that don't work, with no hint of what those might be.
McCain followed with a reminder about Obama's proposed $830 billion in new spending plans.
When told that the U.S. has the highest per-student cost for public education, Obama responded by stating that we need more money in education, standing steadfastly against any voucher program, despite McCain's claims that the voucher program in the Washington D.C. school system is popular and successful.
Obama's strongest point came when defending his healthcare plan, emphasizing that people will save more money on his plan than on McCain's. He is offering folks with no health insurance to sign up for the plan Congress has; he thinks that people should have the same healthcare as the legislators. Except, regular folks won't get it for free.
When asked directly by McCain how much Obama would fine people who don't subscribe to his health insurance plan, Obama will still not tell us. Likely, because he doesn't want us to know!
While McCain did not sufficiently highlight Obama's associations with the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the vote-fraud campaign of the group ACORN, McCain did remind us all that Obama gave $832,000 from his campaign coffers to ACRON that has gone to fund the group's "get-out-the-vote" campaign -- an effort that has resulted in massive voter registration fraud. Obama never apologized or expressed regret for that donation (not to mention that he lied on his campaign finance reports about the donation), nor did he condemn their tactics.
However, Obama faltered on the topic of Supreme Court judges. When asked, McCain emphatically announced that he would have no "litmus test" for judicial nominees regarding the Roe v Wade abortion "rights" case, despite his feeling that the ruling should be overturned.
Obama, who supports pretty much every form of abortion -- including abortions paid for by the tax-payers, dodged the question, never answering the question. A clear indication that he would have a precondition for his judicial nominees.
And finally, finally (!!), McCain told Obama and all the Democrats that he is not, in fact, George Bush:
Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you want to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.
Throughout the night, as he has throughout his campaign, Obama continues to avoid discussing the details of his plans for the country, preferring instead to throw out the now-tired canard that we can't have the same failed policies and the same failed politics of the past eight years.
About the only thing certain that Obama will do is raise taxes. He told us last night that he doesn't "mind paying a little more (taxes)." I don't know about you, but I would rather spend my earnings on my family, not on Washington D.C.
McCain answered my concerns by demanding: "Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes."
Amen, Senator.
(A quick review of the Internet sites of some major media outlets will tacitly confirm McCain's victory. Look at the MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Boston Globe web sites; stories of the debate are buried, if present at all. )
Throughout the night, McCain had Obama on the defensive, criticizing Obama for his desire towards "spreading the wealth" among the people, taking more tax dollars from the successful and giving it to the less-so.
Joe was trying to realize the American dream, McCain challenged, referencing a gentleman who spoke with Obama a few days ago. We're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama and let him spread the wealth around.McCain followed with a quip reminding us that the Obama and Democrats have a low threshold for defining someone as rich. Congratulations, Joe, you are rich. He probably didn't even know that.
Obama criticized McCain for suggesting an across-the-board spending freeze, a move put in place in New York City (and in households across the nation), preferring to take a scalpel to the budget.
However, when pressed on what programs he will cut, after 20 months on the campaign trail, Obama STILL cannot name a single item that he will cut. He continues to throw the suggestion that he will go line-by-line through the budget to cut programs that don't work, with no hint of what those might be.
McCain followed with a reminder about Obama's proposed $830 billion in new spending plans.
When told that the U.S. has the highest per-student cost for public education, Obama responded by stating that we need more money in education, standing steadfastly against any voucher program, despite McCain's claims that the voucher program in the Washington D.C. school system is popular and successful.
Obama's strongest point came when defending his healthcare plan, emphasizing that people will save more money on his plan than on McCain's. He is offering folks with no health insurance to sign up for the plan Congress has; he thinks that people should have the same healthcare as the legislators. Except, regular folks won't get it for free.When asked directly by McCain how much Obama would fine people who don't subscribe to his health insurance plan, Obama will still not tell us. Likely, because he doesn't want us to know!
While McCain did not sufficiently highlight Obama's associations with the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the vote-fraud campaign of the group ACORN, McCain did remind us all that Obama gave $832,000 from his campaign coffers to ACRON that has gone to fund the group's "get-out-the-vote" campaign -- an effort that has resulted in massive voter registration fraud. Obama never apologized or expressed regret for that donation (not to mention that he lied on his campaign finance reports about the donation), nor did he condemn their tactics.
However, Obama faltered on the topic of Supreme Court judges. When asked, McCain emphatically announced that he would have no "litmus test" for judicial nominees regarding the Roe v Wade abortion "rights" case, despite his feeling that the ruling should be overturned.
Obama, who supports pretty much every form of abortion -- including abortions paid for by the tax-payers, dodged the question, never answering the question. A clear indication that he would have a precondition for his judicial nominees.
And finally, finally (!!), McCain told Obama and all the Democrats that he is not, in fact, George Bush:
Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you want to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.
Throughout the night, as he has throughout his campaign, Obama continues to avoid discussing the details of his plans for the country, preferring instead to throw out the now-tired canard that we can't have the same failed policies and the same failed politics of the past eight years.
About the only thing certain that Obama will do is raise taxes. He told us last night that he doesn't "mind paying a little more (taxes)." I don't know about you, but I would rather spend my earnings on my family, not on Washington D.C.
McCain answered my concerns by demanding: "Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes."
Amen, Senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
