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.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
