Friday, October 31, 2008
Here's what was sent to me:
This guy never fails to come up with another view point at least worthy of reading, if nothing else. I will take all rebuffs in stride as I always do. I do not proclaim to agree or disagree, I am only passing on another persons point of view. Joe
Here's an interesting read I came across....
It has become knowledge to me after doing a little research but there is another candidate associated with terrorism other than Barack Obama being linked to domestic terrorism. It all starts in the 1980's during the republican Ronald Reagan/George H W Bush era. In the 1980's the then Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. The United States and the Republicans had decided to help the Afghan rebels fight off the Soviet Invasion by supplying them with weapons and money. One of the leaders of the rebels was of course, you guessed it, Osama Bin Ladin himself. The United States of America and the Republicans helped and was associated with terrorism. Not hard to believe once you understand that George H W Bush was also once head of the CIA. Bill Clinton in the 1990's was offered the 'head of Bin Ladin' but the Republicans refused to let that happen. Now in the new century Bin Ladin set into motion an attack on the United States on 9-11. Instead of going after Bin Ladin, we went after Sadam in Iraq. For what? For his father not completing the gulf war of course so this was a golden opportunity to go after someone who wasn't part of it and finish what George H W Bush should have done. Meanwhile for the last several years we were still promised the capture of Bin Ladin. You know, the one who the Republicans helped. Just a speculation but what if after all this we find out that the Republicans along with the CIA are still connected to Bin Ladin . Bin Ladin supplies us with information on terrorist cells that we go after and break up so that he can still stay free and alive. It's typical and even criminals do this during a plea bargain. They walk if they give valuable information. Republicans have a bad habit of making alliances with countries who want to harm us. Richard Nixon went to China, a communist country, and now look at us. We borrow money from them and are in debt to them by billions of dollars. Nixon opening up China to America has destroyed the values of our working lives and made our economy weaken to cheap labor and product. Meanwhile we are not allowed to go to Cuba thanks to a Democrat named John F Kennedy. He stood strong against Cuba and the Soviet Union. We haven't had a strong president stand strong against it's aggressors since he was in office. Just one failed presidency after another and more countries hating us due to bad foreign policy. I'm not saying who you should vote for but keep this in mind. We have failed has a nation and the presidency has failed us as well as the government. I do not feel any safer now than 8 years ago.
Kinda makes you think a little bit that it's true. We helped Bin Ladin. We made him into what he is. Remember this too. Dwight D Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant both 2 term republicans never served as a politician until becoming a president. Combined they actually have less experience than Obama has now. Scary and just in time for Halloween...Obama with little experience or McCain with republican ties to Bin Ladin.
Either way, the economy will be bad next year regardless of who's in office. It will be 4 years of McCain blaming the Democrats for a bad economy or 4 years of Obama being blamed by republicans saying see I told you so. Not enough experience. Either way it will be getting worse. Pick who lies the best. Who would you buy a car from.
I did read it, and I've heard this before. I agree that the US getting in bed with OBL was not the best of choices, but he hadn't done anything against us at that time. Reagan did order this, but he had a Dem. House and Senate, and they approved of it as well. We were fighting the "Cold War" at the time and helping the rebel fighters in Afghanistan was a major part of winning that war. At the time, OBL was not a threat to us or any western country.
There are a few blatant falsehoods in this opinion, namely that when Clinton was offered OBL's head the Republicans refused to let that happen? That's just not the way it happened. He had opportunities in Somalia, and Afghanistan, three different times, to either take him out or have him arrested after he was responsible for the first WTC bombing. He did not go along with it. But if George H.W. Bush would have been in there he would have taken the opportunity to take him out. Instead, we got the USS Cole, and two embassies bombed. And what did Clinton do, after he was finishing up in the little closet off the Oval Office, he sent cruse missiles to destroy some factories at night, and, with the help of his dundering Sec. of State, Madelyn Albright, telegraphed his strike in Afghanistan on some empty terrorist camps.
Then there is the fact that we didn't finish the first Iraq war. We did what the UN mandated, kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and rendered him and his army mute. If we would have gone in and occupied Baghdad we would have lost any credibility we had in the region, and would have gone against the UN's mandate. H.W. Bush did what he could to make Saddam piss his paints, but he wouldn't go against what the Congress authorized and what the UN stated. I won't argue the reasons for going into Iraq the second time, all-be-it to say that every intelligence agency in the world thought the same as we did. But we did go into Afghanistan first and put the Taliban and al-Qaida on the run. OBL may well be alive, but we are now striking the mountains in Pakistan and for all we know the man is dead. The whole, "informant" scenario is crap!
Going back to Nixon in China is lame, not worth commenting on.
The love affair with Kennedy has always struck me as odd, especially for the far left libs. If Kennedy was alive today and took the same positions as he did then, he wouldn't have anything to do with today's Democratic party. He cut taxes to grow revenue, he built up the military and pushed for the expansion of our influence around the world through benign means like the Peace Corp., but also through very covert means in the USSR and in Asia. He started us up in Vietnam. But he also bungled the "Bay of Pigs" operation which caused us to lose face in the western hemisphere and let communism take a foot-hold in central and south America. He was inspirational, but as an affective president, he was rather weak. It would have been much different if he would have lived, which I sure wish he would have. But we may have not made to the moon until we were in high school if he hadn't been assassinated. It brought the country together like no living president could have.
Finally, the reference to Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant. This guy thinks that because they didn't have much experience in "politics" that should let us have confidence in "the one"? These two generals did have something that BHO has none of, and that leadership creds. They both lead some of the most important military battles in the life of this great nation. Grant finally took the fight to the south and won the bloodiest war this county had and has ever seen, when it comes to American lives lost. And Eisenhower led the battle plan that ended the war in Europe, and was instrumental in the Marshal plan that rebuilt Europe after WWII. Comparing these men and their "lack" of political experience is a joke, or at least is should be.
These men accomplished great things, like saving this country and saving the world. What in the world has Obama done, not one thing worth a hoot. http://capmsblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/not-one-piece-of-major-legislation.html He's never lead anything of substance. He's never bucked up against his own party to make changes. He's just gone along for the ride, using anyone, and I mean anyone, to get ahead. When we helped the Afghani rebels fight the USSR, OBL was not our enemy, he hadn't done a thing against this country. Now, we hunt him and I would shoot him on the spot if I had the chance. But, again, he had done nothing to the US when we worked with him. On the other hand, a person that was responsible for bombing this country, the Capital, the Pentagon and the NYPD headquarters, was made a political ally of Mr. Obama. After knowing what this man did, no matter if he was 8 years old at the time, he should have denounced him as an enemy of the US, which he is still, and refused to associate himself with such a dirt bag. But what does he do, he saw an opportunity to advance in the slimy politics of Chicago and jumped in with both feet. He honored this man, Bill Ayres, with sitting on boards with him, starting his political career in this man's living room, and endorsing his books. He calls him, 'just someone that lives in my neighborhood", or as just an English teacher. I say, look at your friends and I'll show you your future, God help us if these kind of friends are around Obama, because what does that mean for our future.
This is a very scary Halloween indeed, with the fact of an Obamanation looming over our heads, a man without one accomplishment of weight, a man that has thrown everyone he knew under a bus after he got the nomination of his party, including his dying grandmother, and someone that wants to implement policies that will undercut the country and our economy much like the Dem icon, FDR did after a similar economic period in the past, I'd say "be afraid, be very afraid!" FDR's alphabet soup prolonged the "Great Depression" of the 30's until WWII brought us out. The rest of the world got out of it with in 3 years. We don't need another FDR, we need a leader, not someone that says things great, but someone that says and does great things. Obama is not a leader, he is not "the one" that will make this country great again. This country is great, and no president, or any government will make us great. WE THE PEOPLE will make this country great. As long as we believe in what our founding fathers set forth, a country of the people, by the people and for the people, we will be what they foresaw, a land where the inalienable rights that God provides us, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of our dreams can take place, and where the government will not get in our way of these rights.
Why is it that he thinks that he knows best, and the rest of us are too stupid to think for ourselves. Why is it the job of government to change our behavior, the market does that just fine. But using his logic, taxing something and making the price higher will drive down the use or consumption of that thing, why then or why does he want to tax the hell out of our incomes. Increasing taxes on capital gains and incomes will do two things, drive down the desire to trade stocks and sell things that might make profits and for many people, it will kill their desire to work that extra effort because more of that effort will go to fund more of the Obamanation B.S.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus ( a Clinton appointment) also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
A caller to Michael Medved explained "spreading the wealth around" to his high school daughter this way;
You work hard in your English class, making great grades, doing extra credit work to make sure you have an "A" average at the end of the grading period.
Then you get your report card and see that you got a "B" in your English class. You storm up to the teacher and ask how this could happen? She tells you that you did earn an "A" in the class, but there are other kids that were going to get "Ds" and "Fs" so in the spirit of "spreading the wealth around" she decided to give one of your letter-grades to someone that didn't earn a passing grade so they could pass. She was worried they would feel bad getting an "F".
Needless to say, the daughter thought this was very unfair and got angry even though it was just an example her dad put out there.
I figure, if there was one way to divide a country, it would be to take something away from one group of folks that earned it and give that something to some other folks that didn't earn it. Besides blatant racism, I can think of no other worse thing a country could do.
Subject: Redistribution Plan may take a while
Yesterday on my way to lunch with my husband, I passed one of the homeless guys in that area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." Once in the restaurant, my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful. As I got in my car, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn. Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, especially with those doing the work. But, hey, I'll keep trying to do my part.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Listening to this gives me chills. Not just about the "Redistribution of Wealth" factor, but his view on the courts and what kind of Federal Judges he will appoint. With his obvious contempt for the US Constitution, judges that have his view will rip apart the tenants that hold this country together.
- Private property - This is the foundation of Capitalism. Without Private Property Rights the people have no real power over the government. Seeing the softness currently in the courts and local governmental powers, it's hard not to think that this would only get worse with Obama appointees ruling over our private property.
- Family Laws - With gay rights advocates promoting same-sex marriage and special rights for same sex couples, the courts Obama would provide would certainly force this one down our throats.
- The ease of changing the courts - With a filibuster proof Senate, Obama will have no trouble putting radical, left-wing, write'n-laws-from-the-bench style judges in power over the Federal Courts. Harry Reid will do all he can to move them along and quell any decent in his own ranks, if there is any. Just think, would you want Reid, Pelosi and Biden as an appellate court concerning your private property? NOT ME!
Knowing the little we know about Obama, it seems that anyone with respect for the US Constitution and the true spirit of our Founding Fathers would have to at least give pause before pulling the lever for him. Everything that has made this country great he seems to be against. Capitalism, faith in society, respect for life, respect for private property, these are the "mistakes" he's talking about that we are still tied to.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
"Obama's plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under
Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP).iii The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000.
Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit."
How does he propose to lower taxes to this level, by just putting it on the back of the "rich" and cutting spending and finding "efficiencies". He proposes new spending, up to $1 trillion, and says that he will not bring in as much, hence shrinking government? When was the last time you saw a politician, let alone a Democrat, lower spending and shrink government? Never that's when.
He promises all this BS with no track record of ever doing any of it. He does have a track record of voting for higher taxes, and against tax cuts.
I'm in the business of making loans to folks. There are 5 things I look at when I underwrite a loan. The 5 "Cs" of credit. I will apply them to Senator Obama:
- Collateral - what is the asset that backs up the promise to repay. How does this apply to Sen. Obama? It is our country's assets, it's wealth, private property and our lives. It's great collateral for the right customer, lets see if he is;
- Credit - looking at someones past provides a very good predictor of future behaviour. So what has Obama done in the past that would make me feel he would keep his word. Not a damn thing! Like I said before, he has always supported tax increases, and voted against tax cuts. He also has a very thin credit report, with very little to hang a decision on;
- Capital - does he have the capital to invest in these programs? Sure, just print more, that's what we're doing now, and he voted for that and his programs and ideas laid out on his website show he wants to spend more than any president, ever!
- Capacity - Cash flow is what this is talking about, and again, his own plan states that he will cut more taxes for the lower 95% of tax payers than he will increases taxes on the "rich". So with that in mind, he fails this "C". It sounds like the guy that comes to his wife and says, "honey, I know I spent $2,500 for this flat screen TV, but is was on sale and I saved $500 bucks."
- Character - This is the one that, today with all of the impersonal contact lenders have, we use the least. But in this case we can see the character of Mr. Obama by looking at his friends. A good saying I go by is, "look at your friends and I'll show you your future." So looking at Mr. Obama's friends should tell us quite a bit about him. Bill Ayers, Rev. Write, ACORN, the list goes on and on. This tells me all I need to know about his view on America. And it tells me that his view is not mine or that of hardly anyone else I respect. Looking at how he speaks to different groups, telling them what he thinks they want to hear, reminds me of another Democrat that was shy on the "truthyness" factor. Former Pres. Clinton told everyone that he would cut taxes on the working class, and then, the first thing he did in office was pass the biggest tax increase in history. As the conservatives have always said, Character matters.
- My decision on Mr. Obama.......Request Denied!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
JACKSON ON OBAMA'S AMERICA Amir Taheri fills us in on what our favorite Reverend has been up to. Of course Jesse didn't want to have the American press around when he said what he did, so, he went where all good socialist go when they want to bash the U.S., France! Here are just a few choice words from Mr. Jackson:
"The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end."
"Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle. "
Humm, that's comforting!
"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."
This does explain a lot.
"Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."
Black Liberation Theology = Marxist Theology
"Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?
"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."
"...and a war that we have lost in Iraq." I guess Jesse's been in France a little too long, he must have missed the last 12 months news on Iraq about the surge, Oh wait, that's right, there was no news, according to our "Johnny on the spot" news reporters here in the states everything still sucks!
"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."
And talking with them is going to do that you say, err....How do you reason with someone that wants to kill you, and doesn't care if they die in the process?
For someone that wishes he had Obama's err...Acorns...in a specimen jar, he sure seems to like the man. Funny how he has to go to France to proclaim his friendship.
Monday, October 13, 2008
As Obama says that "they" are going to try to scare you saying 'he doesn't look like all those presidents on the dollar bills' and that "they" will tell you he has a funny name, or "they" will say 'he's black', No where, no where at all has this been said by McCain or Palin in their campaign. Some knuckle-heads in the audience may have said some dumb ass remarks but even McCain has come out and said Obama is a good man with different views.
Again, as I have said here in earlier posts, Obama is in this race for one reason and one only. Because he is a black man. One with a limited record that any one else would have looked at and, with any amount of humility, would have turned down his party's advances to run for the president of the United States.
The only people that are bringing up his race is his party and people in it that have used that tactic to browbeat any opposition in the past with the "racist" tag to shut them up. One of the best places to see the use of this tactic is Obama's old stomping grounds, ACORN. This was used by them to extort banks into making loans to folks that should have never gotten them. It was used by people in his own party to try to stifle former U.S. VP candidate Ms. Ferraro from stating just what I am saying. And the most recent use, Rep. John Lewis comparing the McCain campaign to Gov. George Wallace back in the 60's.
So Who's racist? America is almost evenly divided on Mr. Obama, with Gallup showing that 6% of voters have a problem with his race but 9% see it as a reason to vote for him. And the other 85% not giving a bat crap about his race. But when you go to the black voting block, 95% say they will vote for Obama. Again I ask, who is racist?
As always, I invite your comments and questions to any of what I have said here or in the past. I look forward to hearing from you.
10/17/2008, Charles Krauthammer's article also stating how Obama's campaign has been so good at race bating and calling out racism, even though there has been none. I'm glad to see that I'm ahead of the game.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
- Free Health Care
- Guaranteed Jobs
- Confiscate inherited wealth
- Spend vast sums on public education
- Purge the church from public policy
- Promote pagan spirituality
- Insert the authority of the state into every nook & cranny of daily life
- Declare war on smoking
- Support abortion and euthanasia and gun control
- Foment a loathing of the free market system
- Provide generous pensions for the elderly
- Maintain strict quota systems at universities
- Promote campus speech codes
- Insist on only organic farming
- Promote vegetarianism
- Give rights to animals
If all of this sounds a bit familiar, well maybe it should. Do these guys ring a bell?
Please read this book, Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and see that Obama is walking us down that same road. You can here it in his words, see it in his associates and feel it in the mania that is surrounding him.
After hearing all that ACORN has done, and is still doing to undermine the integrity of the election for president and any other election and their involvement in the mortgage crisis, siding with these folks is another sign that Obama's judgement is extremely poor and that he should not be allowed to be president. After reading the preceding postings, you can see that aliening himself with these radical groups shows his true intentions, a left-wing, socialist agenda of redistribution of wealth and government ownership of more and more of the wealth building industries in this country.
We're already going down this path with the current administration, and this will only give an Obama administration a pass to take this country down the socialist path at break-neck speed. Starting where we are now, with the banking industry, then the health care industry and then moving on to his favorite punching bag, the oil industry, then the auto industry, defence industry, and so on.
If anyone can't see this now then they have been at the Obama Kool-Aid bowl for far too long and will never see it. And I fear that that blue Kool-Aid has been, with the help of the lame-stream media, poured out over the vast majority of the voters, as seen in the poling data these last few weeks. How people think this man will take us down the road to a better country is beyond me. But, as George Carlin said, "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be in jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts. "Need a shirt anyone?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness."
"At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis."
"Critics of the notion that CRA had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN — and the critical years of 1990-1995. While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky."
"The Tribune went on to explain that House Democrat Henry Gonzales had announced that Fannie and Freddie had agreed to commit $3.5 billion to low-income housing in 1992 and 1993, in addition to a just-announced $10 billion “affordable housing loan program” by Fannie Mae. The article emphasizes ACORN pressure and notes that Fannie and Freddie had been fighting against the plan as recently as a week before agreement was reached. Fannie and Freddie gave in only to stave off even more restrictive legislation floated by congressional Democrats."
"At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade."
I could quote all day from this article but just go and read it, it's worth your time.