From the Right

Observing my upside down America

Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

From Clown Cars to Moon Shots

with one comment

The other day, a friend of mine asked me what I thought of Dr. Benjamin Carson. For those who don’t know, Dr. Carson is a retired and rather famous neurosurgeon. He recently addressed the National Prayer Breakfast where he made news for his criticism of Mr. Obama’s policies in general and specifically, for Obama Care. You can read the story here where there is a video of Dr. Carson’s speech.
Clown-Car
I told my friend that I like Carson’s point of view. He shows he is willing to go toe-to-toe with Obama’s principles. However, at the end of the day, he’s a doctor. He knows not of the ways of politics and campaigning and it may eat him. Time will tell.

My friend then asked what I thought about him forming a third party.

I am no fan or supporter of a 3rd party system, no matter who steps up to form one. We should instead learn the lesson taught us by recent history when Ross Perot split the vote away from George H. W. Bush and allowed Bill Clinton to win. It’s a losing proposition.

Instead, we should concentrate on how to reconstitute the Republican Party which has allowed itself to be undercut and discredited by the left. The GOP has been a dismal failure on commanding the national dialog and delivering a message that can garner votes.

In addition, there is a bigger problem working against the GOP. Simply put, America has been subverted. That process has produced several generations of voters who believe they have a right to access to the treasury. From that same pool come the politicians who also believe they have that right. The GOP has a long and bumpy road ahead of it.

It was at this point I began to tell my friend about a recent article written by David A. Stockman. Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985 and the author, most recently, of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.” Mr. Stockman’s piece was very well written and also garnered some criticism from both the left and the right. The piece describes the current state of America, how we got that way and offers a remedy for our financial and political systems because these systems are indeed wrecked. Stockam’s point is that if we’re going to get anything done, it’s going to ….

… require a drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending.

It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms.

It would require, finally, benching the Fed’s central planners, and restoring the central bank’s original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism.

As it turns out, this the the very issue that I have been rattling around in my head for awhile now, and it relates to my current vision of America as being a clown car aimlessly bouncing around in the desert, changing direction on every impact of a rock or armadillo. The issue takes the form of a few simple questions; “Where do we want America to be in 20-50 years? What should our priorities be and how do we get there when we change captains every 4-8 years? ” Remember, it took a mere 40 years to get where we are today. We should be looking for answers to these questions and if we’re going to solve the problems facing us we are going to need a national policy that takes on characteristics of a moon shot.
MoonShot

Written by Ben

April 7, 2013 at 9:46 am

Voting with their feet – 2010 Census shows failure of Democrat Party Policies

leave a comment »

What the 2010 Census Is Telling Us

The results of the U.S. 2010 census have been published and it shows the growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The declining U.S. growth rate since 2000 is due partly to the economic meltdown in 2008, which brought U.S. births and illegal immigration to a near standstill compared with previous years.

The 2010 census also shows the population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states.

Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.

Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The 2010 census results are used to distribute more than $400 billion in annual federal aid and will change each state’s Electoral College votes beginning in the 2012 presidential election. The population shift will affect 18 states when the 113th Congress takes office in 2013.

For the first time in its history, Democratic-leaning California will not gain a House seat after a census.

States carried by Barack Obama VS states carried by John McCain

In 2008, President Barack Obama lost in Texas and most of the other states that are gaining House seats. He carried most of the states that are losing House seats, including Ohio and New York. In all, those that voted for Barack Obama will get half a dozen less. States that voted for John McCain in 2008 will get 6 more electoral votes in 2012 .

Looking back to the previous election, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.

Big Gains For Texas and More Lessons About Taxes

Texas’ population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

Growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

The Biggest Loser, Detroit Michigan – the showcase for leftist policies

The 2010 census shows Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade having lost .06% of its population since 2000. This report helps to explain why.

The loss means that in 2012 there will be one less lawmaker fighting for the state. It also means less money for statewide federal programs like cash assistance, education, childcare, and health care. It is without doubt that a liberal will tell you it is a time when they need the handouts the most.

Nevada gains but may lose

The state with the largest population growth was Nevada with just over 35%. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped author and then ram-rod the Health Care bill through congress, hails from Nevada. It will be interesting to see what the 2020 census will show for this state.

States with net gain in congressional seats:

* Texas, plus 4 (from 32 to 36)
* Florida, plus 2 (from 25 to 27)
* Arizona, plus 1 (from 8 to 9)
* Georgia, plus 1 (from 13 to 14)
* Nevada, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* South Carolina, plus 1 (from 6 to 7)
* Utah, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* Washington, plus 1 (from 9 to 10)

States with net loss in congressional seats:

* New York, minus 2 (from 29 to 27)
* Ohio, minus 2 (from 18 to 16)
* Illinois, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)
* Iowa, minus 1 (from 5 to 4)
* Louisiana, minus 1 (from 7 to 6)
* Massachusetts, minus 1 (from 10 to 9)
* Michigan, minus 1 (from 15 to 14)
* Missouri, minus 1 (from 9 to 8 )
* New Jersey, minus 1 (from 13 to 12)
* Pennsylvania, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)

Written by Ben

December 22, 2010 at 5:28 pm

Bush Bashing Media Engine Continues to Support Obama

with 2 comments

First, a couple of jokes

President Bush goes into a library. “I would like a cheeseburger and fries,” he says in a loud, clear voice.”
“But sir,” says the assistant, “this is a library.”
“Gee, I’m sorry,” says Bush, and whispers very quietly, “I’d like a cheeseburger and fries.”

Change We Can Believe In

Obama campaigned for the presidency with a sweeping promise of “change we can believe in” and entered office with America in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and with the nation at war on two fronts. It is a time when America is at one of the most challenging junctures in modern American history.

However, since his inauguration, confidence in this president has been fading – and fading fast.

Six months into his term, a July 2009 Rasmussen Poll showed just 30 percent of the nation’s voters “strongly approve” of Mr. Obama’s job performance while 40 percent “strongly disapprove” of the president’s performance.

An October 2009 Gallup Poll recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April. It is worst poll rating drop in 50 years.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.”

Jones continued, “Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

President Obama is also facing criticism from the right for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

In a speech given at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, Vice-President Dick Cheney accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger” .

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.” – Vice-President Dick Cheney

Cheney further criticized Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.” – Vice-President Dick Cheney

Former Bush deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said, “For a guy who campaigned on taking responsibility and looking forward, he spends an awful lot of time pointing fingers and looking backward.”

Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon defends their Bush bashing and believes things are better now than they have been.

“I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since ’07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it? Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months.” – Liz Chadderdon

While he asserts his responsibility for addressing the nation’s problems, Mr. Obama manages to highlight that he was left to deal with others’ missteps.

At a July 2009 town-hall meeting in Michigan — the state with the nation’s highest jobless rate — Mr. Obama said that fixing the economy is “a job I gladly accept.”

But he added, “I love these folks who helped get us in this mess. And then suddenly say, ‘Oh, this is Obama’s economy.’ ”

Wrapped in controversy, Bush’s support of TARP legislation averted a full-blown economic melt-down but Obama wants to take the credit and often claims Bush let the economy burn, despite evidence to the contrary.

While Bush didn’t compel Obama to spend money nearly as fast as it could be printed, or roughly double the projected debt over the next decade, Obama continues to blame Bush for the $1.42 trillion dollar deficit. Obama’s motto: “Stop Bush – before he makes me spend again!”

As expected, the nation’s press levied this list of criticisms over his drunken spending habits.

New Orleans who? What’s a New Orleans?

After Obama’s recent trip to the Gulf Coast regions which are still wrestling with Katrina’s aftermath, a few Gulf Coast newspapers and politicians were a bit miffed about the shortness of his visit.

The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune : “That’s it?”

The Picayune’s Jonathan Tilove : “Say what you will about former President George W. Bush and his administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath — the man knew how to put together a post-Katrina White House visit to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. “They were exhaustive, exhausting, sun-up-to-sundown, sometimes multiday and multistate affairs.”

Mississippi’s Sun Herald : “Why are we invisible?”

Fellow Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu : “If this visit is too brief, it will not afford the president the opportunity to see firsthand the impact that an effective and committed administration can have on rebuilding neighborhoods and communities.”

Obama’s day began with a visit to the Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School in New Orleans’s Lower Ninth Ward. In the afternoon, he held a brief town hall meeting at the University of New Orleans Lakefront campus.

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city. As president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the city, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic National Committee fundraiser. The press had this to say about his disappearing act.

Obama Shirks Meeting with The Dalai Lama – Fears Angering China

When President Barack Obama decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington in the first week of October 2009, analysts are sensing the rebuff is related to the $8 billion U.S. Treasury debt held by the Chinese government, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. Obama clearly sees his ability to continue to finance his deficit spending is tied directly to keeping China as happy as a Panda.

It was the first time since 1991 that the Dalai Lama has come to Washington and not met with the U.S. president.

Co-chairman of the Congressional Tibet Caucus, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), blasted “the administration’s unwillingness to meet with an internationally respected human rights leader in order to placate Chinese tyrants.”

“The U.S. has permitted China to have a one-way free-trade policy for decades, and now we are not only suffering the serious economic damage caused by that policy; we are finding ourselves politically vulnerable to a regime that is the world’s worst human rights abuser,” — Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)

After awarding Obama with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, and in a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought.

Obama’s War with Fox News

There are those on the left who claim that Fox News is operating as a radio show outlet, not a news organization. Several top White House advisers have gone on other channels to criticize Fox News’ coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station.

On October 20, 2009, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said White House officials

“render (that) opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.”

But asked how Fox News was different from other news organizations, Gibbs mentioned the channel’s 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, in an explicit reference to “Beck” and “Hannity” — even though those two shows represent opinion programming.

Informed that those hours are for opinion programming, Gibbs said:

“That is our opinion.”

While the left may rejoice and find Obama’s tactic on target, Obama is going down a slippery slope. He is breaking a bit of new ground by focusing upon negative opinion about the effectiveness of his policies and attempts to marginalize the news outlet by claiming it isn’t a legitimate news organization.

Obama’s tactic removes all moral ground to stand upon which allows the left to complain if the next Republican president attempts to marginalize MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, et. al. simply because they disagree with opinion.

Obama’s behavior is childish, but it is to be expected from an inexperienced, untested, under-qualified yet glorified community organizer clueless about what it means to actually act like a president of the United States. Being president comes with some awesome challenges. So far, Obama demonstrates an inherent inability to meet and rise above those challenges.

Of a larger concern, if Obama cries foul over a little negative opinion and threatens to take his ball and go home like some school child, how will he behave when the going really gets tough with his failing foreign policies?

If the Bush Administration had declared a war upon the Liberal Media, we would never hear the end of it. The Liberal Media would make sure of that.

“If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened? That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.” — Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large, San Francisco Chronicle.

The True Colors of the Nation’s Media

Bush was frequently criticized for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House, the number of executive orders which pale in number compared to the pile already assembled by Obama and spending too much time on his bike.

How does Obama get away unscathed? Simple, while Obama continues with his Bush bashing campaign, the press is more than willing to oblige him. The Liberal Media Machine, aided by George Soros remains “in the tank” for Obama. What used to be Bush’s loudest critics are now Obama’s biggest supporters.

Apparently, the 500 pound gorilla is getting too big to ignore. Media observers have noted the president gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left, such as Media Matters and MoveOn.org.

While Bush was characterized by the press as being a Big Business Republican who “drove daddy’s car the White House”, stories about secret energy meetings and his lack of oratory skills, the press was all too willing to reinforce the image of a backward country bumpkin with ties to evil Halliburton over and over again and the “bots” on the left willingly drank the kool aide.

The press continues to paint Obama with a positive brush despite the fact that Obama is a empty suit, however, Saturday Night Live says what the media won’t.

Obama Defends Himself While The Press Feigns Criticism

President Barack Obama has been in office just nine months and already he is aggressively defending his legacy against criticism of his record on health care, climate change, closing Guantanamo, reforming immigration laws and financial regulations and his mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan.

“There’s an aspect of the campaign that’s all about projecting our hopes and our dreams and it’s full of excitement, and now we’re in governing mode, and governing is always tough because there are conflicting interests. Things take time, people argue. Our problems won’t be solved overnight, especially problems that grew over the course of decades.” — Barack Obama, at October 2009 fundraiser for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

At another fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama said he doesn’t mind cleaning up the mess Republicans left. “But I don’t want the folks who made the mess to sit there and say, you’re not mopping fast enough,” Obama says. “I want them to grab a mop!”

In the last week of October 2009, when Obama appeared at yet another fundraiser (YAFuR) in New York, a crowd of several thousand Obama supporters were chanting “Grab a mop!” a reference to his campaign mantra, “Yes, we can!”.

In spite of the fact that some Democrats are finding the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach, the New York Times’s idea of criticism is to note that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.” This piece of dazzling journalism represents yet another outstanding example of the dynamic and weighty investigative reporting for which the Times is best known.

Read more about the MOP here.

Written by Ben

October 28, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Posted in Barack Obama, Politics

Tagged with ,

Obama’s Afghanistan

leave a comment »

Obama is a politician. As such he should keep an eye on political goals. He should also be listening to General McChrystal more and talking less.

If Obama’s political goal is to defeat the Taliban and deny Al Qaeda a safe haven then Obama should have decided last week to give what McChrystal requests.

If Obama’s political goal is to cut and run then he needs to be talking to America to explain to us why the next attack on America won’t be coming from the same place which gave us 9/11 i.e. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The fate of Pakistan is with Afghanistan

As with the rest of the Western world, Pakistan has a stake in the Taliban problem. If Pakistan aids and harbors the terrorists in her country then that makes her an enemy of just about every civilized country on this rock. If not, then her responsibility is to destroy the Taliban for her own sake – if she has the political will. That is yet to be seen.

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are up against an ideology which threatens to overthrow their respective government. If Afghanistan should fall to the Taliban which gives Al Qaeda a safe haven of operations, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is at risk of falling into their hands. To then allow Pakistan to fall to the Taliban and Al Qaeda is insane. Aside from the U.S., India would be getting extremely nervous. Now it has escalated.

Under this scenario, the U.S. policy is to move in to secure the nukes. Whether or not we can secure them, the world (actually the U.S. because the world does not really seem to want to get involved with this) still has a problem with a country governed by the Taliban who now possibly possess a warhead. It is a condition which is not acceptable.

So tell me, what do we do with this problem? Do we stick our heads in the sand and hope these bastards forget their idea of Islamic domination at any cost? Do we cut and run away from the problem and allow it to escalate ? Remember their agenda includes the destruction if Israel.

A world vision

In a region of dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies with a foot in tribal law maybe a having a few democracies in the region is overdue.

At the end of the argument it boils down to knowing what kind of world we want. If we want a world with rogue states such as Syria, N.Korea and Iran who threaten the world nations who threaten nations with being “wiped off the map” then fear, uncertainty and doubt will rule the day. If we want a world with a stable future then we must get involved.

I agree, it’s ugly. But we cannot afford to sit on our hands and hope for the best.

No amount of law enforcement on the ground will prevent a freighter from quietly slipping into Boston harbor with a nuke on board.

Obama is too inexperienced in foreign affairs

Obama is dangerously over his head on this issue. He seems to be more comfortable dealing with controversial domestic issues than listening to the expert advice of General McChrystal.

At the end of the president’s Denmark trip to make his pitch for the Chicago Olympics Obama met with Gen. McChrystal. Our commander in Afghanistan was summoned from London and got 25 minutes of face time with the commander-in-chief.

That’s it — 25 minutes on the plane for the man Obama picked to lead 68,000 troops and rescue a war he calls one of “necessity.” Compare that to the 14 hours or so Obama wasted flying and speaking about the Olympics, and you get a snapshot of a president off course.

To date, Obama has given more time considering what kind of dog to buy.

If he continues to drag his feet on this issue the problem will evolve into the failure McChrystal is trying to prevent. I’d wager then Obama will blame McChrystal for it.

Meanwhile, Israel is getting nervous over Iran’s pursuit of nukes. What do yo want to bet that after Israel attacks those facilities, Obama throws Israel under the bus?

Newt Gingrich “gets it”:

“I think those of you who care about civil liberties had better be thinking through how we win this war before the (civilian) casualties get so great that the American people voluntarily give up a lot of those liberties.” – Speech at the National Press Club, Aug. 7, 2007

Written by Ben

October 5, 2009 at 10:59 am

Maybe the Dems should take a lesson from Hillary…

leave a comment »

… or maybe the Dems should just take a pill… er.. poll…. uh, pill. Aw, hell.

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.’ “

I’d bet Hillary never thought her comments could apply very well to these Americans who are genuinely concerned for their well-being.

This concern is born from years of observing a government with an abismal track record of running Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the Postal Service, just to name a few.

Has anyone noticed these angry dissenters are not rolling over cars and torching them? Has anyone noticed the store fronts are not being vandalized? Has anyone noticed how old this group is? They’ve been around awhile. They understand how government works. They’ve had a taste of the broken Medicaid and Medicare system.

To be clear, what America is arguing about is less to do with getting a national health care plan and more to do with what’s in this ill-conceived version of a health care plan and the intrusion into our medical lives. … and deaths.

Let’s do this; let’s first get congress and federal employees off their private health care plans which are heavily subsidized by American taxpayers. They have a choice of 10 health care plans that provide access to a national network of doctors as well as several HMOs that serve each member’s home state. By contrast 85 percent of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees only one type of plan. Take it, or leave it.

Until we get congress to eat the same dog food they serve us, they will never empathize with the under-insured or those lacking insurance. They will never see the need to read the bills they pass for the rest of the country to live and die by while they enjoy their own enhanced health care package at our expense.

American tax payers spent $15-billion in 2008 to insure 8.5 million federal workers.

Then, instead of passing bills they never read, maybe we should get our elected officials to dig into the hospital system and investigate $20.00 aspirin tablets or $700.00 per day hospital bed costs.

In other words, let’s get government to clean up the crap they created, make it work as intended in the first place, learn from it, then come back and talk about incremental change which builds a sensible national health care plan Americans can live with.

Written by Ben

August 11, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Hugo Chavez did it. Will Obama and his minions do it ?

leave a comment »

Venezuela’s socialist leader Hugo Chavez cuts off radio broadcasters.

Hugo Chavez cut over-the-air transmission of 23 radio stations on the morning of August 1, 2009. Demonstrations occurred outside of Caracas broadcast station CNB 102.3 FM, and is now transmitting only over the Internet.

Chavez said Saturday that he approved the telecommunications agency’s decision to shut down radio stations ruled to be operating illegally.

“We’re applauding Diosdado for the decision he has made to take back these stations for the people,” Chavez said, referring to agency chief Diosdado Cabello.

Chavez said previously that the revoked licenses could be given to broadcasters who share his socialist vision.

Is a comeback of the Fairness Doctrine in store for America?

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

Written by Ben

August 2, 2009 at 5:47 pm

How to unelect a Governor

leave a comment »

There is a tactic being applied designed to usurp the will of the people. It is both simple yet effective. It is the tactic of litigating an elected official out of office.

There is an independent investigator who has accused Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of violating state ethics laws. The interesting part is that he is a major donor to the Democratic Party as well as a partner in a law firm that represented Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Thomas Daniel was hired by the Alaska Personnel Board in late April to investigate several complaints against Palin, including one filed by an Alaska resident who claims the governor used her official position for personal gain by authorizing the creation of a trust to use as her legal defense fund.

Palin’s supporters say the governor, who will resign on Sunday, needs the legal fund because of a quirk in Alaska law that prevents state officials from defending the state’s chief executive against ethics allegations.

“The whole situation is nuts,” said John Coale, a prominent Washington attorney who helped set up the legal fund, which so far has accepted $500,000 in donations. “Alaska has an ethics law that is unsustainable.”

Coale also accused the personnel board of being “either vicious or idiotic” to hire Daniel, whose law firm is closely tied to the Democratic Party.

This should serve to make all of us livid, but it escapes most people.

What amazes me about the “Let’s Bash Palin” crowd is the attraction to the minutia and lack of ability to stop consuming the pablum and gaze upon the bigger picture.

It’s clear to me that the majority of voting Americans are easily tempted and fooled by slick speaking car salesmen only to discover that after they get into office they deliver us into ruin the likes of which this country has never seen.

Like Palin, Bush was vilified for the lack of oratory skills and his mannerisms. Compared to what we now have, I’d go for an honest speaking common American without charm and charisma in a heart-beat.

A missed opportunity

leave a comment »

Jews aren’t the only segment of American society concerned about Barack Obama and his apparent willingness to throw Israel under the bus. This American is concerned that after Israel, he may throw America under that same bus.

I rest at night (albeit lightly) only because I gain a little bit of peace from the fact I did not vote for Barack Obama. My reasons for not voting for him comes more from personal efforts to do a little bit of research about him during the early days of his campaign and less from sound-bites provided by TV and radio. This research, coupled with a willingness to let the facts speak for themselves allowed me to assess his character and values as many know them to be today – only after the election.

My findings allowed me to see him as the socialist many are only now calling him. I saw a man whose character and values were formed and influenced by a 20+ year association with the Rev. Wright, an obvious racist and anti-Semitic, along with Bill Ayers and others of his ilk who harbor anti-American sentiment.

His background and early upbringing have given me cause to suspect his allegiance to America. This has since become painfully clear after hearing his recent speeches given abroad.

His experience with and knowledge of fiscal matters is showing to be abundantly weak. The motley collection comprising his cabinet have roots in Chicago politics and are tainted by the same. There have been jokes made of the fact that some members of his cabinet avoided paying taxes only to have them miraculously paid once they had been selected for the cabinet position. This has been drolly described as Obama’s earliest efforts in fiscal responsibility. To date, it’s been his best shot at it.

I could go on describing the weaknesses of this president including his naivete on foreign matters which will undoubtedly serve to be dangerous for America, but I will instead point to a missed opportunity for a great op-ed piece which can be read here. http://www.afa.net/youscareme.asp

In the end, it should be clear that we can never take our awesome responsibility to vote lightly; that our vote carries with it supreme consequences. It should also be clear that we have repeated history here.

We have rushed headlong for change, anxious to distance ourselves from a president who guided America out from the shadows of the events of September 11, 2001, only to be placed under a darker shadow of fiscal disaster for the nation.

One only has to look back upon the Ford-Carter election of 1976 and to reflect upon the psyche of America in the wake of Watergate to learn we have missed yet another opportunity to prevent history from repeating itself.

Live and learn can’t even be applied.

Written by Ben

June 15, 2009 at 6:25 pm

The torture debate is gonna kill us.

leave a comment »

This post could also have been titled “And the band plays while we sink.”

This “debate” amazes me.

On one end we have Islam and its fascist ideology which turns its followers into drones who can’t wait to blow themselves up while taking scores of people with them. All in the name of Allah. Wow.

On the other end we have tyrants and insane leaders such as Kim Jong-il who seem to have no qualms about starting a nuclear war with South Korea, Japan and America. Along with him we have President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who describes the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews as a “myth”, and states that Israel should be wiped off the map. He has said on several occasions he envisions that to destroy Israel it would require perhaps only two well-placed nuclear warheads inside its borders. Awesome.

Meanwhile the U.N. seems to believe we can turn off their nuclear programs with a few well-written resolutions. The naivety is not amusing, it’s dangerous for the world – just as Obama’s is.

Somehow we have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the real threat. We appear to have this delusion that we can sit down face-to-face with Kim and Mahmoud and convince them we can play nice with each other if they would only put down their arms and change their ways of looking at the world. We have the same delusion with Islam; that it’s just another religion and we’re only dealing with a few David Koresh style fanatics in their ranks. We have failed to understand what it is we are actually dealing with which is an ideology with the goal of creating an Islamic world.

So while we seem willing to ignore the realities of the world we live in, we get all high and mighty and engage in a self-defeating debate of how to deal with the sub-human animals harboring a death wish for Americans and who would dance with glee while beheading your sister – but only after repeatedly raping her.

This ain’t dancing with the stars. This is for real boys and girls. These people want to kill us and America hasn’t the stomach to deal with them in the only way they understand and respect.

My only hope is that America wakes up to the realities of what we’re dealing with. To do that we have to put down the idea we can just walk up to one of our captives, hand him a cookie and a glass of milk while asking him nicely where he placed the bomb with the hope he tells us before it goes off.

My other hope is the if the bomb does go off, it strikes a personal chord with those who believe we can do so.

Written by Ben

May 30, 2009 at 10:27 am

Posted in Barack Obama, Politics

Tagged with

The thought police are coming – again.

leave a comment »

The fairness doctrine – the initiative which required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues – was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987. However, if Barack Obama has his way, it could come back in another form.

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. “According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral,” he said.

For anyone out there who is not aware of the arrival of America’s version of Tass or Pravda consult the following links on the topic.

FCC’s McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine.

Lynn Woolley: Obama’s planned assault on talk radio

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

Written by Ben

May 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Doing the moonwalk

leave a comment »

On Iraq Withdrawl

Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would “Refine” His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground.

In July 2008, Barack Obama Said He Will Continue To “Refine” His Iraq Policy. Obama: “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed…And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.” (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama: Open to ‘Refine’ Iraq Withdrawal Timeline,” The New York Times’ “The Caucus”

On Military Tribunals

The tribunal system — set up after the military began sweeping detainees off the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001 — has been under repeated challenges from human rights and legal organizations because it denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom.

In February 2008, during his presidential campaign, Obama described the Guantanamo trials as “a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict any one of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges.” Critics, including many Democrats, cited the tribunals in assailing Bush, who had pushed Congress to create the system. They accused him of violating U.S. law by limiting the detainees’ legal rights.

President Obama’s decision to re-institute the military tribunals has raised questions about whether any can be held at Guantanamo Bay prison which is scheduled to be closed in January.

The Obama administration won’t say which of the 241 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison will be tried before the commission. Only some of trials will occur at Guantanamo partly because the president is still committed to closing the prison next January.

On Releasing Detainee Photos

Citing concerns over how the release of photos depicting detainees might affect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration is signaling it will retract its promise to allow the photos to be released.

Naive and Dangerous

Obama has flip-flopped on several issues and it indicates what I already know; he is very naive and consequently, very, very, dangerous.

Has miscalculation on these issues demonstrates a fundamental failure to grasp the politics and the consequences of his position. When the big decision comes, when it will effect all of us personally, I fear he will again miscalculate.

America needs to wake up and take the process of electing our leaders a bit more seriously. This is not America’s Idol. This is for real.

Written by Ben

May 15, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Posted in Barack Obama, Politics

Tagged with ,

$100 Million in savings!! Wowsers!!!!

with one comment

I know that $100 million dollars is a lot of money, but when you compare that against the pile it came from, it is a mere pittance.

Obama's idea of saving.

So which should make me the most angry about this? Is it the fact that Obama did not try to save us from a mountain of debt by taking a bigger budget cut? Or, should I be angry at the fact that I’m expected to be satisfied and grateful with this symbolic effort to reduce the size of the colossal budget, and in so doing, realizing that I and every other thinking American are begin played as an idiot.

Written by Ben

May 7, 2009 at 5:33 pm

A bill to let Big Government set your salary

leave a comment »

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.” And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

Full story here

Ed:  This change thing is fricking awesome.

Written by Ben

March 31, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Who benefits from this meltdown?

leave a comment »

Since 1989, Rep. Frank has received $42,350 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Senator Reid has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Dodd has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any other Member of Congress. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Carper has received $55,889 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

In just four years, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has received $126,349 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any Member of Congress except for Sen. Dodd. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has received $111,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has received $76,050 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) has received $51,750 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Comparing the Candidates platform and the role of a V.P.

leave a comment »

As a voting American I am faced with a choice between the candidates which our two-party system has presented.  If I want a stake in the course my country takes I have to decide to vote for one or the other.  Staying home on November 4 is also an option, but then I will have no right to complain about the things I disagree with.  In the meantime I will compare the  accomplishments of one candidate against the accomplishments of the other. When I do, the merits of each become self-evident.

If I leave the emotion out of it and examine the policies of each candidate based solely upon their own words and not the words of political analysts or pundits or the opinions of others on the street then I believe I will be using the right process to make the best possible choice – not for me, but for my country.  If I can believe that my country provides the best possible economic environment and adopts policies which allows for its economy to thrive and to endure the bad times by enabling its people then the rest should take care of itself.

There are some people who were going to vote for McCain but then decided not to strictly because McCain chose Sarah Palin as a running mate.  It is difficult for me to fathom the decision making process behind it.  In the final analysis I believe such a decision is driven by emotion.  If it’s driven by intellect it either ignores the established role of the V.P. or is a failure to understand it.  It also ignores history. For some reason there is a belief the V.P. choice makes all the difference in the world when it comes to making policy and deciding America’s course.

Let’s look at the history.  What is the legacy of Carter’s V.P. choice which we still contend with today?  Do you even know the name of who he/she was? What is the legacy of Gore, Quayle, Bush Sr., Mondale, etc. which we can examine to help us determine if, in the end, it actually matters?  What will be the lagacy of Dick Cheney which America will feel the effects of years after he leaves office? What will be his lasting impact?

If we are going to be concerned with people whose decisions will impact America then we only have to look to another female for a proper perspective. By comparison she not only has more chance of changing our country than Sarah Palin ever will – Nancy Pelosi will make a lasting impact.  As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi determines which issues Congress will focus upon and then vote on.  She decides the content and schedule.  If she disagrees with a bill – for any reason, petty or otherwise – it will not see the light of day.  Good or bad, we will be dealing with Nancy Pelosi’s legacy for many, many years.

I have to admit, getting people to fret over and to focus upon John McCain’s choice for V.P. is a clever ruse which diverts us from the real issues.

Sort of like that ol’ Jedi mind trick.

Who’s fooling who?

Written by Ben

November 1, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Whose legacy do we want to undo?

with 2 comments

When I look at the planks in each of the platforms from which we have to chose, it quickly becomes clear which of the two our country can best tolerate and at the end of the 4 years, will have less of a legacy to undo.

It’s about the country – not what government promises to do for me. I will do for me if the government will get out of my way and let me have the opportunities to do it. I do not need for the government to dip into my pocket any more than it already does and to give it to whom they deem worthy of what was mine.

If I took the attitude which Obama and his ilk wants me and the rest of the country to warm up to I would have taken the candy from each one of the Trick-or-Treaters who knocked on my door last night instead of giving them any. Better yet, I should have taken candy from one kiddos bag and given it to the other standing next to them. Boy – I can almost see the expressions on their faces now.

I will keep my money, my guns and my freedom. The Dems can keep their change.

Vote for the country’s sake.

Report: Secret Service Says ‘Kill Him’ Allegations at Palin Rally Unfounded

leave a comment »

A Secret Service agent called charges that a man yelled “kill him” in reference to Barack Obama during a Sarah Palin rally “unfounded” .

The summary of the story goes as follows: After an October 14, 2008 Sarah Palin rally the Scranton Times reported that “one man” in the audience yelled something offensive and incendiary. The story reports there were remarks of “terrorists”, “kill him” and “off with his head”.

This was the basis for Representative John Lewis’s remarks which accused Mr. McCain of race-baiting and xenophobia. Mr. Lewis’s remarks referenced earlier years in America and recalled events of mob lynchings, churches being torched and deaths. In essence, Mr. Lewis pointed an accusing finger at Mr. McCain to label him as an unabashed racist.

The accusation advanced by Mr. Lewis is intellectually putrid. Mr. Lewis judges John McCain and Sarah Palin to be guilty by association to a single audience member, a stranger who harbors ill-will. Mr. Lewis holds Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin personally responsible. It is hard for me to understand how Mr. Lewis got to be where he is by being so obtuse, but there is a part of me that wants to point to affirmative action, but I won’t; that would be “wrong”.

If this wasn’t enough to enrage any thinking American wanting nothing more for his country than righteousness and fairness there is now a new element of this story to ponder.

The FBI got involved. Threats of the nature reported by the story are not ignored by the FBI. They did their job to discover the truth and to possibly bring charges against these radicals. (I will even call them terrorists.) People like this who seek to cripple our political process and to injure and kill need to be put in jail. Rightly so.

However, there is a problem. The FBI interviewed their own agents to discover what they may have heard. They stand and mingle among the people in and around the audience. They are alleged to be everywhere. Certainly they would have heard these reported remarks and would have converged on the idiot(s) to be shepherded away for questioning. The agents heard nothing. The FBI also interviewed other members of the rally with the same result. It appears no one heard the reported remarks. The FBI then interviewed reporter David Singleton / STAFF WRITER who is the only one to have heard and reported the alleged remarks emanating from the audience. All he can say is that he heard it… allegedly.

The FBI’s investigation is on-going. As it looks now the reporter “invented” the incident and placed it into his story. At best, it was dishonest. At worst, sinister.

So – there we have it.

  • We have the press injecting into their reporting lies and falsehoods designed to do what, incite? agitate? slander? victimize? influence thinking? This is not only wrong – it is dangerous to this country and to her people.
  • We have Mr. Lewis who then used the mainstream press to launch emotionally loaded swill against Mr. McCain and his campaign and to call him a racist and agitator wanting to herald in the dark days of an earlier America. It is presented to America as if it were fact. (Meanwhile, we cannot get a valid birth certificate of Mr. Obama. Even as I write this there are investigators in Hawaii who are not being allowed to put down their 10 dollar fee to acquire a public document recording Mr. Obama’s birth. In fact, it is Mr. Obama who is denying their access to it. What on earth is there on a birth certificate that is so sensitive that Mr. Obama does not want anyone to see? )
  • We have the press eager to advance the reporter’s fabricated event as fact at a time when Americans are getting set to cast their vote for the man who will occupy the most powerful seat in government, yet we cannot get the press to even adequately dig into Mr. Obama’s associations with William Ayers, Acorn, his associations with officials in pre-meltdown Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or to even report on where Mr. Obama was born.

Don’t look now, but the press is attempting to employ that old Jedi Mind Trick, waiving their hand across our collective faces and uttering “These aren’t the issues you are looking for. Move along.”

The liberals should be as concerned. They should know that if the press can skew stories in such a way as to paint a group of Americans in a certain light they should know that it can happen to them, too. Ah, but the press is staffed with people of the same ilk, so we know that can not happen.

If the press did their job, they would have discovered the truth as did the FBI but like so many times before, the press fails the people…. intentionally.

There is a double standard flowing through our mainstream media. It is fomented by ABC, CBS, NBC, MS-NBC, PBS (funded with tax dollars), The New York Times, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Harold, et. al. Some of us know about this double standard while others choose to ignore or deny its very existence. Some of us know it has existed in this country for a long, long, time.

And the beat goes on.

Written by Ben

October 17, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Representative John Lewis reaction to McCain campaign “hostility”.

leave a comment »

Representative John Lewis reacts to audience members divisive comments at campaign stop by blaming McCain.   Keep in mind all that Mr. McCain did was cite fact.  No more.  No less.  Just the facts.   He can no more be held responsible for reaction to those facts than I can be held responsible for Mr. Lewis’s obtuse viewpoint on the matter.

As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.

This is simply an example of hypersensitivity. How does anyone raise facts about the behavior of any given person without being attacked from an emotional level and in the process having to defend against irrelevant accusations?

Say for a moment a young boy sees his four year old sister set fire to the family cat and he reports the event to his mother who retorts, “Leave your poor sister alone. She would never do such a thing. You’re just picking on her! Now go to your room young man!!!”

The attack from the mother comes from an emotional level and chooses to ignore an accusation firmly based upon fact. A conscious choice is made to dismiss an allegation because of a strong emotional attachment and a general disbelief that the little girl is capable of doing wrong.

Don’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the message, especially when the message is based upon fact. Doing so only makes you look like an over protective and emotional mother.

Further, If McCain and/or Palin are at the podium to deliberately bring the crowd to a froth ready to lynch then that is one thing which should never be defended. However, again, this isn’t the case.

The fact there are a few idiots in the crowd should be viewed by any thinking American as being just that and should not serve to detract from the facts presented by McCain and Palin.

In my opinion, Mr. Lewis who owes McCain and Palin an apology after his vile attempt to link them to rioting in the streets and organizing lynch mobs and should seek out the members of the audience to address his grievance.

Written by Ben

October 12, 2008 at 2:49 pm

America – no principles, no scruples, no honor.

leave a comment »

Polls are showing that Obama’s association with Bill Ayers – bomber of the U.S. Capitol building during the late 60’s and therefore a domestic terrorist – carries no importance to the majority of Americans. Of those polled 87% do not believe Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers is a valid campaign issue.
View the poll here.

Why is that?   Why is it not important that a possible future president of the most powerful and greatest country in the world launched his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist, a self-described communist?

Why would anyone seek out and align with racists, anti-Americans and Marxists unless they considered themselves to be a sympathizer of their beliefs, motivations and ideals.

We have a presidential candidate who actually makes it a personal policy to associate with individuals like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright.

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists. – Barack Obama

But what can we expect from a country with a growing population who has over the past few decades grown to hate her country, has popular cultural figures publicly sympathize with her enemies and encourages others to do the same? What else can we expect from a country that believes it is more important to abandon her founding principles to embrace socialist/Marxist policies?

Why America should not vote for Barack Obama

leave a comment »

He’s a racist.

He portrays himself as a mainstream American which he is not.

To the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago Illinois and to Reverend Wright in particular I have this to say.

From where I sit, I don’t hear a positive message about Jesus teaching about love and forgiveness. Instead, I hear messages wrapped around the central theme of white Europeans and Romans oppressing and killing a black Jesus. The parable here is obvious.

Your own bigotry blinds you to how your messages are coming across to the rest of America. In a country where over the last 50 years we have been trying to remove bigotry from our very own culture, message like those coming from this church and from Reverend Wright in particular only serve to perpetuate what we are trying to destroy. If anyone should, it should be the leadership within the black community who should be setting the standards and in the process raising the bar.

The fact that it took Barack Obama a little over 20 years to denounce the words of Reverend Wright is telling. It should not take 20 years to decide if you should associate with leadership spewing racist vomit. I suppose in this case it’s like they say: “Birds of a feather …”.

Racism is not limited to just the white population and the black community is not immune. The “teachings” of Reverend Wright shows that a segment of the black population can also be guilty of racism. The hypocrisy is self evident.

Simply put, Reverend Wright and Mr. Obama are racists. The failure of Obama to distance himself from the Reverend and this church says it all. Veiled racist and in-your-face anti-American rants by leaders who falsely preach hope and opportunity are not what this country needs.

I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites. – Barack Obama

I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race. – Barack Obama

He views America as so flawed that he wants to change it

My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it. – Barack Obama

He is a Globalist

People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time. – Barack Obama

He is a Socialist with leanings toward Maxrism
Obama’s pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000 is known as “redistribution of wealth” and is understood by most thinking Americans as “stealing from the rich and giving to the poor”. Revealing a socialist mentality, Obama says it’s simply being “neighborly”.

If I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m going to pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness. – Barack Obama, Sept. 8, Fox News interview with Bill O’Reilly

Reaching into your own pocket and pulling out a large tip for that waitress is neighborly. There is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to make you pay the waitress a large tip. Redistribution of wealth in pursuit of social fairness is not neighborly or generosity. It is tantamount to theft at gunpoint.

Why would anyone seek to align themselves with racists, anti-Americans and Marxists unless they considered themselves to be a sympathizer of their beliefs, motivations and ideals?

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. – Barack Obama

The American Democratic Party has presented their presidential candidate who launched his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist, a self-described communist. We have a presidential candidate who actually makes it a personal policy to associate with individuals like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright.

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists. – Barack Obama

He is ignorant about the United States
It is no less fair to point this out than it is to rail against a vice president for misspelling potato or to label a president as a moron simply because of a demonstrated lack of oratory skills.

Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. – Barack Obama

He has a history of questionable friends and associates demonstrating bad judgement

William Ayers was clearly more than someone Obama just ran into in the neighborhood on occasion. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers had Obama to his home to introduce him to others.

Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at. — William Ayers

Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. — William Ayers

I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough. — William Ayers, September 11, 2008

Does anyone else see the symbolism of launching a political career from the home of a radical American – a domestic terrorist – an anti American – a self described communist? Is this not important and worthy of overlooking? William Ayers bombed the United States capitol building for Christ’s sake!!!

I’ll put it another way… What conclusion would you draw if I associate myself with the Grand Dragon of the KKK and had launched my successful bid for the local chief of police from his living room? How would that be viewed by the local black Americans?

He is an enemy of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

His continued association with radical organizations such as Acorn
On behalf of Acorn, in 1995 Obama worked with a group of Chicago attorneys and won a suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. To be clear Obama worked as a lawyer for Acorn which actively engages in strong-arm and in-your-face tactics to oppose welfare reform laws. Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions to give massive donations to Acorn which are then used to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives. This flies in the face of current activities of Acorn’s where today Acorn is being investigated for driving people registered only moments before to places of early voting and telling them to vote for Obama. Today Acorn is being investigated in Ohio for voter registration fraud where in some cases it is clear a voter registration form was submitted more that a dozen times for the same person which showed handwriting suggestive of a 12-year old.

This is an orchestrated effort by the left-wing socialist minded and by extension the Democratic Party to undermine the political process to help usher in a socialist regime.

Change for the sake of change
This country deserves better for President of the United States than the likes of Mr. Obama and his ilk.

But I fear that liberals driven by their emotions and not their intellect will vote him into office – all for the illusion that change is always for the better.