Socialism Take 2: The Auto Industry Bailout

Leave a comment

As if the $700 Billion bailout for the mortgage industry wasn’t enough, now the reality of an auto industry bailout is possibly taking fruition.  Yesterday marked the day of mockery, as the CEOs of the big three (GM, Ford and Chrysler) decided to fly in their private jets into DC to meet with Congress in order to beg for a handout.

Obviously, seeing that these arrogant CEOs did use their very expensive and costly private jets to get to this meeting, the members of Congress laughed in their faces.

When asked who would NOT return home, using their private jets, neither of the CEOs raised their hand.  When asked if the CEOs had a plan for the bailout, they neglected to provide one.  When asked how much money they would need, they didn’t have an answer.

Does this sound like a well thought out plan to you?  These people are CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) of three of the largest corporations in America, responsible for hundreds of thousands of employees, leading to even more jobs from third party companies, such as distributors/dealerships/retail stores.  I’m not sure why these guys were hired/elected into their positions, but they’re obviously NOT acting responsibly and they’re NOT fulfilling their obligation to their stock holders, employees and partners.  In my opinion, they really need to go, regardless of the outcome of this whole ordeal.

These companies do NOT need a bailout from the government.  When have we actually seen a bailout/handout work?  The $700B bailout didn’t do anything.  People are still in the same financial situation they were, before.  The stock market is crumbling and the DOW is now below 8,000 points (about 7,500 at the end of the day, today). A bailout will not give these companies what they need and will inevitably lead to more problems in the future, where these CEOs will clearly depend on the generosity of the government and their socialistic tendencies. Responsibility is lost.

I do find, however, that if the government didn’t have such stringent regulations on car production, the companies would at least be able to produce whatever they want, and that which actually sells. We could attribute these companies’ failings to the government, directly… just another case of them getting involved and destroying yet another industry. Other car companies, like Toyota, Honda and Hundai do not have these regulations, and thus… can produce more of what sells, rather than a percentage of what doesn’t. This is no excuse, of course, for the horrible leadership of the top three’s CEOs.

I can think of a number of ways these companies can get themselves out of their current funk:

1. File Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Yes, no one really wants to do this, but this can save them in the long haul. They can restructure their overall business plan, budget, etc.

2. Replace the CEOs that have obviously driven these companies into the ground. Replace them with new blood, that sees and leads outside of the box.

3. Sell the subsidiary companies, or renegotiate contracts. This will sever the many companies that GM, Ford and Chrysler have purchased throughout the years and allow them to compete in the market and will probably lead to innovation. This will lower costs for the big three, maybe make them some money. Employees will be spread out, lessening the burden on the three, as well.

4. Kill failed projects. End the manufacturing of unnecessary parts and cars that do not sell. Limit the amount of cars they produce and possibly hit niche markets.

5. Renegotiate terms with the labor union, bringing down wages of CEOs, top execs AND those in the union.

It’s surprising that the employees at these big three are earning top salaries in their profession, when their companies are failing. They earn, on average, $77 per hour, compared to about $45 per hour at various other non-American car companies. Why should this be the case?

Oh, and sell the private jets. That can save the companies hundreds of thousands (maybe millions depending on how often they’re used, and where they fly them to) per year.

The auto industry needs to get real and search for their own resolution.

Banning Guns and an Obamanation Youth?

Leave a comment

There are some scary events coming down the pipe in the coming four years, two of which are addressed in the topic.  One, Obama would like to pass stringent restriction and prohibition laws concerning guns, and two, he (and Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief-of-Staff) would like to create a civil security force with America’s youth.

The first issue is scary enough, basically infringing on one of our constitutional amendment rights… the second amendment, to be exact, which is the following:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It clearly states our right to bear arms and that this right should not be infringed upon.  So, what does Obama want to do?  Well, here’s a rundown:

1. Bring back the Federal “Assault Weapons Ban” that expired in 2004 and make it permanent.  “Assault Weapons” in this case, refers to semi-automatic firearms.  Of course Obama doesn’t understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic, so he dubs these “assault weapons” as machine guns that are typically used during warfare on foreign soil and the like.  Do you think he’s ever fired a gun or held a gun in his life?  Quite doubtful.

2. Repeal the “Tiahrt Amendment.”  This amendment prevents the public/civil access to the tracing system of the ATF, regarding firearms.  The tracing system can explain where a gun was manufactured, where it was sold, who the first purchaser was, etc.  This information, while helpful in determining the travel habits of a firearm, can be damaging to a law abiding firearms manufacturer.  Many anti-gun activists would love to sue firearm manufacturers, based on crimes that were committed using their firearms as weapons.  I ask you, how is the manufacturer or even a store owner responsible for a criminal’s actions?  Perhaps we should sue car manufacturers every time someone gets hit or dies in a car accident, or hit and run.  Sounds fair, right?  FYI, cars can be used as weapons, as well.

3. Close the “gun show loophole.”  First, there isn’t a loophole, but what anti-gun activists would like to do, is prevent someone without a Federal license obtained from the FBI to sell firearms at a gun show or casually from their collection, etc.  Federal gun law, explicitely forbids a gun shop or someone who regularly sells guns as a source of income, to do so without a license.  In addition, anyone who purchases a gun from one of these places must undergo a Federal background check, conducted by the FBI.  The “loophole” is actually a federal law… not a loophole at all.  It implies that anyone who does not run a gun shop or anyone that does not sell firearms as a source of income, has the right to sell their firearms on a casual basis.  Such an instance would be to sell your firearm to a friend or family member.

The fact is, less than 1% (about .7%) of crime committed with firearms are committed with firearms obtained from gun shows.  And who really knows if those guns were actually obtained by unlicensed sellers?  The closing of this “loop hole” would be ineffective at stopping these crimes, as most of them are committed with illegally obtained firearms to begin with.

4. Require that guns in this country are “childproof.”  What they don’t tell you, however, is that making guns “childproof,” will require millions of dollars in research and development, as well as an increase in price per gun, by about $300-500 or more.  Their idea of childproofing, is implementing a technological device that would allow for fingerprint reading or voice recognition… Sounds cool and sci-fi, but c’mon… let’s get real.  Why don’t we just educate our children on gun safety and actually practice gun safety, ourselves?  Is that too little or too much to ask?

These four policies, not to mention Obama’s support for an astronomical gun sales tax of a reported 500% would make it next to impossible for anyone to purchase or sell a firearm, which obviously is Obama’s intention.  Many media outlets or “fact check” sites would try to debunk this, but you can’t lie about a voting record.  He’s supported the banning of firearms and this tax law in the Illinois Senate, twice in 2004.

The banning of any gun is teetering on infringing on the second amendment.  Making it impossible to purchase a gun is a “loophole” of his own, for infringing on the second amendment.  Go figure.

Now, you’d think this firearms ordeal was enough, right?  Well, I beg to differ!  In addition to restricting/banning/regulating/taxing/prohibiting firearms, he would also like to institute a Civil Security Force.

A Civil Security Force you ask?  Oh yes… civilians, but not just any civilians… those who are between the ages of 18 and 25, and according to Obama and Emanuel, it would be mandatory, not voluntary.  You can listen to their “words, just words,” here.

So, these young adults, if this idea is implemented, will be made to serve the civilian security force, will be given training and most likely an “education” (read: indoctrination) and serve anywhere from 3 months to whatever these guys decide is an appropriate allotment of time to serve, since they’re currently undecided.

You see, I don’t really understand why such a thing is necessary, since we already have a standing right to form a civilian militia, if need be.  Oh, wait… wait, wait, wait.  That would only be effective if we had the right to bear arms, and that policy is currently under fire by the very left liberals in government, right now… and with Obama at the helm, we’re in trouble of nearly losing that right altogether.

So, what happens?  We have this Obamanation Youth Front (OYF) that will protect us on a day-to-day basis, on American soil.  That’s interesting… it almost sounds like a constant martial law, doesn’t it?  This idea also sounds somewhat similar to what dictators typically form… these socialist security forces that are overwhelmingly made of indoctrinated children/young adults.  Sooner or later, you’re going to hear songs from little kids, touting the importance and greatness of their President-elect… Oh, wait, that’s already happened a few times, yeah?  Hrmm…

You know who else had a national youth organization like this?  This guy.  In fact, he had two different organizations like this:  The Hitler Youth and Sturmabteilung (otherwise known as stormtroopers).  I’m not calling Obama Hitler or a Nazi… just sayin’.

Are our Expectations of an Obama Presidency Taking Fruition?

2 comments

To put it bluntly… “Oh boy.” It’s only been one week after the election has been over, and we’ve had one zinger after the other:

First, President Medvedev of Russia announced that he was going to try to have his presidential term extended by two years, giving him six, and the following President two terms of six years each. What’s expected to happen, is that Medvedev, the puppet of Vladimir Putin, will finish his term, allowing Putin to take his place. He would then have 12 years of Russian rule, which I expect would be influenced, heavily, by Putin’s KGB experience and love for Soviet Russia.

Second and at the same time, it had been realized by the United States, that Russia was deploying missiles near Poland. Medvedev claims that this is because he doesn’t trust the United State’s Missile Defense System in Europe, which would serve to protect Americans and it’s European allies from terrorists and those that would do them harm. They’re so paranoid to think that we have an ulterior motive in building a system in Europe to oppose them in some way.

These two instances occurred the day following Obama’s election, as reported by Fox News. Hrmmm, do they possibly think that Obama is a push over? They’re not even accounting for Bush’s remaining days as President, thinking of him as a non-factor. It seems that the Russians, and many other governments, feel that this is an opportune moment to make or design a strategy to move in their favor. I’ve feared for the past several months, since their invasion of Georgia, that Russia would try to move and implement a new unification of several states, under Russian rule. Possibly a return to the Soviet Russia, but maybe even a new Soviet Union? I suppose we’ll see what happens in the coming year or so.

The third event that occurred, and closer to home, is the sudden drop in the stock market. On November 5 (yep, a day after his election, again), as reported by Reuters the DOW dropped by nearly 500 points, marking the largest drop after a Presidential election EVER. Amazing, no? How’s that for Capitalism having faith in its’ newly elected President? I think that the majority of business people in this country realize that this guy is going to wipe out large/small companies with astronomical taxes and an enormous spending budget, which will create one of the largest deficits this country has ever seen.

This sudden drop of 500 points was followed by another drop of 400 points on the following day, November 6. That’s a drop of 900 points in two days, which occurred after a steady increase preceding election day. Yet again, more faith in our President-to-be. Something amiss here, isn’t it? Do you think somebody knows something we don’t? No… we all know it… about 17million Americans know it. The other half is drinking Kool-Aid and sticking their thumbs up their butts. Welcome to the new America, ladies and gentleman. Life vests and flotation devices are not available on this flight, so good luck and see ya’ in Hell! You can see the DJIA Greatest Daily Point Losses in this PDF. These two days are ranked #7 & #9 (Point Losses) and #6 & #7 (% Losses). Enjoy the misery that is to be!

Ok, so that’s an assault on two sides of the Barack Obama Presidency… but what else could possibly be at stake here? Well, how about this?

The fourth thing to consider, is that Obama has basically sworn to keep his promises to America… and by that, I mean he plans to spend like a maniac, while taxing the crap out of us. In just one week, he’s decided to go along with Nancy Pelosi’s proposal of a second stimulus package for consumers, to again… stimulate the economy. Like it worked before? I think not. Oh, but not only this, there’s more awesome news! It seems that Obama intends to bail out the Automotive industry, as well, since they’re a foundation of our economy… right?

Now, correct me if I’m wrong… but since when is a foundation of our economy a car company that can’t sell any cars? GM has dug themselves a nice hole to crawl out of, but the problem is… they don’t want to crawl out. They want to be carried out. Who do they want to carry them out? Oh, you know… the tax payers, of course! And who wants to allow that to happen? Well, Mr. Obama.. of course!

So, that’s two big spending bills in a row that the Obamanater would like to pass, bringing the tally to what? Well, we already dished out $25 Billion to the “big three” automakers in September. This new GM bailout would cost a measly $50 Billion and the stimulus package would cost anywhere between $60-$100 Billion, bringing the max potential cost of the new packages to $150 Billion, while already spending $700 Billion for the first bailout. Amazing, is it not?! I thought Obama was going to lower taxes for 95% of the country? Is that still going to happen? If so, is he going to tax small/big business 60-70%? Seems the only feasible thing to do, if he plans on balancing the federal budget. Just sayin’.

The fifth thing to happen is a trivial obstacle to most… but perhaps a problem of trust to some. In his first tet-a-tet with the sitting President Bush, Barack Obama talked about policies and current events. In an un-Presidential move, he actually leaked information (though, false) from the private and thought to be classified, meeting to the press. The result was an angry Bush and a new opinion of the worthiness of Obama. Is he truly acting like a “Chicago thug,” as President Clinton had claimed? I’d say so… it seems the only thing that Obama can keep a lid on, is anything damning to his personal reputation. Anything that comes out into the open seems to be beneficial or seemingly beneficial to him. As can be seen from his campaign and this recent event, he’s a liar… as Bush has made perfectly clear, when claiming the information leaked was false.

How can we take this President-elect serious? How can anyone trust him? I just don’t get it….

The sixth issue to come about is the cockiness of Iran. Apparently they felt it necessary to strut their political and military muscle along the border of Iraq, by testing missiles. Iran made it clear that their missiles could hit targets 1,200 miles away, and though used for defense, they could be used against opponents, such as Israel or America, in the case that one or the other attacks them. That being said, they claimed that they would attack American bases, even if Israel attacked them, of their own accord. Interesting…

What’s the relevance of this situation? Besides an increasingly militaristic Iran who wants to wipe the Israelis off the face of the planet? In a previous blog post of mine, I outlined the various countries/dictators/terrorist groups that supported Obama. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one such person, and I see this as an act that shows he’s not afraid of a reaction from Obama. I believe he thinks that if he decided to attack Israel, we’d stand idly by, to allow Israel to fend for itself. Is this the message that Obama is getting across? If not, then why do these groups/countries/terrorists support him? I don’t get it.

The seventh issue is merely being planned and talked about… which is the closing down of Guantanamo Bay Prison and transporting the hundreds of war criminals/felons that are located there into the United States. Call me crazy, but that just irks me to no end. Not only this, but Obama wants to pretty much recreate the criminal system that these war criminals undergo… Who the hell does this guy think he is? He’s going to undermine every President preceding him and he’s going to change the criminal system for war, he’s going to tear down Capitalism, he’s going to negotiate and sit down with terrorists/dictators… I just don’t understand how it’s gotten to this point. Why in the world did you people elect this guy?

There’s more… in JUST ONE WEEK… but it’s getting late. I shall leave you with the thoughts on this page. Think about them… think about why Obama is President… think about what the next four years are going to be like and what you can do about it now. Oh, don’t worry… there’s much more to come. I assure you.

An Obvious Choice… Part 2 of 2 (Ideals & Policies)

Leave a comment

I apologize for the delay in writing this second part of “An Obvious Choice…”, which should have followed the first part by a day, being that the election is on Tuesday. Unfortunately, I had been unwillingly detained by a group of liberals, who would do anything to keep me from posting more truths about the Obamallama and his Obamanation, ruled by several Obamacies. Alas, I have finally arrived on scene and am able to finish what I started. Today, on the eve of the election day, I submit to you part 2 of 2 (Obama’s ideals and policies), further argument about “the one” and why he is wrong for this country. Let’s have at it then…

1. First and foremost, when the economy is in such despair and dwindling into a recession, we absolutely have to look at his economic/tax policies. It would best be described by Obama’s words, “Spread the Wealth Around,” as seen in his discussion with Joe “The Plumber.”

This tax policy of his, where he would increase taxes on small businesses, would be detrimental to the downfall of the economy. At first, it was going to be any business that makes $250k/year, then he slipped and mentioned $200k/year on several occasions, then Biden came out and mentioned $150k/year… What is it? Can’t get your stories straight? What’s it actually going to be when you’re elected? From what I remember, you voted for raising taxes on people making $43k/year last year. Is that what we should expect?

I’ve argued my points about his tax policy on numerous occasions, and it always comes back to the point, where a Raeganomics and the trickle down effect (despite what Liberals will tell you) actually works. A friend of mine point it pretty bluntly, when he said “No one’s been given a job by a poor person.” Where do liberals think jobs come from? They come from big/small businesses. You punish the businesses, you punish everyone. More taxes equate to less income; less income equates to lower salaries, less employment incentives and more unemployment; lower salaries and less incentives equate to not being able to hold onto employees; that, in turn, equates to businesses being stressed and stretched thin amongst employees and possibly failing.

That’s not even the crux of the issue… Yes, the wealthiest people in the nation certainly do pay the most taxes already, but what Obama wants to do, now, is increase taxes and then give a check to 40% of the country. So, he’s basically taking from those that work hard for their money (anyone that’s built a small business from the ground up knows exactly what I’m talking about – putting in your 12-18hr days, working 7 days a week, struggling to make a buck and finally reaching that dream where you can hire employees, expand and see the money come in… hard earned money that you made by your own work.), and giving to the lazy; those that just work to get by.

Yes, he claims that he’s giving 95% of Americans a tax break, but in actuality, 40% of those don’t pay any taxes at all. The percentage that pays the most amount is in the top 5-10% already, while the tax rates decrease, based on an income tree.

No matter what Liberals claim, or what to believe, this is a Socialistic ideal. Obama wants to create a classless society, where everyone is “equal.” Everyone, but those in power, that is. You see, the people in the government will be able to say who gets what… they determine who gets your money, not you. As it stands right now, business distribute the money on their own… and it’s worked pretty well so far for over 200 years.

You can argue that he’s “not a socialist” all you want… It’s not that he’s a member of the Socialist or Communist Party, it’s that he has socialist tendencies and ideals, and that alone is dangerous. It’s obvious he’s a Democrat, as he’s on the Democratic ticket… of course, so are Pelosi and Reed, two people in the Senate already notorious for wanting to have an over controlling government.

2. Expanding on Obama’s economic policies, he also wants to dip his hand into your savings by altering your 401k plans; another reason for business owners and investors to get worried. For anyone with a 401k plan, get read to lose it in the event we have Obama as President, as that would mean no veto power, since the Democrats have control of the Congress and Senate.

What Obama and friends would like to do, is basically get rid of the ideas of 401k savings plans and make them taxable for further redistribution of wealth. You’ll no longer have your retirement planned out and secure, because you’ll be helping out the poor. What? You didn’t know you wanted to help out the poor, by unwillingly allowing the government to dip into your savings accounts and take your previously untouchable money used for retirement? Huh… Well, maybe it’s time to invest in real estate or a home safe… or a new mattress to stash your money.

3. On the same subject of economy, Obama has some interesting ideas about the coal industry, as well.  According to the Obamanater, he’s going to make it next to impossible for the coal industry to survive.  In fact, he mentions in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 08, that he intends to “bankrupt coal-powered plants,” using a cap and trade system.  Basically, he’s going to punish the companies in this industry on the basis of greenhouse gasses “polluting” the Earth, despite a lack of evidence for such a claim, to the extent that it would put them out of business… due to astronomical fines.  What’s hilarious, is that he says “people can still start up coal-powered plants… but it will bankrupt them.”  That just cracks me up.

What kind of impact will this have?  First, it causes unemployment.  Second, it will make electricity (power) prices skyrocket.  How does he think this is going to help the economy?  It’s obvious that he has his own agenda and he’s not going to care what you think or want.  There’s no proof to support the Gore green house gas effect; there’s no proof that humans cause global warming… But since Obama wants it, Obama shall get it.  Why?  Because the American people are blind to his antics.  You’re just going to let him get away with this?  Destroy an entire industry?  Really?  An energy production industry?  Aren’t we in the middle of an energy crisis?  Let’s get our act together, please.

4.  And since we’re talking about the energy crisis… how does Mr. Obama feel about oil?  If you ask him, he’ll tell you the same thing that he tells you about coal.  Why?  Because oil is “dirty.”  It’s “unclean” and “pollutes.”  While people were struggling to pay for gas, and the oil prices were extremely high (the highest these prices have ever been), he was against drilling on our own soil or off our own coast, which would have had a significant effect on the economy and prices of oil/gas, as a whole.

I believe Obama has watched Gore’s faux documentary one too many times, because he seems to be afraid of any natural resource that America has to produce energy.  Oil?  We have it, but forget it… we need to get away from these polluting natural resources.  Coal?  We have it, but forget it… it’s too dirty… greenhouse gasses!  What’s next?  Natural gas?

Yes, Obama wants to develop and utilize new forms of energy, just like everyone else, but he doesn’t want a bridge from what we have and utilize now to what’s new.  Apparently he doesn’t realize or understand that most of the American automobiles, heating & a/c units, etc. use the resources that we currently have plenty of.

5.  Now that we’ve covered energy, let’s dip our minds into another socialist ideal… nationalized health care.  Yes, Obama will tell you that it’s not “nationalized,” because you’ll have an “option” to “stay with your current health care plans at your businesses,” but you’ll also have the option to be under the “federal health care plan, the same plan that he and John McCain have.”

Ok, first of all?  From what I’ve heard from several people working for the government… the federal health care plan already sucks.  Second, Obama is flat-out lying to you, if he’s saying that it’s not “nationalized health care.”  He shares the same ideals with Hillary about it, and that means that your taxes will be used to fund everyone’s healthcare.

We’ve heard McCain call Obama out on several occasions about a fine associated with businesses, who won’t offer health insurance, assuming they feel that the national health care would be enough for their employees (what else would they need, right?).  Well, it is laid out in Obama’s plan, but they don’t call it a fine, they simply state, “Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.”  They call this an “Employer Contribution.”  Of course, they don’t define what “Small Businesses” actually are, but from what Obama’s been saying about taxes on businesses $250k to $200k to $150k, etc… maybe they’re just holding off on telling us until he’s elected.  He also doesn’t state what the exact contribution will be… leaving that open, obviously, for later debate.

This man, who has studied the communist manifesto, Marxism and who has obviously talked with Marxist-Leninists like Bill Ayers, has borrowed ideas that he thinks can be applied to America, just like so many other countries have done before… and failed in their policies.  Just look to Canada, France, Italy, England or even Cuba to get an idea of how nationalized (read: socialized) health care works.  It’s limiting, and when something like medical care is limited, you prevent progress and the ability to create.

There’s a reason that the United States has one of the best (if not THE best) health care systems in the world, and why so many people from all over the world come here to be treated for different ailments.  It’s because private companies/associations run the medical systems.  When Government gets a hand on things, they’ll be able to dictate what should be covered under insurance, what treatments should be practiced, who can get what, and they’ll also be able to determine salaries for doctors, etc.  No thanks.  Soon, we’re going to look a lot like Canada.

6.  While we’re on the topic of health/health care… let’s take a minute to understand what Barack “The Fetus Terminator” Obama thinks about abortion.  Well, he supports it… in fact, he supports all facets of it.  If you get pregnant by mistake and it’s the first trimester?  Get an abortion!  Second trimester?  Get an abortion!  Third?  Get an abortion!  Wait, what if my baby survives an abortion?  Meh, throw it away!  You don’t need to save it… why would we “punish” you for having a baby that survived an abortion?  That’s just crazy talk.  It’s a very responsible plan.

Support Obama and you essentially support a baby killer.  Enjoy!  Oh, and when he says that he’s for an abortion in the case that the health of the mother is a concern, he leaves “health of the mother” pretty open.  That could mean that she received a cold during pregnancy…  Yeah, I can see how sinister Republicans are… with their evil pro-life sentiments.  Please…

7. In a world, where terrorists know no bounds and they’ll attack at a moment’s notice, anywhere on the Earth, it’s important to not only keep your country safe from the inside, but also to keep a strong foreign policy, realizing who your allies are and also who your enemies are. A strong military is essential and being proactive always makes a better defense, than to be reactive.

Obama plans on cutting the military budget on weapons/defense by 25%. That is an extreme amount to cut, especially when it’s going to cost the military weapons, gear and even salary, which will lead to less people likely to volunteer. Yes, people do volunteer for love of country, but when they’re putting their lives on the line (with mediocre facilities and technology at their disposal), they need to be well compensated, in my opinion. They need to be protected, just as much as we do.

Obama plans on deconstructing our missile defense systems, as well, most likely to appease those leaders who would take offense to such measure, like Putin (Prime Minister of Russia) and Ahmadinejad (President of Iran). Taking this extreme measure would leave our allies in Europe and Asia defenseless against large-scale assaults and could possibly mean their demise, when there’s an already Nuclear Russia, and Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Venezuela on the brink.

It seems as though Obama would sell out his allies and even his own country to appease those he would sit down with, without preconditions; these terrorists/dictators he so wishes to befriend. Again, no thanks… I’ll take my chances with people disliking my missiles in other countries, and my military… the most powerful military in the world.

There’s only one man in this election that knows what he’s doing in foreign affairs and international policies… and that man is McCain, a proven hero and patriot to his country. Just think about it… He serves in Vietnam, gets gunned down, injured, captured and taken as a POW. Then he stays behind for five years, even though he was offered to leave before the other men with him. When he arrives back on U.S. soil, his return isn’t celebrated. In fact, he’s welcomed to a world of hippies of an anti-war movement, who hate the troops and the fact we were in Vietnam, helping a country a half a world away. Despite all of this, he decides to serve his country again for another 30 years… That’s a man. That’s someone I want for president, and if he doesn’t get voted in… I feel sorry for this America that can’t see the obvious.

8.  When it comes to the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, it seems that Obama only supports it, if the press doesn’t ask him (or his running mate) any difficult questions. Not only that, but he’ll no doubt allow the Fairness Doctrine to pass once again.

We’ve all seen how the Democrats react to news talk radio. Harry Reed tried to get rid of Rush Limbaugh this year, because of a lie they spewed by taking Limbaugh’s words out of context. They tried to silence him, a private citizen, a business man who is excercising his freedom of the press and freedom of speech, using the government. They tried to bully “Premiere Radio Networks” into firing Limbaugh, much like they did to Don Imus.

The “Fairness Doctrine” would see to it that opinions about politics would be done away with and that each party “Republican” and “Democrat” would get equal time in the news. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech, anyone? Yeah, forget about that… And the kicker? It only applies to Radio. Yep, you guessed it, the news stations on TV can remain the same, liberally biased mass media… but Radio needs to be regulated. Amazing… So, we’ll pretty much be fed lies for the entirety of the life of the United States, until the Fairness Doctrine is unmade again, unless everyone begins watching Fox News or reads some politically accurate and truthful websites.

Not only will Obama allow this doctrine to get by, but he’ll pretty much silence any television broadcasting station or print media outlet that disagrees with him or would question him. This can be seen by his recent actions of kicking three reporters from three different papers (all of which had endorsed McCain – these publications were: NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS) off his plane, as well as canceling all future interviews with a television station (WFTV-Channel 9). Is this Cuba or North Korea?

I could go into privacy polices and more, in regards to Obama and his idiotic policies… but I’ve run out of time. I’m hungry and I’m opposed to publishing this at 2am, since the election will start tomorrow morning.

I hope that I’ve opened your eyes at least a little bit in regards to this person we know absolutely nothing about. Is he a US citizen? I don’t know… he won’t show us proof.

If he loves spreading the wealth, why doesn’t he help out his aunt in the slums of Boston, or his half-brother in Kenya? Why doesn’t he take care of his own, like he claims he’s going to take care of all of you?

Why doesn’t he release his educational documents, like his Harvard transcript? Why doesn’t he tell us how he was elected as “President” of the Harvard Law Review? Why doesn’t he tell us what he did there?

Why doesn’t he disclose his medical record to the public, like McCain did?

Why don’t we know about his previous relationships, like we do about McCain? Why aren’t we allowed to talk about or to Michelle, when she’s been campaigning for him, but the media is allowed to attack Cindy McCain?

Why doesn’t he talk about his relationships to Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi, Jackson… the list goes on in the previous post (Part 1 of 1)? Why won’t he talk about what happened in the video that the LA Times has of him and Khalidi, where he supposedly gives a controversial toast, mentioning Israel?

What are his true views on Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism? Why do his policies resemble that of Marxism?

Why did he refuse to wear a flag pin? Why did he refuse to salute the flag, by cover his heart, when the Star Spangled Banner was sung?

Why? Did you ask him these questions? Did he answer them? Do you know ANYTHING about this guy that wants to be your president? Think about it, before you vote.

An Obvious Choice… Part 1 of 2 (Negative Associations)

Leave a comment

Over the last two years, it has been divulged that Barack Obama is enshrouded in controversy and mystery. Not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions, proof has surfaced of Obama’s questionable relationships, decisions and record. Where proof wasn’t to be found, questions were still asked… and when asked, Obama would neglect to redeem an answer, which of course, lead to new controversies and questions.

In a world that must deal with a war on terror, a possible return to Soviet Russia, a nuclear powered North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, a crumbling economic situation on a global scale, a threat of Israel’s, Georgia’s, Poland’s and Ukraine’s demise, and a national energy crisis, the citizens of the United States can NOT place their future into the hands of someone they barely know. They (we) need leadership, experience, a strong willed leader, someone who understands Capitalism and why it works, someone who understands foreign policy and the implications of a strong international presence, and someone who loves this country. Barack Obama is not this person…

Let’s take a look at the facts and implications of Obama’s nasty attributes discovered over the last couple of years up ’til now. We’ll start with his supposed religion, which is a seguay into his spiritual associations, which then leads to the rest of this journal about the rest of his negative/corrupt associations/friendships/mentors/supporters/allies:

1. Ok, this one isn’t so nasty… unless you decide to associate all Muslims with terrorists, which I do not. However, the fact that Obama staunchly denies his supposed faith and then slips with a possible truth, yields questionable results.

First of all, let’s make sure we’re all in agreement that the election should not be decided based on race, sex or religion. The idea of separation of church and state should dictate that religion should certainly not be a factor when deciding on a presidential candidate. However, during the entire Primary election season, religion played a role for many voters (both Republican and Democrat)

Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were two Republican candidates that were hammered with accusations that they would serve horribly, since Romney is a Mormon and Mike Huckabee is a minister. Nevermind that they both served as governors, their religion would certainly keep them from becoming the President of the United States. They never denied their faith and never lied about their religious beliefs.

Barack Obama, however, had been dubbed a Muslim, most likely because of his name “Barack Houssein Obama.” Okay, that certainly is a Muslim name, but let’s keep in mind that his father, who was from Kenya, was a Muslim. He has always claimed to be of Christian faith, until one instance where he had a slip of the tongue.

It hasn’t only been the Republicans that wanted to uncover Obama’s beliefs; even the Democrats, such as the Hillary camp, tried to disclose his true faith in Islam. It’s important to note, however, that John McCain’s camp never did call Obama’s faith, he never claimed he was Muslim and even Obama has admitted this.

During an interview with George Stephanopolis, he said while speaking about the accusations of his Muslim faith “…you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith, and you’re absolutely right…” Stephanopolis immediately followed that comment with “Christian Faith” to correct him. The interview continues with him explaining the gaffe in that he meant to say “my suggested Muslim faith,” etc. Now this could be a slip of the tongue, yes, but many people can read into this (and understanding where Obama comes from) to mean that it was a Freudian slip, and because he’s been an actor for so long, pretending to be something he’s not, that he mistakenly said what he truly was… a Muslim. I know that sounds silly, but it is a possibility. Click here to see the segment of the interview in question.

In actuality, the church he has been attending for about 20 years, being of Black Liberation Theology, speaks more of extremist ideals and hatred than any Christian church that I’ve ever heard of. It could be said that he’s adopted this Church as a replacement to any Muslim Mosque, in order to integrate with society and become more accepted. Just throwing that out there to the conspiracy theorists.

2. I’ve already mentioned that Obama has been attending a “Christian” church, based on Black Liberation Theology, for about the past 20 years, since 1991-92. The church is called Trinity United Church of Christ and is located in Chicago. The previous pastor and Obama’s “spiritual mentor” Reverend Jeremiah Wright had been preaching the Black Liberation ideals for 36 years. According to Obama, he and his wife had been attending Wright’s church for the last 20 years.

I’m not certain about the previous 30 years or so, but what Wright has been preaching has been nothing but negativity and hatred toward the United States and the oppression of black men/women by rich white people. According to Reverend Wright, the United States has been terrorizing the world, the government has been attempting ridiculous measures in order to sterilize black people in a holocaust fashion, by using biological warfare. He even blames the U.S. government for creating HIV in a laboratory with the sole intent of infecting blacks in the nation and world, merely to kill them off.

His allegations and rhetoric are absolutely horrific and fanatical. These are the values that Wright has been teaching/preaching over the last several years, and who’s to say that he hasn’t been since 1972? People can purchase his video tapes and see this for themselves. He preaches hate and cynicism toward his own country and the citizens of it. He even mentions that we’re to blame for what happened on 9-11, the most dreadful event to have ever occurred on United States soil. Here are some videos of Reverend Wright’s rhetoric: Video 1 – ABC News Video 2 – Fox News Video 3 – Fox News Video 4 – Obama on Fox News.

Racism, hatred, blame, segregation, conspiracy theories, liberation theology… 20 years of attending a church that teaches these amazing values. In the last video above, you can listen to Obama being interviewed about Wright and his attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ. He mentions that he’s been in attendance since about 1991-92, he raised his children in the church, had them baptized in the church, got married in the church, etc. Of course, you’ll also hear him say that he’s “never heard” Wright preach such hateful messages. How likely is that? Especially when he’s already claimed that Wright has been a spiritual mentor and his book, titled “The Audacity of Hope,” is supposedly borrowed from his Reverend’s sermon “Audacity to Hope,” which apparently inspired Obama to write the book.

Does Barack Obama adhere to Wright’s personal views of America? Has he adopted the teachings of his mentor and teacher of Black Liberation Theology (aka “Christianity” according to Obama)? Does Michelle Obama’s mentioning that “this is the first time in her adult life that she’s been proud of her country,” stem from the teachings of Wright? Is the only reason she’s proud of her country, because Democrats voted for a black man? Otherwise what? She’d still hate America and white people? Interesting… and I think relevant to question. Obama and his wife would deny such claims, of course… and so would many of his followers (I mean supporters). Such is the life of Obama…

3. Now that we’re talking about the Trinity United Church of Christ… we can mention the regular guest preacher, Reverend Michael Pfleger… Another wonderful man who enjoys preaching/teaching the people about white corruption, white supremacy, segregation, white entitlement, etc. Yes, he’s another who practices/preaches Black Liberation Theology. Here’s a sample of his sermon: Click Here. And here is a screenshot of Pfleger’s endorsement for Obama, on Obama’s website, before he had it removed.

4. Who replaced Reverend Wright, when he retired? Well, another product of the Civil Right’s Movement, of course! I have no problem with the Civil Right’s Movement, but I do have a problem with the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, which this man is also a product of. He was hand-picked by Wright to take his place at the Trinity United Church of Christ; no doubt in order to continue the same preachings of Wright. The usual banter of hatred and contempt for America and white people. Now, this replacement, Reverend Otis Moss, has not condemned himself yet, but I still have hope for him. I’m thinking we’ll hear something in the next couple of years… especially when he uses modern ebonic language to teach his lessons to relate to the people in his church. Here’s an example of his preaching style. And here’s a video profile for the man: Click here.

Yes, Obama still attends this church and according to that last video, he still looks up to Reverend Wright as a mentor, despite his claims that he doesn’t. Yes, instead of a United America, the Trinity United Church of Christ segregates us into a White America and a Black America. Is this the ideal that Obama subscribes to?

5 & 6. Many liberals claim that conservatives have been calling Barack Obama a terrorist. Well, that may be the case with right extremists, but most level-headed thinkers have not. They have, however, labeled him as a person who lacks a certain judgment when choosing the people he befriends or associates with. This can be seen with the top three people I’ve mentioned already… his spiritual advisers/mentors; his preachers. However, now we delve into the political landscape and environment that Obama has jumped head-first into and has enshrouded himself in.

One of these negative associations which proves Obama’s lack in judgment, is unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, founder of the “Weather Underground”. You can read/learn about this terrorist group, by reading the official FBI documents, or for an eye-friendly rundown of the organization, check out Discover the Networks’ short history, as well as the highly controversial wikipedia entree. Ayers lead the “Weatherman” group, later known as “Weather Underground” in the 1960s, while the Vietnam War was underway, and even after the U.S. troops were pulled out. This group bombed several buildings and monuments, which had resulted in the deaths and injuries of police officers and several of Ayers’ own followers, and several more injuries to civilians. This, in addition to the destruction caused to federal and civilian buildings and monuments.

There had been later attacks and bank robberies in the early/mid-70s, which resulted in more deaths (two of which are Police Officers), injuries and destruction, but it’s unclear as to how Ayers was tied to these, since he had “surfaced” from the underground and pursued a life outside of terrorism.

Bernardine Dohrn, also a member of the same groups (and also more extreme and arguable more dangerous) is still currently married to Ayers. You can actually see her current point of view, by reading one of her more “recent” articles from 2005. Clearly, Dohrn is still an activist of mind and also unrepentant of her misdeeds in the past. She also clings to a hatred of America and the values that true Americans have cherished and lived by for 200 years. Here’s a sample of Dohrn’s vocal opinion of America.

Both terrorists were cleared of charged crimes against humanity, due to illegal wire taps used during the Nixon administration. Ayers had been quoted as saying: “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country.”

One of the lesser known facts surrounding Dohrn and the Obamas, is that from 1984-1988, Michelle Obama and Bernardine Dohrn worked together at a law firm under the name of Sidley Austin, in Chicago, IL. Dohrn, unable to serve as a lawyer due to her terrorist background, was able to land a job at this facility, due to her relationship to Ayers’ father, Thomas G. Ayers. Thomas Ayers was known as a “philanthropist” in Chicago and a very powerful human being in the area with a ton of pull. Thomas pulled some strings and got Dohrn an associate position at the firm, then headed by Howard Trienens, a friend of Thomas Ayers. To quote Trienens in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, “We often hire friends.”

During Dohrn’s last year at the firm, Michelle Obama began working there. This is, strangely enough, where Barack and Michelle first met. This is one of the earliest events that connects the Ayers and Obama families. We don’t know how well they knew each other at this point, but it certainly is quite a coincidence that they ended up working here at around the same time in history, and it would be quite the oddity if they never crossed paths or spoke of their ideas/theories on law, etc.

Oh, things begin to get intertwined and confusing, since the politicians of Chicago are very tightly knit. There’s a complete debacle surrounding Mayor Daley’s father, who was Mayor of Chicago preceding him, who was friends with Thomas Ayers. Bill Ayers had befriended the current Mayor Daley, Jr, and they’re all associates/friends of Barack and Michelle Obama, stringing him along the political web and allowing him to exceed, where others would plunder.

Moving on…

Obama’s State Senate campaign was championed and launched in the living room of Bill Ayers… someone Obama had apparently never known anything about… even though he studied law at Harvard and became a lawyer in Chicago… the home of Bill Ayers (ex-National Terrorist).

Obama and Ayers also served on the same board of directors for the Woods Foundation from 1999-2002, on the same board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-2002. Barack was actually selected as Founding President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers wrote a grant proposal for $49.2 million over 5 years for public school reform.

Really? They didn’t know each other? They never spoke? Obama didn’t know about his terrorist actions in the 60s-70s, because he was 8yrs old at the time? Wasn’t he 30 years old when they met? Did he not study law or any terrorist/activist events that have occurred on U.S. soil? I must be confused, because while these two guys knew each other, Bill Ayers gave a radio interview in 2002 exposing many of his beliefs.

There’s more to this story than I care to get into, as I’ve discussed it numerous times with people who like to debate/argue… and fail to see the truth, when it smacks them square in the face. I will, however, move on to the next association…

7. Obama has also been connected to ACORN over the last several years. He’s served as a lawyer for them, as well as taught some classes to the employees there, teaching them how to get out the vote and attract people into the election. Not only this, but he’s also donated over $800,000 to ACORN in efforts to get out the vote.

What did ACORN do with that money? They got out the vote, alright, in the form of Voter Registration Fraud. In 13-15 (that number is debatable) states, there’s been found to be over 300,000 fake registrations… and what do fake registrations lead to? Multiple, fake votes… ala Voter Fraud. Of course, Obama denies the allegations of his association with ACORN… but what doesn’t he deny? According to him, these are all just “distractions.” Check out these interviews/videos about the recent ACORN debacle.

Oh, and ACORN officially endorses Barack Obama for President of the United States.

8-9 (FM & FM) 10-15 (Individuals Involved). Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are two government-backed mortgage companies. These, along with several members of the US Senate/Congress (you guessed it… Democrats Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, Charles Schumer, even Barack Obama), are responsible for the degredation of the U.S. Economy and the housing market blowup. Barack Obama chose Jim Johnson (Chairman of failed Fannie Mae) to head his VP search Committee (until he resigned to become a silent backer), Franklin Raines (CEO of failed Fannie Mae) as an economic adviser, and Penny Pritzker (Co-Owner of failed Superior Bank), Obama’s 2008 campaign finance chairman.

Yes, despite the warnings of the Republicans on numerous occasions, since before the 1990s, the Democrats continuously shot down any attempt at restructuring and regulating the two government-backed companies. The people involved knew that the housing market bubble was going to collapse, and they knew what they were allowing was deceitful and wrong… they could have warned the American people, but didn’t.

Barack Obama received $120,349 in contributions from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in the form of PACs and individuals. He ranks #2 in a long list of beneficiaries, just below Chris Dodd (Democrat) and above John Kerry (another Democrat). John McCain does show up on the list, ranking in at around the 60-70 mark, raking in $21,550. However, he only received contributions from individuals.

Are these the types of associations you want your President to have? Look at the team of economic advisers that this man, Barack Obama, has gathered. All corrupt, all ties to failing banks/corporations, all ties to the recent housing market crumble. This is the man you want for President? Need I mention more affiliates of the man? I haven’t even gotten to the radical extremists from other countries, yet.

16-21. Some of the most extremist individuals, countries and groups in the world have even endorsed Barack Obama. In the last year, Obama has been endorsed by Iran, Fidel Castro, North Korea, Daniel Ortega, Hamas, and Hizbollah.

Oh, and did I mention that Obama enjoys displaying Cuban flags with the face of Che Guevara superimposed on them, in his campaign offices? Check out the “Cuban-American” woman, who is proud of this display in her Houston, TX Obama Campaign office. Click Here.

Ahhh… this is all relatively exhausting. There are so many negative/corrupt associations of Obama, I don’t know if I have the energy to list them all, or find relevant links explaining them.

Wait, wait, wait… waitaminute…. There’s one more thing to note, here, before we move on to Part 2 of 2, which will cover the political views and policies that Obama supports, which are just plain… socialist in nature and will lead to the downfall of the United States, should they come to be.

22. Apparently Obama has been friendly with another radical affiliate, and this is one of the most recent discoveries… funny that it should come up about 7 days from the election. Why couldn’t the mainstream media cover his ties from the get-go? Horrible coverage… horrendous bias… pitiful excuse for media… that’s why.

Anyway, Rashid Khalidi, who was in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) (yes, another terrorist group), supposedly its’ spokesperson. Khalidi serves as a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, he’s a leading Palestinian scholar, and an advocate for Palestinian rights. Click here for a sample of one of his lectures. Rashid has been pretty vocal about his criticisms of America and Israel, and somewhat open about his terrorist associations.

Of course, there’s another video that the LA Times will not release, which supposedly has Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi at a banquet/dinner, where Obama is toasting him for one thing or another. Everything’s pretty hush-hush about it, besides the fact that the LA Times has it. They claim that their source “denies” them the authority to publish it. Imagine that…

Well… that’s 22 reasons not to vote for Barack Obama right there. Can you even mention one association, besides his kids (who will eventually be corrupted to hate white Americans, no doubt) who isn’t corrupt? I dare you to mention Gore or Clinton (lol). Go ahead, mention one person he’s been associated with, someone he’s befriended that isn’t corrupt. Nancy Pelosi? Don’t make me laugh. Harry Reed? Can I throw up now? I’ve already mentioned Mayor Daley of Chicago, IL… How about Reverend Jackson? Also a Chicago native… also someone, despite him wanting to cut his balls off, who supports Obama (as well as his son).

And the mainstream liberal media hasn’t covered or reported any of this. You have to watch Fox News or listen to news talk radio to get any of this information… most of it, anyway. Some of it’s just too obvious to ignore.

I hope this opened your eyes to the true Barack Obama, at least a little bit. I know the Obamalade takes a while to pee out, but eventually you’ll rid yourself of the poison and rejoin the general population of self-thinkers.

Stay tuned, as I’ll jump into the Obamacies tomorrow… that’s “Obama Policies” for those of you still on the ‘lade.

The Hammering of Palin

4 comments

Is there anyone out there paying attention to the constant hammering of attacks on Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

It seems to me that, besides McCain & Palin, everyone (who does that leave?) in this election has been getting a pass.  It doesn’t matter how many gaffes that Biden pulls out of his ears, or how many flaws we find out about Obama’s character/past/associations, we only hear negativity about McCain and especially Palin.  It’s absolutely stunning.

Don’t get me wrong… there are plenty of stories that paint Obama and Biden in a bleak picture… it’s just that the liberal media never covers it.  We have to rely on News Talk Radio and Fox News for this information.  The libs don’t want anything to do with it and pretty much just brush it off as unimportant or a “distraction” to the “real” issues.  Please… get over yourselves.  And when someone sources a Fox News or News Talk Radio report, what happens?  We get smeared, because they’re “ultra conservative/right-wing.”  Which is bullsh*t, but whatever…  We accept it, do our best to spread the news our own way and move on.

We’ve encountered negative campaigning before… in every election really, but this season, it’s no-holds barred action.  I’ve never seen the media as unfair as they are this time around and I’ve never ever seen so many sheepeople in my life.  They’re coming out of the wood work and no matter how many sources you give them on facts, and how many truths you disclose, it doesn’t matter… they’ve already drunk the Obamalade and believe that he’s the second coming.

I digress… we’re supposed to be talking about Palin’s negative coverage.  Ok, show of hands:  How many of you have actually watched a fair interview with her (or heard)?  How many of you have actually watched one of her speeches or actually seen her debate?  Two, three?  How many of you liberals are just regurgitating what’s been said in your media?  Yeah, that’s what I thought.  For if you actually did see any of the aforementioned venues with Palin, then you’d understand why there’s a “Team Sarah” and why conservatives love her.

The liberals have picked her apart, based on cuts of interviews run on ABC, NBC and CNN… they’ve given her unfair interviews to boot.  They use gotcha’ questions and they distort facts to get favorable reactions… favorable to the media, that is.  What I’ve seen is absolutely amazing.

She’s been accused of not understanding the role of Vice President, because she said “…the Vice President is in charge of the Senate.”  People are jumping all over her, because it’s “incorrect.”  However, that’s not altogether true…  Her role will actually be “President” of the US Senate.  Might want to check your sources.  While she doesn’t dictate what they decide on (this is a democracy, after all… otherwise there would be no need for a senate), and she does not vote, she does have final vote if the Senate is split down the middle 50/50.  That one vote shall determine the win.  They also have the duty of collecting electoral college votes and opening the ticket of the next elected President of the United States (and making the announcement).

It’s interesting, as well, because the duties of the Vice President are left pretty open to the VP in question.  Depending on their personality, they can control the meetings of the Senate, keeping order and moving them along, or allowing them to move on as they will.  It all depends on the character of the VP.  The position has also evolved into a more executive position, where most Vice Presidents really don’t spend much time with the Senate, unless it’s to cast a deciding vote or if there’s a ceremonial occasion.

In actuality, Palin was very correct.  The Vice President truly does control the senate, but does not control the votes of the Senators.  Anyone can look this information up; the fact that they all jumped to conclusions and assumed she didn’t know what she was talking about is ignorant.

In fact, Biden was actually wrong in his definition.  He defined the role of Vice President as, and I quote “Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch.”  Yeeeaaahh, no.  He then goes on to say, “The Constitution is explicit.  The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote.”

Well, if you head to the link I provided (or actually read the Constitution), you’ll notice that in the Constitution, the role of the Vice President is defined as the “President of the US Senate,” and not of the Executive Branch at all, but of the Legislative Branch.  It’s true that the Vice President role has moved toward a more executive position, but it still remains part of the Legislative and is executive only by nature, not by law.  So, with that, and Biden’s many years as a Senator, he has formally been shamed by Governor Palin’s knowledge of the Constitution and the many roles of government.  Have at thee!  Of course, the liberal media has ignored, yet again, Biden’s gaffe.

Sarah Palin has also been accused of being stupid…  I ask you… why?  She supposedly attended 4-5 different colleges in 5-6 years.  No one really knows the extent to why she moved around so frequently.  It could be because she wanted to find the right fit.  It could be that she was studying abroad in a few places.  She’s apparently been to Hawaii for one school, so that’s not really reaching.  Maybe the schools she went to didn’t offer the degree she wanted.  Could be anything, but that’s reason number one for her being so “stupid.”

I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve been to two different colleges in five years.  It wasn’t extremely difficult to transfer from one to the other, and I transferred for several reasons.  I didn’t like the people there, my girlfriend was going to a different school, the school she was going to was actually my first choice and I didn’t get in the first time, etc.  I personally don’t think that I’m an uneducated and stupid person.  I don’t think I’m a genius, but I can think on my feet and I’ve been pretty successful at life, so I suppose that’s what I’m going on.  I’ve also met a multitude of people on the 5-year plan. Some longer than that.  It’s actually very common.

You can’t truly judge a person based on their high-school/college education.  There could be several reasons for bad grades or ending up at the end of your class, like McCain supposedly did.  I never took college seriously, until I was about 3 years in.  I always procrastinated on writing papers until the night before they were due, and sometimes the day of.  I didn’t study very hard, I stayed up until 2-4am playing Counter-Strike.  I was running a business on the side for 2 years of my college career, which really deterred me from caring about school, and I changed my major about 4 different times.

I’ve met people that have attended and graduated from Harvard, Holy Cross, Rutgers, Berkley, Tufts, and other prestigious and well-known Universities.  I’m friends with some of them.  Let me tell you… while most of them are good people and have a good head on their shoulders, not all of them are extremely intelligent.  Some are book smart and some have common sense.  Both are great, but when you get into the real world, it really comes down to common sense and street smarts.  If you don’t have that, the world will eat you alive.

So, really?  I have no concern about the candidate’s educational background.  It’s great if you’ve gotten your Masters or Doctorate, but that just means you studied a lot harder than some.  What really matters for running a Presidential office?  Common sense and street smarts, being able to lead and make difficult choices, having morals and running the office based on those morals and integrity.  These and many other qualities make for a good President/Vice President.  Your college experience and educational background means diddly squat in the end.  What’s Barack going to do, when he’s having an argument with Kim John Il?  Spout his Harvard credentials?

Let’s talk a little bit about the course of her life, as well (the start of her journey towards Vice President).  She joined the PTA at her daughter’s school, because she was a concerned mother in regards to the education that her daughter was receiving.  Upon realizing that the education wasn’t sufficient, she wanted to take steps forward in reforming the system, so she served on the Wasilla City Council for two terms.

She then ran for the office of Mayor of Wasilla, AK and served for two more terms in the local government.  She wanted to do more for her state, so she ran for Governor of Alaska, running against another Republican.  It was a tough race, but she won and she’s served since 2006.  It’s 2008 now, and McCain, having realized how far she’s come by herself, knew she was a perfect pick for a Vice Presidential candidate.  Which leads us into another negative story…

So, after serving for 6+ years in an executive position for the government of Alaska, she’s been viewed as an up-and-comer and someone with drive; someone who knows what she wants and has worked extremely hard to get to where she is, while having a family life, as well.  In all aspects, she’s been successful, but the liberal media would have you think differently.  They would have you believe that John McCain chose her, merely because she’s female, and that this election would be based on sex and/or race.  Hillary Clinton ran and lost to Obama, but she was “cracking the glass ceiling,” so why not finish the job with another woman, but from the Republican side?

To think she wasn’t qualified to serve as Vice President is absurd.  She’s proven herself time and time again, and she’s shown that she has what it takes to fend off the press and take the negative slandering that the liberals have to offer.  She’s been in the spotlight far more than Biden, a man who’s been dealing with this for 30+ years and she’s done a perfectly fine job at speaking to the people, rallying conservatives and straight-talking (a phrase that McCain and Palin have adopted for their campaign).  Sure, it’s a campaign slogan of sorts… but it’s true.

Sarah has also been touted as being too “corny” or ridiculous sounding.  Why?  Because she has an accent?  She has a simple and common way of speaking to people?  Because she doesn’t feel like she needs to use enormous words found in the back of a dictionary to sound condescending?  I admire that about her.  I, too, speak the language of the common people.  It’s the non-elitist language that anyone can understand, and I dig it.

There are many more things that Palin’s been accused of, starting with her pursuance to becoming Vice President, while having a family and a new baby with down syndrome.  Why would this even come into question?  Especially in this generation of voters.

She’s been accused of carelessly killing wolves and being apathetic toward the wildlife of Alaska.  Okay, well… the next time you live in Alaska and understand the frustration of having limited wildlife, like Moose to feed upon, maybe you’ll think twice about the very healthy population of wolves in the area, that’s killing your means to food.  Yes, I hate the idea of killing wolves, because they really are one of my favorite animals; they’re quite majestic.

Alaskans live a different life than we do in the lower 48.  They hunt where it’s pretty much winter 24/7/365.  They rely on Moose and fish for their food stock, and they have to contend with the predators of the north, like these beautiful wolves.  While they are beautiful, they’re still eating the same food as the people in that region.  We’re predators too, and it’s a harsh world we live in, where it’s survival of the fittest.  While they do hunt these animals and it may seem inhumane, it’s merely a necessity to control the population.  They still have a very healthy population of wolves.  I dare say, more healthy than we have down here in the lower states.

There are more issues, but the last one I want to talk bout is this recent front page of the New York Times (what a credible newspaper).  Apparently they’ve run out of stories to tell, so they’re attacking Palin for her wardrobe.  They’re accusing the McCain campaign of buying $150,000 worth of new clothes to wear, while they’re campaigning.  Well, in actuality, the Republican National Committee purchased the clothes and donated them to Sarah.  After having worn them, she then donates them to charities.

I find it funny that she’s been attacked for this, but it’s ok for Obama to wear custom-made suits and it’s fine for him to stay in downtown Manhattan at the Waldorf-Astoria, where the cheapest rooms are roughly $400-600/night.  Guaranteed he didn’t stay in a cheap room.  While he was there, he was kind enough to dine on lobster and Iranian caviar.

I’ve also heard that Hillary Clinton received her pant suits for free from designers.  Apparently it’s illegal for corporations (read: designers) to donate suits or otherwise in the amount they did, which was about $6,000 per suit, but everyone pretty much looks the other way.

What do I think about this?  Meaningless.  So the RNC wants Sarah to look good during the campaign… so what?  I would think that would be in their best interest.  She typically doesn’t dress this way, anyway, being from Alaska… it’s a bit more simple up there.  Just take a look at her usual garb from some old pictures on the net of her as Mayor or Governor.  She still pulls it off, of course.

Regardless… this story was not worthy of a front page slot.  The NY Times needs to get real and they need new ownership.  They’ve gotten out of hand with their liberal banter and their constant attacks.  Not only them, but most of the media on television and several national papers/magazines.  It’s all very sad.

Let’s hammer someone else for a change, eh?

Colin Powell Backs Obama… So what?

Leave a comment

On Sunday, October 19, 2008, something so tragic happened that the world stood still for about 15 seconds and the people of Earth scratched their heads… then they went about their business as usual, because they realized that what just happened really wasn’t especially significant.  Yep, you guessed it; I’m talking about Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama.

About the only thing “significant” about this news, is the fact that Powell was in Bush’s cabinet, as former Secretary of State… and is black.  Of course, he was replaced by an even more credible candidate, Condoleezza Rice, who has outshone her predecessor by leaps and bounds… and is also black.  I don’t think anyone can truly argue that Rice has not done an exceptional job in her position, and I personally wish she were one of the candidates up for election.  Maybe next time… a Palin/Rice ticket?  How killer would that be?

Now personally, I don’t feel that Powell’s skin pigmentation should be of topic, but the idea of this being a race-motivated move has definitely been thrown around throughout the media.  I suppose it could be.  There are plenty of African Americans (read: black Americans) who have said that they’re supporting Obama because of his skin color, throughout the last two years.  There have been plenty of European Americans (read: white Americans) who have, as well.  Anyway, there are feelings on both sides of the aisle about this; whether it was race-induced or not, and as much as I’d like to think it wasn’t the case, it may have been.

As was seen in Powell’s interview with MSNBC’s Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press (Why release your story to them, I don’t know…  I mean, they are quite reliable and trustworthy, since they’re without bias… (Read: Sarcasm)), they first showed a glimpse of him saying that he would not vote for Barack based on the mere fact that he was black.  However, he mentions how Obama is a “transformational figure,” and his election would be “electrifying to the nation and world” because he’d be the first African-American president.  Just a couple of points to glance over…

He doesn’t really stress any “real” presidential qualities that Obama has, besides his “rhetorical abilities”, “style” and the fact that he hasn’t swayed in his arguments and has remained steadfast in repeating the same crap over and over again.  My words, not his.

His arguments for Obama about Bill Ayers and experience are weak and it seems he just wants these issues to slip on by.  He even compares Palin’s experience to Obama’s, just as the liberal media has done and continues to do.  I truly can’t understand where this man is coming from… He’s known Obama for a little over two years, getting to know him, because he’s acting as an adviser to him, and all of a sudden he’s God’s gift to the ails of the world.  I wonder, though, why he’s been such an avid adviser to Obama, who’s only experience in government is about 180 days in the U.S. Senate and a community organizer of one of the most corrupt cities in the country.

Powell also states that the Republican party has been slipping more to the right than he’d like… which leads me to believe that he’s never been a Republican.  Had he been, he’d realize that Republicans have become more and more liberal over time, which is the reason that many Republicans have split from the party and now declare themselves as staunch Conservatives or Libertarians.  Wake up Powell… you were never a Republican… you were just a Republican’s choice for the Secretary of State.  You are and have always been a Democrat.

As for your record?  Well, there’s not much to say other than the fact that you’ve been an accomplished soldier and General.  You’ve served your country very well, since the 1970s and that’s both honorable and commendable.  Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with your support/endorsement of Obama… which is at the forefront of political banter and controversy.  You know Obama isn’t ready to be president… and the fact of the matter is, your endorsement does yourself a disservice in that you’ve shown your lack of judgment, much like Obama has, and much like you had, when you said you were for the War on Terror in Iraq, that is to say… before you were against it.  Weren’t you the one who took the case to the United Nations Security Council to use military force?  Yeah… I think you were.  Well, for the record: you were right the first time.

Case in point?  Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama is not going to have an overwhelming effect on the American people’s voting choice.

Moving on…

Joe Biden: The Obama Gaffe Machine

Leave a comment

Is there no topic Joe Biden won’t cover?  Is there no silencing Joe Biden’s constant attempts at blowing the Obama campaign’s chances of a presidential election?  I’m pretty sure that’s what Obama’s thinking right now; “What the hell… Will someone shut him up?!”  Yep, pretty sure that’s what’s going through his mind.

If you missed it over the weekend, allow me to expose you to the hottest topic in the fair media right now.  I say “fair,” of course, because the mass (read: liberal) media chooses to ignore it, only running the glimmering moments of the Obama/Biden rallies/fund raisers, as well as the hate mongering opportunists who are readily attacking Palin and McCain.

Well, Biden really did it this time.  In a democratic campaign that’s weary of the foreign policy topic and international relations, “Lunchbox” Joe decided to bring it to the forefront.  Not only did he bring up the topic of foreign policy, but he mentioned… no, he promised an international crisis within the first six months of Obama’s presidency, should he be elected this coming November.  To quote the man, “Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.”

He then goes on to say, “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

He further stated, “He’s gonna have to make some really tough – I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur.  As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”

There’s absolutely more, but I’d rather not repeat what’s been said on so many other conservative blogs and in fair media outlets.  You can hear the whole thing by clicking here.  That link was provided on the FOXNews website.  It’s quite an interesting speech, being that Biden is suggesting that an Obama presidency is going to lead to a generated crisis, whatever that means.

Really, now… What does he mean?  The world is watching and a “generated” crisis.  Obviously he means to say that it’s going to be an international crisis, but does he mean we’ll be attacked?  Will another country in question do something atrocious or despicable?  Will we experience another 9-11?  Will Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities?  Will Russia finally move into Georgia and/or Ukraine?  Will Venezuela, who’s building a Russian-fed arsenal and Nuclear facilities of their own decide to attack us in some way?  Perhaps they’ll attack an ally?

I have no idea what he means.  Maybe he means another financial crisis on a global scale.  Maybe he’s talking about an expecting oil or natural gas crisis (which seems to be on the brink of occurring, thanks to Venezuela and Iran).  I really don’t know.

Now, my good buddy Charles, that you’ve noticed posts here every once in a while made a good point earlier on FaceBook (where many of my arguments/debates are held).  He noted that a vote should not be cast, based on fear.  I agree.  You should always vote for who you believe will (in this case) run the country in the best interest of the people who reside there.  In my opinion, you should also vote for someone who has shown that he has what it takes to actually be President, rather than someone who says he’s the guy.  Experience is certainly a viable characteristic, and Obama’s 143 days in the senate really doesn’t scream “I’m experienced!”

When Biden said what he said during this speech, was he insinuating that a country under the leadership of McCain would not experience a crisis?  That McCain wouldn’t be tested?

Obviously, Biden was trying to say that Obama has a strong back bone of some sort…  Where it is, I don’t know, but apparently that’s what people are telling me and they believe it’s there.  I’ve personally yet to see it, but maybe I’ll take your word for it.  I mean, he’s got to have a back bone if he wanted to have multiple town hall debates before the election… wait, that was McCain.  Well, he’s got to have a back bone if he was going to call Russia out on their foul play, when it invaded the sovereign country of Georgia, and hold them personally responsib… wait, wait… that was McCain, too.  Hrmm… Ahh, I’ve got it.  You probably saw his strong back bone, when Obama said he’d like to sit down with anti-American/terrorist leaders/dictators without preconditions… wait, that… no, that was Obama.  Interesting…

A crisis to come?  How about the downfall of America as a capitalist nation?  The beginnings of socialism anyone?  More economic instability?  Disturbing sentiments… almost as disturbing as the latest video going around the internet, using children to spout Anti-Palin sentiments and obvious lies.  I wish I could find a link for this, but I believe it’s already been taken down from YouTube and other sites.  Unfortunate, indeed…  I’d love to call out the liberals who put this together.

McCain Plays an Aggressive Offense… When He Wants To

2 comments

We don’t normally see John McCain in an aggressive front.  We typically liken him to a little puppy dog, who doesn’t want to anger anyone and tries to steer away from any type of confrontation.  This personality, surprisingly, was lacking last Wednesday, during the third and final presidential debate.

For almost the entirety of the debate, McCain was on the offense and Obama was left answering accusations and questions throughout.  Yep, we finally saw McCain at his best and according to most news commentators, we saw Obama as the “cool” and “smooth” candidate he always is.  Wait… what?

I laugh… nay, scoff at those commentators and obvious Obama supporters.  Throughout the entirety of the debates, they’ve held to the opinion that Obama just has to “hold his own and make it through,” while McCain would have to pull off the argument of his life, as if to say that Obama could do no wrong and has this election in the bag.  Dare I say it?  This was Obama at his worst.  He was on the defense throughout the entire debate, having to prattle on about his usual talking points and defenses for his negative allegations, regurgitating everything he’s been saying since Day 1, or Day 2… whichever felt right at the moment.

I felt that Obama was certainly at his weakest during this debate, and I thought that resonated throughout the nation.  Of course the media would tell it differently, they’d skew their polls and sample data, but we all know the truth.  McCain won the final debate.

I definitely felt that this debate, held at Hofstra University and moderated by Bob Schieffer, was the most fair and balanced.  It was also the most interesting, since Bob covered entirely new and also typical ground.  Yes, we again heard their arguments about the economy and the war on terror, but we also heard about abortion, the negative campaign strategies, Obama’s relationship with Ayers (finally), etc.

Going into this debate, however, was quite different.  Previous to the debate, Obama was caught actually telling the truth about his economic policy (well, some truths anyway).  This information was disclosed to a member of the audience at one of Obama’s rallies.  He would raise the taxes on businesses making $250k and would “spread the wealth around” to those that “needed” it.  This answer from a question of a concerned plumber, who wants to buy a business in the near future and wants to know the repercussions of doing so, especially when Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses, etc.

Well, this information was used during the debate, and rightly so.  McCain used Joe the Plumber as an example of the many hundreds/thousands of entrepreneurs in the United States, who would like to start their own business and become prosperous with a lot of hard work, and believe me, it’s a LOT of hard work.  I’ve tried starting a business while working a full 40+hr job and it’s not exactly easy.  Running a business takes a hell of a lot more man hours than 40 hours a week, and with that work load, you’d expect to be compensated for the hard work that you put into it.  Well, Obama wants to tax these people, take their money (punish them) and redistribute it to those that apparently have no initiative or motive to work hard.  Yes, let’s reward these people.

I digress, I can get into this in another post… but as you can see, this was a huge talking point for McCain.  Joe the Plumber changed the way these campaigns would be run and aided in the success of McCain’s win in this debate.

Anyway, it was nice to see some differences in this debate from the other three.  McCain did mention Ayers and ACORN, but he really didn’t go after Obama for the truth or any more information.  He just let Obama get away with his moot answers and carried on.  That was disappointing, since we’ve learned so much about his relationships over the last several months, thanks to FOX News and several news radio shows (apparently the only media outlets that actually want to cover everything about this election, and not just attempt to destroy Palin and McCain).  However, it was definitely nice to see McCain at least mention them.

Well, there’s really not much more to say about this, since the debate was last Wednesday and so much more has happened since then, but I felt it was necessary to write a post about the last debate of this presidential election.  Winner?  Definitely McCain.  I don’t care what the polls/media says… that’s the truth.  It’s getting late, so I’m going to hit the hay.  I’m going to try to post something tomorrow (or in the next couple of days) about the recent gaffes (read “truth telling”) of Joe Biden or the recent endorsement of Obama from Colin Powell *shudder*.

You know, it’s almost sad that most of my postings with great talking points and information are up on Facebook… and not on here.  With all of the debating/arguing, I pretty much lose the stamina I need to post something worth while on here. ;P  Thanks you liberal swine!

McCain vs Obama: Take 2 (Or Repeat of Last Debate?)

2 comments

To say that the debates this year have been entertaining and competetive would be the overstatement of the decade.  The first debate was like watching two undead zombies attack each other in slow motion.  It seemed that after heavily campaigning around the United States, the hustle and bustle flow finally caught up with them.  Neither of the candidates showed any flair and the debate, lead by PBS News Anchor Jim Lehrer, seemed to have ended in a reluctant draw.

If you remember last time, I really wanted McCain to come down on Obama with the fury of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Knowing everything we do about the Democrats in congress, Obama’s rise to power through the ranks of sleaze, and their hand in the economic crisis, it was time that the Republicans and conservatives alike, got angry… and vocally so.  We’re typically a quiet, restrained group, but when things get rough like they are now, I’d like to see some confrontation in the Senate, House and especially these debates.

Well, McCain said the gloves were coming off for this debate, but I have one question… when did he take the gloves off, and where exactly did he put them?  Did he replace them with something else, so that Obama wouldn’t feel the punches?  I don’t get it.  It looked like a snowball fight out there.  There were no hardball questions… just the same questions from last time, all over again.  Same questions equate to the same answers.  We really didn’t learn anything new this round.

I think we can attribute that fact to the moderator, Tom “Same Questions” Brokaw.  He had apparently received 10s, even 100s of thousands of questions from people online, as well as the people that were in the town hall, which was the format of this particular debate.  They wanted to try something different and have user submitted questions, picked by the moderator.  Of course, Mr. Brokaw, an Obama supporter by the way, decided that it would be very important to choose the questions best befitting the current situation in America… you know, the questions that had already been debated and discussed to some degree in debates, as well as throughout the campaign.  Yes, these were questions befitting the current situation that America is in, but the problem is that the viewers already knew the answer to these.

Were these questions asked to shield Obama from damning questions pertaining to the social issues that could damage his reputation?  Well, honestly?  I believe they were.  I believe that Tom Brokaw, having 100s of thousands of questions to choose from, could have easily picked more enticing, social questions.  He could have questioned Obama about his relationship to Bill Ayers and connection to ACORN.  He could have asked about abortion or immigration, though he decided to stick to the safe subjects and further Obama’s lead.

Anyway, without sounding too bitter about the results, I do think that this was another debacle of a debate.  Though I do believe that McCain came out a little stronger than Obama, there really wasn’t a clear winner.  Of course the polls were mixed, skewed, biased and otherwise, as per usual.  One thing that’s important to note, is that McCain finally came out with clear, concise responses, kind of dumbing down the answers to the questions so that they were easily understood by the audience.  I felt this was important, because Obama tends to like to talk in code a lot of the time, really hiding the truth behind his policies.

For instance, he’s says that he’ll give a tax break to 95% of Americans…  What, exactly, does that mean?  Well, first of all 1/3 of Americans don’t even pay taxes, so that leave about 62% of America actually getting a tax cut.  What does that mean for the 1/3?  They’ll most likely get a tax rebate.

What Obama plans on doing, is taxing business; that’s large AND small.  Any business making over $250k per year will be receive an increase in tax.  That’s most of small business America.  In fact, small businesses account for 99% of the employers in the United States; most of which, earn more than $250k.

These facts are what Obama is keeping from the public.  His cryptic politics are misleading and dissuade you from seeing the truth.  Higher taxes on businesses will mean lower levels of employment and a degradation of the economy.  The market will slow, businesses will be forced to pay lower salaries, unless they unload some employees and more.  Punishing the hard working and successful, while rewarding others and redistributing wealth, will be the beginning of the end.  Add this economic “plan” to all of the other socialistic plans of Obama, and you have a failing democracy.

Did that sound bitter?  Maybe…  If so, then I’m sorry.  I can’t help but feel that the people of this country are being lead astray and lied to.  They’ve fallen for this guy’s luster and appeal.  He’s sly, he can read a teleprompter pretty damn good and he’s got a Harvard education.  Unfortunately, he’s been educated by some of the most liberal and extreme minds on the planet.

After all is said and done, we’re nearing the end of the election season and the last debate is on Wednesday.  Three more weeks and the voting shall ensue; fraud or not, and we’ll find out who’s going to be the next President of the United States.  It’s an important election, due to the economy and the world affairs going on at the moment, as well as the potential extremism that may come into office.

Hopefully America can unite under one flag and decide on the right candidate to bring us a prosperous 4-8 years.  Probably four if it’s McCain, but hey, who knows?  You’re only as old as you feel, and he seems pretty young to me.  Here’s to Wednesday’s hopefully more entertaining (with new questions) debate. ;]

1 2 3 4