Wednesday, October 29, 2008
When you put Obama into office, and he enacts his plans, economic and otherwise, who will be left to create the wealth to be spread around? Are you aware of what you are doing? When the "economically advantaged" have their wealth confiscated, the well will eventually run dry. Who has the right to demand a share of their neighbor's treasure?
Why do you believe an honorable man has ill intentions for our country? Why do you believe a man with a thin curriculum vitae and troubling personal and political allies would make a better president?
Why would an America-hating terrorist, a racist anti-semite preacher, a crooked real estate investor, and a pro-Palestinian thug want to be friends with someone running for president?
How can someone who has expressed his contempt for the Constitution swear to uphold the same?
Do you want to be responsible for yourself and your family? Or do you need a government nanny to old your hand and guide your every step?
Do you want higher prices, reduced economic opportunities, and a dependency on the benevolence of foreign nations? Do you want to keep your own retirement investments, or are you willing to hand it all over to the government to administer?
While I find his service and dedication to the United States unimpeachable, I am not happy with John McCain as the candidate on the republican ticket. I have serious issues with many of his positions, i.e. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. (has Senator Obama ever put his name on a significant piece of legislation?). The alternative, however, is unacceptable.
Think of your future. Think of your children's future. Look deep inside yourself and ask, do I want to condemn my family to oppression, tyranny, and darkness? You don't have to tell your friends you voted for McCain. No one will know. Just express your surprise at Obama's defeat.
It is time to do the right thing.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention National Defense. Could Senator Obama withstand an investigation for a Top Secret security clearance? It would not be conducted by the media. Senator Obama wants to pull all of our troops out of Iraq regardless of whether or not victory has been achieved. And let us not forget Senator Biden's comments that the world will "test" an Obama presidency - "Mark my words!"
An Obama presidency will mean a reduction in our military strength, both in numbers and dollars. What will happen when China invades Taiwan (or one of its neighboring "stans"), Russia (re)invades Georgia, or Iran launches an offensive against Israel? Iran, or anyone else with a rudimentary navy, could lob a few missiles our way from a ship. The North Koreans have been working for years on a long-range missile. It could be possible for them to reach our left coast without leaving home. Senator Obama says he will not "weaponize space." He means he is against missile defense.
Another economic point - when someone who has no income tax liability is handed a check from the government, it is called welfare. Calling it a "payroll tax rebate," or a rebate on medicare and social security, is intellectually dishonest. Tax liability should be fair. Why should just the lower income people receive a tax "rebate" at the expense of everyone else? And the idea of a "progressive" tax rate comes straight out of Marx. Higher income earners contribute the lion's share of tax revenue. Lower income earners contribute just a tiny percentage of taxes. This is not disputable. If you do not believe me, go look up the statistics for yourself.
Senator Obama has proposed over $1 TRILLION in new spending. When nearly half of all income earners have NO TAX LIABILITY, where will the money come from to pay their "rebate," let alone all of the new and existing government spending? Senator Obama answers with obfuscation and subterfuge.
Not convinced? Read Pete DuPont's "The Europeanization of America" at the Wall Street Journal. (Thanks to the Maximum Leader)
I hope all the leftists who think voting for Dear Leader will bring them salvation have a nightmare this Halloween. A nightmare of an undead McCain feasting on Chairman Maobama's brains. Of course, I bear no ill will towards anyone, even if they willingly submit to ignorance. McCain is not a warmonger, nor is he undead. But Obama is a Marxist. My Halloween nightmare will be America turned into a worker's paradise under Dear Leader.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Voting for an unconstitutional bill because it is "the only possible opportunity that will be offered in the Congress this year" is not only wrong, it is foolish and immoral.
"The bill we approved tonight bears no resemblance to the hastily-written and woefully inadequate bill that the Bush administration proposed to Congress less than two weeks ago." Correctly stated. It is now larded with pork.
"These provisions will help to restore taxpayer confidence in our financial system and ease the credit crunch that threatens economic growth." Government created this so-called credit crunch, as you are well aware. What we have is not a lack of confidence in the market, but in government.
Your lack of understanding, nay, blatant ignorance of enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8) is startling.
I received his reply 3 days ago. One might think such a note would generate a response, even if it was a form letter, addressing my specific concerns. However, Senator Webb sent only a generic form letter worded in a manner which could be used whether the corresponding individual agreed with Webb or not. Heaven forbid a constituent actually reads the Constitution and expects his representatives to uphold it.
He has earned the nickname "Melonhead."
I know it is a little late, but here is the link to the story about the fraudulent voter registrations in Ohio (NB to Smallholder: The registrations were already found to be potentially fraudulent because they did not match any records in the state's database). From the story at Fox News:
In an unsigned order, the high court ruled that it could not say whether Ohio was properly enforcing the Help America Vote Act. However, it said the Ohio GOP doesn't have the standing to file the suit.
"They didn't deal with the merits of the case," said Ohio GOP Chairman Bob Bennett. "What they dealt with was a technicality on whether we had standing or not to bring the action."
"We are very pleased that the court recognized that this was an illegal challenge on the part of the Republicans," [Ohio Secretary of State Brunner] said.
She said the office would have found a way to comply, but there were risks that qualified voters would have been disqualified.
"I think it's an unfair tactic to subject voters to this kind of uncertainty and anxiety this close to such an important election," she said.
Uncertainty and anxiety? If we still used typewriters, I would accuse the Ohio SecState of huffing white-out.
Which is better? eliminating a few legitimate registrations/votes, or allowing nearly a quarter of a million illegitimate registrations/votes? This is just ammunition for a court fight should the election come out against Dear Leader: "Hey, we found all these registrations, and these people were not permitted to vote! Disenfranchisement! Election-stealing! Recount! Recount!"
Currently, the Department of Justice is being asked to investigate in the wake of the Supreme Court's siding with the Ohio SecState.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Courts vs. Marriage
In 2005, Connecticut enacted “civil unions,” designed to be marriage in everything but name for same-sex couples. We are not sure what good purpose is served by such laws. The reason governments recognize marriage in the first place is to promote the well-being of children in the setting most conducive to their flourishing. There may or may not be great value in other types of relationships: those between friends, or heterosexual lovers, or relatives who take care of each other. But why should the government grant recognition to one subset of those non-marital relationships — those between people of the same sex who are sexually involved? What goal does such recognition serve? Other, that is, than the legitimization of homosexual conduct?
But Connecticut, at least, decided the matter democratically. Those people who objected could try to persuade their fellow citizens to repeal the law.
Now Connecticut’s supreme court has decided that marriage in all but name is not good enough, and imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Like other courts, the Connecticut court treated the legislature’s attempt to meet gay activists halfway as a reason to throw out the compromise and hand the activists a victory. If the legislature was willing to recognize same-sex unions as though they were marriages, the court reasoned, why not call them marriages too? Opponents of same-sex “marriage” should be warned: Thanks to the courts, compromise is now folly.
The courts have so far imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California. The next step will be to force other states to recognize same-sex unions solemnized in those jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act protects states that wish to maintain their marriage laws as they are. Senator Obama wants to repeal that act, however, and the Democratic platform comes out for repeal — a position to the left of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. When Obama says that he opposes same-sex marriage, his words mean nothing.
A pity, then, that Senator McCain has not raised the issue. In the vice-presidential debate, Governor Palin even suggested that the tickets agree on same-sex marriage. We are on track to have same-sex marriage from sea to shining sea, without the people ever authorizing the idea. The public will be consulted as little as possible, and only after the fact.
That should make my pro-non-traditional-marriage friends happy. The tactics of the left: Using the courts to shove special-rights status of victim groups down the throats (I almost wrote "up the backsides") of Regular Americans.
Dear Leader gets so much covering fire from the mainstream media, such as the glossing over of his "spread the wealth around" comment. But even alleged democrats like Orson Scott Card are sickened by their lack of integrity and intellectual honesty. To wit: The coverage of the Fannie/Freddie nonsense, and the #2 money man, Dear Leader Chairman Maobama himself:
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign "because that campaign had sought his advice" you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
Please read his article. It may change your mind if you honestly believe that both presidential candidates are getting even treatment.
Now that you understand mainstream media has abandoned all journalistic standards of truth and fair reporting, read Charles Krauthammer's article on why McCain needs your vote.
Are you a "moderate" who is still "undecided?" Do you believe in the theory "from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Do you believe in equality? Do the rich need to pay?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above, stay home and sort your socks on election day.
Equality is a bowl of rice and a sleeping mat.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
It's about time.
There is, of course, some misleading information in the article:
Wurzelbacher became the focal point of the final presidential debate after he met Obama earlier in the week and said the Democrat's tax proposal could keep him from buying the two-man plumbing company where he works. However, reports of Wurzelbacher's annual earnings suggest he would receive a tax cut rather than an increase under Obama's plan.
If Joe the Plumber bought the business, his income (and taxes) would go up. This is a nice attempt at deflection, but how does Dear Leader respond to the issue at hand? By reiterating his tiresome talking points which hide the true agenda of the hard left:
Obama has said his tax policies would cut payments for 95 percent of working Americans, while increasing them only for families making more than $250,000 a year. McCain has argued that 40 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes, either because they are seniors or don't meet minimum earnings thresholds, so the only way to cut their taxes is to give them various credits.
"In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in the radio address.
An Obama spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Chairman Maobama has been caught on tape explaining to a plumber, concerned about tax policy, how his Bright New Future will benefit others by "spreading the wealth around."
I was hoping the man would pop Dear Leader square in his nose for saying something so completely ignorant of American tradition and philosophy.
Do you need some more reasons to vote against Dear Leader? Read Stanley Kurtz at NRO . Here is the opening paragraph:
It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.
Chairman Maobama has got his grubby fingerprints all over everything that is going wrong right now. If any of it is pointed out, Dear Leader immediately denies association, denies knowledge, or simply plays the race card. His willing accomplices in the mainstream media (useful idiots) lay down covering fire for him by repeating the lies and excoriating whomever shines the light on the truth.
Since Chairman Maobama is using the far-left playbook Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, I would strongly urge Senator McCain to remember Machiavelli: "Men will forget more quickly the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony...he who begins to live by stealing always finds a reason for taking what belongs to others." And sometimes, it is necessary to do something which one finds uncomfortable or undesirable in order to achieve one's goals. Senator McCain does not like being confrontational. Apparently, he fears that the public will perceive him as being "mean-spirited." He must put this aside. He must pound Obama during the debate on Dear Leader's alliances, associations, and hard-left radical policies. He must continue to name names, and put Obama into "prevent defense." That is, of course, if he really wants to win not only the debate, but the election in November.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
A friend recently stated what I took to be exasperation with his mother's politics when he stated "she will not vote for Obama because of William Ayers."
I asked if he knew the difference between William Ayers and Timothy McVeigh. I enlightened him with the following:
Ayers (he is a friend and associate of Obama, like it or not, as late as 2002) was not convicted of murder for his bombing of a federal facility due to a legal technicality. He has stated in the New York Times, on September 11, 2001, that he is not remorseful and wishes he had "done more" bombings.
Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted, and executed for the same crime.
Here's another fun one: How are Obama and UBL alike? They both have friends who murder innocent Americans.
Add Rev. Wright, Fr. Phleger (sp?), Tony Rezko, etc, etc, to the most far-left politics of a presidential candidate evah, it is amazing that anyone gives this douche the time of day.
UPDATE: To get your very own Chairman Maobama t-shirt, click here. Thanks to Mike Church .
Friday, October 03, 2008
No one votes for a leader because of promises of censorship, oppression, and tyranny. A dictator comes to power because he promises to make the trains run on time.