Friday, October 31, 2008

Joe thinks it’s unpatriotic not to pay a fair share of taxes

Of course Joe Biden was referring to the upper 5% of taxpayers. Let’s do a little deductive reasoning here…..if he thought it was unpatriotic for that upper 5% group, what does he think about the 44% of the lower class who pay nothing? Is that somehow different? Different to whom? He practices class warfare, as does his boss Barack Obama. They both make the entrepreneurial group of America out to be the bad guys. You can’t pull down the upper class to make the lower class feel better about themselves, that my friends is socialism.

We started this country by practicing democracy and encouraging a capitalistic economic. Obama has been recorded stating he wants to redistribute the wealth, but apparently nobody gave Joe Biden the memo about the direction Obama wants to go. He made a joke in an interview with a central Florida news anchor, about how Senator Obama’s view differs from the Marxist idea, and as a result that station has been black balled from ever talking to the Obama regime again. You see the problem lies in the wording…..”Socialism” will NEVER fly with the American public, but the words “change” and “redistribution of wealth” are the new catch phrases for the liberal left.
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Khrushchev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Class and generational warfare

About 4 weeks ago in Miami, the Democratic Party paid for a free rap concert featuring Jay-Z to register new voters. Obviously the courts in FL see nothing wrong with buying votes, as long it benefits the Democratic Party. If the Republican Party had a free Beach Boys concert in a retirement community to register new voters, and had restricted entry to the over 55 group, the Democrats would have screamed bloody murder!!!!!

Along the same lines when the Democrats want to tax the “rich” at a rate higher then the rest of the public because they “have the means to pay.” We are expected to see the slow change to socialism as acceptable. This is class and generational warfare, plain and simple. They foster the idea of giving entitlements to people who vote for them read “buying votes.”

The democrats will promise anything to anyone depending on the size of the voting group. They buy the vote, allow some 44% of the population to go tax less, and then tell the remainder of taxpayers that they aren’t paying their fair share, and that refusal to do so is equivalent to a “non-patriotic” status. The top 10% of Americans already pay 70% of the taxes, where do you get off coming up with the previous asinine statement? Where is the accountability for the 44% who pay nothing? Why must the rest of us pay for their welfare?

Where is the accountability that denies soldiers in the active military the right to vote? The Left claims that the forms are never filled out correctly, so their vote doesn’t count, and yet we never hear about votes thrown out in major cities made by non- high school graduates, who couldn’t fill out THEIR votes properly. Could it possibly be that the left knows that the largest support for the right comes from the military, and a majority of their support comes from inner city dwellers.

I don’t advocate taking one group’s vote over another, but to accept all the LEGAL votes. If the wording requirements to vote are too confusing on an absentee ballot, then improve it! Give instructions in plain language, and in the military’s case, hand deliver the votes back to the states in a timely fashion, so they may be included. If anyone has a right to be counted, it’s the military, the people who defend us, and the people who die for our freedom, not the fraudulently registered “Mickey Mouses” in Orlando.

Are we tired of this abuse yet? Do we deserve better? Maybe we should hold the people who deny us the right of fair voting practices accountable. The Attorney General of the state of Ohio for example, she has refused to do anything to confirm the validity of the recent voter registrations by way of ACORN. It’s not as if this is a new problem for Acorn, they have had canvassers convicted of fraud as far back as 2001. They continue to receive funds from taxpayers; they still retain the non-profit status even though through another branch called “Get out the Vote” they actively support the left. Where exactly do they draw the line? When they canvas for the left do they wear their ACORN shirts? If the votes of the military are thrown out for not being filled out right, then why can’t the registrations of ACORN be thrown out?

How many more concessions will be given to the Democrats? Why not just start out with giving them 200,000 votes as a handicap? Better still how about 1.3 million? The amount that ACORN first claimed they had registered.

Maybe the Democrats think that what we are experiencing here is “affirmative action” in the presidential campaign. Sound ridiculous? Well figure in the factors of the left leaning media, the outrageous actions of Acorn, and the fact that Obama agreed to use public funds, then later reneged leaving McCain with his choice. It all stinks to high heaven to me of the most crooked election in our history. There will be wide spread voter fraud because not even the Supreme Court will step in and require voting on an equal basis. As a direct result of the campaign Obama has run on the idea of “bring people together” has in fact caused the exact opposite, and caused class, and generational division.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The first 100 Days of Barack Obama

The First 100 days of Barack Obama
by the editors of National Review Online

Barack Obama leads in the national polls and in the Electoral College count.

If elected, he can be expected to work manically to exploit the short window of opportunity that greets every new president, a period that could prove especially fruitful for a charismatic young president borne to the White House on a tide of idealism.

Some of the items that a President Obama would like to accomplish probably would remain beyond his grasp during the first 100 days of his administration: A radical overhaul of the American health-care system replicating the state-dominated model of France or Canada, for instance, would probably take much longer. On the other hand, a number of items — ranging from important domestic concerns (taxes, energy, financial turmoil) to foreign affairs (foremost the Iraq war, but also trade with Asia and Latin America) — are susceptible to early action.

Here’s what we might expect from the first 100 days of an Obama administration.Hoisting the White FlagThis is Obama’s plan for Iraq: “The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now.” He plans to begin drawing down our forces at a rate as brisk as two brigades a month — “about twice as fast as American commanders in Iraq have deemed prudent,” according to the New York Times.

Notwithstanding the success of the surge, Obama’s plan has not changed since he made the above statement in September 2007. The retreat presumably begins on Day One. Neither Obama nor Biden (who once hoped to ethnically partition Iraq into three autonomous states, not understanding that Iraq’s ethnic groups are quite inconveniently mixed together) has made a single credible statement about how to keep our progress in Iraq from being reversed.

As America retreats, remnant al-Qaeda in Iraq elements will have the opportunity to surge, as will those forces backed by the ayatollahs in Iran and others supported by Sunni Arab neighbors. The strategic advantages we have won in the heart of the Middle East — purchased at a terrible price — will be tossed away. The military that could not be defeated by al-Qaeda will be defeated by its own commander-in-chief’s folly.

Raising Taxes to Pay for New Spending
One of the first things any new president does is draft a budget and submit it to Congress. If elected, Obama will face a problem: He has promised mind-boggling spending increases — $1.6 trillion for health care alone — and proposed no serious way to pay for them. He would increase tax rates on capital gains, dividends, and individuals making more than $250,000. But these hikes would be more than offset by new tax credits for an array of targeted groups. Credits for childcare and college tuition would be expanded, and one for mortgage payers would be created. Low-income workers who pay little or no income tax would get a credit that refunds most of their Social Security taxes as well. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, estimates that Obama’s tax credits would amount to $600 billion in new spending over the next ten years.

His tax hikes on high earners would cover only about half that amount, and that’s before the economic downturn is factored into the equation. There will be a gaping hole in the budget before Obama even starts talking about health care, energy, or any of the dozens of other big-ticket spending items he promised during the campaign.

Obama says he’ll pay for all his new spending by “closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” This is the same magic wand politicians have been waving for years, but they never manage to pull the rabbit out of the hat. Obama has not revealed a plan for succeeding where others have failed, but he has promised to produce the biggest rabbit ever: nearly $1 trillion in revenue over ten years from “as yet unspecified” sources, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Of course the trick is quite simple to perform in practice: Congress reaches into its hat and pulls out our wallets. Obama’s new Great Society will require broad tax increases to sustain it. As the bills come due, those “as yet unspecified” sources are going to become painfully obvious.Enacting Another Pointless Stimulus Last winter, Congress passed and Bush signed a $168 billion economic-stimulus package, consisting mostly of tax rebates.

The rebate checks failed to have much of an impact, because the concept underlying all such stimulus is flawed: The government cannot put money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy, through either taxing or borrowing. The economy is stimulated when tax policy encourages people to work, save, and invest; rebate checks merely redistribute wealth.

But House speaker Nancy Pelosi now says she wants another $300 billion. In addition to rebate checks, the new stimulus package would include funds for bridges and highways, extended unemployment benefits, and a fiscal bailout for states whose budgets are in the red. Bush has signaled his willingness to sign a stimulus bill, and at this point he and Pelosi are merely haggling over the size.

If Obama wins, size won’t matter. Pelosi could split the package in two, send Bush whatever he’s willing to sign, and let Obama enact the rest.

This would be a colossal waste of money at a time when we have little to spare. New infrastructure spending might create some jobs, but taking money out of the economy would delay private-sector job creation and could exacerbate job losses. Moreover, our roads and bridges aren’t deteriorating for lack of funding. They are in bad shape because members of Congress would rather build monuments to themselves (see “Don Young’s Way” in Alaska) than set national transportation priorities. And bailing out states that indulged in politically popular but unaffordable spending would only encourage them to do it again.

Taking Over the Banks
Another of Obama’s early-action items might be the imposition of new terms on any bank that accepted a government rescue this year. Already he has suggested that any bank participating in the Treasury Department’s stock-purchase plan be made to observe a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures. What he expects to accomplish with this is unclear; lenders already have incentives to work out mortgage write-downs in all but the most hopeless of cases. Such a move wouldn’t stop inevitable foreclosures, but it would set a troubling precedent of government interference in the banking system.

Treasury secretary Henry Paulson tried to structure the stock-purchase plan so that the government’s ownership share in participating banks would not come with government control of them, but he is out of a job in less than three months. Obama, backed by Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, could quickly rewrite the rules.

In the worst-case scenario, the Obama administration acquires the ability to dictate lending decisions to any participating bank. Much like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which should be broken up and privatized, but which an Obama administration would probably restore to "government-sponsored" status), the nation’s biggest banks would have a government mission, a profit motive, and taxpayer backing in case of failure. What could possibly go wrong?

Reinstating the Offshore-Drilling Ban
“There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new-energy economy,” Obama recently told a reporter. “That’s going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office.” Obama’s enthusiasm for renewable energy — and the fact that congressional Democrats already have energy legislation teed up and ready to go — makes this issue all but certain to be addressed in the first 100 days. Adding to its urgency, from Obama’s point of view, is the fact that Democrats lacked the votes to renew the offshore-drilling ban before it expired last month. The Democrats are eager to get something resembling the ban back into place as soon as possible, before oil producers can clear the many regulatory hurdles that remain and start producing oil. To this end, they will try to pass legislation on the model of what the “Gang of Ten” in the Senate proposed last year.

Under that proposal, a few areas off the East Coast and some parts of the Gulf would have been opened to drilling, but 80 percent of the nation’s offshore oil reserves would have remained off-limits. The proposal would also have increased subsidies for renewable energy by $84 billion and repealed several tax breaks for oil producers. It was a bad deal.Last month, Pelosi passed a bill very similar to the gang’s proposal, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to wait. Bush had pledged to veto the bill, and the Senate’s close margin made any attempt to pass energy legislation a risky proposition.

If Obama wins and the Democrats pick up a few Senate seats, however, Reid should be very safe. Handouts for the ethanol industry would splinter Republican opposition, and Congress would pass Obama’s dream energy bill — one that limits offshore drilling, provides vast new subsidies for renewable-energy boondoggles, and raises taxes on domestic oil producers.

Assaulting the Culture of Life Obama has promised to review every executive order issued by the Bush administration — and he will very likely start with one regarding federal funding of research that destroys human embryos.

Bush’s executive order makes two important ethical claims:
The destruction of nascent life for research violates the principle that no life should be used as a means for achieving the medical benefit of another. Human embryos and fetuses, as members of the human species, are not raw materials to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold.It is important to note that none of Bush’s orders have prohibited stem-cell research. They even permit federal funding of stem-cell research if it uses cells that come from preexisting lines, or from sources that do not require the destruction of embryonic human beings. (Such sources include, for example, umbilical-cord blood.)

In his first 100 days, a President Obama would likely revoke these executive orders and any other administrative hurdles that displease the abortion lobby. Executive policies that seek to protect the conscience rights of pro-life pharmacists and physicians would also be undone. Meanwhile the groundwork will be laid for a Freedom of Choice Act that puts all the branches of the federal government on record in support of late-term abortion and makes all levels of government pay for abortion. Obama will be pro-choice, so long as you choose abortion.

Obeying the Unions
If the two major free-trade agreements now pending — deals with Colombia and South Korea — have not become law by the end of Bush’s term, they will probably die a quick and painful death under an Obama administration. Obama seems incapable of appreciating that trade is a major driver of the American economy, a boon to low-income consumers, and an essential source of both capital and goods. Obama has resisted the Colombia deal on the grounds that there has been violence targeting labor leaders in Colombia; he argues that no trade deal should be accepted until there is better protection for unionists.

Colombia is, unhappily, a dangerous place to be in any sort of public life, as a labor leader or politician, but its president, Álvaro Uribe, who heads the most pro-U.S. government in Latin America, has been a force for the rule of law, order, and openness. Colombian parliamentarians are currently under investigation for ties to violent paramilitaries, and President Uribe has not exempted his own supporters from scrutiny. His efforts to suppress FARC terrorism and the wanton violence of the cocaine cartels has made Colombia one of the hemisphere’s success stories in recent years. Given that almost all Colombian goods already enter the U.S. tariff-free under existing law, a free-trade deal would primarily grant U.S. firms equal access to Colombian markets — and bolster an important American ally.

A President Obama would also undermine the pending U.S.-Korea trade accord because of resistance to it from Ford, Chrysler, and the autoworkers’ union, none of which apparently think that Americans can build a car as good as a Hyundai at a competitive price. Anti-trade rhetoric plays with the unions, favor-seeking business interests, and the far-left antiglobalists in the Democratic party; Obama would not be likely to overrule them. Obama would probably move to pass one of the most thuggish and anti-democratic initiatives in recent memory, the abolition of secret-ballot elections in union-representation votes. Under the “card check” program, instead of holding secret-ballot elections on whether to be represented by a union, workers would be subjected to visits from the local union bosses — who may also be those workers’ supervisors — in which the bosses asked them to fill out a form indicating that they wished to be represented by the union. Refusing the union bosses could easily bring retaliation, whether that means lost professional opportunities or, in the case of the Teamsters and other more robust negotiators, something a little more vigorous.

If you don’t remember what that looks like, recall the Washington Times report on the Teamsters’ campaign against dissenting members in the wake of the famous UPS strike, which spoke of “beatings, shootings, stabbings, death threats, intimidation and illegal confiscation of union dues.” If anybody deserves a secret-ballot vote, it’s workers facing these guys.

Looking Beyond
Sen. Obama’s agenda goes beyond the priorities we have noted here, but, to summarize, these are a few things he seems likely to do right away: start withdrawing from Iraq; draft a budget that increases spending and taxes; pass a grab bag of handouts in the name of stimulating the economy; seek government control of banks; reinstate the drilling ban; throw billions down the “new energy” black hole; repeal executive orders that protect the sanctity of human life; block further trade liberalization; and sign legislation empowering unions to bully workers. As we said above, it would probably not be possible for Obama to implement his dirigiste health-care goals in the first 100 days, but he could start taking steps toward them.

For instance, last year President Bush vetoed an attempt to cover middle-class children under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). Congress could simply pass that bill again, and a President Obama would happily sign it. We wouldn’t expect to see much movement on entitlements during Obama’s first 100 days. The problems facing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would take longer to address, and Obama’s proposed solutions — such as a surtax of 2 to 4 percent on high earners — would be controversial and require negotiations with Republicans.

Nor do we think Obama will seek cap-and-trade controls on carbon emissions right away. Even Democrats seem to realize that the economy is currently too fragile to absorb the massively higher energy costs such a plan would entail. Of course, we could be wrong. If elected, Obama could make the mistake of Democratic presidents before him and overreach during his first 100 days, provoking a backlash and setting his party up for a fall in 2010.

On the other hand, he could be even bolder than we anticipate, claiming a mandate to pursue the far Left’s dream agenda: We cannot rule out the prosecution of Bush-administration officials for “war crimes” or the reinstitution of the manifestly unfair “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle conservative talk-radio hosts. In any case, we’d rather not take our chances. If Obama accomplished even half of what we’ve outlined here, his first 100 days would feel a very long time indeed. Conservatives have had their differences with Sen. McCain, but their differences with Sen. Obama are fundamental and unbridgeable. Those who have been tepid toward McCain should keep in mind that the first 100 days of an Obama administration would be followed by 1,361 more.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

To Barack Hussein Obama,

To Barack Hussein Obama,

The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied about it.

The Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied about it.

Your speech in on March 18, 2008, about "race" contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about whites . While your attendance at for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied on March 14.

In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without "preparations" at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered "I would" to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without "any" preconditions. While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied in the debate with McCain.

On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the videotapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied about your previous position.

You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar .. and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February 2008, you claimed to have talked with a "Captain" of a platoon in "the other day" when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed. You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a "professor of Constitutional law" when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a "professor of Constitutional law." You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .. Corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden, you lied.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them.

During your campaign, you said: "typical white person." "They cling to their guns and religion." "They will say that I am black." You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide.

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of, but you forgot to tell that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving.

The drain to economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear, you are lying.

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you "changed" your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and You are lying.

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the schools. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ...... Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving.

Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

1. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide the country about race and class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. graduate with "Country first." Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth is never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for honesty first.

Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty?

Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises .. and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change" like the Germans who voted for Adolph Hitler in 1932.

The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you .. your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
Mr. Obama, you are not the "change" that deserves. We cannot trust you.
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships.

The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness .. perjury .. your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own ... but your lies are even worse.

Therefore, by copy of this memo, all that read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in this country understands who you really are before election day.
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help if we deserve you.

Michael Master

Monday, October 27, 2008

Non-Bill of Rights

Non-Bill of Rights
By Lewis Napper

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them , but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes .

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care..

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job.. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in o ne true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution.The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!! GET OVER IT !!!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

95% gets a tax break?

I’m sorry but for the majority of America to believe that Senator Barack Obama has the answer to the Financial Crisis, by saying that he wants to give 95% of America a tax cut, and make the top 5% of wage earners pay their freight is not only preposterous but a flat out lie, and 100% socialist. The whole country can never be subsidized by only 5% of the population, while 44% pay nothing, if you believe that I have some property in the everglades………

I have to hand it to Obama; he hides nothing, evident by his recorded chat with “Joe the Plumber.” He explained that everyone should have the ability to succeed, so he would take money from “Joe” and give it to the poorer workers. I thought that the ability to succeed had to do more with education then social redistribution, but does it?

Let’s look at Joe the Plumber in a different light. He wanted to buy a company that does plumbing work. For argument sake let’s say Joe is single and starts his company as a “sole proprietorship”… you see where I’m headed yet? Let’s say he makes $250,000 in gross sales in the first year. Do you think that is a lot of money? Let’s pretend he only makes a 10% profit margin (which is close to the national average.) So Joe personally makes $25,000 for the year for his 16 to 18 hour a day business, probably less because it’s his first year. Joe gets to deduct his expenses of course but never at their full value. Senator Obama thinks that because Joe has a sole proprietor business he now falls into the upper 5% of wage earners, and will be taxed accordingly. Regardless of what Joe earns personally, he WILL be taxed on the gross income.

Now do you still think “Joe” is wealthy?

It seems funny to me how the democrats claim that George Bush’s policies to own banks is socialist, and yet “redistribution of wealth” isn’t. The banks will be allowed to buy back their stocks from the government eventually, but will we as American citizens be able to buy back our economic freedom under an Obama administration?
Even though 44% of the lower class of America pays no taxes, Obama’s program intends to give them money back in the form of an annual check. Obama says that the republicans don’t seem to understand that the lower tax class still pays other taxes, well no joke, don’t we all? So once again the lower wage earners will get a free ride in the Democratic system.

If everyone has the right to higher education, but some of those people chose to not accept that education for whatever reason, why should the driven, and the educated upper 5% of wage earners be not only required to share their wages from hard work, but allow politicians to say who should get it?

This way of thinking is labeled as “liberal,” and that is what the Democrats want you to believe. The fact of the matter is this is the classic socialistic manifesto. Under the truthful explanation of socialism, these ideas would never sell.

Let’s consider the uneducated or for lack of a better word, the uninformed. If you promise that you will take money from the rich, and then redistribute that money to the undeserving, it not only “buys the vote,” but also assures the Democratic position of supporting the poor from cradle to grave.

Even though Senator Obama claims that the present administration has saddled us unduly in debt, he has campaigned on the idea of adding 1 trillion dollars worth of new programs, how exactly does that help our country? Let’s not even talk about his plan to give $854 billion to the United Nations to distribute to the poor countries abroad. Have we fixed social security? Have we fixed our health care issues? Has our financial crisis been fixed? Have we paid down our debt yet? Yet Senator Obama wants to “give away” OUR money, never to return to our country?

If you think the government is best suited to decide healthcare, social security, the financial crisis, think of this scenario. In 1990 the government took over the Mustang Ranch (a bordello in Nevada) for failure to report IRS earnings. The government took over that business and failed can you imagine? They failed at prostitution and selling liquor! They failed at funding social security, they failed at public housing, they have failed us on energy, and they have failed us at virtually every turn involving money.

Is this the proof of how Obama is better suited to fix our financial crisis? I’m lost here, where exactly IS the logic of believing this garbage? Has Obama shown through his past experience of requesting earmarks to the tune of $1million dollars a day since he’s been a U.S. Senator. He promises to start new programs to drive us into 1 trillion dollars in new debt, and this is called fiscal responsibility?

Don’t believe me, GO AND CHECK IT OUT ONLINE!

Friday, October 24, 2008

Obama, ACORN, and Contempt for Election Law

Obama, ACORN, and Contempt for Election Law
by Frank Pastore

Frank Pastore from KKLA in Los Angeles interviews Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.

Frank Pastore: ACORN is an acronym that stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. They are up to their eyeballs in voter fraud. When the subject of voter fraud is mentioned there is one expert in America that nearly everyone turns to and he is John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, and his book “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud threatens Our Democracy….”

Give us an overview—a lay of the land….

John Fund: ACORN is the left-wing housing lobby that was at the heart of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. They pushed Congress, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and banks to put out loans to people who weren’t credit worthy, they helped tip this crisis into the disaster that we have now. And they are out registering voters, mostly for Barack Obama, and in 12 states there are investigations into their fraud. Las Vegas is the most kindly. The Attorney Generals office raided them yesterday took all of their computers and files. ACORN has responded by saying this is a stunt designed to discredit our efforts and bring back discriminatory voting practices. In reality what ACORN had done is they had hired supervisors to run this voter registration program who were former felons, including felons who had been put into prison for identity theft. ACORN is now hiring specialists to do their work apparently.

Pastore: So, the problem that strikes so many people on this is not the overwhelming bias, but the fact that we are paying for it. Michelle Malkin had a piece [where] she cited 40 percent of ACORN’s budget is paid for by the American taxpayers. Is that true?

Fund: They get a lot of grants, they get a lot of housing subventions, and they get a lot of money to help build public housing. It is a classic case of the left-wing getting the capitalists—the productive private sector in this country—to pay for the rope that they are trying to hang them with.

Pastore: So how widespread is this?

Fund: I think voter registration fraud is akin to the one tenth of an iceberg that is above the surface. Nine tenths happens below the surface, you don’t see it until it’s too late. You don’t see it until Election Day. You don’t see it until the lawsuits that try to force poll closing hours open in only certain areas and not others. You don’t see it until absentee ballots come in and they come in from addresses that are fictitious.

All of your listeners have a civil right, two civil rights actually: There’s a civil right not to be intimidated or prevented from voting. We fought a voting rights struggle in the 1960s to make sure that doesn’t happen. You need to do that again and often. But we also have a civil right—all of your listeners—not to have your vote cancelled out by someone who shouldn’t be voting, someone who is voting twice, or someone who doesn’t even exist. And that means you can be disenfranchised as easily as if you are prevented from voting. And whether it’s a felon or whether it’s someone from out of state, or whether it’s an illegal alien—any of these votes subvert our democracy, destroy the legitimacy of our elections and make it more difficult for whoever gets elected in a close race to govern effectively.

Pastore: …The offense is obvious—that people who have a legitimate vote can be cancelled out by those with an illegitimate vote. Talk to us about how the legal process works, where it is long after the fact that wrongdoing is every confirmed and proved in a court of law.

Fund: The time to prevent voter fraud is before an election because we have a secret ballot. And if people vote illegally it is very difficult—almost impossible in most cases—to go back into the pile of votes that are cast in an election (which is a secret ballot and there are no names attached to the votes) and pick out the ones that are illegitimate. So, once the voter fraud is committed you might be able to punish the malefactors if you look hard enough, but you may not be able to prevent the election from being stolen.

Pastore: Well, as I believe it was you that had said, or maybe it was Stanley Kurtz who has been writing a lot about ACORN lately, he said it’s going to be about the time of Barack Obama’s second term as president if there is any kind of an investigation that goes on in this. What are you most concerned about as you are the expert on voter fraud in America?

Fund: I am most concerned about the fact that Barack Obama has ties to ACORN. He was their top trainer, he was their lawyer in election law litigation, he provided funding to them from the Wood Foundation that he sat on the board of. His ties to ACORN have not been fully explored. And Barack Obama has himself never, never criticized ACORN publicly. Instead his campaign has hired an ACORN affiliate and paid them $800,000 for election services. They misidentified that affiliate to conceal, I believe, the form of the payment and that it went to ACORN. I fear we are going to elect a candidate backed by an organization which has complete contempt for the election laws of this country. And Barack Obama has never criticized them.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Letter to the editor, of a local paper

Letter to the editor of the local paper
By Q.D Thompson

Dear Editor:
I still remain deeply concerned as the voting date approaches regarding Senator Barack Obama’s radical past and his nonchalant political performances in Chicago, and first, it should be noted that Senator Obama’s early twenty years he spent in considerable involvement in radical associations and activities in and around would have disqualified him from employment in the CIA and FBI, where he would have been subjected to taking a lie detector test.

In my estimation this should also have disqualified him from even running in the primaries, much less campaigning to become our Commander-in-Chief. When it became evident these past radical actions presented a campaigning obstacle, he unsuccessfully attempted to disavow them all with vague explanations and evasions.

Secondly, during his political tenure, Senator Obama has fashioned no leadership or governing roles. Instead he has walked a fine line with much flip-flopping and confirmed falsehoods and with no declaration of any firm convictions. His hollow campaign proclamations have been most alarming, full of numerous promises which would require increased taxation, resulting in a flavor of socialism invading our government.

Frightening also are his recommendations for dealing with the global conflict against terrorism which reflect a sense of naivety. Such measures would place the on the defensive, resulting in our loss of leadership and trust around the world, thereby sacrificing the welfare and security of our nation.

Therefore, I challenge every American voter to closely examine all political issues and the inner character of all four candidates, McCain/Palin & Obama/Biden; then search you conscience and soul before casting your vote on Nov. 4.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

If it were the republican party who…….

If it were the Republican Party who was behind Acorn, there would be hell to pay! Acorn has participated in questionable voter registration since 2002, and yet here we are once again! When are we going to say that enough is enough? Today we watched TV as a number of people testified before the board of elections in Ohio on the practices of Acorn. I have to wonder how many of those so called “do gooders” didn’t know that registering 76 times wasn’t lawful. Regardless of what I think they were doing, today it was reported that an “upper level” Acorn official in Nevada is in fact a past felon that was found guilty of “identity theft.”

At Least Acorn hired professional criminals to do their hit squad work. It was also admitted by workers for Acorn that they have two different agendas, the first agenda was to register voters; the second agenda was to push for votes for Obama! This is a plain and clear conflict of interest.

I don’t understand how this can happen, and why we even allow it! If Acorn is a non-profit organization, and supported by government money I damn well want it to be bipartisan! When did we not only allow this to happen since 2002 but shrug our shoulders at the testimony we saw today? If the testimony we saw today was for real, then politicians are correct by saying that voters are STUPID! If someone stands in the senate and says he didn’t think it was wrong to register 76 times then HE shouldn’t have the right to vote! If he’s a high school graduate and he has failed to learn how our system works, then his voting rights should be revoked!

Of course I shouldn’t talk like this, and I’m sure in Obama’s eyes I would be labeled as a racist, but this hasn’t a thing to do with race, it has to do with what is right and what is wrong. I have said in previous posts that based on previous incidents and the wide spread voter fraud this year that not one vote should be counted from the Acorn files, and now I think that everyone who made the choice to register multiple times should also be revoked, and the canvassors be they normally say in court…….”ignorance is no excuse of the law”

Monday, October 20, 2008

It defies all logic when…..

It defies all logic when a majority of the voters view Barack Obama as being better on the Economy. We all listen to the rhetoric from both sides, and we wonder who is telling the truth and who isn’t. None of us have crystal balls, so we can’t see into the future so how would we know?

The only way we have of judging them on fiscal responsibility is to judge them by what they have done in the past. Pick an unbiased, non-partisan group that only reports on all spending, and not just “cherry picking specific issues.” The Nation Taxpayers Union is such an organization, they rate each and everyone of those “545” that we talked about before (all senators and congressmen.) Please view this site and check out ALL your senators and congressmen, and make it one of your favorites, for future reference during elections.

When you make a decision for the Presidential position based on “change and hope” rather then logic and all available information, you do the rest of the public a disservice. In an age where the Internet is so prevalent, and information so readily available, it seems ludicrous to vote for someone just because we “like him.”

Feel free to view other articles from this same watchdog group

Sunday, October 19, 2008

According to Michelle Obama, the fix is already in

According to Michelle Obama, the fix is already in

By Judi McLeod Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Like editors the world over used to admonish reporters at deadline: “Your lead is buried down copy”, the lead in African Press International’s (API’s) “Mrs. Obama decides enough is enough” comes well down copy:

“My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father.” (Emphasis added).

In other words, according to the overzealous, you’re-all-racists wife of candidate for presidency Barack Hussein Obama, the fix is already in.

The candidate’s wife treated the Norway-based API as if it was already under the command of a Barack and Michelle-run White House.

With an arrogance that can only be described as stunning, Michelle Obama said API would earn an invite to hubby’s upcoming inauguration ceremony when he will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year, if only they wrote a “good” story.
In a good old fashioned hissy fit, Michelle Obama had picked up the phone to accuse API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, saying she had decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name.

She made plain her hopes that the African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.
“When API told her that our online news media was only replaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs. Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African Press International is supposed to support Africans and (the) African-American view, and she went (on) to state that, “It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband.” (africanpress, Oct. 15, 2008).

“There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father, The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption has never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner, (emphasis added) says Michelle Obama on telefon (sic) to API.”

The person on the other end of the telephone line indicated concern for “the American man Dr. Corsi, who was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.
“When API asked Mrs. Obama to comment on why Dr. Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr. Raila Odinga was involved in Dr. Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.
“When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.

“On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs. Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr. Farrakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections (sic) was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of Muslim faith if he became the president, adding ‘even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?’” Mrs. Obama asked.

Meanwhile, there is no doubt that without a single vote having been cast for her husband, that the Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin-dubbed “Michelle, Ma Belle” is already off choosing her gown for his inauguration ball.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Intimidation by ObamaNation

Intimidation by ObamaNation
by Mark Hillman

Barack Obama says Republicans "are going to try to make you afraid of me." Well, it's hard to imagine how the GOP could conjure up a more fearsome specter of an Obama presidency than the one created by the tactics of his own campaign.

Responding to those who dare commit blasphemy against The One, Obama's campaign has unleashed lawsuits and urged prosecution by no less than the Justice Department, enlisted elected officials to threaten and intimidate his foes, and deployed its vast internet e-mail list to silence bloggers and radio talk shows.

In Missouri, Obama allies, from a U.S. Senator to a local sheriff, threatened criminal proceedings against television stations that air anti-Obama commercials. Such "police state tactics" prompted Gov. Matt Blunt to charge Obama's campaign with "abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism."

ObamaNation used the same strategy against the National Rifle Association when its political fund released ads to educate gun owners about Obama's hostile record. Bob Bauer, attorney for the Obama campaign, urged cable and television stations in Pennsylvania to "immediately cease" airing the NRA's ads, because the campaign determined they were "false, misleading and deceptive."


Similarly, Bauer pressured the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute the non-profit American Issues Project and one of its donors over an advertising campaign that exposed Obama's alliances with domestic terrorist-turned-university professor William Ayers who has reflected, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."

The Obama campaign also dispatched its thought police to silence the free speech rights of opponents on radio and internet. First aimed at internet blogs supporting Hillary Clinton, Obama supporters swamp certain unfriendly blogs with "spam" complaints.

When those complaints reach a threshold, Google's Blogger platform renders the blog inoperable. Bloggers must then wait for Google to make an individual determination whether or not each accused blog is legitimate.

A more sinister intimidation befell journalists probing Obama's background in Chicago politics, as well as radio stations that provided a platform for those reports.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Obama's campaign used its database "listing contact information for millions of people" not only for raising money but "to beat back media messages it does not like."

Milt Rosenberg, a longtime talk show host on Chicago's WGN radio interviewed two prominent Obama critics, author David Freddoso and professor Stanley Kurtz. Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama is a best-seller that unflatteringly examines Obama's career, while Kurtz fought the University of Illinois to gain access to files documenting activities involving Obama and Ayers.

In both cases, Rosenberg specifically invited Obama's campaign to participate. Obama's camp not only refused, but it dispatched an e-mail alert instructing compliant Obamabots to bombard the radio switchboard and e-mail in order to fill the lines with scripted callers and block out other voices.

Even liberal commentator Andrew Sullivan called the Obama tactics "a disgraceful attempt to intimidate journalists trying to get at the facts."

If other slimy strategies fail, Obama critics are subjected to the nuclear option , the race card , often by a reliably hypersensitive, sycophantic media.
Associated Press "analyst" Douglass Daniel tied himself in knots explaining how Sarah Palin's comment about Obama "palling around" with terrorists ‹ again referring to Ayers and his wife, both of whom are white , "carried a racially tinged subtext."

Remember, too, the supposed racial overtones ascribed to McCain's ad comparing the accomplishment-free Obama to similarly-credentialed starlets Paris Hilton and Britney Spears , again, both white.

Mentioning Obama's accounts of his own use of marijuana or cocaine is off limits because that's racist, too. And, of course, to vote for someone other than Obama is the telltale sign of racism.

If this is the treatment Obama's critics receive now ­ when he's merely a freshman senator from Illinois ­ there's plenty to fear from an Obama presidency.

Friday, October 17, 2008

The dangerous tactic of “astroturfing”

Obama accuses the McCain campaign director for taking money from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants. Well that information is true, at least true in the fact that their companies accepted the money, because that is what they do, they are known as lobbyists. A lobbyist will take money from a company to promote a cause to either a senator or a congressman.

Obama on the other hand has as his primary campaign manager a man named David Axelrod. He is a partner in a company that has basically paid to lobby on a companies behalf, in much the same way that McCain’s campaign manager does. AKP&D Message & Media consultancy, the campaign veteran has advised a succession of Democratic candidates since 1985, and he's now chief strategist for Senator Barack Obama's bid for President. But on the down low, Axelrod moonlights in the private sector.

David Axelrod has his own deep secrets though a company known as ASK Public Strategies, this company is paid by companies to perform a service to “shape public opinion” Astroturfing for short. His company is paid to alter public opinion by way of advertising under the guise of a “concerned group” that can’t be traced. There is no state government regulation on this in Illinois because it doesn’t use the polititian. Everything about ASK is top secret, from clients lists to revenues to even their employees names.

In a TV commercial, constructed by ASK, warned of a ComEd (Chicago Electric Company) bankruptcy and blackouts without a rate hike: "A few years ago, California politicians seized control of electric rates. They held rates down, but the true cost of energy kept rising. Soon the electric company went bust; the lights went out. Consumers had to pay for the mess. Now, some people in Illinois are playing the same game." CORE, which describes itself on its Web site as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations," was identified as the ad's sponsor. After a complaint was filed with state regulators, ComEd acknowledged that it had bankrolled the entire $15 million effort.
Similar ad campaigns were done by ASK on behalf of companies such as Comcast, AT&T,Children’s Museum in Grant Park, on the request of long time friend Richard M. Daley, Mayor of Chicago. As has been said in the past, Chicago has one of the most corrupt administrations in the country, and Barack Obama’s campaign which is laced with questionable characters is no coincedence. David Axelrod’s involvement in the Obama campaign is a clear signal that they chose to masquarade as concerned groups to “mold public opinion” in the most underhanded ways possible. Transperancy is a catch phrase that Obama uses without flinching, and yet he hires a man who has NO transperancy, yet another contradiction in his less then honest run for the Presidency.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Barney Frank Hit Over Boyfriend’s Fannie Mae Role

Critics are crying “conflict of interest” over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank’s live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.
Moses was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.

He was also openly gay Frank’s live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News’ Bill Sammon reported.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.

“He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane? “But everyone wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”

A top Republican House aide told Fox News: “He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?”
Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998
National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac “are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.”

In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae

As reported from

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Jimmy Carter criticizes President Bush?

Past president Jimmy Carter emphasis on PAST has enough nerve to critique’ President George Bush on his handling of the economic crisis. The very same dementia ridden idiot from the left that told all the Islamic countries how many nuclear weapons Israel has, has chosen to shoot his mouth off about economics.

What exactly does he know about economics? This was the very same man that put us into this situation by way of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the basis of the sub-prime loan failures that Obama blames on George Bush. The very same man who stood by cowering in the corner while Iran held OUR hostages. He was the one in charge on our last financial decline in the late seventies

This Idiot really has enough nerve to blame anything on anyone. Remember the Iran hostages? Remember the gasoline shortages of his administration? Maybe the younger generation doesn’t remember it, but I sure as hell do! This past president couldn’t organize a two-car funeral, but has the audacity to blame Bush for the credit problems of today.

This Idiot chose to institute “affirmative action” on the mortgage market, a political solution to a self-perceived financial problem, which in turn drove the housing market into an overly inflated basis.

His initial Act, which was later bolstered by Bill Clinton, has driven our economy into a tailspin. This is not up for debate, this is fact! Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and all the useful idiots from the leftist (socialist) agenda have chosen to participate in transference.


Tell a lie, make it big, make it simple, and tell it often, eventually the people will believe you………………Adolph Hitler

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Obama's ACORN roots

Obama's ACORN roots

“’You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.’ So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left ‘community organizers’ called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness. At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis... In June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: ‘Our homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.’ Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers ‘who have historically been excluded from homeownership.’ In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with ‘dog-food’ wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN...ACORN is at the base of the whole mess... And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.” —Stanley Kurtz
reprinted form the Patriot Post

Monday, October 13, 2008

Acorn; maybe this would be a good time for them to hide their nuts

Today it was announced that a non-profit organization under the name of Acorn has participated in wide spread voter registration fraud. This organization has registered some 1.7 million new voters for this election era. Acorn aim is to register poverty and low-income people. It certainly raises eyebrows when the very states that have been labeled as “purple states” (on the borderline between candidates), have been the states where the voter fraud has been questioned.

It was widely reported this week that Acorn has participated in not only unethical practices, but also illegal ones. Multiple registrations for one person (some as many as 76 times) have shown to be a common practice on Acorn voter registrations. One voter was promised cigarettes in return for his vote, and another crack cocaine. Acorn a government subsidized, non-profit organization is reportedly using commissioned (paid per voter sign up) agents to register new voters.

When will the government prosecute and remove “non profit” status from the groups known to abuse the very morals they have been sworn to uphold? Let’s start with ACORN, and then go after the churches that preach against the country! Of course to do so challenges the very group that holds power in the country, the democrats. They are the ones who not only survive, but also thrive on the idea of anarchy. If the democrats achieve total rule in the house and the Executive branch of government, who will be left to question their motives? Maybe we as a voting body should demand that every single voter registration that Acorn signed up for this election should be null and void!

Friday, October 10, 2008

Debate: McCain vs ????????

Debate: McCain vs ????????
Kevin Bryant

As like many of you, I watched the debate last night. I don’t know if you were as much in awe of all the past presidents and presidential hopefuls that showed up as I am. I have to tell you, there were more people to show up on the Obama side during the debate than there was during the Democratic National Convention.

I know, you are all sitting there and asking yourselves if I was drunk last night or watching clips of past events. I assure you that we did in fact watch the same debate. Let me tell you how I came to the conclusion that I spelled out in my opening paragraph.

90% of Americans who watched the debate, 1st watched with their eyes, and then listened with their ears. We all saw the same thing last night, Obama on one side of the stage and McCain on the other. I’m certain that we can all agree on this. But what I heard last night was McCain on one side of the stage and a whole host of past and present political personalities on the other.

During much of the debate that covered health care, on one side you saw and heard the same old John McCain. During the primary debates, Obama stated that he wanted all Americans to be covered by government-mandated health insurance. This is not what he said last night. Instead of that Barack Obama answering the questions, there were shades of Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter & Hillary Clinton in those responses. There was not one bit of his response that said or even sounded like the Obama that was on stage debating during the primaries.

During the debate, national security was touched on. On one side there again was John McCain. On the other side, there was not one hint of the Obama that played to the George Soros and the crowd that you saw during the primary debates. Instead what we got was a little bit of Bill Clinton, some Jimmy Carter, some John Kerry and even a hint or two of Ronald Reagan. Where was the Obama that stated North Korea, Iran and Syria were small countries that didn’t pose any real threat to the United States? Where was the man who said that he would eliminate all nuclear weapons including those of the United States? I didn’t see him up there…….did you?

On economic issues, it was again McCain battling on one side, but it wasn’t the primary debating Obama on the other. What I heard coming from the Obama side of the stage sounded more along the lines of both John & Robert Kennedy with again some Bill Clinton thrown into the mix.

Taxes, everyone’s favorite subject. McCain once again was McCain, saying the same old things. Now here comes present day Obama and not the one from just a few months ago. He’s not going to raise taxes on the middle class. Can this guy get it through his head that if you raise taxes on corporations, they just pass them on to the consumers? If you raise taxes on those making $250,000 a year, then you will include all those middle class individuals who have finally reached the age of 59.5, been saving all their lives and are now required to close or change their IRA’s (hello reportable income). He will repeal the Bush tax cuts…..hello increased taxes on the middle class as well as the rich. Repealing the Bush tax cut also includes bringing back the death tax which not only affects the rich and middle class, but even those who would normally have zero tax liability. Someone stuck a stupid seed in a flowerpot and up popped a blooming Obama idiot.

On specifics when questioned about Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, we all heard the John McCain that we have all heard in the past many years. Where oh where was the white flag of surrender waving Obama from the democratic debates? I guess he stayed home and some imposter showed up sounding more like Lyndon Johnson and Teddy Roosevelt than the Barack Obama that we saw for the 16 or so months of the primaries. He sounded like Johnson in the manner that we would have never sent troops to go fight in a war that they had no business being in ala Johnson and Vietnam. The Roosevelt side came through loud and clear and he’s going to lead the charge into Afghanistan and root out and destroy the Taliban once and for all. If the Pakistanis couldn’t take care of the terrorist camps and root out Bin Ladin on their own, he would go in himself and get them. This from a man who has more disdain for the military than both Bill & Hillary Clinton combined.

So, what I learned from the debates is who these candidates really are. John McCain is still John McCain and Barack Obama is no longer filled with hatred and socialist aspirations, but instead now an experimental mental mixing of DNA from Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, John Kerry, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt and I am sure that when you break it down, you will find some more past politic figures thrown into the mix. You could almost qualify him as a multi-personality schizophrenic.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

The ACORN/Obama Voter Registration "Thug Thizzle"

The ACORN/Obama Voter Registration "Thug Thizzle"
by Michelle Malkin

Systemic corruption of our election process continues. Barack Obama and his old friends at ACORN and Project Vote are leading the way. This radical revolution is taking place in your backyard. And as I've reported before, this voter-fraud racket is on your dime.

On Monday, the two liberal groups announced the wrap-up of a 21-state voter registration drive targeting low-income people and minorities in battleground states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
What's wrong with that? For starters, these two groups are militant partisan outfits purporting to engage in nonpartisan civic activity. And their campaign comes amid an avalanche of fresh voter-fraud allegations involving ACORN in many of those same key states.

On Tuesday, Nevada state officials raided ACORN's Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names.

ACORN, which receives 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers to pursue an aggressive welfare-state agenda, has already helped register over 1.27 million people nationwide. The rest of their funding comes from left-wing heavyweights like billionaire George Soros and the Democracy Alliance.
Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) organization, was founded by left-wing lawyer Sandy Newman to register voters in welfare offices and unemployment lines with the explicit goal of turning back the Reagan revolution.

The two groups are inextricably linked -- and at their nexus is Barack Obama.
In 1992, Newman hired Obama to lead Project Vote efforts in Illinois. The Illinois drive's motto: "It's a Power Thing."

As previously noted in this column ("The ACORN Obama Knows," June 25, 2008), Obama also trained ACORN members in Chicago. In turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his Illinois campaigns and ACORN's PAC endorsed his primary bid with full backing and muscle.

Despite his adamant denials of any association with the group (his Fight the Smears website now claims "Barack Obama never organized with ACORN"), Obama's political DNA is encoded with the ACORN agenda.

The Obama campaign's "Vote for Change" registration drive, running parallel to ACORN/Project Vote, is an all-out scramble to scrape up every last unregistered voter sympathetic to Obama's big-government vision. "Our volume," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe bragged of the voter-registration program, "will be enormous."

Quantity over quality. It's the ACORN way.

In addition to the Las Vegas raid, fraud allegations keep piling up:
Lake County, Ind., election officials this month rejected a large portion of the 5,000 registration forms ACORN turned in after conducting registration drives in the area all summer. Some vote canvassers had pulled names and addresses from telephone books and forged signatures. According to local reports, "large numbers of voter registration forms bore signatures all in the same apparent handwriting style" and "apparently the organization's canvassers broke rules to meet ACORN-set voter registration quotas to get paid." The fake registrants included dead people and underage kids.

On a conference call yesterday, GOP officials noted that up to 11,000 voter applications were no good -- tying up election officials and jeopardizing the voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been stolen.

Last month, Milwaukee, Wis., officials discovered at least seven felons employed as voter registration workers for ACORN and another affiliated group. They also uncovered a raft of problematic voter registration cards. The state GOP accused ACORN of attempting to enroll dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to voter rolls. Fraud has plagued ACORN's Milwaukee chapter since the last election cycle.

In Florida, in Orange County alone, ACORN workers turned in multiple copycat forms for six separate voters over the summer. According to the Miami Herald, "One individual had 21 duplicate applications."

Election officials had flagged ACORN's negligent practices several months ago, but it may be too late: In Orange, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, ACORN has signed up 135,000 new voters, nearly 60 percent of them registered as Democrats that constitute a fifth of all new voters in that region.

In Ohio, large numbers of homeless people received free van and bus rides to register. Shelby Holliday, a reporter for, filmed ACORN shuttling prospects to the polls. She told me she spoke with one homeless woman who told her ACORN "told her who to vote for if she wanted a 'better life,' and told her not to worry about jury duty (one of the reasons this homeless woman didn't want to register) because the government probably wouldn't be able to track her down. She was registering with a temporary address."

Holliday interviewed another homeless man targeted by the registration drive who exulted that he was voting for Obama because "I want him to do his thang. You know, do his thug thizzle."

"Thug thizzle" is street slang for performing your trademark move. Obama and ACORN have practiced their thug thizzle together for years: organizing an ever-expanding community of ineligible and marginal voters to expand the Democratic power base. Rules be damned.

Do You Know the Real Barack Obama?

Do You Know the Real Barack Obama?
by Carol Platt Liebau Columnist for

As the 2008 presidential campaign hurtles into its final days, John McCain confronts a choice: He can either start telling the public about the real Barack Obama, or he can lose.

For much of his career, McCain has been a media darling. He could count on the press to carry his water as long as he was a “maverick” Republican, driving more conservative members of his party crazy. But as he surely knows by now, when it comes to Barack Obama and the press, all bets are off. In covering Obama, the press has adopted a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy designed to boost the least-vetted, least-known candidate ever to seek the presidency. It isn’t by accident that the media has denied all less-than-glowing stories about Obama the kind of consistent, sustained coverage that allows them to penetrate public consciousness.

If McCain is going to have a chance at winning, he must make sure that the public becomes thoroughly acquainted with the real Barack Obama – the most radical presidential nominee ever. And because the press evidently intends to abdicate its responsibility to acquaint voters with the less-popular parts of Obama’s record, he’ll have to rely on paid advertising to do it.
For starters, McCain should consider running a series of “Did You Know” ads about Barack Obama.

He should ask voters, “Did you know that:

Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:

Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues
Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.

Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?

Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.

There is more, of course. Do voters know:
That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”?

And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?

That Jeremiah Wright wasn’t Obama’s first radical mentor? As a young man in Hawaii, Obama had a quasi-filial relationship with radical Frank Marshall Davis – an avowed member of the Communist Party of the USA. In fact, in his memoirs, Obama concedes that he attended “socialist conferences” and encountered Marxist literature. (Now imagine the outcry if a Republican presidential candidate had such ties to a Nazi).

That the People's Weekly World – the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the USA – has rhapsodized about Obama’s presidential campaign, calling it a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term"? (Think about how the press would react if a fascist newspaper heaped such praise on McCain.)

That Obama has routinely tried to intimidate his critics into silence? His political organization spearheaded a massive campaign against a Chicago radio show that invited one of his critics to appear – even after being asked (and refusing) to send a representative to balance the program, hosted by a non-partisan University of Chicago psychology professor.

Worse, his campaign sought to chill free speech by establishing a “truth squad” of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs, which threatened a “vigorous response” to any ad presenting information about Obama that they deemed to be “inaccurate.” And there are other examples.

That even as America struggles to “bail out” our own struggling economy, Obama backs a global bailout? His Global Poverty Initiative would assess $2500 per taxpayer, according to Investor’s Business Daily, to fund a global war on poverty administered by the UN and its agencies.

That despite touting his academic credentials as a rationale for initiating a campaign for president just two years after leaving the Illinois state legislature, Obama refuses to release either his college or his law school transcripts – just as he sought to keep records of his working relationship with former terrorist Bill Ayers on The Annenberg Challenge (a left-wing educational foundation) safely under wraps? What is it that he doesn’t want voters to know?

Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant. But Americans sense that there is more to Barack Obama than they’ve been told.

Having witnessed the media’s own bias and favoritism, they’ve come to suspect – reasonably – that even if any of the rumors were true, the press might choose to conceal them until the election is safely over. What’s more, they wonder: What else is the press not telling us?

Certainly, it would be terribly wrong for John McCain to traffic in rumors. But he doesn’t need to. The truth is more than enough. There are facts that the American people deserve to know – and which the press isn’t telling them. By filling in the gaps that the media has left unmentioned, John McCain isn’t just doing himself a service. He’s doing journalists’ job for them, and allowing Americans to make an informed decision when they head to the polls next month.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Spanking that redheaded stepchild

Henry Waxman needed a scapegoat today as congress started their “place blame game.” It is a blame game now and the Democrats saw fit to grill the CEO of Lehman Bros. They asked him if his severance pay of 400 million was defensible.

They have chosen to attack the secondary targets and not the primary ones. I’d like to see a grilling of say Jimmy Carter for his role in the Community Reinvestment Act, or maybe Bill Clinton for his role in expanding Carter’s program.

Democrats see fit to place the blame on the “lack of oversight,” on the present administration, and yet the problems started with Carter. Where were the regulations on President Carter’s instituted act? Where were the regulations on the Clinton watch? President Clinton has admitted that more regulation was needed.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had all the expendable money to donate to individual campaigns, how was that even allowed? Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are considered as non-profit organizations and yet they are under congressional oversight. The non-profit status allowed the questionable “donations” to virtually every senator and most congressmen.

Why hasn’t Henry Waxman dragged Franklin Raines, past CEO of Fannie Mae, who collected some 240 million and then “retired early” after questionable accounting practices. His career started in the Carter Administration as an “assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff from 1977 to 1979. He went on to in 1996 to join the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. His involvement with the Democratic Party was irrefutable, and yet the democrats will NOT question his involvement or others on their part to fleece America out of BILLIONS of dollars.

John McCain and George Bush have not only many years of trying to get congress to enact more stringent laws about lending (specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) But it is also recorded that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank told the American public that “everything was ok with both institutions,” and yet here we are, bailing out 5 to 7% of bad loans that shouldn’t have been made in the first place.

We have now entered the socialistic region. When something is enacted to benefit the few, stolen from the pockets of the many. This lending crisis is what started to cause the house of cards to fall. I hope the rest of the EU is watching, because in a world economy, when one goes down we all go down, you have a President of the United States from the past who pushed a policy that has caused a backlash in your economy now. One for all, all for one………..get used to it if Barack Obama is elected, because more bad times are headed your way, and the funny part is……….you don’t even vote for him!