"I think I'll sail to Australia" ~ unknown
Actually, I woke up two days in a row with this song in my head. I had to post it to get it out.
Perhaps there is a message in this song. Maybe Someone is telling me to sail to Australia if Obama wins in November. If that's true, I hope He provides the expenses, too.
It's by Mandolin virtuoso Sam Bush. While looking it up, I also found the same song done by John Cowan, who is a better vocalist in my opinion, but that video is even worse quality than this one.
Sam Bush and John Cowan (Bass, lead vocals) were once in a band together with Pat Flynn (Guitar) and Bela Fleck (banjo) called the New Grass Revival. I was pleased to find several of that bands songs posted on Youtube. They were so musically ingenious and innovative I couldn't just post the one video and leave it at that without introducing my few readers to them, although they broke up in 1989. I saw them live several times when I lived in Kansas. They were perennial headliners at the Walnut Valley National Guitar Flatpicking Championship and Bluegrass Festival in Winfield, Kansas.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Eligibility Rules Make Polls Misleading
"The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls." ~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Over at Lone Ranger's blog, he points out that Nobama might be in trouble even though the polls show Nobama leading McCain. He mentioned the Bradley effect, which, according to Wikipedia, "refers to a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other... the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent.
One theory for the Bradley effect is that some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism. This effect is similar to people refusing to discuss voting choice at all. If you state you are undecided, you can avoid being forced into a political discussion with someone highly partisan. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may be a factor into voters' answers. Some pollsters believe that they do not receive deliberately false answers from white voters. The Bradley effect, these pollsters believe, is caused by pollsters' failure to account for general political leanings among voters who are undecided between Democrats and Republicans."
I understand how the Bradley effect can skew poll numbers. I, myself, am reluctant to make the point that polls may be skewed because of the number of blacks polled and say they support Nobama, when there is a sizable percentage of blacks who statistically are not allowed to vote due to previous felony convictions.
Here are some facts to consider:
Polls indicate over 92% of blacks support Barack Hussein Nobama for President.
Anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony in this country is ineligible to vote.
According to Bureau of Justice statistics, at midyear 2007, "Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail."
There is no way to make that point without sounding racist, even though there is sound statistical evidence that makes one ask these questions:
Are blacks who are being polled being asked if they are eligible to vote? If they poll ineligible voters, and eligible voters who won't vote, it would significantly change the results of the poll numbers, wouldn't it?.
I think these are important questions.
The other day, while exiting Walmart, I saw several young black men next to the exit with voter registration forms stopping people and urging them to register to vote.
This is a worthy thing to do. Except for one thing:
They were only approaching blacks.
I stood and watched for some time and not one time did they approach me, nor did they approach any other white person. There is no doubt they are counting on the fact that blacks overwhelmingly favor Barack Hussein Nobama for President. The reasoning is sound. The more blacks they get to register, the more votes for Nobama. They don't even have to say, "Vote for Obama". They know the numbers are in their favor.
But, will the push to register more black voters make a difference? How many of the registrations will eventually be invalidated because of past felony convictions?
If one takes the same polls that indicate Nobama is leading by 9-10%, and throw out nearly 13 percent of the results because black men nationwide have lost the right to vote, one gets a totally different finding.
I think McCain has more of a chance than we are being led to believe.
Over at Lone Ranger's blog, he points out that Nobama might be in trouble even though the polls show Nobama leading McCain. He mentioned the Bradley effect, which, according to Wikipedia, "refers to a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other... the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent.
One theory for the Bradley effect is that some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism. This effect is similar to people refusing to discuss voting choice at all. If you state you are undecided, you can avoid being forced into a political discussion with someone highly partisan. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may be a factor into voters' answers. Some pollsters believe that they do not receive deliberately false answers from white voters. The Bradley effect, these pollsters believe, is caused by pollsters' failure to account for general political leanings among voters who are undecided between Democrats and Republicans."
I understand how the Bradley effect can skew poll numbers. I, myself, am reluctant to make the point that polls may be skewed because of the number of blacks polled and say they support Nobama, when there is a sizable percentage of blacks who statistically are not allowed to vote due to previous felony convictions.
Here are some facts to consider:
Polls indicate over 92% of blacks support Barack Hussein Nobama for President.
Anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony in this country is ineligible to vote.
According to Bureau of Justice statistics, at midyear 2007, "Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail."
There is no way to make that point without sounding racist, even though there is sound statistical evidence that makes one ask these questions:
Are blacks who are being polled being asked if they are eligible to vote? If they poll ineligible voters, and eligible voters who won't vote, it would significantly change the results of the poll numbers, wouldn't it?.
I think these are important questions.
The other day, while exiting Walmart, I saw several young black men next to the exit with voter registration forms stopping people and urging them to register to vote.
This is a worthy thing to do. Except for one thing:
They were only approaching blacks.
I stood and watched for some time and not one time did they approach me, nor did they approach any other white person. There is no doubt they are counting on the fact that blacks overwhelmingly favor Barack Hussein Nobama for President. The reasoning is sound. The more blacks they get to register, the more votes for Nobama. They don't even have to say, "Vote for Obama". They know the numbers are in their favor.
But, will the push to register more black voters make a difference? How many of the registrations will eventually be invalidated because of past felony convictions?
If one takes the same polls that indicate Nobama is leading by 9-10%, and throw out nearly 13 percent of the results because black men nationwide have lost the right to vote, one gets a totally different finding.
I think McCain has more of a chance than we are being led to believe.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Absolutely Right
"For they are yet ear-kissing arguments." ~ William Shakespeare
Most Conservatives and Republicans are saying McCain won last night's debate handily. I didn't see it that way. I watched the debate, and to be fair, I thought Nobama acquitted himself very well. I was expecting him to stutter and stammer all the way through since he didn't have a teleprompter to read.
His handlers strategy of not letting him participate in town hall meetings while prepping him for the major debates seems to have worked well.
It was almost as if Nobama knew the questions in advance.
I am wondering, however, if the Nobama campaign was given "crib notes" on what the questions would be beforehand. I wouldn't put it past the Liberal Media. I don't put anything past Liberals.
Regardless, I don't think many undecideds became decided, and I don't think either candidate managed to convince many voters to switch votes.
But, here is something that kind of jumped out me, and apparently jumped out at McCain's campaign people as well:
In fact, Nobama said McCain is absolutely right eight times!
How can one say someone is absolutely right, and then refute them? Either he is absolutely right, or he is only partly right.
Right?
Also in fact, I think McCain isn't always absolutely right. He is wrong on the myth of Climate Change. He is, or was wrong on illegal immigration. Who knows how he feels now? He hasn't said. He is wrong about not drilling in ANWR.
Also, while McCain rightfully challenged Nobama on his opposition to the war, he should have questioned Nobama on his record more, particularly his record on the Born Alive Infant Protection (BAIP) act. Of those two issues, Nobama's stance on the BAIP is the most egregious.
My question is:
If McCain is absolutely right on so many issues, why is Nobama even running for President?
Most Conservatives and Republicans are saying McCain won last night's debate handily. I didn't see it that way. I watched the debate, and to be fair, I thought Nobama acquitted himself very well. I was expecting him to stutter and stammer all the way through since he didn't have a teleprompter to read.
His handlers strategy of not letting him participate in town hall meetings while prepping him for the major debates seems to have worked well.
It was almost as if Nobama knew the questions in advance.
I am wondering, however, if the Nobama campaign was given "crib notes" on what the questions would be beforehand. I wouldn't put it past the Liberal Media. I don't put anything past Liberals.
Regardless, I don't think many undecideds became decided, and I don't think either candidate managed to convince many voters to switch votes.
But, here is something that kind of jumped out me, and apparently jumped out at McCain's campaign people as well:
In fact, Nobama said McCain is absolutely right eight times!
How can one say someone is absolutely right, and then refute them? Either he is absolutely right, or he is only partly right.
Right?
Also in fact, I think McCain isn't always absolutely right. He is wrong on the myth of Climate Change. He is, or was wrong on illegal immigration. Who knows how he feels now? He hasn't said. He is wrong about not drilling in ANWR.
Also, while McCain rightfully challenged Nobama on his opposition to the war, he should have questioned Nobama on his record more, particularly his record on the Born Alive Infant Protection (BAIP) act. Of those two issues, Nobama's stance on the BAIP is the most egregious.
My question is:
If McCain is absolutely right on so many issues, why is Nobama even running for President?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
How Bad Can It Get?
"Politics is made up largely of irrelevancies." ~ Dalton Camp
While motoring to the market to pick up a couple of things to eat, I heard the following incredible dissertation from Naomi Wolfe on the Rush Limbaugh show. Before Rush was finished reading it, we had arrived at our destination and turned the car off, so I didn't get to hear Rush's critique--Just for the information of you who think I get my opinions directly from talk radio. (you know who you are) This is Ms. Wolfe's commentary as posted at the Huffington Post:
"Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah 'Evita' Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state. ... I realized early on with horror what I was seeing in Governor Palin: the continuation of the Rove-Cheney cabal, but this time without restraints. ... I saw that she was even styled by the same skillful stylist (neutral lipstick, matte makeup, dark colors) who turned Katharine Harris from a mall rat into a stateswoman and who styles all the women in the Bush orbit -- but who does not bother to style Cindy McCain. ... She uses mafia tactics against critics.
The riot police wore the black S&M gear of the Rovian fantasy life and carried the four foot batons cops carry in North Korea. All this is not John McCain's imagery or strategy: it is Karl Rove's. In McCain-Palin's America, citizens who are protesting are being charged as terrorists. This means that a violent war had been declared on American citizens. A well known reporter leaked to me on background that St Paul police had dressed as protesters and, dressed in Black -- shades of the Blackshirts of 1920.
Under the coming Palin-Rove police state, you will witness the plans now underway to bring Iraqi troops to patrol the streets of our nation. ... Under the Palin-Rove police state, there will be no further true elections. Mark Crispin Miller has done sensational and under-reported investigating to establish that -- as I warned -- indeed the GOP staffers on the US Senate Judiciary Committee have been. Under the Palin-Rove police state, citizens will be targeted with state cyberterrorism. Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda, a former Reagan official, warned me three years ago that the Bush team went after a Republican who had crossed them through cyberstalking: they messed with his email.
Am I trying to scare you? I am. I am trying to scare you to death and ask you to scare your Republican and independent friends most of all. How do you know when it is war on citizens? When there are mass arrests, journalists are jailed, the opposition is infiltrated, rights are stripped and leaders start to ignore the rule of law. ... People's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand. When I show the postman, he says 'That's impossible.' Horrifyingly to me is the impact on my family. My childrens' report cards are returned again and again though perfectly addressed; their invitations are turned back; and my daughters many letters from camp? Vanished. All of them. ... I am not telling you this because it's about my life. I am telling you this because it is about your life -- whoever you are, Conservative or Liberal, independent or evangelical. Your politics will not protect you in a police state. History shows that nothing protects you in a police state. This is not about my fear and anxiety: it is about what awaits you and everyone you love unless you see this for what it is."
Here is my first thought after hearing this tripe:
I fear Ms. Wolfe is overstating the possibilities (duh). This apocalyptic scenario will not happen, of course. Nor will an equally doomsday scenario happen under an Obama Presidency.
There is really only about three ways America will change depending on who wins the November Presidential election, and the nation won't very perceptibly change in any combination of events.
If McCain wins, there is little that will change in America, either for the better or for the worse. The degree of change brought about by the election of McCain will be determined more by which party controls the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It goes without saying that if the Democrats control the Congress, we won't be seeing major changes in the way the President presides over this country. Whatever policies McCain attempts to implement will no doubt be met with strong opposition, and if the Congress holds a veto-proof majority, we can expect the government to be as effective as it is currently--accomplishing nothing of significance.
If McCain wins and the Republicans re-take the majority of seats in Congress, I am optimistic that he will maintain our aggressive stance on defeating terrorism. I have hopes that he will open the off-shore (and hopefully, even ANWR) oil fields to exploration and developing. I feel fairly confident that when pressed, he will even change his perspective on illegal immigration.
Yes, I know it is little more than optimistic wishful thinking, but he has changed his position according to the country's will before.
Most importantly, I believe he is much more likely to do what he says he will do than Obama. He has an extensive record in the Senate which proves his reliability, in comparison to Obama's lack of credibility and experience.
If Obama wins, (and I am not so confident as others that he won't) unless the Congress has an overwhelming Democratic majority, he will not be able to accomplish much more than McCain with a Democratic majority, if anything.
Now, I realize that I myself have been the author of some pretty wild theories concerning Barry Hussein. I have implied that he is a closet Muslim bent on destroying America from the inside. Understand, I don't say I believe that to be absolute fact. I just don't rule out the possibility, and I don't think anyone should discount the theory out-of-hand.
I know I (and a few lunatic fringe Conspiracy theorists) am in the minority of people who advance this theory. Even my blog hero, Lone Ranger, once rejected a comment I made that suggested it. Nevertheless, it isn't entirely without some, if somewhat tenuous, evidence.
I have also said Obama wants to turn America into a Marxist state. I believe this is much closer to the actual truth, and his many nefarious associations and policy statements, both public and private, bear me out.
I have no doubt, that were it within his power, he would do just that.
The most disturbing scenario, if Obama wins, is one in which he has the backing of a Congress that is over sixty percent Democrat. But even that isn't nearly as frightening a picture as Ms. Naomi Wolfe paints about a possible McCain/Palin administration.
I said before that Obama wants to turn America into a Marxist state but I didn't say he would succeed, even if all the possible combinations of Republican/Democrat ratios are factored in. He would still have the people of The United States to hold him in check, and I have no doubt that we, as a people, would prevent him from accomplishing many of even the most subtle attempts at Marxizing America.
(Marxising? Is that a word?)
The reason I am so adamant in my opposition to Obama is this:
He has some extremely disturbing ideas about what I consider to be the most real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the United States. Terrorism. He has repeatedly downplayed the seriousness of the threat, and that is something one absolutely cannot take lightly. There are many (just about all of them, in fact)issues with which I believe he is wrong or misguided, but at the end of the day, most of those issues can be fixed, no matter how badly he messes them up.
But one cannot take our nations security lightly. Not even a little bit. Terrorists are watching us as I write, waiting for an opening, a chance to bring death and destruction down upon us, and we must be ever vigilant.
I don't believe Obama will be vigilant. Nothing he has said or done would indicate otherwise. He has stated his desire to dismantle our military and dispose of our nuclear capabilities, a prospect at which the Terrorists bent on America's destruction are probably salivating.
Finally, I have no confidence that Obama will follow through with any of the more positive changes he has promised, such as giving tax breaks to the middle and lower classes. His elitist attitude towards those very same people belies his rhetoric. His forever changing positions on various issues (except his unwavering belief that the surge hasn't worked, despite all evidence to the contrary) leaves one wondering if his policies are not simply policies of Floccinaucinihilipilification. (That is a word)
Yeah, run to Mr. Webster for consultation on that one, Geoffrey!
My point is, Naomi's imaginative discourse notwithstanding, no matter who wins this November, America will survive. For better or worse. We will not become a Marxist state and we will not become a fascist state, and we will not become a Nazi state.
We are Americans, and we will not let anyone subjugate us and we will not be defeated, regardless of who becomes our next President.
Whoever the next President will be, things will not change drastically.
While motoring to the market to pick up a couple of things to eat, I heard the following incredible dissertation from Naomi Wolfe on the Rush Limbaugh show. Before Rush was finished reading it, we had arrived at our destination and turned the car off, so I didn't get to hear Rush's critique--Just for the information of you who think I get my opinions directly from talk radio. (you know who you are) This is Ms. Wolfe's commentary as posted at the Huffington Post:
"Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah 'Evita' Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state. ... I realized early on with horror what I was seeing in Governor Palin: the continuation of the Rove-Cheney cabal, but this time without restraints. ... I saw that she was even styled by the same skillful stylist (neutral lipstick, matte makeup, dark colors) who turned Katharine Harris from a mall rat into a stateswoman and who styles all the women in the Bush orbit -- but who does not bother to style Cindy McCain. ... She uses mafia tactics against critics.
The riot police wore the black S&M gear of the Rovian fantasy life and carried the four foot batons cops carry in North Korea. All this is not John McCain's imagery or strategy: it is Karl Rove's. In McCain-Palin's America, citizens who are protesting are being charged as terrorists. This means that a violent war had been declared on American citizens. A well known reporter leaked to me on background that St Paul police had dressed as protesters and, dressed in Black -- shades of the Blackshirts of 1920.
Under the coming Palin-Rove police state, you will witness the plans now underway to bring Iraqi troops to patrol the streets of our nation. ... Under the Palin-Rove police state, there will be no further true elections. Mark Crispin Miller has done sensational and under-reported investigating to establish that -- as I warned -- indeed the GOP staffers on the US Senate Judiciary Committee have been. Under the Palin-Rove police state, citizens will be targeted with state cyberterrorism. Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda, a former Reagan official, warned me three years ago that the Bush team went after a Republican who had crossed them through cyberstalking: they messed with his email.
Am I trying to scare you? I am. I am trying to scare you to death and ask you to scare your Republican and independent friends most of all. How do you know when it is war on citizens? When there are mass arrests, journalists are jailed, the opposition is infiltrated, rights are stripped and leaders start to ignore the rule of law. ... People's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand. When I show the postman, he says 'That's impossible.' Horrifyingly to me is the impact on my family. My childrens' report cards are returned again and again though perfectly addressed; their invitations are turned back; and my daughters many letters from camp? Vanished. All of them. ... I am not telling you this because it's about my life. I am telling you this because it is about your life -- whoever you are, Conservative or Liberal, independent or evangelical. Your politics will not protect you in a police state. History shows that nothing protects you in a police state. This is not about my fear and anxiety: it is about what awaits you and everyone you love unless you see this for what it is."
Here is my first thought after hearing this tripe:
I fear Ms. Wolfe is overstating the possibilities (duh). This apocalyptic scenario will not happen, of course. Nor will an equally doomsday scenario happen under an Obama Presidency.
There is really only about three ways America will change depending on who wins the November Presidential election, and the nation won't very perceptibly change in any combination of events.
If McCain wins, there is little that will change in America, either for the better or for the worse. The degree of change brought about by the election of McCain will be determined more by which party controls the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It goes without saying that if the Democrats control the Congress, we won't be seeing major changes in the way the President presides over this country. Whatever policies McCain attempts to implement will no doubt be met with strong opposition, and if the Congress holds a veto-proof majority, we can expect the government to be as effective as it is currently--accomplishing nothing of significance.
If McCain wins and the Republicans re-take the majority of seats in Congress, I am optimistic that he will maintain our aggressive stance on defeating terrorism. I have hopes that he will open the off-shore (and hopefully, even ANWR) oil fields to exploration and developing. I feel fairly confident that when pressed, he will even change his perspective on illegal immigration.
Yes, I know it is little more than optimistic wishful thinking, but he has changed his position according to the country's will before.
Most importantly, I believe he is much more likely to do what he says he will do than Obama. He has an extensive record in the Senate which proves his reliability, in comparison to Obama's lack of credibility and experience.
If Obama wins, (and I am not so confident as others that he won't) unless the Congress has an overwhelming Democratic majority, he will not be able to accomplish much more than McCain with a Democratic majority, if anything.
Now, I realize that I myself have been the author of some pretty wild theories concerning Barry Hussein. I have implied that he is a closet Muslim bent on destroying America from the inside. Understand, I don't say I believe that to be absolute fact. I just don't rule out the possibility, and I don't think anyone should discount the theory out-of-hand.
I know I (and a few lunatic fringe Conspiracy theorists) am in the minority of people who advance this theory. Even my blog hero, Lone Ranger, once rejected a comment I made that suggested it. Nevertheless, it isn't entirely without some, if somewhat tenuous, evidence.
I have also said Obama wants to turn America into a Marxist state. I believe this is much closer to the actual truth, and his many nefarious associations and policy statements, both public and private, bear me out.
I have no doubt, that were it within his power, he would do just that.
The most disturbing scenario, if Obama wins, is one in which he has the backing of a Congress that is over sixty percent Democrat. But even that isn't nearly as frightening a picture as Ms. Naomi Wolfe paints about a possible McCain/Palin administration.
I said before that Obama wants to turn America into a Marxist state but I didn't say he would succeed, even if all the possible combinations of Republican/Democrat ratios are factored in. He would still have the people of The United States to hold him in check, and I have no doubt that we, as a people, would prevent him from accomplishing many of even the most subtle attempts at Marxizing America.
(Marxising? Is that a word?)
The reason I am so adamant in my opposition to Obama is this:
He has some extremely disturbing ideas about what I consider to be the most real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the United States. Terrorism. He has repeatedly downplayed the seriousness of the threat, and that is something one absolutely cannot take lightly. There are many (just about all of them, in fact)issues with which I believe he is wrong or misguided, but at the end of the day, most of those issues can be fixed, no matter how badly he messes them up.
But one cannot take our nations security lightly. Not even a little bit. Terrorists are watching us as I write, waiting for an opening, a chance to bring death and destruction down upon us, and we must be ever vigilant.
I don't believe Obama will be vigilant. Nothing he has said or done would indicate otherwise. He has stated his desire to dismantle our military and dispose of our nuclear capabilities, a prospect at which the Terrorists bent on America's destruction are probably salivating.
Finally, I have no confidence that Obama will follow through with any of the more positive changes he has promised, such as giving tax breaks to the middle and lower classes. His elitist attitude towards those very same people belies his rhetoric. His forever changing positions on various issues (except his unwavering belief that the surge hasn't worked, despite all evidence to the contrary) leaves one wondering if his policies are not simply policies of Floccinaucinihilipilification. (That is a word)
Yeah, run to Mr. Webster for consultation on that one, Geoffrey!
My point is, Naomi's imaginative discourse notwithstanding, no matter who wins this November, America will survive. For better or worse. We will not become a Marxist state and we will not become a fascist state, and we will not become a Nazi state.
We are Americans, and we will not let anyone subjugate us and we will not be defeated, regardless of who becomes our next President.
Whoever the next President will be, things will not change drastically.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Truth And Obama: Strangers To Each Other
"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~ Ronald Reagan
The following is the bill (beginning at section 6) that Barack Hussein Obama voted against four times in the Illinois Senate:
(720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81‑26)
Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
At first, Obama insisted he voted against the bill because the terminology wasn't identical to the U.S. Senate bill that addressed the same issue. But when evidence was presented to him that proves he lied about that, too, he quickly changed his defense, and now Obama says the reason he voted against the bill is because it would require an additional physician to render care to any baby born alive in spite of the abortionist's best efforts to kill the baby in utero.
In other words, Obama wants to allow living babies to die unattended, unaided, and alone, because a doctor might be inconvenienced if he has to save a baby's life.
Well, at least he cares about doctors. How wonderful it is that doctors have a friend in Obama! I bet he at least has George Tiller's vote.
Now. On top of that, Obama's campaign has produced a campaign ad that accuses the McCain campaign of lying about how Obama voted on this bill. Here is the ad to which I refer:
I find it interesting that Obama's ad highlights a line from a (Liberally biased) Chicago tribune article that reads "none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide". This is simply a line from a newspaper article which reflects nothing but the article writer's opinion.
An opinion that apparently has nothing to do with the facts.
While it is true that Obama didn't come right out and say "I believe in infanticide", but voting against a bill that specifically advocates providing life saving care to a newborn infant certainly implies he doesn't believe they should be allowed to live.
Obama denies that he supports infanticide, but how else are we to interpret his vote against keeping a newborn baby alive? How can one say, "I don't support allowing infants to die." and vote four times against a bill that essentially would protect newborn babies from being neglected to death?
Let's get the verbiage correct:
Obama doesn't favor infanticide.
He just doesn't want to do anything to prevent it.
The following is the bill (beginning at section 6) that Barack Hussein Obama voted against four times in the Illinois Senate:
(720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81‑26)
Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
At first, Obama insisted he voted against the bill because the terminology wasn't identical to the U.S. Senate bill that addressed the same issue. But when evidence was presented to him that proves he lied about that, too, he quickly changed his defense, and now Obama says the reason he voted against the bill is because it would require an additional physician to render care to any baby born alive in spite of the abortionist's best efforts to kill the baby in utero.
In other words, Obama wants to allow living babies to die unattended, unaided, and alone, because a doctor might be inconvenienced if he has to save a baby's life.
Well, at least he cares about doctors. How wonderful it is that doctors have a friend in Obama! I bet he at least has George Tiller's vote.
Now. On top of that, Obama's campaign has produced a campaign ad that accuses the McCain campaign of lying about how Obama voted on this bill. Here is the ad to which I refer:
I find it interesting that Obama's ad highlights a line from a (Liberally biased) Chicago tribune article that reads "none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide". This is simply a line from a newspaper article which reflects nothing but the article writer's opinion.
An opinion that apparently has nothing to do with the facts.
While it is true that Obama didn't come right out and say "I believe in infanticide", but voting against a bill that specifically advocates providing life saving care to a newborn infant certainly implies he doesn't believe they should be allowed to live.
Obama denies that he supports infanticide, but how else are we to interpret his vote against keeping a newborn baby alive? How can one say, "I don't support allowing infants to die." and vote four times against a bill that essentially would protect newborn babies from being neglected to death?
Let's get the verbiage correct:
Obama doesn't favor infanticide.
He just doesn't want to do anything to prevent it.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Tax Policy Center Report--Analyzed
"The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has." ~ Will Rogers
When I pointed out media bias on a previous post, I reported that the Tax Policy Center was a Liberal organization, but I didn't read their data.
Now that I've read the Tax Policy Center's report on the two Presidential candidates tax plans, I still don't understand it much, but the Associated Depressed reports that Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center, is better.
It doesn't look like that to me. Let's examine the report, shall we? Here (the text of the report in italics), are some excerpts:
Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for investments in certain capital equipment.
Sounds good to me.
Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000 but repeal the cuts in the top two marginal income tax rates ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2010; increase the maximum rate on capital gains; raise the top tax rate on qualified dividends from its current level (but keep it below pre-2001 levels); and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers.
I like the part about tax breaks for workers, etc, but more about that later.
Senator McCain proposes to extend permanently and increase the AMT "patch" that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax and lowered the tax for others, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch.
"[O]ur interpretation". That means Liberally biased opinion. Remember, the Tax Policy Center is a Liberal organization.
Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama.
This says Obama's plan is better?
Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate "corporate welfare." Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains (I have no idea what this means), taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don't cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.
So, the Tax Policy Center is a little fuzzy on some details. Should we just go ahead and throw the entire report out now for it's inaccuracies?
Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.9 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years....
The Tax Policy Center says, "Although ...stressed fiscal responsibility..." I have to say, does the Tax Policy Center believe reducing taxes is not a good thing?
Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $600 billion and Senator McCain's proposals lose a similar amount.
This is, of course, conjecture colored by an obvious Liberally biased organization. Depending upon the individuals perspective, doesn't this mean Obama's tax policy would cost the taxpayers $600 billion more in taxes and McCain would save them that much? That is about a 1.2 trillion dollar swing by my estimation . How is that a bad thing?
The two candidates' tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income.
Let us not forget that most lower income households in America don't pay any tax at all! They have taxes deducted from their paychecks, but at the end of the year, if they file income tax forms, they get more than they paid refunded to them.
By the way, I don't pay income taxes at all, and, at the end of the year, I get a substantial refund. That's because I am self employed, and my allowable deductions amount to more than my income.
In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.
How does one offer tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes in the first place? And, uh... high income taxpayers would see their hard earned money taken from them to be shared by low income families!
This is Marxist collectivism straight out of the Communist Manifesto!
When I pointed out media bias on a previous post, I reported that the Tax Policy Center was a Liberal organization, but I didn't read their data.
Now that I've read the Tax Policy Center's report on the two Presidential candidates tax plans, I still don't understand it much, but the Associated Depressed reports that Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center, is better.
It doesn't look like that to me. Let's examine the report, shall we? Here (the text of the report in italics), are some excerpts:
Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for investments in certain capital equipment.
Sounds good to me.
Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000 but repeal the cuts in the top two marginal income tax rates ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2010; increase the maximum rate on capital gains; raise the top tax rate on qualified dividends from its current level (but keep it below pre-2001 levels); and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers.
I like the part about tax breaks for workers, etc, but more about that later.
Senator McCain proposes to extend permanently and increase the AMT "patch" that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax and lowered the tax for others, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch.
"[O]ur interpretation". That means Liberally biased opinion. Remember, the Tax Policy Center is a Liberal organization.
Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama.
This says Obama's plan is better?
Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate "corporate welfare." Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains (I have no idea what this means), taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don't cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.
So, the Tax Policy Center is a little fuzzy on some details. Should we just go ahead and throw the entire report out now for it's inaccuracies?
Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.9 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years....
The Tax Policy Center says, "Although ...stressed fiscal responsibility..." I have to say, does the Tax Policy Center believe reducing taxes is not a good thing?
Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $600 billion and Senator McCain's proposals lose a similar amount.
This is, of course, conjecture colored by an obvious Liberally biased organization. Depending upon the individuals perspective, doesn't this mean Obama's tax policy would cost the taxpayers $600 billion more in taxes and McCain would save them that much? That is about a 1.2 trillion dollar swing by my estimation . How is that a bad thing?
The two candidates' tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income.
Let us not forget that most lower income households in America don't pay any tax at all! They have taxes deducted from their paychecks, but at the end of the year, if they file income tax forms, they get more than they paid refunded to them.
By the way, I don't pay income taxes at all, and, at the end of the year, I get a substantial refund. That's because I am self employed, and my allowable deductions amount to more than my income.
In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.
How does one offer tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes in the first place? And, uh... high income taxpayers would see their hard earned money taken from them to be shared by low income families!
This is Marxist collectivism straight out of the Communist Manifesto!
The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect.
Hmmm. Raising taxes on corporate income...Does anybody seriously believe corporations would absorb higher taxes without passing the added expense on to the consumer? In my opinion, the net effect of raising taxes on corporate income would only succeed in raising prices in the marketplace.
The possibility that Americans will spend more with less income defies logical comprehension.
In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals.
Huh? How? Why?
However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-homeownership-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.
Finally, the Tax Policy Center admits Obama is fallible!
In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisers strike us as implausible.
Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers.
There you have my Conservatively biased attempt at analyzing the Liberal Tax Policy Center's assessment of both Presidential candidates tax plans.
Although, being an economical moron, I may have misunderstood.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Scottish Weekend
"Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome tae your gory bed
Or tae victorie!" ~ Rabbie Burns
Last Saturday, I took a little trip up to Sky Meadows State Park outside Delaplane, Virginia for the 35th annual Northern Virginia Scottish games and festival.
The location was chosen for it's extraordinary resemblance to the Scottish Highlands.
As many of you know, my heritage is Scottish. My surname is a sept of clan Gunn, of the northern Highlands of Scotland. I was little disappointed to discover my clan was not represented at the festival, but I did meet another member of clan Gunn, here:
He was the only other member of my clan I met there, although he told me there was another one there, one of the members of one of the bagpipe and drum bands. He is wearing a kilt of the Gunn clan tartan plaid. I have a tie just like it.
Here are some pictures I took of some of the Kilted Scots in attendance:
I tried a sample of Haggis, a national dish of Scotland. A Haggis is actually a large spherical sausage made of the liver, heart, and lungs of a sheep, all chopped and mixed with beef or mutton suet and oatmeal and seasoned with onion, cayenne pepper, and other spices. The mixture is packed into a sheep’s stomach and boiled. I got it from this stand here:
If you click on the picture you can make out the word, "Haggis" below the counter behind the people standing there. Actually, the sample I tried wasn't in a sausage, so I don't know how authentic it really was, but they had the ingredients posted on a sign at the booth, and most of the ingredients they had in theirs are present in the preceding description.
It is not as horrible as it sounds, but it doesn't taste good.
I watched a little bit of the caber toss, a traditional Scottish sport that involved throwing a large pole. Caber is the Gaelic word for "tree" . Contrary to popular belief, the toss isn't judged on distance but rather, accuracy.
There was entertainment besides the Pipe and Drum bands previously alluded to. Here is a picture of a Scottish folk singer. I think his name was Robert McLeod. I'm not sure. He was very good.
Here is a picture of one of the bands that were entertaining.
They had a parade sometime during the festival but I was somewhere else at the time and missed it.
As we were leaving the rain started to fall. You can see this gentleman and his wife were getting wet. So was I.
This picture wasn't at the festival. I saw this rather perplexing sight elsewhere. Both of these signs were in the front yard of the same house! I wonder if there is a disagreement between a husband and wife here:
Before I close, if anyone out there is still wondering what a Scotsman wears under his kilt, this may be the answer to the age old question:
Click the picture unless you're squeamish.
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome tae your gory bed
Or tae victorie!" ~ Rabbie Burns
Last Saturday, I took a little trip up to Sky Meadows State Park outside Delaplane, Virginia for the 35th annual Northern Virginia Scottish games and festival.
The location was chosen for it's extraordinary resemblance to the Scottish Highlands.
As many of you know, my heritage is Scottish. My surname is a sept of clan Gunn, of the northern Highlands of Scotland. I was little disappointed to discover my clan was not represented at the festival, but I did meet another member of clan Gunn, here:
He was the only other member of my clan I met there, although he told me there was another one there, one of the members of one of the bagpipe and drum bands. He is wearing a kilt of the Gunn clan tartan plaid. I have a tie just like it.Here are some pictures I took of some of the Kilted Scots in attendance:
I tried a sample of Haggis, a national dish of Scotland. A Haggis is actually a large spherical sausage made of the liver, heart, and lungs of a sheep, all chopped and mixed with beef or mutton suet and oatmeal and seasoned with onion, cayenne pepper, and other spices. The mixture is packed into a sheep’s stomach and boiled. I got it from this stand here:
If you click on the picture you can make out the word, "Haggis" below the counter behind the people standing there. Actually, the sample I tried wasn't in a sausage, so I don't know how authentic it really was, but they had the ingredients posted on a sign at the booth, and most of the ingredients they had in theirs are present in the preceding description.It is not as horrible as it sounds, but it doesn't taste good.
I watched a little bit of the caber toss, a traditional Scottish sport that involved throwing a large pole. Caber is the Gaelic word for "tree" . Contrary to popular belief, the toss isn't judged on distance but rather, accuracy.
There was entertainment besides the Pipe and Drum bands previously alluded to. Here is a picture of a Scottish folk singer. I think his name was Robert McLeod. I'm not sure. He was very good.
Here is a picture of one of the bands that were entertaining.
They had a parade sometime during the festival but I was somewhere else at the time and missed it.As we were leaving the rain started to fall. You can see this gentleman and his wife were getting wet. So was I.
This picture wasn't at the festival. I saw this rather perplexing sight elsewhere. Both of these signs were in the front yard of the same house! I wonder if there is a disagreement between a husband and wife here:
Before I close, if anyone out there is still wondering what a Scotsman wears under his kilt, this may be the answer to the age old question:
Click the picture unless you're squeamish.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Obama Worshipping Media Shows True Colors
"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge" ~ Elbert Hubbard
In an AOL news article entitled, Palin Spells Out Role as Vice President, the Liberally biased Associated Depressed shows how absolutely biased they really are.
To begin with, the article reads, Campaigning on her own, the Alaska governor also said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "wants to raise income taxes and raise payroll taxes and raise investment income taxes and raise business taxes and raise the death tax.
"But John McCain and I know that's not the way you grow the economy," she added."
That's nice, isn't it?
But wait. There's more.
The article goes on to state, as if their findings are indisputable, "[I]ndependent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners."
Well, we Conservatives all know that the wealthiest wage earners in America are already taxed more than the poorest wage earners. In fact, many of the poorest wage earners don't pay taxes at all. Many of them get tax credits on top of that. But I digress.
A Wikipedia search of the Tax Policy Center shows them to be a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, based in Washington, D.C..
OK. So what is the Brookings Institution?
Another Wikipedia search shows the Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, D.C....Brookings is one of America's oldest think tanks...Their stated mission is to "provide innovative and practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system."
Brookings states that its scholars "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan.
What is the Urban Institute? Wikipedia describes it as a Washington, D.C. based nonpartisan think tank that collects data, conducts policy research, evaluates social programs, educates the public on key domestic issues, and provides advice and technical assistance to developing governments abroad.
Now, that would seem to be two organizations beyond reproach, wouldn't it?
But let's read further, shall we?
According to Liberally biased Wikipedia, "Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist..."
And this: "The organization's president, Strobe Talbott, was United States Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton. Brookings employs five research vice presidents: Carlos Pascual (former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and senior director on the National Security Council staff), Lael Brainard (a former White House Deputy National Economic Adviser and Chair of the Deputy Secretaries Committee on International Economics during the Clinton Administration), William Gale (a former senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush), Bruce Katz, and Pietro Nivola."
Carlos Pascual is an ex Ambassador to the Ukraine, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Finding information on Bruce Katz proved to be more difficult, but he worked in the Clinton administration under scandal plagued Henry Cisneros.
Even less can be ascertained about Pietro Nivola. Apparently he is, or was, a professor of Political Science at several different Universities including Harvard and Stanford. What do you want to bet he's a Liberal?
I don't know William Gale's ideological leanings, but I discovered one article wherein he published his case against the fair Tax. I think the idea of a fair tax is a Conservative concept.
So much for "diverse points of view".
If my Liberal readers intend to point to Gale's inclusion at the Brookings Institution as proof the Institution is indeed nonpartisan, let me remind them that just because someone worked in a Republican administration, it doesn't necessarily mean he is a Conservative. The words, "Republican" and Conservative" are not necessarily synonymous.
Think Scott McClelland.
As far as the Urban Institute, well, according to Wikipedia, "The Institute was established as an independent organization in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to study the nation’s urban problems and evaluate the Great Society initiatives embodied in more than 400 laws passed in the prior four years. Gradually, its research and funding base broadened."
Well, at least they are loyal to their first love.
So, the Brookings Institution and The Urban Institute are non-partisan, eh?
About as non-partisan as MSNBC.
Yep, four Liberal Democrats and one token (possibly Liberal) Republican to study policy. That's fair.
Just like MSNBC.
This is not to say the Brookings Institution and The Urban Institute are intentionally biased, but, let's face it. It is impossible to have no opinion. Everyone, no matter how fair one considers himself to be, cannot escape looking at an issue from one's own perspective.
So, is the statement, "that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners." a factual statement? That would seem to depend on how the study was conducted and who or what they studied. Wealth, as I have pointed out before, is relative. Who is wealthy according to this study?
The rest of the article includes certain words and phrases that indicate the Associated Depressed and AOL are about as non-partisan as the Daily Kos, to wit:
" Yet the governor, with little experience outside her own state, has largely been kept out of public view while aides seek to bring her up to date on a range of issues."
Huh? She answered the questions of Charlie Gibson calmly, with assurance and poise, and the Liberally biased media thinks she needs to be brought up to date?
She beat Gibson like a red-headed step child! Were the media watchdogs chewing bones when that interview was going on? Apparently, they didn't see it.
Again, from the AP article, "she told her audience that she had told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" when it came to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere... She made no mention of the fact that she favored federal funding for the structure before she turned against it."
Considering the numerous times their hero, Barry Hussein, has changed his mind on practically every issue (except his belief that the surge hasn't worked), I think the Liberally biased AP should probably keep their dog out of that hunt.
"I've got another idea that I think Senator McCain likes. In Alaska, we took the state checkbook and put it online, so everyone can see where their money goes. We're going to bring that kind of openness to Washington," she said.
In fact, there already is a searchable database that allows the public to track federal grants and contracts, and Obama was a principle force behind the 2006 law that created it, along with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Principle force? I doubt it. I'll bet Tom Coburn introduced the act and Obama merely signed his name on it, to prove he actually co-sponsored a bill.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is one of Obama's few legislative accomplishments in his short Senate tenure.
Ah! Finally! The Obama adoring media admits Obama hasn't really accomplished much.
Too bad it came in the second to last paragraph.
Conclusion?
Do I have to spell it out?
In an AOL news article entitled, Palin Spells Out Role as Vice President, the Liberally biased Associated Depressed shows how absolutely biased they really are.
To begin with, the article reads, Campaigning on her own, the Alaska governor also said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "wants to raise income taxes and raise payroll taxes and raise investment income taxes and raise business taxes and raise the death tax.
"But John McCain and I know that's not the way you grow the economy," she added."
That's nice, isn't it?
But wait. There's more.
The article goes on to state, as if their findings are indisputable, "[I]ndependent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners."
Well, we Conservatives all know that the wealthiest wage earners in America are already taxed more than the poorest wage earners. In fact, many of the poorest wage earners don't pay taxes at all. Many of them get tax credits on top of that. But I digress.
A Wikipedia search of the Tax Policy Center shows them to be a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, based in Washington, D.C..
OK. So what is the Brookings Institution?
Another Wikipedia search shows the Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, D.C....Brookings is one of America's oldest think tanks...Their stated mission is to "provide innovative and practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system."
Brookings states that its scholars "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan.
What is the Urban Institute? Wikipedia describes it as a Washington, D.C. based nonpartisan think tank that collects data, conducts policy research, evaluates social programs, educates the public on key domestic issues, and provides advice and technical assistance to developing governments abroad.
Now, that would seem to be two organizations beyond reproach, wouldn't it?
But let's read further, shall we?
According to Liberally biased Wikipedia, "Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist..."
And this: "The organization's president, Strobe Talbott, was United States Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton. Brookings employs five research vice presidents: Carlos Pascual (former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and senior director on the National Security Council staff), Lael Brainard (a former White House Deputy National Economic Adviser and Chair of the Deputy Secretaries Committee on International Economics during the Clinton Administration), William Gale (a former senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush), Bruce Katz, and Pietro Nivola."
Carlos Pascual is an ex Ambassador to the Ukraine, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Finding information on Bruce Katz proved to be more difficult, but he worked in the Clinton administration under scandal plagued Henry Cisneros.
Even less can be ascertained about Pietro Nivola. Apparently he is, or was, a professor of Political Science at several different Universities including Harvard and Stanford. What do you want to bet he's a Liberal?
I don't know William Gale's ideological leanings, but I discovered one article wherein he published his case against the fair Tax. I think the idea of a fair tax is a Conservative concept.
So much for "diverse points of view".
If my Liberal readers intend to point to Gale's inclusion at the Brookings Institution as proof the Institution is indeed nonpartisan, let me remind them that just because someone worked in a Republican administration, it doesn't necessarily mean he is a Conservative. The words, "Republican" and Conservative" are not necessarily synonymous.
Think Scott McClelland.
As far as the Urban Institute, well, according to Wikipedia, "The Institute was established as an independent organization in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to study the nation’s urban problems and evaluate the Great Society initiatives embodied in more than 400 laws passed in the prior four years. Gradually, its research and funding base broadened."
Well, at least they are loyal to their first love.
So, the Brookings Institution and The Urban Institute are non-partisan, eh?
About as non-partisan as MSNBC.
Yep, four Liberal Democrats and one token (possibly Liberal) Republican to study policy. That's fair.
Just like MSNBC.
This is not to say the Brookings Institution and The Urban Institute are intentionally biased, but, let's face it. It is impossible to have no opinion. Everyone, no matter how fair one considers himself to be, cannot escape looking at an issue from one's own perspective.
So, is the statement, "that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners." a factual statement? That would seem to depend on how the study was conducted and who or what they studied. Wealth, as I have pointed out before, is relative. Who is wealthy according to this study?
The rest of the article includes certain words and phrases that indicate the Associated Depressed and AOL are about as non-partisan as the Daily Kos, to wit:
" Yet the governor, with little experience outside her own state, has largely been kept out of public view while aides seek to bring her up to date on a range of issues."
Huh? She answered the questions of Charlie Gibson calmly, with assurance and poise, and the Liberally biased media thinks she needs to be brought up to date?
She beat Gibson like a red-headed step child! Were the media watchdogs chewing bones when that interview was going on? Apparently, they didn't see it.
Again, from the AP article, "she told her audience that she had told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" when it came to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere... She made no mention of the fact that she favored federal funding for the structure before she turned against it."
Considering the numerous times their hero, Barry Hussein, has changed his mind on practically every issue (except his belief that the surge hasn't worked), I think the Liberally biased AP should probably keep their dog out of that hunt.
"I've got another idea that I think Senator McCain likes. In Alaska, we took the state checkbook and put it online, so everyone can see where their money goes. We're going to bring that kind of openness to Washington," she said.
In fact, there already is a searchable database that allows the public to track federal grants and contracts, and Obama was a principle force behind the 2006 law that created it, along with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Principle force? I doubt it. I'll bet Tom Coburn introduced the act and Obama merely signed his name on it, to prove he actually co-sponsored a bill.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is one of Obama's few legislative accomplishments in his short Senate tenure.
Ah! Finally! The Obama adoring media admits Obama hasn't really accomplished much.
Too bad it came in the second to last paragraph.
Conclusion?
Do I have to spell it out?
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Liberal Mindset
"A liberal: someone who thinks he knows more about your experience than you do." ~ James Baldwin
Just when you think the Liberals have sunk as low as they can go...
From Rush Limbaugh's radio show, an actual transcript:
CALLER: Excellent. I've got a couple observations here, and I want to throw in a (unintelligible) politics dittos to everybody out there. Anyways (sic), my first of two observations is, number one, I didn't notice Governor Palin wearing lipstick while campaigning with Senator McCain today. I don't know if that was my bad television or just my bad eyes. Number two, excuse me, I didn't really take what Senator Obama said yesterday and take it as a "lipstick-on-a-pig" pointed at Palin. Closer to the truth about the gamy governor, it would have been it would have to be the second comment he said, "You could wrap a fish in paper and it will still smell." That's my observation.
RUSH: What is your observation?
CALLER: That she is a smelly fish. Uh, everything she says and does, it's -- it's just... She can't put two sentences together about what's going to happen in the future of your Republican Party.
RUSH: You think that about Sarah Palin?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
RUSH: You want to say that again to the whole nation?
CALLER: I just did!
RUSH: I want you to say it again. I can't believe, of all the things that you might want to say about Sarah Palin, you would come up with that.
CALLER: You don't think that's true?
RUSH: There's no thinking about it, my man. I don't have to.
CALLER: (snickers)
RUSH: Sarah Palin can't put two words together, two thoughts together?
CALLER: I said two sentences together about what's going to happen with the GOP and why they should elect her and Mc-uh... McCain.
RUSH: What are you so scared about?
CALLER: Oh, I'm not scared, man. I'm enjoying this.
RUSH: What is all this? How come all you touchy-feely sensitive liberals have to come out with all these insults?
CALLER: No, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent, actually.
RUSH: Well, it's the same thing. An independent is just somebody doesn't have the guts to identify themselves as a liberal. And then you call a radio show like mine trying to sound like a very smart guy, and you prove why you're an independent. You're brainless. To have those observations about Sarah Palin? Of all the observations, she can't put two sentences together? This is a woman who has yet to stutter one time, in any public appearance! (exasperated sigh) I'm ending the phone call, ladies and gentlemen. I run the risk of my own IQ lowering every time I talk to people like this.
There is nothing more needed to add to this except, let's just see if Governor Palin can't put two sentences together, shall we?
Well, I had to work so I missed this interview, but now that I've seen a clip of it, I'd have to say I like Sarah Palin even better than before. She is articulate, clean, and a nice looking woman. Oh, and evidently she can do much more than simply put two sentences together. Very impressive!
When will Liberals learn?
Just when you think the Liberals have sunk as low as they can go...
From Rush Limbaugh's radio show, an actual transcript:
CALLER: Excellent. I've got a couple observations here, and I want to throw in a (unintelligible) politics dittos to everybody out there. Anyways (sic), my first of two observations is, number one, I didn't notice Governor Palin wearing lipstick while campaigning with Senator McCain today. I don't know if that was my bad television or just my bad eyes. Number two, excuse me, I didn't really take what Senator Obama said yesterday and take it as a "lipstick-on-a-pig" pointed at Palin. Closer to the truth about the gamy governor, it would have been it would have to be the second comment he said, "You could wrap a fish in paper and it will still smell." That's my observation.
RUSH: What is your observation?
CALLER: That she is a smelly fish. Uh, everything she says and does, it's -- it's just... She can't put two sentences together about what's going to happen in the future of your Republican Party.
RUSH: You think that about Sarah Palin?
CALLER: Yes, I do.
RUSH: You want to say that again to the whole nation?
CALLER: I just did!
RUSH: I want you to say it again. I can't believe, of all the things that you might want to say about Sarah Palin, you would come up with that.
CALLER: You don't think that's true?
RUSH: There's no thinking about it, my man. I don't have to.
CALLER: (snickers)
RUSH: Sarah Palin can't put two words together, two thoughts together?
CALLER: I said two sentences together about what's going to happen with the GOP and why they should elect her and Mc-uh... McCain.
RUSH: What are you so scared about?
CALLER: Oh, I'm not scared, man. I'm enjoying this.
RUSH: What is all this? How come all you touchy-feely sensitive liberals have to come out with all these insults?
CALLER: No, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent, actually.
RUSH: Well, it's the same thing. An independent is just somebody doesn't have the guts to identify themselves as a liberal. And then you call a radio show like mine trying to sound like a very smart guy, and you prove why you're an independent. You're brainless. To have those observations about Sarah Palin? Of all the observations, she can't put two sentences together? This is a woman who has yet to stutter one time, in any public appearance! (exasperated sigh) I'm ending the phone call, ladies and gentlemen. I run the risk of my own IQ lowering every time I talk to people like this.
There is nothing more needed to add to this except, let's just see if Governor Palin can't put two sentences together, shall we?
Well, I had to work so I missed this interview, but now that I've seen a clip of it, I'd have to say I like Sarah Palin even better than before. She is articulate, clean, and a nice looking woman. Oh, and evidently she can do much more than simply put two sentences together. Very impressive!
When will Liberals learn?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Always Remember
"There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are messengers of overwhelming grief...and unspeakable love." ~ Washington Irving
Seven years ago today, the world as we know it, was changed forever. There are some who would prefer that we just forget it, and pretend it never happened.
Seven years ago today, the world as we know it, was changed forever. There are some who would prefer that we just forget it, and pretend it never happened.
I have a message for those people:
We will never forget. We will never pretend.
And we will always avenge.
God bless America.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The McCain/Palin Rally At Fairfax
"The best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class" ~ Aristotle
Today, I had the pleasure of attending a rally for John McCain and Sarah Palin in Fairfax, Virginia.
Click the pictures for a close up view.
Because it was going to be held in a high school gymnasium, I thought I might have not only the opportunity to meet McCain and Palin, but was also hoping they would have a Q & A session, wherein I might be able to ask Sarah about her views on illegal immigration.
It is the one Palin position about which I still have no clue. And, it is an important issue to me.
No such luck.
First, they had to move the site of the rally to a park in Fairfax because the local school board pitched a fit. This had the effect (fortunate for the campaign, unfortunate for me) of making the event even more accessible to more people. They announced, after the rally had started, that it was the largest turnout for a McCain rally since the Republican convention, to which I muttered, under my breath, "Just my luck to end up in the biggest crowd."
He introduced John and Cindy McCain, and Todd and Sarah Palin, and then Mrs. Palin made a speech that bore a striking resemblance to all the previous speeches she has made since her nomination was announced, although she did add some extra information about her accomplishments as Alaska's Governor, which I appreciated.
Don't get me wrong. I was delighted to hear her. She doesn't appear the least bit affected by stage fright or by the merciless and shameful attacks by her opponents in the Obama campaign.
Oh well. Who can blame him? He was caught up in the infectious enthusiasm just like the rest of us.
After the speeches, the rally drew to a close, and as the candidates left the stage, they were immediately enveloped by a crowd of adoring fans. So many fans, in fact, that I was literally pushed to within ten feet of Governor Palin as she moved along shaking hands, but in spite of my close proximity, due to the press of the crowd, I not only didn't get to shake her hand, I couldn't even see her among the teeming mass of humanity. So I picked my way through the throng and made as hasty a retreat back to my car as the crowd allowed.
I did take one last picture of a news crew from some Asian Television news program.
I don't know if they were Japanese, Chinese, or what. There were several attendees being interviewed by various newspaper and television reporters as I left but none seemed interested in my opinion.
That's ok. They can read my blog.
I really wish Sarah had presented her views on illegal immigration but I guess I can be patient until her position becomes public.
Today, I had the pleasure of attending a rally for John McCain and Sarah Palin in Fairfax, Virginia.
Click the pictures for a close up view.
Because it was going to be held in a high school gymnasium, I thought I might have not only the opportunity to meet McCain and Palin, but was also hoping they would have a Q & A session, wherein I might be able to ask Sarah about her views on illegal immigration.It is the one Palin position about which I still have no clue. And, it is an important issue to me.
No such luck.
First, they had to move the site of the rally to a park in Fairfax because the local school board pitched a fit. This had the effect (fortunate for the campaign, unfortunate for me) of making the event even more accessible to more people. They announced, after the rally had started, that it was the largest turnout for a McCain rally since the Republican convention, to which I muttered, under my breath, "Just my luck to end up in the biggest crowd."
I hate crowds.
After traveling a mere 46 miles in nearly two hours up the Capitol Beltway, and getting lucky with a parking space fairly close to the park where they had moved the rally, I positioned myself near the front of the stage and to the speaker's left. I was, I'm guessing, about 30 yards or less from the podium.
I thought this guy (in blue shirt) 
was Newt Gingrich at first, so I took his picture, but, it wasn't him.
After a brief concert by a Country/Western musician,
(He's the guy in the cowboy hat in the middle. Can anyone identify him? ) we were treated to several short speeches from various speakers.
One was the Mayor of Fairfax, Virginia. (I don't remember his name) And there was a guy who was imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton when John McCain was there. There was a woman who is a small business owner from Richmond who was an Obama supporter until three months ago, when exhaustive research into both Presidential candidates caused her common sense to kick in, and now she proudly supports McCain.
Then there was a Democrat Feminist Hillary supporter, who gave a very effective and impassioned speech about her feelings of betrayal by Obama and the mindless, blind, obsessive, Obama worshippers. She enthusiastically announced her support for McCain because, apparently, he had the good sense to choose a woman as his running mate.
It is a poor reason to vote for McCain, I admit, but it's a vote, and that's all that matters.
Then, after some more speeches and additional fanfare, Fred Thompson approached the podium and made a rousing speech extolling the virtues of both McCain and Palin.
He introduced John and Cindy McCain, and Todd and Sarah Palin, and then Mrs. Palin made a speech that bore a striking resemblance to all the previous speeches she has made since her nomination was announced, although she did add some extra information about her accomplishments as Alaska's Governor, which I appreciated.
Don't get me wrong. I was delighted to hear her. She doesn't appear the least bit affected by stage fright or by the merciless and shameful attacks by her opponents in the Obama campaign.
She has been tried by fire and come out without even smelling of smoke.
I am more of a McCain/Palin fan than before I went.
Finally, John McCain spoke, and while I wasn't as impressed by his speech as I was by Mrs. Palins, he did an effective job of rallying the party faithful, and I dare say, a few doubters.
Oh well. Who can blame him? He was caught up in the infectious enthusiasm just like the rest of us.
After the speeches, the rally drew to a close, and as the candidates left the stage, they were immediately enveloped by a crowd of adoring fans. So many fans, in fact, that I was literally pushed to within ten feet of Governor Palin as she moved along shaking hands, but in spite of my close proximity, due to the press of the crowd, I not only didn't get to shake her hand, I couldn't even see her among the teeming mass of humanity. So I picked my way through the throng and made as hasty a retreat back to my car as the crowd allowed.
I did take one last picture of a news crew from some Asian Television news program.
I don't know if they were Japanese, Chinese, or what. There were several attendees being interviewed by various newspaper and television reporters as I left but none seemed interested in my opinion.That's ok. They can read my blog.
I really wish Sarah had presented her views on illegal immigration but I guess I can be patient until her position becomes public.
I'll have to be.
Overall it was an enjoyable, exciting, yet a leg and knee numbing experience. Next time I wonder if they will let me bring a lawn chair.
Here are a few pictures of some attendees who had some interesting outfits:
A moose hat.
An old fashioned imitation straw hat reminiscent of the old Eisenhower days.
Click the picture and read the t-shirts.
I met a very nice lady who has her own blog. We traded Blog addresses. I didn't get her picture. Poor girl. She is so short I wonder if she even saw anything onstage.
And this is me, with my fedora. 
I recently read an article that said fedoras are the latest rage in fashion, so I really thought I'd see several of them there. I didn't. Apparently, I was the only one.
I think I'll pass on the next rally, unless it is a small town hall type meeting where I can ask questions.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
I Respond To An Obamoron
"The twist-yourself-in-knots-to-oppose-Palin-on-ground-of-inexperience exercise being indulged by those otherwise ecstatic about Barack Obama and indifferent to his lack of experience is truly astounding to behold." – John Podhoretz
I couldn't agree with the preceding quotation more.
In a previous post, I asked Jim, a particularly tenacious Liberal who, for some unknown reason, frequents and comments on my blog site, to give me just three of Barack Obama’s accomplishments in the State or United States legislatures that qualify him to be President. I made the mistake of failing to ask him to be specific, but nonetheless, after a couple of days, he came up with a reasonably intelligent (though somewhat non-specific) answer. This is it:
"Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.
In the US Senate Obama has sponsored (besides over 600 co-sponsored) 136 bills."
Good effort, Jim. I'll give you that. But, I asked what has he done that qualifies him to be President. You're falling a little short of what I asked. No matter. Here’s my response:
So, he gained bi-partisan support, eh? OK. Who did he gain bi-partisan support from, and for what, specifically? This is a very important question. You see, there are Republicans who are just as Liberal and therefore, wrong, as the Democrats. Whatever bi-partisan legislator it is that supports Obama's proposals may lend credibility to whether Obama is Presidential timber, or it may not, depending on the proposal and/or the legislator.
Get it? Just because some State legislators, who may be Conservative or Liberal Republicans, went along with Obama on some bills, it doesn’t necessarily mean he got them to change their minds and see things his way. They could be just some of those bills that everyone agrees with anyway. That wouldn't qualify Obama to be President.
"[R]eforming ethics and health care laws"? In what way did he propose to reform ethics and health care laws? If he proposed to throw more taxpayer money at the problems, he creates more of a problem than he started with.
That doesn't qualify him to be President. In fact, it more likely disqualifies him.
And speaking of qualifications to be President, I don’t think you really want to go into ethics. For one thing, “Ethics” is a relative term. What Obama believes to be ethical is certainly not what I believe to be ethical. He believes live babies who survive abortions should be discarded in a waste container to be neglected to death.
That’s not ethical by my standards. Is that your ethics?
Next, “He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare“?
If such a bill passed, (which in itself, is another important point to determine qualification) it leads to another important question:
Where do you suppose the money to do these things comes from?
IT COMES FROM YOU!
Doesn't it disturb you in the least that Obama proposes reaching into your pocket and taking your hard earned money out without your permission and handing it over to welfare bums and cheats who refuse to work for their money ? Wouldn’t you prefer to decide for yourself how much money you give out of your own pocket to assist people in need? Wouldn’t you like to know who your money is helping, instead of taking some bureaucrats word?
You know, if the government wasn’t taking a large percentage of each paycheck to pay for government welfare programs and to subsidize abortions and tasteless so-called art, etc, you would have more money to distribute the way you feel is appropriate. We already pay way too much. Why do you want to elect a President that will increase the amount?
What if, by taking your money in the form of taxes, forces you to suck on the Government teat yourself? Would you be grateful to Obama’s Government for the opportunity to experience first hand the Governments generosity or would you get angry that Government generosity put you into that position in the first place? A little of both, perhaps?
Now, if you actually want the Government to take half the money you earned and give it to people and programs with which you might not necessarily want to share, you are more than welcome. Will you please give them a little extra to cover my share? Because I don't want them taking the money I work hard for! I think I can decide how best to use my own money, and even if I can't, they still have no right to my money!
A President who steals from the people over whom he is supposed to be presiding isn't a President that has the American people’s best interest at heart.
Therefore, he isn't qualified to be President.
Finally, "In the US Senate Obama has sponsored (besides over 600 co-sponsored) 136 bills."
What was in those bills, Jim? Were these bills that created more Government intrusion and spending for things the Government has no business butting into? That wouldn’t be the kind of man I want as my President.
My guess is that they were bills that introduced things such as naming post offices after obscure almost-famous people. That is, bills that don't require much in the way of actual hard decision making. After all, Obama voted "present" on over 130 pieces of impending legislation. That's a legal way of saying, "I can't decide how I want to vote on this issue".
He couldn't even decide whether to vote yes or no!
Doesn’t that bother you at all, Jim?
If he can't decide how to vote on inconsequential issues, how can we expect him to make crucial world changing decisions at a moments notice as President of the United States?
As Rudy Guiliani (a Liberal Republican) says, "There's no voting present when you're the President." You have to be able to make final decisions when you're President. Sometimes unpopular decisions. Those are the kinds of decisions Obama has chastised President Bush for making.
It’s easy to make popular decisions. Anyone can make them. But it takes a President to make difficult decisions that directly effect the security of the United States of America and our allies.
I don’t think Obama has what it takes to make those decisions. Even Joe Biden, Obama’s pick for Vice President, says, “The Presidency is not the kind of job which lends itself to ‘on the job training.” Of course, that may not carry much weight with Obamaniacs. After all, he is "the dumbest man in the Senate", according to Mark Levin.
There are still too many unanswered questions about Obama’s record in the state and US legislatures to qualify him for President.
Obama has advisers and campaign managers now. And, if elected President, he will still have advisers. But, running an entire government is more difficult than running a campaign.
He can trust his advisers to make a decision for him when it comes to running a successful campaign, and as President, he may trust his advisers to give him solid advice when a real crisis comes up, but in the end, as President, the final decision rests upon his shoulders alone. His advisers and staff can’t make those decisions, nor should they.
He isn’t allowed to pass the buck when and if he is President.
One cannot run a country based on opinion polls.
Obama hasn’t shown an ability to make difficult decisions in the past. I’d say the 130+ times he chose to vote “present” instead of yes or no, along with the many changes in his positions, bears that observation out. And, based on his position points, or should I say, lack of positions, I’d place hundreds of times more trust in John McCain to make the right decisions than I would Obama.
Not to mention the fact that Obama embraces Marxist policies and ideologies. He says he will bring "change", but what kind of "change"?
I’ll tell you what kind:
He wants to change America from a Democratically representative Republic to a Marxist controlled dictatorship.
I couldn't agree with the preceding quotation more.
In a previous post, I asked Jim, a particularly tenacious Liberal who, for some unknown reason, frequents and comments on my blog site, to give me just three of Barack Obama’s accomplishments in the State or United States legislatures that qualify him to be President. I made the mistake of failing to ask him to be specific, but nonetheless, after a couple of days, he came up with a reasonably intelligent (though somewhat non-specific) answer. This is it:
"Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.
In the US Senate Obama has sponsored (besides over 600 co-sponsored) 136 bills."
Good effort, Jim. I'll give you that. But, I asked what has he done that qualifies him to be President. You're falling a little short of what I asked. No matter. Here’s my response:
So, he gained bi-partisan support, eh? OK. Who did he gain bi-partisan support from, and for what, specifically? This is a very important question. You see, there are Republicans who are just as Liberal and therefore, wrong, as the Democrats. Whatever bi-partisan legislator it is that supports Obama's proposals may lend credibility to whether Obama is Presidential timber, or it may not, depending on the proposal and/or the legislator.
Get it? Just because some State legislators, who may be Conservative or Liberal Republicans, went along with Obama on some bills, it doesn’t necessarily mean he got them to change their minds and see things his way. They could be just some of those bills that everyone agrees with anyway. That wouldn't qualify Obama to be President.
"[R]eforming ethics and health care laws"? In what way did he propose to reform ethics and health care laws? If he proposed to throw more taxpayer money at the problems, he creates more of a problem than he started with.
That doesn't qualify him to be President. In fact, it more likely disqualifies him.
And speaking of qualifications to be President, I don’t think you really want to go into ethics. For one thing, “Ethics” is a relative term. What Obama believes to be ethical is certainly not what I believe to be ethical. He believes live babies who survive abortions should be discarded in a waste container to be neglected to death.
That’s not ethical by my standards. Is that your ethics?
Next, “He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare“?
If such a bill passed, (which in itself, is another important point to determine qualification) it leads to another important question:
Where do you suppose the money to do these things comes from?
IT COMES FROM YOU!
Doesn't it disturb you in the least that Obama proposes reaching into your pocket and taking your hard earned money out without your permission and handing it over to welfare bums and cheats who refuse to work for their money ? Wouldn’t you prefer to decide for yourself how much money you give out of your own pocket to assist people in need? Wouldn’t you like to know who your money is helping, instead of taking some bureaucrats word?
You know, if the government wasn’t taking a large percentage of each paycheck to pay for government welfare programs and to subsidize abortions and tasteless so-called art, etc, you would have more money to distribute the way you feel is appropriate. We already pay way too much. Why do you want to elect a President that will increase the amount?
What if, by taking your money in the form of taxes, forces you to suck on the Government teat yourself? Would you be grateful to Obama’s Government for the opportunity to experience first hand the Governments generosity or would you get angry that Government generosity put you into that position in the first place? A little of both, perhaps?
Now, if you actually want the Government to take half the money you earned and give it to people and programs with which you might not necessarily want to share, you are more than welcome. Will you please give them a little extra to cover my share? Because I don't want them taking the money I work hard for! I think I can decide how best to use my own money, and even if I can't, they still have no right to my money!
A President who steals from the people over whom he is supposed to be presiding isn't a President that has the American people’s best interest at heart.
Therefore, he isn't qualified to be President.
Finally, "In the US Senate Obama has sponsored (besides over 600 co-sponsored) 136 bills."
What was in those bills, Jim? Were these bills that created more Government intrusion and spending for things the Government has no business butting into? That wouldn’t be the kind of man I want as my President.
My guess is that they were bills that introduced things such as naming post offices after obscure almost-famous people. That is, bills that don't require much in the way of actual hard decision making. After all, Obama voted "present" on over 130 pieces of impending legislation. That's a legal way of saying, "I can't decide how I want to vote on this issue".
He couldn't even decide whether to vote yes or no!
Doesn’t that bother you at all, Jim?
If he can't decide how to vote on inconsequential issues, how can we expect him to make crucial world changing decisions at a moments notice as President of the United States?
As Rudy Guiliani (a Liberal Republican) says, "There's no voting present when you're the President." You have to be able to make final decisions when you're President. Sometimes unpopular decisions. Those are the kinds of decisions Obama has chastised President Bush for making.
It’s easy to make popular decisions. Anyone can make them. But it takes a President to make difficult decisions that directly effect the security of the United States of America and our allies.
I don’t think Obama has what it takes to make those decisions. Even Joe Biden, Obama’s pick for Vice President, says, “The Presidency is not the kind of job which lends itself to ‘on the job training.” Of course, that may not carry much weight with Obamaniacs. After all, he is "the dumbest man in the Senate", according to Mark Levin.
There are still too many unanswered questions about Obama’s record in the state and US legislatures to qualify him for President.
Obama has advisers and campaign managers now. And, if elected President, he will still have advisers. But, running an entire government is more difficult than running a campaign.
He can trust his advisers to make a decision for him when it comes to running a successful campaign, and as President, he may trust his advisers to give him solid advice when a real crisis comes up, but in the end, as President, the final decision rests upon his shoulders alone. His advisers and staff can’t make those decisions, nor should they.
He isn’t allowed to pass the buck when and if he is President.
One cannot run a country based on opinion polls.
Obama hasn’t shown an ability to make difficult decisions in the past. I’d say the 130+ times he chose to vote “present” instead of yes or no, along with the many changes in his positions, bears that observation out. And, based on his position points, or should I say, lack of positions, I’d place hundreds of times more trust in John McCain to make the right decisions than I would Obama.
Not to mention the fact that Obama embraces Marxist policies and ideologies. He says he will bring "change", but what kind of "change"?
I’ll tell you what kind:
He wants to change America from a Democratically representative Republic to a Marxist controlled dictatorship.
And that is a risk America can't afford to take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
