Wednesday, October 29, 2008
As I promised in my previous post, here is a brief history of Communism, and it‘s negative effect on the citizenry who have had to live under it’s oppression. It is vital to understand how dangerous it would be to allow any form of Marxism to attain a foothold in The United States of America.
Let us be clear here, lest some take exception to my characterization of the Soviet Union’s governmental system as Communism. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are varying extremes of the same concept.
A rose, by any other name…
If you know of anyone who needs to be educated about this evil, please share this post with them. Edit it accordingly if you feel the need.
In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”, a book which has since become more or less the Socialist’s Bible. In it, Marx and Engels envisioned a society which would be, for all intents and purposes, truly equal.
This profoundly idealistic system of government is best encapsulated in the famous quotation by Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
The society which Marx and Engels advocated proposed to eliminate the “divide” between the bourgeois and the proletariat, that is, the ruling class and the labor class. According to the Manifesto, capitalism creates classes among the citizens, and leads to the oppression and exploitation of the lower classes.
Communism, and socialism in general, is designed to cultivate a classless society in which everyone is truly equal, and such social problems as racism, sexism and oppression are eliminated.
The core belief of Socialism hinges upon the idea that no man should be independent, but instead part of a “cooperative” group that wholly depends upon each other to accomplish the goals of the “Collective“.
Let me add here, also, that God has no place in Marx’s concept of Communism. Communism is a necessarily atheistic system.
It is a noble idea, and, were it possible, would be a Utopian form of Government. A Government in which all citizens would have equal opportunity to become self sufficient. However, as was soon discovered, the Utopia of Socialism proved to be, and always will be, virtually impossible. Indeed, it was self sufficiency itself that was most problematic to this Utopian ideology.
In 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin took the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and bastardized them, creating through force, a Socialist government in Russia.
This emergence of Communism, as a “legitimate” government, was accomplished during what is known as the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Lenin led a revolution against the czar, Queen Alexandra, catching the monarchy off guard during World War One. After three years of struggle, Lenin finally took control.
The revolution itself costs thousands of lives, but the following years proved to be much more deadly to Russia’s citizens.
During the ensuing years, an increasingly paranoid Lenin instigated what is known as “The Purge”, in which thousands of Russian citizens were rounded up and placed in gulags (also known as “re-education camps“) in Siberia, where they were tortured, sometimes for decades and often resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Others were lucky by comparison. They were simply executed, often times without the formality of a trial, or even any evidence of wrong doing. People were routinely executed and tortured for very minor offenses.
Naturally, what misgivings the Russian people may have had about this new system of government were effectively squelched. It became life threatening to complain about the government’s policies.
In all, it has been estimated that Lenin and his successor, Josef Stalin, exterminated 20 million or more Russian citizens, often for the crime of merely thinking negative thoughts about the ruling Politburo, which was by that time, a devastatingly repressive dictatorship.
The Communist government was characterized by repression, oppression, and depression, both economic and physical.
In the schools, students were indoctrinated into the Socialist theory of Government, and were instructed not to doubt the party’s stated intentions. Eventually, any student that departed from the party line could have been punished, often by torture or death, depending on the severity of the perceived offense.
In an effort to eliminate any possible dissent, citizens were encouraged to report any suspicious talk or activity by their neighbors and friends to the police, and were rewarded if they did, and often punished if there were any suspicions by the Government police that they knew about said offense but failed to report them.
Newspapers were expressly forbidden to write about anything without approval of the state, under penalty of law. Citizens were forbidden to listen to radio and television programs that originated outside the Soviet union, and if discovered, were subject to be sentenced to abnormally long prison sentences.
National Elections did not offer a choice of candidates. The only choice citizens had was between yes, do you affirm this candidate or no, you don’t. Ballots were open so election officials knew how one voted. Voting was potentially dangerous.
Children were trained for whatever occupation the ruling party deemed appropriate, regardless of the child’s aptitude or desire. For instance, a child may be blessed with a talent for art, but if the party decided the child should be a bricklayer, the child’s aspiration to art would be squelched in favor of creating a career as a productive bricklayer.
Citizens were told what to do, what not to do, how much they were allowed to earn, where they could or could not go, and in many cases, with whom they could associate. And they were threatened with punishment if they failed to comply.
Every aspect of life in Communist Russia was intensely monitored and scrutinized. One could not trust friends, neighbors, or even family to keep secret anything expressly forbidden by the Communist party.
No one was allowed to own property. No one was allowed to have more money than his neighbors. Anyone who was found to be hoarding any money, food, or goods not approved by the state had their money or property confiscated, and were often imprisoned.
The people of Russia soon became ensconced in poverty, mostly because the Government leaders took more money from them through excessive taxation than they could afford to part with, and used the ill gotten gains to lead exceedingly extravagant lifestyles. Each person, whether educated or not, skilled or not, lived on a limited income. All people earned the same amount of income regardless of their abilities. And this income was not adequate to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the Russian leaders lived sumptuously off the labor of the ordinary citizens.
Karl Marx's concept of equality was ignored by those in power.
This resulted in a lack of incentive and an apathetic attitude towards industriousness.
And a pervading feeling of hopelessness.
In short, freedoms were limited to the point of absurdity in the interest of maintaining order.
Other repressive Socialist systems of government, some better, some worse, still exist in some countries in the world, such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Like the USSR, all have failed to create a successful working model of Marx’s idealistic vision of Utopia.
In China there is currently mandatory abortion. That's not choice.
None can duplicate, or even come close to the freedoms we enjoy as free Americans.
There are several schools of thought on the eventual cause of the failure of Socialism to live up to the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, but in the end, I would have to say that the root cause of Socialism’s failure is the fact that people are simply not wired to be equal. It is unfortunate, but true. While some people are ambitious, others are complacent. While some are hard working, others are lazy. Some people are content with things as they are, while others are continually striving for bigger and better opportunities.
All men are created equal, but no man can be coerced into equality. It is not the government’s right to dictate the dispersal of wealth to the people. Nor is it their right to deny basic human rights to any individual based on class distinctions and level of wealth.
Man has the inherent right to be what he can be, and no entity, regardless of intent, may usurp that right.
And yet, this type of Government is exactly the type of government Barack Hussein Obama has in mind for the people of the United States of America. The words and phrases he himself has used in his speeches and interviews are damning evidence of his true vision for an American utopia.
Words such as “redistribution” and “middle class” and phrases such as “Spreading the wealth” and “social and economic justice” are indicative of the kind of language employed by what I call “closeted Socialists“.
Those are Obama’s words.
He may win the election for President, and if he has the benefit of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, many of the freedoms we now take for granted may be suppressed. He desires control, above everything else. He places utmost importance on personal power, rather than the power of a free society. Indeed, a free society is in direct juxtaposition to Obama‘s aspirations.
He wants you to be subservient to the state. The state, according to the typical Marxist, is to be your God.
Mr. Obama may try to control our people, but he cannot control our minds. He may break our backs, but he will never break our spirit.
Regardless, whatever transpires in the coming Presidential election, one positive remains:
Americans will rise to the occasion. Despite being bruised, battered, and bloody, tyranny shall be defeated, and this nation, under God, will emerge victorious.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
It is imperative that we Conservatives get this audio out to all those who still fail to understand the implications of living in a Socialist State. The future of our country, our liberty, and the American way of life is at stake.
In a future post, when I have time, I will address the history of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism, and attempt to explain why they are extremely dangerous to the concepts of liberty and freedom. Those old enough to remember apparently don't remember, and those too young to remember haven't been educated.
We must get the word out.
Obama must be stopped!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Today's quotation (above) isn't just the quotation. Today it's the post. Read the quotation by Joe(Plugs)Biden, and analyze.
First, try to explain it if you can. Then explain why he made the statement.
Here's my take: He is telling Obama supporters they should be prepared for a huge disappointment. He is admitting a President Obama will have a low approval rating, and will make stupid decisions.
Because he knows Obama is a disaster waiting to happen, and he is warning them.
Now, it's your turn to analyze Plugs' quote. You Liberals can play, too. It's a free country. For now.
But I warn you. Don't comment just to argue, or I will reject your comment. I ask you to analyze and explain only. If you ask a question, I may answer your question, but that isn't an invitation for you to start an argument. It is simply my answer. You are free to present your opinion providing it does not include profanity, but don't attempt to argue. This will be my new comment policy.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The upcoming Presidential election on November fourth is not about whether one candidate is more experienced than the other. It isn’t about whether Obama is a Marxist, or Socialist, or whatever. It isn’t about whether McCain is too old, or whether Sarah Plain is unqualified.
It isn’t about their associations, friends, relatives, or past scandals.
This election is about security.
Not just the security needed to protect our physical selves against harm from outside terrorists and various domestic threats to our personal security, but about financial and economic security as well.
First, let’s discuss financial security.
People are worried about their financial security. My own personal business is suffering due to the impact of the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. People with 401k’s are losing money. Banks are closing. All kinds of businesses are going bankrupt all over the country.
Democratic and Republican candidates alike are appealing to their constituencies to use their votes to turn this crisis around.
Both candidates say they know how to “fix it.”
While I am not entirely convinced McCain knows how to fix this mess, I am positive Obama doesn't.
Obama’s plan to get us out of this mess in to increase taxes, spend trillions more on social programs, and distribute handouts to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place.
By the way, that’s called “Welfare”.
If one believes we are in a financial crisis, (and, for the record, I believe we are) Obama’s plan seems to defy logic. How do we relieve the burden on the taxpayers by taxing them more? How do we limit spending by spending more? How do we decrease Government spending by sending checks to over one third of the ninety-five per cent of the populace Obama has referenced?
Where does Mr. Obama intend to get all that extra money?
That leads me to my next point:
How does Mr. Obama intend to defend this country against threats to our security?
Obama is on record saying he will cut defense spending, and reduce our nuclear arms stockpile, and call on other world leaders to do the same.
Undoubtedly, this plan would work in Fantasy Land, but other world leaders are not necessarily as committed to world peace as the United States of America. In fact, some are committed to the destruction of the United States.
One would think a President would understand this concept.
Obama has said he will sit down with leaders of terrorist nations and other countries that don't like us without pre-conditions and talk to them. Maybe he will talk them out of attacking us anymore?
Maybe “That one” can do that, but “This one” can't.
Then, he has gone on record saying he will seek an end to the war in Iraq, and discussed a timeline in which we can “draw down” the number of troops currently fighting overseas.
I personally don't know that he has supported the repeal of the Patriot act, but, being the most liberal Senator in the Senate, I have no doubt that is his position.
How will withdrawing troops before the mission is completed and Iraq stabilized improve the security of the United States?
He also says he will cut defense spending. We are at war. How will cutting spending help us end the war without surrendering? How can we effectively fight and win that war, or any other, by limiting the amount of money spent on defense? How can we be expected to defend ourselves against enemies, both foreign and domestic, who are bent on our destruction?
If, as President, he works to successfully repeal the Patriot act, how are we to discover and prevent future terrorist’s attacks against our nation?
We know he has promised to finance myriad social programs to the tune of billions, even trillions of taxpayer funded dollars, and we know he has promised to cut spending on Defense. We know he is promising to cut taxes on 95% of all working class Americans, which would have to include a tax break for those who don't pay taxes, which is really a government hand-out program.
He wants to cut taxes and increase spending at the same time. One wonders what kind of magic wand he will need.
And we ask, "Where will he get the money to accomplish these tasks"?
Naturally, he will take the money away from our Defense department, and apply it to his tax breaks and social programs, and there would appear to be enough money to go around.
But that comes at the risk of compromising America’s security. Many of us can use a few extra dollars, but that is a temporary fix at best. What happens when that money runs out and America is left with less money with which to defend herself?
If Obama as President manages to do what he says he will do, America will be more insecure than at any time in our history.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
These are the kinds of people organizations such as ACORN are registering to vote:
Here's an idea!
Since Obama's supporters believe absolutely everything he says, let's spread the word that Obama says election day is Wednesday, November 5th.
Sorry folks, because of an annoying Liberal troll, who visits here just because he wants to argue, I have been forced to re-enable comment moderation. It isn't just his long, incomprehensible and illogical off-topic rants, but some of my preferred readers don't visit here to argue, and he drives them away. If your comment doesn't appear for several hours, thank Feodor.
Friday, October 17, 2008
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody" ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Once again, the Obama apologists in the media have released the hounds.
After some time spent overturning every stone, searching every closet, and poking under every bed in a vain attempt to find dirt on Ms. Sarah Palin, Republican Governor and candidate for Vice President, the thundering hordes of mass media have now set their sights upon a previously unknown and unassuming Mr. Average Working man, also known as "Joe the Plumber". For what vile seditious crime is Joe the Plumber guilty?
He asked a question.
From the many newspapers breaking this earth shattering news story across this great nation, The New York Slimes has this feature, entitled "Joe in the Spotlight".
This innocuous appearing headline belies the hatchet job that follows, which reads, in part:
Turns out that “Joe the Plumber,” as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, may run a plumbing business but he is not a licensed plumber. His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes a bit in back taxes.
Interestingly enough, I have seen parts of this exact paragraph posted in the comments of several Conservative blogs (posted by Liberal blog cruisers) with the theme, "The real winner of the debate was Joe the Plumber". I suppose Liberals feel they don't have the intelligence or expertise to form their own opinions, so they rip off the Slimes, which, as it happens, is probably the most leftist publication this side of Cuba.
But I digress.
Now, I don't have any reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of these charges against Mr. Wurzelbacher. Nor do I do rule out the possibility that some idiot, somewhere, at one of John McCain's many campaign rallies, may have shouted the phrase, "Kill him".
The fact is, neither of those two so-called "news worthy" events negatively reflect on the character or capabilities of the candidates themselves.
But, the suspect credentials of Joe the Plumber are irrelevant to the true issue.
Joe the Plumber, in reality, may be unlicensed, and delinquent on his taxes, and he may even be an ax murderer. He may be a welfare recipient, or a disgustingly filthy rich Corporate magnate. He could be a nearly perfect example of the typical hard working, church going, flag waving, gun toting, Conservative redneck, or he could be a God-hating, (or God-loving) Liberal yet "moderate", pro-choice, gay elitist. He could be a member of the John Birch Society, or a member of the Communist Party of America. He could be either Republican or Democrat.
What he is, in spite of all his faults, is irrelevant.
It really doesn't matter if he's Joe the Plumber or Joe the Mafioso.
Because the issue isn't who asked the question of Obama. It isn't even what question Joe the Plumber asked.
The issue is about the answer that Obama gave:
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
That statement is a paraphrase of a famous quotation, ripped right out of "The Communist Manifesto", by Karl Marx, which is the basis of Marxism, succinctly encapsulated into one sentence:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
But, instead of dealing with a statement that the majority of Americans would roundly reject as un-American, The Obama apologists in the media attack the man who's only crime was asking an honest question. A question that would help him understand Obama's policy on taxation.
It is frankly deplorable and dishonest. There appears to be no longer any honor in journalism.
This is the simply the typical Liberally biased media, also known as Obama apologists, doing what they do best.
Distract and obfuscate.
They are hoping that ordinary Americans like me will focus their attention of the dubious character of Joe the Plumber instead of focusing on Obama's answer to Joe's question. If they can distract the public's attention away from the real issue, an issue which goes to the heart of Obama's Marxist agenda, that we the public will allow Obama's answer to quietly slip away into obscurity, never to raise it's ugly head again.
I say again:
The story is not the personal character of the questioner. It is the political agenda of the questionee.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody" ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Fox news has an over optimistic opinion of last nights Presidential debate. They think he won. I don't see it that way. I see it as a draw at best. And McCain needed much more than a mere tie.
Although he scored a couple of points with his line, "Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago", and one or two others, it was, in my opinion, too little, too late.
I also was left with the sinking feeling that McCain spent way too much time defending himself and not enough time going on the offensive.
For instance, at one point, McCain said, "And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable.
One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful."
[Somehow, the image of a war hero who survived 7 years of brutal torture in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp standing their whining about a stupid remark by a rogue Congressman disquiets me to some extent.]
"And, Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate."
He actually appeared to be whining about Lewis's attack on him.
Instead of whining, he needed to address Obama's questionable associations with unsavory people and organizations such as ACORN and William Ayers. While he brought those associations up, he failed to elaborate sufficiently.
Frankly, McCain had the opportunity on several occasions to deliver a knock-out blow to Obama in last night's debate, but instead, every time he had Obama backed into the corner and against the ropes, he backed off and allowed Obama to recover.
His reluctance to stand and return blow for blow may very well have sunk his chances to win the election in November.
To say I am disappointed would be the understatement of the year.
Another thing which struck me as particularly significant:
Obama continually mentioned his plan for spending trillions of dollars with no mention of how he would go about providing the funds for such plans.
I think we all know how he plans to finance his many social programs, to wit:.
Here are some examples of Obama's pie-in-the-sky unrealistic ambitions:
"And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut."
Considering that one third of those Americans who make up that 95% don't pay taxes at all, any "tax cut" they will receive will amount to Government sponsored welfare. Where will the money to implement that plan come from? Well, Obama answers that question, too. I think:
"I mentioned health care earlier.
If we make investments now so that people have coverage, that we are preventing diseases, that will save on Medicare and Medicaid in the future.
If we invest in a serious energy policy, that will save in the amount of money we're borrowing from China to send to Saudi Arabia.
If we invest now in our young people and their ability to go to college, that will allow them to drive this economy into the 21st century."
We are going to invest in information technology to eliminate bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.
And that's why I've proposed a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year..."
$4,000.00? Every student? Every year? That, along with cutting taxes on 95% of Americans, which he really wouldn't do, would bankrupt America.
Notice the liberal use of the term, "invest". That means he wants to spend money.
By the way, he also said he doesn't mind paying higher taxes, yet his record of charitable donations over the last several years would seem to indicate he does very much mind paying out his money.
"I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research."
"[A]dditional funding". More spending. Still no mention of where he will get the money if 95% have their taxes reduced.
"I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that's about a realistic time frame."
Where does he plan to get energy from? Up until last night's debate, Obama was against drilling for oil in any part of America, including offshore and ANWR. He was against nuclear energy. He was against coal.
Now all of a sudden he supports all those things? When was Obama lying? Then? Or now?
I repeat: Where does Obama plan to get the resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil if he doesn't want us to produce our own?
He also re-used the same old oxymoronic line, "we can't drill our way out of the (oil) problem".
That's like saying "We can't eat our way out of starvation".
How absolutely stunningly stupid is that position!
Overall, I'd say McCain scored more points than Obama, but his points were weakened by his inability to follow up on his assertions and failure to hold Obama accountable to all of Obama's obvious lies and misleading statements. Whatever points McCain scored were lost in Obama's superior rhetorical skills.
Assuming Obama wins, which seems to be a slam dunk in light of last nights milquetoast performance by McCain, all I can say now, is this:
To my Conservative friends: I hope you are all ready for Socialism in America. Hide your cash, guns, and Bibles. Keep quiet and keep a low profile. Stay out of Obama's cross hairs.
To my Liberal "friends": Now you'll get a chance to see what your Liberal ideology hath wrought. In four years from now, you might very well become Conservatives out of desperation.
Monday, October 13, 2008
In my last post, a commenter who apparently wishes to remain anonymous, maybe because he is embarrassed about making the kind of wild, insane, ridiculous statements he makes, levies the peculiar allegation that there is no voter fraud going on right now. I told him I have neither time nor space to go down the list for him in the comments section.
Especially since he no doubt knows the truth and chooses to ignore it just to be a snert.
But, in case any readers have been living in a cave the last six months and haven't heard of ACORN and their dubious practices, here is a video you should peruse:
Although there isn't specific evidence making a direct link to Obama's participation in ACORN's voter fraud program (so far), there is, nevertheless, ample proof of Obama's previous involvement with the organization, including the fact that Obama once was part of a team of attorneys that represented ACORN, and the undisputed fact that he trained ACORN employees for their jobs.
Others on other blogs have insisted that ACORN employees get paid by the hour, not by how many they register, and because of that, they have no incentive to register people to vote.
But that argument is wrong. The incentive is to elect Obama President.
I've pointed this out before. I have personally encountered employees of ACORN soliciting registrations from people out on the streets here in Fredericksburg. The registration process they are implementing is singular in it's purpose:
Register African Americans to vote. They do not even approach whites. They do not want whites to register.
All of the polls show 95% of African Americans support Obama. They are aware of that fact. We are aware of that fact. The chance that any black person, chosen at random, of being an Obama supporter weighs heavily in ACORN's favor.
You don't have to be the head checker at Wal*Mart to figure that out.
Counterintuitivly, if 95% of black voters will vote for Obama, and a sizable portion of white Liberal and/or Democrat (moron) voters will vote for Obama, it seems to me ACORN doesn't need to commit voter fraud. It seems to me Obama can win without their help.
I do not want Obama to win. And, I am not as confident as others that he won't. I think an Obama presidency, at best, would cause so much damage to America, it will take at least 8 years of a hardline Conservative Republican administration to get America out of the mess Obama will create.
So, one will understand that I almost wish ACORN continues to register voters illegally, with the hope that eventually, before the election, the FEC will throw out all registrations that are even suspicious, thereby invalidating thousands, if not millions of Obama votes.
One can only hope.
Friday, October 10, 2008
When I was a young man, the body of a man named Robert Frownfelter was found at an abandoned cement plant on the fringe of the neighborhood I lived in. He had been shot once-point blank-in the back of the head with a .22, and his pockets had been rifled through. His empty wallet was found on his body.
I was about eighteen or nineteen, and I had a friend who was about sixteen. I barely knew him before he and I started "hanging out" together.
A day after Mr. Frownfelter's body was found, I was sitting in my friends living room talking with him. Jokingly, I asked him, "Did you have anything to do with the murder of that Frownfelter guy?" His reply shocked me. He said, "I'm one of the suspects, but I didn't do it."
As it turned out, not only had my friend been a suspect, he was arrested for the murder, tried as an adult, found guilty by a jury of his peers, and convicted of murder.
When asked why he did it, my friend (no, not "friend"--my acquaintance) explained that he needed money, so he hitched a ride with Mr. Frownfelter, a man he did not know, pulled a gun, and ordered him to stop the car and get out. then he forced him to walk onto the cement company grounds and shot him, without warning, in the back of the head.
He got eight cents.
Now, I knew my new friend was a little bit crazy, but I didn't think he was that crazy. Nevertheless, I never saw him again. I would no longer associate with him.
Now, contrast that story with the story of Barack Hussein Obama's association with William Ayres, admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorist.
I found this video at, of all places, CNN, affectionately known to many Conservatives, as "The Communist News Network":
And then, from Fox news, Obama staffer Robert Gibbs gets caught lying about Obama's association with William Ayres:
Well, upon publishing this post, I find (curiously) the video has been removed. This has never happened to me before. Is it possible that Obama's reach even extends to censoring damaging videos about him on youtube?
The video which has been removed features an interview with Robert Gibbs, an Obama staffer and spokesman. Here is a partial transcript, which I have had to type out as I listen to the audio:
Deucy: Obama didn't know the history of this William Ayres guy,...is that right?
Gibbs: That's correct.
Deucy: How is that possible? Barack Obama's a pretty smart guy, and this guy was pretty famous in the neighborhood.
Gibbs: Uh, Well..uh...look, I haven't talked to Barack extensively...
Carlson: Bobby, Let me ask you this, because as time goes on, there seems to be more ties between Barack Obama and Bill Ayres, for example, he wrote the forward, or a blurb at least, for Bill Ayres' book! If you don't know somebody very well, would you participate in their book?
Gibbs: Uh, uh, Look, uh...uh, I don't know all the details, I know what I read in the newspaper, and I know what I read throughout any number of publications that I've looked at this weekend...(end transcript)
Gibbs went on to say Obama "never wrote a blurb" on Ayres' book. He was even given a chance to retract that remark by Gretchen Carlson. She said, "He didn't?"
Gibbs replied, "No, he didn't".
Really. Here is what Obama wrote in the Chicago Tribune on December 21, 1997:
On William Ayers' (book) "A Kind And Just Parent: The Children Of Juvenile Court": "A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair." ~ Barack Obama
During The Time Obama And Ayers Served Together On The Woods Fund, Ayers Was Quoted Saying "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." (Dinitia Smith, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives," The New York Times, 9/11/01)
It isn't just the fact that he and Obama are friends. It's that Ayres readily admits he would do it all again if he feels it's necessary.
The New York Slimes gleefully reported that Ayres admits to being a Communist. Ayres organization, The Weather Underground, Produced A Manual Which Begins, "We Are A Guerrilla Organization. We Are Communist Women And Men, Underground In The United States For More Than Four Years." "The coalition was said to be a violence-prone faction inspired by the Weather Underground's ''Prairie Fire,'' a guerrilla warfare manual published in 1974. The manual begins, 'We are a guerrilla organization. We are Communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years.'" (Paul L. Montgomery, "2 Women In Brink's Case Identified With Weathermen From Start In '69," The New York Times, 10/ 22/81)
Maybe I'm just naive, but if I knew an acquaintance was an unrepentant domestic terrorist, I'd steer clear of any resemblance of an association with him regardless of how remote it might be.
Even if I don't have plans to run for a political office.
I think before the American people cast their votes this election, Obama needs to answer some questions. And, I think he needs to tell the truth this time.
Questions, such as:
Knowing what Obama knew about his friend, why did he accept the job of chairing Ayres' brainchild, The Annenburg Challenge?
Why did he attend his political coming out party at Ayres' home?
Why did he give speeches with Ayres?
What did Ayres see in Obama that would have prompted him to solicit Obama's friendship?
What did Obama see in Ayres that would prompt him to accept a friendship with him?
What do the two have in common?
Could it be Ayres saw in Obama what Obama saw in Saul Alinsky, a radical Marxist author who wrote a book entitled "Rules for Radicals"?
This like-mindedness between the two "community Organizers" (Ayres and Obama) should send up a red flag, or at least a yellow one. One must ask oneself, "to what extent will the philosophy of Saul Alinsky and William Ayres influence how Obama will preside over the greatest country on Earth?"
Before we send "that one" to the oval office, we must get the facts about Obama's many nefarious relationships. The real facts.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
In light of his dismal performance in last nights debate debacle, It appears John McCain may be conceding the election.
Or maybe he's just tired.
I don't know.
He's 72. Maybe the demands of constant campaigning are getting to him. Even a younger man in perfect health would tire from all that activity.
Remember when Obama explained that his statement about babies on breathalyzers was because he was tired?
Hey, it happens. That's why I haven't ridiculed him over that particular gaffe. It's perfectly understandable that Obama or anyone else might make silly statements under that kind of duress.
Except--McCain hasn't made any of those kinds of fatigue induced silly statements.
But I digress. We might grudgingly have to get used to the possibility that Barack Hussein Obama may be our next President. As distasteful as that is, it nevertheless is a distinct possibility.
With that frightening possibility in mind, I'm wondering how America would change under an Obama Presidency.
I'm thinking. Can you smell the smoke?
Obama has asserted that the first thing he would do as President would be to drastically cut military spending and work for nuclear non-proliferation. So, can we expect him, with the aid of a Democratic controlled Congress, to cut the military budget, along with the systematic gutting, if not dismantling, of our homeland security department? That would result in the the very real threat of another, more deadly terrorist attack, wouldn't it?
Will he raise taxes, mandate welfare checks to people who already don't pay taxes, and implement all kinds of spending programs for just about every Liberal social program that comes to his attention?
Are we to expect an effort to stifle free speech under the guise of a "fairness doctrine"?
Will he negotiate surrender in Iraq and sit down with insane dictators world-wide and agree to all kinds of concessions that will seriously endanger the United States' security and standing in the world?
Will he increase taxes again?
Will he cease all oil production and drilling in America, making America 100% dependant on foreign oil, at least until he can discover some sort of miracle alternative fuel that doesn't do any damage to the environment, and costs nothing to manufacture?
Will he institute a massive education program that will effectively indoctrinate all children in how to have sex and teach Marxist doctrinal principles?
Will he have to raise taxes some more to pay for all that?
I'm also thinking of who he would choose for his cabinet. For starters, would it surprise anyone if he chose Franklin Raines as his Secretary of the treasury? How about William Ayres as Secretary of Education? Will he throw a bone to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of Defense?
Would that really surprise anyone?
In the interest of keeping my posts short, that's enough speculating for now. There's more. Much more that he can, might, or will do.
Perhaps my readers can add to the list of Obama's changes. How about it readers? What are your predictions?
You Libs can contribute, too. It's a free country.
Monday, October 06, 2008
I love it when the media plays apologist for Obama. Sean Hannity says 2008 will go down in history as the year when journalism died in America. While I think that's a bit of an overstatement, I don't believe he is far off.
Where is the fair and balanced reporting? How often do we hear both sides of the story? How often do we hear any side of the story besides the one of which Obama approves?
Today, in an article on AOL, which is basically a Liberally biased Associated (De)Press(ed) outlet, AP reporter Charles Babington reports Obama's campaign intends to counter Governor Sarah Palin's latest charges about Obama's association with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres by bringing up McCain's association with the old Keating Five scandal.
He writes, "The names being bandied about — Bill Ayers and Charles Keating — are unfamiliar to millions of Americans, and their wrongdoings occurred decades ago. But political operatives dredged them up over the weekend, and they could play a prominent role in the campaign's final month.
Palin, the Alaska governor, defended her earlier comments about Obama and Ayers, in which she said the Democratic nominee is "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Ayers was a founder of the violent Weather Underground group during the Vietnam era. Its members were blamed for several bombings when Obama was a child. Obama has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.
The two men live in the same Chicago neighborhood and once worked on the same charity board. Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995, early in his political career. Obama strategist David Axelrod has said the two men are "friendly."
Wow! Mr. Babington appears to be a master of the understatement.
Oh, that's all? Well, that isn't anything to be concerned about, is it now? They worked on the same charity board. How innocuous!
Ayres bragged, in a New York Times interview(hardly a bastion of Conservatism), that he wasn't sorry they bombed Government buildings, and he didn't think they did enough, and wouldn't discount the possibility of doing it again. He said those things in 2001, long after he had met and become friendly with Barack Hussein Obama.
"The two men live in the same Chicago neighborhood and once worked on the same charity board." Way to minimize their association, Mr. Babington!
"Obama has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities."
Oh really? Would you like to know what Obama said, in denouncing Bill Ayres? Here it is:
"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."
"Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995, early in his political career." That isn't an endorsement? And by the way, Obama didn't say, "I denounce Bill Ayres and his involvement in committing crimes against America." He's just "some guy who lives in my neighborhood."
That isn't a denouncement.
What kind of political candidate would even allow himself any kind of friendly relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?
I have met people who steal and fight and cause mischief etc, and I stay clear of them. I don't make friends with them. I certainly don't go to parties they host in my honor. As if they would. What friends I have are law abiding citizens, not terrorists.
Is Obama that dumb or is he just terribly naive?
As for McCain's involvement of the Keating Five scandal, it hardly compares to Obama's involvement in all his myriad associations and scandals.
Here is what Obama is going to attack McCain about:
From Wikipedia: Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of $2 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions that Keating had made to each of the senators, totalling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston(D), Dennis DeConcini(D), and Donald Riegle(D) had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn(D) and John McCain(R) were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
So, bottom line: Obama continues to consort with unrepentant domestic terrorists, and McCain was once investigated for his part in supporting a man who was found to be defrauding people, but cleared.
Now. If Obama thinks his misdeeds and associations are equal to, or not as bad as McCain's one questionable lack of judgment decades ago, real, thinking Americans won't buy it.
The problem is, Media and unthinking Liberal Americans will, and because the media control the thoughts and minds of unthinking Americans, McCain has a tough row to hoe.
One final example of Media Bias:
Last night I was watching the local ABC newscast out of Washington or Richmond. (I don't know which) The anchor babe was reporting about the various scandals surrounding the candidates for President and Vice President. She reported on the status of the "so-called Troopergate scandal", saying Palin is being investigated for firing a state official for not firing her brother in law.
She didn't say the official was fired for gross insubordination, which involved the misappropriation of Government funds for a project Palin had previously denied. That is the real reason for the firing.
But does anyone really think the Liberally biased media would tell the truth?
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Republicans blame Democrats. Democrats blame Bush. Neither is totally correct. Some Republicans allowed this to happen. Almost all the Democrats did.
Let's throw them all out and elect Governors from sparsely populated states in their place. Not enough sparsely populated states? OK, then, let's elect mayors of small towns, too.
After all, they surely seem to make good debaters.
Friday, October 03, 2008
The "Pit Bull with lipstick", Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin won last nights debate with Senator Joe "Plugs" Biden hands down.
She beat him like a red headed step child.
Although Joe seemed to hold his own, if you throw out the ten (at least) outright lies he told to illustrate his points, his arguments were empty and unconvincing.
They don't call her Sarah Barracuda for nothing!
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
In a previous post, ER questioned why my posters and I were wasting our time commenting on meaningless polls when the Government is about to go bankrupt. Obviously, he was referring to the current economic crisis.
The short answer to his question is this:
I don't know a lot about economics. So, I try not to comment very often.
ER knows this. ER also knows far more about finances, economics, and mortgages etc, than I do, so, if I try to comment on it with any authority, he will no doubt excoriate me with extreme prejudice.
That said, I will offer my own uneducated opinion on the crisis, with the disclaimer that I admit I am not an expert:
It would seem to me that the cause of this situation is a logical progression stemming from Liberal "do-gooder" ideologies. It began with the Liberal-based philosophy of leveling the playing field.
In my humble opinion, leveling the playing field is a worthy goal, but why does leveling the playing field require that we bring the "haves" down to the level of the "have-nots? Wouldn't it be more practical to try to bring the "have-nots" up to the level of the "haves? Every person with any heart at all would like to insure that every American has a car in every garage and two chickens in every pot, but that, like it or not, is an idealistic pipe dream.
It's never going to happen. There are just too many variables among the people in this country. Some people are ambitious while others are lazy. Some people live very frugal lives while others are extravagant. If we took all the money from every person, pooled it, divided it equally, then gave every man, woman, and child in America an equal amount of starter money, within the first year there would again be wealthy people and poor people. That's just the way things work when we leave such a diverse population to their own devices.
But I digress.
This "fairness" philosophy, alluded to above, resulted in legislation that outlawed the common sense practice of what Democrats call "redlining", which was a fanciful line that Democrats claimed mortgage companies drew on maps (in red) tacked to the walls of their backrooms. That line is believed to outline neighborhoods (usually predominately black neighborhoods) in which the mortgage companies, as a matter of policy, would reject any applications for mortgages regardless of credit.
The idea behind that practice was, if anyone in those neighborhoods had good credit, they wouldn't live in those neighborhoods.
Acting upon the idealistic principle of fairness to all people, the Liberal Democrats pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee loans to "poor people" which is code for people who can't afford to make the payments. This was, as I mentioned, another way of leveling the proverbial playing field. The Liberal Democrats, as usual, used the proverbial "race card" to guilt these two institutions into defying common sense and sensible, sound, business practices by implying there was racism involved in the final decision to reject mortgage applications applied for by high risk applicants. They used the stereotype that most poor people are black (which isn't necessarily true) to advance their agenda.
Counter intuitively, this stereotyping, in fact, is the epitome of racism itself because it implies black people do not have the intellect or ambition to use their own resources to achieve their goals.
That, of course, is ridiculous. The fact is, blacks have achieved racial equality since the Civil Rights act of 1964. (an act, I might add, that was opposed by the majority of Democrats in the legislature, and only got President Johnson's signature because of pressure from the Republicans)
It's the Democrats that insist they haven't acheived equality. While racism still exists in the persistent, ignorant attitudes of a relatively few Americans, incidents that demonstrate that attitude are not nearly as prevalent as the Democrats would have us believe. Nevertheless, as long as some Americans blindly accept these charges, the Democrats will continue to use this lie that blacks are still an oppressed minority.
As long as it works to their nefarious advantage.
In legislating this "affirmative action" type policy in guaranteeing mortgages, the Lawmakers either inadvertently or purposely created a situation in which money was lent out to people who could ill afford to pay it back. So many people defaulted on these mortgages that eventually, the outflow was greater than the incoming.
Anytime that happens in any kind of business, failure of that business or institution is inevitable unless some major miracle comes along to stave it off.
Now. I may be dead wrong on my assessment, but I can't see how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could possibly run out of money unless the money was mishandled in some very egregious way.
We know that Mortgage companies were forced to approve applications for mortgages to high risk applicants in spite of no evidence of any means to make the payments. We know that. It is a matter of record.
It seems logical to me that if more money is going out than coming in, that creates a deficit.
It works that way at my house.
We also know managers of the two institutions were "cooking the books" in order to increase the amount of their bonus. We know that, too. That is also a matter of record.
I don't really understand the meaning of the term, "cooking the books", but taking it from context it appears to mean someone did some imaginative accounting, creating profits from thin air and making debits magically disappear.
That means someone deliberately broke the rules. Someone had to knowingly break the law. Someone should pay. Will someone?
Who are these someones?
Well, we already know who some of them are. Raines, Gorelick, Johnson, etc, were the ones who cooked the books. Democrats all. But who else is culpable? Which legislators are we to blame for this mess?
To determine that, we have to look at the motive. What's the motive? Well, on the surface, the motive appears to be an altruistic attempt to offer a hand up to the disadvantaged in our society. Most people would agree that is a wonderful, empathetic gesture, and in my opinion, it is. But there are problems inherent in this action. These, I've already enumerated.
One can't blame the mortgagees who defaulted because they couldn't make the payments. One cannot blame them because they allowed themselves to be lured, by overzealous real estate agents and mortgage firms, into making a bad decision. Would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
Conservative Republicans want to help the poor, but they also understand you can't rob Peter to pay Paul indefinitely. Eventually, that strategy ends up costing both Peter and Paul, so naturally, Republicans are called insensitive, mean, and greedy, because they don't happen to think that kind of money management is sensible.
Democrats are never shy about their desire to help the poor by taking from the rich and handing it over to the less fortunate. They call this "Patriotic". Democrats are called sensitive and friends to the poor, because of these outward demonstrations of generosity.
So, logically, who is more likely to introduce legislation that effectively takes one man's hard earned money and gives it to a man who hasn't earned the same amount?
Now. I said, "on the surface". But what of the underlying motive? Is there one? If so, what is it?
I don't know.
It would be unthinkable that someone might start the ball rolling downhill on purpose. Could there be some Representatives and Senators who would knowingly and intentionally put this country in financial crisis?
It's hard to imagine anyone would be that sinister.
On the other hand, it's equally hard to believe that any Senator or Congressman would be so ignorant and totally lacking in common sense that they would not know their actions would create such a consequence.
As I write this, the Senate has passed the revised "Bail-out" bill. I, personally don't think our government should bail out anyone that got themselves into financial straits by making such colossal blunders either on purpose or by accident.
Listen: The Government giving money to institutions who have already demonstrated an inability to be a good steward of the funds is akin to a doctor treating the symptons of a disease but not the disease itself. The symptons will go away or at least lessen, but eventually they come back over and over again until the disease kills the patient.
It is a temporary fix at best. It is economic suicide at worst.
I suddenly find myself screaming into deaf ears, "NO BAIL-OUT!!! To no avail.