About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Obama won an election - so did Hitler

 

Is Barack Obama another Adolf Hitler? Please...we musn't demean Hitler that way.

 

As a young, highly-decorated corporal, Hitler survived the horror-filled trenches of World War I.

 

Obama never saw a day of military service.

 

Hitler believed his country had been betrayed by its generals; and were it not for them, Germany would've won the Great War.

 

As a Communist sympathizer & community organizer in south Chicago, Obama set out to betray his country- a Manchurian candidate who'd eventually con his way to the U.S. presidency.

 

Although both were elected in widely-divergent circumstances, Hitler believed every word of what he preached - a gifted orator who spoke from his soul, who would rouse the German people from their defeated past.

 

Barack Obama is lost without a teleprompter. But only a liar needs to read every word. A man of integrity will speak what's on his mind- and not be in need of coaching to remember what he said.  

 

Hitler purged his country of all who were not of Aryan descent - and sought to condense the German population into a single "master race."

 

Barack Obama wants to bring as many illegal aliens into the U.S. as possible,  and fragment America's melting pot into parallel societies.

 

Hitler felt "Aryan supremacy" would enable Germany to rise as the greatest power the world had ever seen.

 

Obama holds America as inferior to European socialist countries - seeking to relegate the U.S. as part of a non-existent "world community."

 

During the 1940's, Hitler expropriated the gold of each country he conquered, to pay for his war.

 

Barak Obama bankrupts his country by printing unbacked money, to finance his covert war on America's capitalist economy.

 

And ironically, when it comes to the well-being of his own citizenry, Obama is the real Nazi.

 

His concept of "health care reform" could have been written by Adolf Hitler: Forced end-of-life counseling (euthanasia). Obama "storm troopers," entering your home - telling you how to raise your children. Forced abortions. 

 

Dictator Obama deciding who - and who will NOT- be allowed medical treatment.

 

And like any totalitarian state, Obama's support of the House Health Care Reform bill (HR 3200) gives one the "choice"...either obey it to the letter - or ELSE.

 

Hiel Obama! Long live America - until the country dies under the onerous weight of the thousand-plus pages of HR 3200!
 
If one were to define totalitarianism, Obama makes Hitler look tame in comparison. This bill could have beeen written by Big Brother himself. It not only tyrannizes personal choices about one's own health options, it allows government to monitor our ASSETS as well!

-Page 16:
States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law - then change jobs- you will be REQUIRED to take the government option.

 

-Page 22: Mandates audits of ALL employers that self-insure

 

-Page 29: Admission: your health care will be RATIONED

 

-Page 30: A government committee decides what treatments and benefits you receive (unlike an insurer- no appeals process)

 

-Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” decides health benefits. No other choice. None.

 

-Page 50: All non-US citizens, ILLEGAL or not, will be provided with FREE healthcare services (alien entitlements)

 

-Page 58: Every person to be issued a National ID Healthcard.

 

-Page 59: The federal government has direct, real-time access to all individual BANK ACCOUNTS for electronic funds transfer.

 

-Page 65:Taxpayers subsidize ALL union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)


-Page 84:
All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e. TOTAL government control of private plans)

 

-Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and AMERICORPS to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

 

-Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

 

-Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

 

-Page 127: The government will set wages: (The AMA sold doctors out).

 

So is it any wonder the Obama administration decided (as Rahm Emmanuel put it) to "throw long", trying to pass HR 3200 before summer recess - without anyone having read the bill? 

 

And is it any wonder dictator Obama has been buzzing around the country (like the Roadrunner) trying to convince the insured that... "you'll hardly notice a difference in your healthcare - just believe what I say!"

 

Passing HR 3200 is an Obama grand slam home run, in the bottom of the ninth, of the 7th game of the World Series:

 

POINT: Obama controls another 1/7th of the world's biggest, $14 trillion/year economy.

 

POINT: Obama expands government's size by an additional 15%, adding millions of new workers, and perennial democratic voters to the DNCC's rolls.

 

POINT: There will be a blinking beacon for an additional 20 million illegal aliens to come fence-jumping (free healthcare), and eventually, have all their "extended families" cross over to join them. Amnesty gives them all "the vote."

 

POINT: It amounts to the biggest private-to-public wealth transfer ($2 trillion) in the entire of history of mankind- "undercover" reparations. 

 

Bottom line: Obama garners enough of a permanent democratic voting majority to stay in the Whitehouse for possibly the rest of his life, as the abolishment of the 22nd Amendment (2-term president limit) becomes a virtual certainty.

 

And with the upper classes at the government's mercy, plus having their bank accounts open to disbursement, HR 3200 would make Hitler, or even Josef Stalin blanche.

 

Ever mindful of the difficulties in securing a sixty-vote( filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate, Obama successfully pressured Harry Reid (in April) to create an alternative path to passage, by adopting "reconciliation" rules, stating..."if they (Congress) do not act by October 15, the Senate could pass health care legislation with a simple majority of fifty-one votes.

 

Conclusion: HR 3200 is the worst idea EVER conceived for the American public. 

 

The elderly must decide if they want to continue to be medicated, or if they would rather 'die naturally.'  The young will be forced to buy unnecessary full health coverage, to pay for ACORN, the unions, and all the illegal aliens (plus their relatives).

 

And the biggest irony: ALL physicians are going to have to learn how to perform abortions -creating a moral dilemma for Catholic doctors and hospitals alike. 

 

And true to form, as any good band of Nazis, Obama and his Dems dominate the entire government. There's nothing stopping them if they TRULY wanted to pass this scam. But minister of propaganda, Rahm Emanuel, advises "seeking cover," by having some Republicans "on board with it."

 

No matter how he does it (or if he does it ) Obamacare will be nothing other than a massive totalitarian welfare bill, making the world's most expensive health care system even MORE expensive- while still not covering everyone.

 

Hitler's German efficiency would've never allowed for that.
 
 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

1976-2008...the Golden Age of Stupidity


Remember seeing the old black and white film clip of President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Mr. Roosevelt spoke in righteous indignation (quote)..."December 7, 1941-- a day that will live in infamy."

Now flash forward to August 18, 1976; a day-- as time progresses-- that will live forever in infamy, for both the Republican party and America. Hardcore political junkies can never forget it.

On that fateful day, one of the most electrifying floor fights in political history took place in Kansas City, Missouri, where Gerald Ford and  Ronald Reagan were virtually deadlocked in the delegate count going into the final vote for the presidential nomination.

Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, he lacked the amount necessary to secure victory. The convention had opened with both candidates pulling out "all the stops" to win.

But then Reagan committed his biggest career political blunder-- he alienated his core conservative support:

In a bid to attract liberals and centrists, Mr. Reagan nominated Richard Schweiker for his V.P-- the Arlen Specter of his day. The move immediately backfired, infuriating conservatives who despised the liberal Pennsylvania Senator.  Many of the crucial uncommitted delegates who were leaning to Reagan, now fled over to the Ford camp.

This would be Reagan's day of infamy, and it would indeed, have consequences...great consequences.

Had he gone with his first choice --conservative New York Senator, James L. Buckley-- political historians agree the nomination would have swung over to Mr. Reagan; but the blunder allowed Ford to gain the momentum he needed to win the nomination.

But yet, the final balloting for president was electrifying. As the first states began to declare, the drama and suspense were palpable in the air. Ford won the nomination with 1187 votes to 1080 votes for Reagan; and despite his blunder, it was that close...107 votes .

Reagan endorsed Ford at the close of the convention, and delivered a truly inspirational and magnanimous declaration of "party unity", an eloquent stirring speech that far overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address.

In an ironic quote from a story in the August 20, 1976 edition of the "Kansas City Star," it read..."Some delegates left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate".

SOME DELAGATES? All the delegates!

Anyone on that convention floor who had heard Reagan's reconciliation speech, immediately realized they had made a grievous mistake in picking Ford; and thus we ended up with Jimmy Carter- the smiling peanut farmer-- a disastrous 1-term president whose damage to America is still resounding to this very day.

Yes, the delegates had left the convention "wondering" (knowing) if they had voted for the wrong man.

And how 'bout 1996? The Republicans nominated Bob Dole. What chance did a meandering, plodding speaker like Dole have against slick Willie Clinton?

But despite the obvious mismatch, the Republican delegates again had voted for the wrong man, nominating Mr. Dole on the basis that "it was his turn," and because of his staunch loyalty to the party, he "deserved to be nominated."

Predictably, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" (as they had done to Ford) ridiculed the dignified Dole to no end, portraying him as an ancient, senile, clumsy, and bumbling dolt, who could not even maintain his balance on a stage.

After the liberal media had sliced and diced Dole to pieces, Clinton won in a landslide.

So as before, the Republicans--in their vain attempt to "be fair" to a party loyalist-- we again harken back to that quote..."wondering if they had nominated the wrong man."

Ever since the untimely death of the political genius, Lee Atwater in 1991, the Republicans inexplicably have lost their ability to survive media attacks from the left, and it has cost them dearly.

Atwater was George H.W. Bush's media guru, who crafted the controversial Willie Horton campaign ad, and suggested that a video clip of Michael Dukakis--looking foolish riding atop a tank-- be incorporated in to a second negative campaign ad, that almost overnight saw the liberal Dukakis give up a nine-point September lead in the polls, to a turn-around where Bush won in a November landslide.

But if it hadn't been for Atwater, again it would have been a case where the Republicans would've nominated the wrong man, and the weak, meek Dukakis would have been in the Whitehouse, and in plenty of time to appease the blustery Saddam Hussein, and his 1991 takeover of Kuwait may have gone unanswered.

But what if Reagan had won in 1976? There would have been no Jimmy Carter's destruction of the CIA; no disastrous Community Reinvestment Act; no stagflation; no gas lines;  no Iranian hostage crisis; no Russian invasion of Afghanistan; and probably, no rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Other than that, Carter would have been a legendary president.

But consider if the Gipper had won:

Reagan would have strengthened the military, shored up the economy; and unlike Carter, would have been no naive whipping boy, genuflecting before our Mideast enemies.

But it was not meant to be. If only it were not for those misguided 107 votes on August 19 of 1976, how different would our nation be today?

Even as late as spring, 2008, the litany of Republican political stupidity has continued on unabated.

Last year, in the initial primary days, the Republicans were on the verge of nominating Mitt Romney--an honest, experienced, self-made, super rich businessman-- who had an actual plan to re-invent America's economy using traditional means: fiscal responsibility, tax cuts to stimulate private investment in new plants, and create new industry.

But despite him being perhaps the most accomplished man to ever run for president, Romney was lampooned unrelentingly by the other Republican candidates for his religion, his 1994 "flip-flop" on abortion; and his stellar economic and political achievements were marginalized by a carping, jealous, liberal media.

Romney was shamefully victimized by his own party, and the very man the GOP needed most to shore up a sinking economy, had himself been sunk by sheer Republican folly, who got just what they deserved: death by stupidity-- political party suicide-- the nomination of  the boring, stodgy, John McCain, who had practically zero chance against the youthful magnetism of Barack Obama.

And if that were not enough, the shining charisma of Sarah Palin, who's brilliant acceptance speech for VP had won her legions of both partisan and non-partisan support, was mishandled so badly (stupidly), that within 4 weeks, she had been annihilated politically, with the public led to believing that she was little more than a female Homer Simpson: a dismayed, chuckle-headed, moose-hunting housewife, who just somehow happened to win the governor's seat of Alaska.

Of course, once again it was all courtesy of a jealous liberal media, borne of Republican political stupidity.

But only if Lee Atwater had been around for the last 20 years... who knows? This late, brilliant media strategist may have gone on to guide the Republicans to victories in 92, 96, and 2008; but the former architect of George Bush's victory in 1988, died of a brain tumor at the age of 40-- the peak of his political success and power.

Atwater-- considered the Republican Party's best political tactician of the last century-- was feared for his readiness to skewer democratic opponents, and his skill in carrying out those attacks.

But ever since his passing, the Republicans have done just the opposite -- played fair 'n square, and have been the party of the nice guys-- a surefire way to lose every election.

If the Republicans insist on being nice guys, they've gotta be smart; innovative; win on ingenuity-- try something different-- start the 2012 nomination for president right now.

That’s right...start now! It would capture the political spotlight; it would force the liberal media to see the Republican stars in action, firing away at the inexperienced arrogance of Barack Obama, and professing smart political and economic solutions of their own.

Imagine Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney on a national speaking tour: Palin for her expertise in energy, and Romney for his brilliant ideas to revive the economy.

Imagine Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor speaking together-- another dynamic duo, who now serve in the House of Representatives. Cantor for his brilliance on budgets and numbers, and Bachmann for her fiery patriotism, both denouncing the treasonous liberals in the Obama administration.

All four of these Republican stars, given a national forum, could outshine the false, "tele-prompted" popularity of Barack Obama, and expose him for what he is-- a shameless, supercilious liberal, who has but one agenda-- tax and spend America into socialist oblivion.

Picture a touring Republican cavalcade of stars-- a premature primary campaign-- warning America that the media is out to subvert all conservatives, and every voter must trust their own instincts, because there is no truth anywhere in American politics; only lies; only traitors (Arlen Specter), with liberal democrats strictly out for themselves.

Or it could be known as "the Republican Truth Squad of the Stars," revitalizing the party, re-energizing the nation; and demonstrating that there is hope--yes hope-- for the United States to once more be great; or as Reagan so artfully professed..."morning in America again."
 
Who-- besides the lying liberal media--says the Republicans don't have any ideas, and lack any true leaders? Let them be seen!

Stop the defeatist myth that there is no one who can defeat Obama in 2012. Stop it dead in its tracks! The democrats are behind it all--joined at the hip with the leftist media-- and the Republicans must put an end to their lies, or they will once again be victimized by their own naive stupidity.

Elections do matter; and not the best candidate, but the smartest political party, invariably wins; and not always to the benefit of the country as a whole.

The Republican fairness and "decency" doctrine continues to yield disastrous results in the form of 3 liberal presidents, who have appeased our enemies, and supported calamitous socio-economic policies, where America's long term survival as a great nation may actually be in doubt.

Lee Atwater--wherever you are-- what would you do?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Suburban Americans-- skinned by Obamanomics-- pray for refuge


Last fall, before the general election, pollsters described the "battleground" counties surrounding Philadelphia as "very much in play." And historically, the Philadelphia suburbs have been 'red areas' for generations, although occasionally they had gone blue and voted for Democratic candidates in the past (Clinton '96).

During the Pennsylvania primary in April of '08, only two of the four suburban Philly counties - Bucks and Montgomery - had polled more registered Democrats than Republicans. But by the time of the November 4 general election, it would prove vastly different.

The hotly-contested state of Pennsylvania would swing at an October town hall meeting held at Radnor Middle School in Wayne, Pa, where Obama opened up the door to winning not only the heavily-democratic city of Philadelphia over John McCain, but ALL the surrounding counties as well.

As September turned to October, Obama slowly began to surge in the largely affluent 'soccer mom', white-collar suburbs, as many voters began crossing over to his promise of "change." And many were gathered at Radnor Middle school back then to hear the great orator speak:

"For the last eight years, we've failed to keep the fundamental promise that if you work hard, you can live your own version of the American Dream," Obama railed at the townhall meeting...."But instead, people are working harder and harder just to get by."

Yes, the beguiling (although misleading) rhetoric had inexorably taken hold.

Obama had succeeded in creating a common enemy--George W. Bush--and the "Great Distractor" basically nailed the entire election at that fateful event, painting Bush as public enemy #1, and as if Dubya was the one running instead of McCain.

Suddenly, many of the suburbanites-- totally disgusted with Republicans in general--began to tune in with Mr. Obama; and the polls leading up to that November 4 showed that he had opened up an amazing 9-point lead over his rival.

Here is a sample of the political climate back then:

Scene-- last October, '08-- a telephone poll in an affluent Philadelphia suburb:

Pollster: "Good morning sir...I'm polling for the upcoming  election; do you have a preference for the presidency?"

Suburban Voter: "Your **!**!#* right I do! Before you go any further, I want to tell you that after what's happened to me, I think we need a change--a big change! And the heck with this "country first" stuff  of John McCain-- all I care about is gettin' even with that **^!*#-!!**!!* George Bush!"

Pollster: We sincerely thank you for expressing your opinion...good bye."        (END)

Indeed, Obama, the Great Distractor, had triumphed. And the rest is history.

As the revered Aristotle once said: "Anybody can become angry-- but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose--that is not easy".

Too bad ole Aristotle wasn’t working for the Republican campaign. He may have saved the day.

But most of America had taken the bait. Obama had painted the election as a mandate against George Bush, as anger caused suburban Americans to take leave of their senses, and ended up voting against their own best economic interests.

And in the parlance of Rev. Jerimiah Wright: "the chickens have now come home to roost"-- the economic chickens-- as The Federal Reserve recently reported that households lost $5.1 trillion, or 9 percent, of their wealth in the last three months of 2008, the most EVER in a single quarter in the 57-year history of record keeping by the central bank.

Cluck cluck.

This calamitous loss of wealth is staggering--much of it being comprised of a falling Dow, a plunge in home prices, and badly-shrunken 401K's-- which will undoubtedly "sentence" many suburban Americans to ten extra years of (hard) labor in the workplace, as they postpone retirement, and second guess themselves for their irrational exhuberance of anger against George Bush.

Yes-- now that they think back--maybe those greedy tax cuts "for the rich" weren't such a bad idea after all, as people face the prospect of the loss of their itemized tax deductions, and the attack of Generalissimo Obama upon whatever of their remaining assets he can plunder.

Even the richest have become a lot poorer. The wealth of Warren E. Buffett, (Obama's fallen economic guru) has tumbled an astounding $25 billion, from 62 to $37 billion. And if it gets any worse, maybe Buffett will be seen checking out price tags at Walmart, like many other "formerly affluent" suburbanite Americans.

Obama calls it "skin in the game"; but we'll call it, the "Reverse Wealth Effect".

Tobias Levkovich, the chief U.S. equity strategist at Citigroup, recently weighed in with his analysis of the losses of the top 20 percent of income earners: “When their wealth is mauled, they are not particularly interested in spending.”

Very profound Toby...we'd have never been able to figure that out. Give that man a bigger bonus!

And the decline in the stock market just since January 1 has erased another estimated 4 trillion MORE from the country’s collective net worth. So do the math. Since last November, the United States has become poorer to the tune of almost 10 trillion dollars-- and the losses could continue on indefinitely.

So it's no surprise that Walmart, Family Dollar, and McDonald's shares are surging, as people look for whatever ways they can to fight back against the onslaught of Obamanomics.

A Tampa Florida former CEO of a hedge fund has felt the sting of Obamanomics: he's plummeted from a six-figure salary to earning $7.29 an hour as a pizza delivery man. His family had been living the suburban American dream, nestled in their 4,000-square-foot home that sat on a golf course. Now they all reside in a $800/month, two-bed  motel room, and sleep in shifts.

A former Chicago industrial engineer, (now unemployed) recently applied for a $11/00 per hour janitorial position, only to be dismayed that there were 600 other applications ahead of his.

In Atlanta, two weeks before the opening of a new Super Walmart, an estimated 4,000 people stood in a serpentine line stretching a 1/4 mile around the parking lot, applying for 275 part-time and full time positions, with many of the people waiting as father-son-daughter family members, and were ironically competing against each other for the jobs paying a 7-9 dollar per hour wage scale.

So, can it get any worse? Any sign of hitting bottom?

The recession is already in its 15th month, making it longer than all but two downturns since World War II. The Dow is hovering around 7000, but will it hold-- or head lower?  Jobs continue to disappear, and one in eight American homeowners is in foreclosure, or behind on payments.

Economists are watching an array of statistics--some of them buried deep beneath the headlines-- to spot the turning point, such as a rise in metal prices, or a pop in the Dow Jones transport index (which would portend a bottoming); but no signs of anything yet.

Investors will be alert for turnarounds in housing, lending, employment, plus signs that consumer spending has picked up. Then market players would be more likely to move their money from safe havens, such as gold, or municipal bonds (or even their freezers), and back into stocks.

But for the average suburbanite, it may be a long time before they can make up their lost fortunes-- and for many it may be never-- as they lament the "change" brought on by Obamanomics, and the "skinning" they've received since Mr. Obama came to town, which has cost America an estimated loss of 2 trillion a month-- the most expensive 150 days in U.S. history.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hardy-har! Will President Barack Obama make a laughing stock of our Constitution?


No doubt about it-- the one thing that NO ONE can deny about the Obama campaign-- it's certainly been an interesting study of contrasts.

And now that our great new American hero of democracy is about to crosss the finish line, the contrasts seem to grow ever more interesting! Lets start with the objective of the Chosen One:

Obama will have spent an estimated 3/4 of a BILLION dollars to get elected to a job that pays a mere 350 thou...plus benefits. I this a dedicated fellow or what?

Oh mighty Obama...how we salute your herculean efforts! Look at the extreme lengths and towering obstacles you have so bravely endured...all just to serve your country faithfully as our 44th president!

And we need not suspect your motives. After all, you said we needed change, and you've sufficiently set the stage for that. But perhaps your idea of democracy might be a little fuzzy; but we're all sure to find that out in the next 4 years!

Meanwhile, mirthful times are about to descend upon the Obama-nation!

After his expected victory, Senator Obama's presidential campaign will hold what it hopes will be an Election Night celebration in Grant Park, the large public space in Chicago between the Loop and lakeshore, which also hosted the 1991 Chicago Bulls NBA championship celebration.

The decision to require event tickets was designed to bolster security. Secret service agents will be strategically placed everywhere before, during, and after the highly anticipated gala affair.

The Obama campaign is already using the occasion to collect names and contact data to be used for future  fund-raising and political or issue organizing. Win or lose, it will permit Barack's campaign to help his cause in the future.
 
For the Grant Park event, additional i.d. information is required  to get a ticket; and then, Secret Service at the gates wil re-confirm i.d's before entrance.

Ironically, this procedure is basically how OHIO once conducted its security procedure for new election registrations. But now a picture i.d. is no longer required -- all you need reveal as a first-time registrant is your "last four".

Yes, this is another of the many interesting contrasts brought to our democracy, courtesy of the Obama campaign.  Thanks to the Acorn/Obama axis of electoral evil, Ohio is front and center for the battleground of election deception--depending on whose side you're rooting for. Obama supporters defend it. The media treats the issue as just so much Republican 'white noise' from the radical right, who obviously abhor it.

A federal judge in Ohio helped further the mockery by ruling that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches, and other locations that aren't buildings (e.g. nearby large trees), as their addresses.
 
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus (a Clinton appointee) had basically overruled an earlier motion issued by U.S. District Judge George C. Smith in Columbus, who ruled that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner must perform verification required by the "Help America Vote" Act. That would've included matching new registrants' information against databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, or Social Security numbers.

This is part of an effort by the advocacy group ACORN to get the law that requires voter ID overturned, on the grounds that it violates Ohio's Constitution.

Basically, anyone from anywhere can go into Ohio now and vote; and people who live in border states could vote in their own state, and then vote in Ohio.

Now ask yourselves-- would Holier-than-Thou Barack Obama dare permit anyone of the homeless to enter his victory bash?

But the marxist rent-a-mob Acorn, have been the perpetrators of Obama's fraudian slip vs. the "one man- one vote" Constitutional electoral process of our democracy.

Mr Barack Obama...speak out! Tear down this wall of electoral deception. Have you no compunction at all?

And once elected, should all of America just say to you "hooray-yippee-yay Obama! You won unfair and square, so we'll all just sing along to patriotic tunes, and unite as one solid citizenry, and loyally proclaim you as a our next VALID president"...umm-hmm, sure we will.

Yes Mr Obama, Americans everywhere have been truly inspired by what dangerous lengths you may call upon, to establish a socio-marxist presidency ...by any means necessary!

And yet, an even further study in contrast is the fresh new approach the Obamians have lent to campaign financing.

Now Americans are about to experience their first president, able to rival the federal reserve board for innovative fiscal policy-- generating money from ethereal sources...the internet! Could this be considered, "money from nothing"...er, that is....money from nowhere that can traced?

Right now , there is evidence that the unprecedented flow of cash to and through the Obama campaign is not entirely legit. In any event, bogus or unsuspecting campaign contributions from stolen credit card numbers are flooding in incrementally from unknowing victims all across the country.
 
In addition to non-contributors being charged for contributions, at least $218 million has been received by the Obama campaign from donors of under $200, whose names they are keeping secret, according to the Federal Election Commission.
 
Team Obama has deliberately disabled online safeguards normally used by sites receiving contributions or payments. There is no checking of names, addresses, or card numbers usually performed at the front end.

According to the Washington Post; "Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent illegal anonymous contributions"...
 
Of the $150 million Obama claims to have raised in September, some $42 million was raised from secret contributors, and listed under, "Donors, Unitemized."

Obama's deliberate lack of finance vetting also allows the use of untraceable prepaid credit cards.Considering the Obama campaign's $800,000 donation to ACORN to "get out the vote," this may be the first political campaign "featuring" voter fraud financed by credit-card fraud.

These deplorable Obamian tactics are much more than so-called dirty politics. Win or lose, the Obamians have done permanent structural damage to our electoral process.

Like the term" swift boat" from from the 2004 Rovian bag of dirty tricks, any future voter irregularities from now on will probably be spoken of as having been "acorned" by the opposition.

There are historical precedents: once the agreed upon rules of any engagement in human contests are breached, the damage becomes entrenched, and is translated into all future events of that sort.

Recall World War I: In 1917,  the Germans decided to employ poison gas. Despite the lack of any strategic advantage that Germany gained, the mere threat of gas had been established in the minds of all future combatants of that era.

This resulted in the universal issuance of gas masks in World War II to everybody everywhere. Many civilians, and all battlefront soldiers from all armies were issued these bulky devices, yet gas was never used in the entire 6 year conflict; but the mere threat had induced sustained fear.

Throughout history, the treachery of the few have wrought misery upon the many. September 11 has caused permanent and expensive airport security measures to make ALL air travel an ordeal of long baggage-check lines, and passenger resentment.

ACORN's structural damage to our electoral process will be felt forever in the future, similar to the 9-11 effect upon our airports . It will inconvenience voters and poll workers for generations to come; all because of the desperation of Barack Obama, to win "by any means necessary".

And on an even darker side, it will no doubt bring forth a new cast of sinister "contract" ACORN-like brigands, with promises of "dirty election deeds, done dirt-cheap!"

All future elections will have to spend unnecessarily to prevent voter fraud, adding on layers of permanent safeguards that were once deemed unnecessary. Plus they will add an additional financial burden to all local and state governments.

Yes Mr. Obama;  is this just another of the changes we all suspected you'd bring to us ? Have you no conscience? Of course atheism and marxism are the two philosophical twins of your idea to win..."by any means necessary" (phrase taken from the "Communist Manifesto", by Karl Marx).

Is Barack Obama a marxist?  Lets approach it from a moral point of view. Our nation was founded on Christian principles. It's even engraved upon our money...in God we trust. But Karl Marx had nothing but ridicule for religion, calling it the "opium of the people".
 
But yet Obama, world class hypocrite, says he's a Christian, but his actions belie his words. And when no one was looking (listening), Obama pronounced to a group of San Francisco elites, "midwestern small town people 'cling' to their religion during bad times". Yes indeed, Barack Obama, hard core abortion rights supporter, you're a real man of the Faith!

So who or what does Barack Obama cling to, when faced with hard times? Has Obama ever even been exposed to dire adversity? What if his campaign plane were to suddenly lose power, who or what would Obama cling to then? "Oh please, dear Bill Ayers...please don't let me expire this way" Or..."oh please Karl Marx, let this plane land safely!"

Or what if his presidential limo were to take fire from a terrorist attack?.."oh please David Axelrod, save me from these fanatics!"...

Abe Lincoln always said..."integrity is something you do when no one's looking". Is Obama a man of integrity?

People without integrity are the essence of atheists. It's a philosophy of the foolish...a dead end to oblivion. Atheists are a contrast to their own existence, because they know earthly life is never eternal; yet they cannot be sure of what may lie beyond.

So sleep well Mr Obama. Enjoy your hollow victory-- just think of how you earned it ...on the backs of those who weren't as smart as you, because they chose to believe in you-- their false god of hope. But of course, you won by out-smarting 'em all.

But before your final rest, you might be in for an awakening...what if Marx was wrong? You've never come to realize that the concept of faith contains confidential information, intended only for the private revelation to each one about to arrive at their corporal end.

So Mr Obama...what happens next after the faith you put in yourself, reaches its inevitable expiration date? Will your next election be decided by the Supreme Being you pretended to not believe in?

Oh oh... here come da judge! Yup, those darn Marxists had succeeded in beating you at your own game... they had out-deceived the Master of deception.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS MADE SIMPLE..."JUST THUG YOUR WAY INTO THE WHITEHOUSE"


RE: Copy of recent campaign letter to Ohio Obama supporter (via e-mail)

Dear ____:
"We have five days left to make sure as many people as possible cast their votes for change. But you'd be surprised at how many of your friends and family don't know where to vote -- or that they can vote as early as today in Ohio, a crucial battleground state.


Voting early is easy, convenient, and lets you avoid possible long lines. And if you vote early, you know you'll be free on Election Day to volunteer in our historic get out the vote effort. This race is too close for you-- or anyone you know-- not to vote.

Supporters like you can transform this country, and I'm counting on your help to make sure every Obama supporter in Ohio knows they don't have to wait another day to cast their votes for change.

Thank you for your help,

Barack 

(end of  letter)

QUESTION: does this nice, polite, innocuous sounding letter-for-support, convey that  it could come from some desperate, conniving, devious, calculating, prevaricating, beguiling, plotting, socio-marxist presidential candidate?

Figure it out for your self-- few candidates in  American political history have ever been accused of so many lies, underhanded tactics, and dirty deeds in general as Mr. Obama... yet still he has managed to remain clean as a whistle, and emerge politically unscathed enough to lead the race! Love him or hate him, ya gotta give the man credit.

He has survived all the various defamatory arrows cast his way-- any one of which would have doomed another front-runner long ago.

And It's no mystery why. TV image is everything in America. In American politics, your television image defines you. And virtually nothing you can say or do can alter your image, once television has christened your candidacy as either: "OK to proceed --or fuh-getta-about it...you're toast"...you've been sentenced to: "political death by soundbite"...and there shall be no appeal!

NOTE: for further study on this precedent, see: Mikey Dukakis;  Sarah Palin;  Danny-boy Qualyle.

Is Barack a commie?...a socialist? a baby killer? a liar? a thuggish schemer with anti- American friends? Was he really an ACORN-trainer-voter fraud perpetrator? A character assassinator- prevaricator? Has he used truth squads and political intimidation in the battleground states?

How could anyone (Obama) who looks and speaks so "presidential-like"  possibly be one to employ such despicably thuggish tactics; and then use them right in the middle of a high profile presidential campaign?...and, right in front of everyone's eyes,  get away with it? How he do this?...know what I'm sayin'?

Examine the past... peruse through history's list of famous thuggish, egotistical dictators . What defined them all? It was how they were portrayed in the eyes of America; in the media.

A ranting raving Hitler; a sinister, snaky, smiling Josef Stalin; and skin-head Vladimir Lenin, with that ominously-pointed goatee; Mussolini in his fascist uniform and hat, preaching virulent despotism from the Vatican's courtyard balcony; Nikita Khruschev pounding his shoe maniacally on the table in the U.N.

Just the sight of these bad boys on TV was indeed very scary. Our school history textbooks and cable TV pictures, often conjure up their frightening images: (i.e.
Saddam Hussein, scowling into the camera).

Or how about some of the more recent horrid bad guys, like the evil-eyed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Moamar Quaddafi, Ho Chi Min, the odious Yossir Arafat, and gruff-looking Leonid Breschnev.. .even this guy's bushy eyebrows looked menacing!

The one thing these guys all had in common?... they LOOKED pretty frightening...and they all hung with a scary crowd, and talked and gestured ominously.

Now lets revisit the campaign strategy of Barack Obama. If this man wins, you can throw out all the rules and record books, and abandon all the traditional political axioms and precedents from past elections.

Start with Abe Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people some of the time"... etc. But is Obama is about to succeed in fooling all of the people for ALL of the time that  it took him to win? After Jan 21-2009, will he remove the mask?

Think of Obama, waving on the podium...picture that $1500 suit, that cheshire grin, the maddening self-assurance, the infallible elocution, the never ending gesturing and political posturing... they all seem so benign. But beneath the false cloak of sincerity, does there beat the heart of a calculating, implacable political foe? A man who will resort to the most desperate of means to justify any coveted political end? Just read on:

Who else but a crass political thug would use ACORN as their personal, paramilitary, rent-a-mob marxist subcontractor? This is a group who has elevated political dirty tricks to an art form.

In his campaign letter, Obama exhorts everyone to vote early. But in the battleground states, he has instructed his brigands to make certain his people vote early, and vote often.

Recall the improbability of Obama's upset in the Iowa primary: Hilliary was far ahead in every poll. But the night of the caucus, there were reports statewide of boisterous groups who had descended upon the caucus locations, waving signs wildly, shouting down Hillary supporters, badgering people into corners, and even bullying people in wheel chairs...hanging around the parking lots and entrances...etc.

And gee whiz- what a surprise! Next day in the Des Moines Register..."OBAMA WINS BIG UPSET IN PRIMARY". Sure he won, courtesy of bussed-in nearby Illinois ACORN  "volunteers". This is voter fraud on steroids! And Obama was their lawyer and trainer back during his days as a 'Community Organizer'.

But even worse...the actual details of the thuggery were not brought to light in many of the local papers or TV stations around Iowa. And certainly no national media outlet would pick up the story. WHY?
 
Eventually, the Clinton campaign became befuddled. They were getting creamed in EVERY primary state that held a caucus-style election, yet they were winning in the states using traditional balloting.

Naturally, the press covered by saying..."Obama had the superior ground organization in the caucus states". Of course he did...the Obama-corn thugs had perfected their Iowa trick, and just executed this election-day  thuggery in all the other caucus states, like Nevada, and North Dakota, where Obama won "convincingly".

And besides election intimidation, advertising deception, media disinformation, and voter fraud; what could be more textbook of a neo marxist threat than to discover an even more sinister tactic-- the ongoing brainwashing of America's children, right under the public's collective noses!

This is a "whisper topic" that would bring shudders to any patriotic American. Do people now realize that children-- along with the rest of the public--are being are being corrupted very subtly by the money overflow from the Obama campaign? Just as money is being used to flood the airways in swing states-- spewing disinformation about McCain's campaign-- even dirtier deeds are being carried out on the children's TV cable networks, where Obama operatives are promulgating, "what kids can do to help elect their hero, Barak Obama"

The indoctrination of America's children? How preposterous of an accusation! But if only it were not true.

FACT: Today kids are being directed by their TV icons, to "visit the Obama website... scroll down...now click on the "PEOPLE" button...and there you will see the Obama message to kids everywhere":

(TEXT)..."for the first time, kids can have a voice and enter politics... and lend your voice to supporting Obama.  Here are some awesome ways kids can help to elect Barack:"

1- draw pictures of Obama in patriotic settings; (like him sitting in the oval office with a flag behind him) then show these to your parents, and urge them to vote for Obama

2- wear your "Obama for president" T-shirt to school

3-make sure your parents go to the polls and vote for Obama

4-post an Obama sticker on your school bag

5-talk about what a great president Obama will be during class and at lunchtime

6-call your grandparents: tell them that if they really care about you, for YOUR sake, you want them to consider what kind of world you'll be living in for the future. So even if they are for McCain, if they love you, you want them to vote for Obama...

Now what could be more insidious than this? To actually encourage kids to learn the adult ways of emotional manipulation at an early age; and then direct them at the people who care about them most...their family! Isn't  that typical of the coldblooded marxist way of indoctrination?

Yes-- go ahead Mr Obama...get into the heads of the innocent young, and work through their entire education, until they become believers in the immoralities of the marxist school of thought...which is based on the tenet...seizing power "by any means necessary"...

And yes Mr Obama- you KNOW by debasing the morality of the youngest segment of America's  population, you'll get the kids thinking "hey, this is cool stuff!... manipulating (conning) grandma to do what I want! ...this Obama website is NEAT...wait'll I tell my friends...what else can I learn from Obama?"

And what America may learn about Barack Obama also may come too late: the man of the eloquent speeches and patriotic promises, was all along, nothing but a Trojan horse for marxism.

The public, smitten by their hopes in this man, refuses to assemble all the pieces of the Obama political puzzle. But these pieces are ready for assembly. Start with the source, the MAN himself...Karl Marx.

Marx knew that human beings-- no matter the time or place in history-- can be deceived and manipulated (i.e. just tell THE BIG LIE, over and over). But in this election, this would only have been made possible by the sheer nonpareil eloquence, and television charisma of the CHOSEN ONE!


Now lets assemble the pieces. Why did Obama choose to launch his political career in the living room of an avowed marxist radical? OR is it the fact that Ayers and his wife chose him?  Was it Mr & Mrs Ayers who were the ones to crystallize the objectives of a young, politically ambitious Barak Obama?

They saw in Obama, a man richly gifted in the skills of articulation, public oration, manipulation, and equanimity: skills that would pretext someone who could change people's minds against their own best interests. A man so disarming and charming, that no one would ever suspect the devious nature within: a man capable of turning America against itself!

Could this man be the antichrist of our democracy? If he were elected president, could we ever again present ourselves as a Christian nation? What would be our role in the world during an Obama Presidency?

Upon his election, will our society will ever be the same? There would be a plethora of same sex laws, new abortion rights , new permissive guidelines for public behavior... gay parades in every city...coming out-of-the-closet political  activists...liberal "San Francisco" lifestyles sweeping across our nation...all in the name of “tolerance."

EXAMPLE: ( People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) PETA wants a proposed Chicago public high school, designed for homosexual and lesbian students, to offer a vegetarian-only menu. And this is only the beginning!

And where would it end, with a Pelosi-Reid-Obama trinity of leftist-liberal tyranny, about to take up four-year residency in the capitol building and Whitehouse?

Is Barack Obama about to become the 1st president of the soon-to-be-"disunited States of America"?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Getting even...the revenge against George Bush


Remember the good ole days of 2006? The leading economic indicators were up. Retail sales were strong. Unemployment had declined to 4.7%. People were busy with two jobs, family matters, keeping pace with their mortgages, and paying the bills. But despite all the pressure of of staying ahead, things weren't too bad.
 
People still traveled, people still were well-housed, well fed, and basically satisfied with life in general; except for the unpopular war in Iraq. But this was the year president Bush really had alienated the people. The more he steadfastedly defended the war, the lower his approval rating .
 
Front page news about the war was grim and unending. Americans grew weary of suicide bombers, armored humvees, I E D's, amputee soldiers, and Don Rumsfeld's separation from reality. It seemed like Vietnam deja' vu; but this time rebellion was not to be found in the form of the street protester, but rather in the voting booth. Americans turned out in hoards for the congressional election '06, and sent nearly every republican incumbent to the cleaners.
 
Theres no way of telling, but 100 years from now, the history books may read:

..."the Congressional election of 2006 was the fateful turning point in American history... when Americans over-reacted against the standing party of an unpopular president, and elected a new generation of liberal Democrats, who used their majority power to pass a leftist agenda of socialist legislation; which ballooned the national debt to18 trillion dollars by 2012,  and ultimately lead to the collapse of the U.S. dollar; put the nation into insolvency; and caused its eventual decline into a third world country by 2035..." 
 
From 2001 to 2006, the primary driver of the economy had been rock-bottom interest rates. People took out mortgages on second homes. House-flipping Americans began selling homes back and forth between themselves. But this only served to expand the trade deficit, since no new money from foreign dollars was coming in; and oil imports were causing $700 billion/year to leave offshore-- an unsustainable pace. 
 
And since 2006, America has declined more rapidly than in almost any other brief period since 1929-1932. What opened the door was Nancy Pelosi, and that fateful day in history, Jan 4, 2005, when she was sworn in as the new Speaker of the House.
 
Immediately, Wall Street commodity traders were on red alert. They knew she was a radical San Francisco environmentalist-- virulently opposed to all drilling-- and quite content to see America continue to export much of its disposable income to OPEC. She vowed to keep offshore drilling illegal.
 
After Pelosi assumed the Speaker's gavel, the oil commodity traders in the pits lined up at the starting line. They knew the new speaker would block all republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. The traders recognized the coming bonanza. They began to rapidly bid up the future price for oil, correctly assuming that no new U.S. supply of crude would be coming online to offset rising future worldwide demand. The price rose from $47 to $144/barrel, and gasoline prices doubled from 2.13/gallon  to 4.44, in just 18 months.
 
In 2006, the world's economies were in a growth phase. The world markets were clamoring  for more oil and gasoline; But Congress had chosen to block all new refineries and domestic offshore drilling.  After gas prices went past $3, the entire American economy turned into a national pawn shop. Everyone suffered the plague of expensive foreign oil imports, which provided 70% of our domestic supply.
 
Businesses were forced to trade their profit margins for higher energy costs. Americans, no longer able to drive to their second jobs, began to suffer household budget crunches. Food prices rocketed upward; the cost of living soared. After their savings, credit card limits, and retirement accounts were bled down, the mortgage default parade began, and the domino effect was on.

 

Now the second bubble began to burst. The Fannie Mae crisis had been a simmering pot of fudged assets, and cooked books hiding the18 billion dollar per year average losses.  Enron-style accounting concealed the debacle from federal bank examiners. But the main culprits in the cover-up were the three "banking amigos" that were in charge of congressional oversight committees...Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, and sweet-talkin' Barney Frank.


Yes, the cover-up firm of Schumer, Dodd, and Frank had traded big campaign contributions from Fannie Mae CEO Howard Mudd, in return for blocking any fed bank examiner from snooping too closely. These 3 great American patriots were instrumental in hiding the mounting losses.


But they hadn't planned on a sudden foreclosure crisis, which blew the lid off the scandal, and threatened all banks who had taken large positions in Fannie's "government-guaranteed" mortgage securities. One by one, the subprime lending firms collapsed, all the investment banks indicated trouble, and the quasi-government lending agencies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac imploded in a sea of red ink.


This is basically because of the price of oil had quadrupled in less then a year and a half, which triggered the foreclosure tsanami.  People were literally forced out onto the street, and live in their SUV's and RV's parked overnight at Walmart.

 

But the worldwide financial markets were all affected: for any bank caught in the tainted mortgage cauldron, all their assets were now questionable, and possibly worthless. In this cloud of uncertainty, investors headed for the exits.

 
As stock prices tumbled, Americans saw their 401K's melt faster than a popsicle in the sun.The political blame game began; but the public held the party in power responsible, unaware of the real story...the actual perpetrators were being hidden by a far-left liberal media. But the public clamored for a scapegoat, and pointed the finger at the Republicans.
 
As if it were an act of God, this came at the worst possible time for John McCain. His late September, 5-point lead over Obama evaporated overnight.
 
People now forgot about Iraq altogether. The public disregarded the major selling point for finishing the war-- the big economic peace dividend that's about to materialize after the political climate there is stabilized.


The public's rage against the republicans is palpable . They have been blinded by revenge. If you listened to the conscience of the typical American voter today, you might hear..."I'm willing to give up Iraq. I don't care about the surge. I want an intelligent president who doesn't deliver incoherent, mumbling speeches".

"I don't care about ACORN and voter fraud. I don't care about Ayers, expanded abortions rights, or the possibility of a triple header democratic congress and president that will tax and spend the country to oblivion. Yes, I just don't care anymore after what those republicans have done."
 
"I don't care about the dollar shrinking in in value...I don't care if we don't drill for oil, and pay permanently high gasoline prices. I'll buy a darn motorcycle... I'll pay more taxes...we need something new!"

"I'm okay with a bigger welfare state...okay with a bunch of new leftist judge appointments...I'm okay with more affirmative action, and more welfare for the disadvantaged.  I'm okay with a declining economy, and over-taxing the very person who might eliminate my job".

"I'm okay with a president who'll raise taxes during a recession, and might start another depression; I'm okay with a dumbed-down workforce because of increased affirmative action programs, and it weakens our  competitiveness, and causes us to be a nation in decline".

"After what's happened to me, I'm okay with every bit of it ! We need a change! And the heck with this "country first" stuff  of John McCain-- all I care about is gettin' even with that **^!*#!!**!!* George Bush!"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator McCain's "Thank You" card to his loyal supporters

 

 

C' mon Senator McCain... show a little gratitude for all the faithful. Start sending out the "Thank You" cards. Do you need the all the addresses? We'll help 'ya out. For starters, send one to CNN. Be sure to include the entire staff. They've been a great help to you in this last 3 months. And theres those good guys at ABC, Chuckie Gibson, and Georgy-boy Stephenopoulos. Don’t forget them. They've stood by your side.

 

Lets see, who else gets a card? Of course...NBC; and MSNBC! . Sure don't wanna miss them. Boy you'll need a whole box.. there's Williams, Obermann, Brokaw, Matthews, Maddow...ah, there's just so many to write to, so you might be better off doing a candy gram. They've all been positively exuberant about the way your campaign has proceeded in the last two weeks.

 

And be sure to include a nice enticement for that cuddly, gnarly-faced MSNBC sweetie, Andrea Mitchell. Now there's a reporter with gravitas, She deserves at least a McCain keychain and magnet for the fridge . So if you ever need her again to help you lose an election, you'll certainly want to stay on the good side of her..

 

And don't forget about the great spark to your campaign that cutie pie Kate Couric has provided lately. It was an absolute gas the way she and those wonderful CBS studio editors sliced your partner's interview into snippets.

 

Oh well, what’s a little bias any way? After all, the first rule of politics is...THERE ARE NO RULES! You know the old saying....if you want a friend in politics-- get a dog. And how about the innovative way that those reptiles kept running that soundbite... "the economy was fundamentally sound"? What a coincidence that your lead evaporated right afterwards. But it probably was all in good fun.

 

Yes Senator; without all their co-operation you wouldn't be where you are today. And you must admire their conformity. They're ALL for your opponent...united in lockstep against you! You could almost think of them as the "Stepford " media, in the non-stop invectives they continuously direct against you.

 

And don't be an ingrate if you lose. Just think of all that trouble and time the Stepford media may have saved you in the future. And think of the good times you've provided them; and all the happiness you've brought their way. Picture all those slimy Stepford media reptiles, slithering gleefully back and forth between their corporate TV offices, laughing at the endless Couric interview soundbites on their monitors, and snickering about whatever else they can devise to embarrass you on to defeat. 

 

Yessir...you can  thank them all. And if you're wondering, (as many of your supporters out there are) how could they ALL be so coldblooded? Don’t forget; they're snakes...spineless and without principles.

 

The snakes crawl over every word you say, and twist it out of context. They've made sure that that nary a kernel of disinformation about your campaign ever slips by. And sooner or later, it begins to take hold. Their Orwellian blanket is all-encompassing. Nothing penetrates their iron curtain of disinformation. Our First Amendment has been shredded. News journalism is dead. Thomas Jefferson once  wrote: "Information is the currency of democracy".

 

So don't be at all surprised about why your disingenuous opponent has surged ahead of you. And because of the disinformation that has seeped through, YOU are the one the masses believe who's misleading them. Yes Mr. McCain, it's ironic. The majority now think that your opponent, the Great Fabricator, is the one to be most entrusted to the presidency.

 

And who can blame the masses for this travesty of truthfulness? The people have heard nothing ill of your opponent, whose speeches they revere. People of today hear and see nothing but sound bites. They have no time for newspapers, and place their credence in the political opinions of comedians, instead of journalists, Yes; a neutral electorate can absorb only so much disinformation, before it gradually takes on a life of its own. If Thomas Jefferson were around today, he might write: "When comedians are taken seriously, democracy is destined to become a joke" 

 

 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"United we fall...divided we stand!" McCain's victory speech?

 

How often in a clash between two titans, such as two boxers, or two football teams, is the defeated fighter or coach bitterly criticized because "he played not to lose". But risks are an inherent factor of life. Sometimes, overcaution can be much worse than not being cautious enough. Just ask John McCain, whose campaign strategists had obviously advised the man to use an ill-conceived strategy of playing not to lose. 


When the presidential debate commenced, i
t was rather apparent McCain was showing unnatural restraint. In boxing parlance, champion McCain chose only to jab in the first half of the fight. And in the latter half of the contest, McCain swung wildly at his bobbing opponent, but failed to land a series of punches. The only time he had Obama on the ropes, his opponent was saved by the final bell.

 


Too bad Senator McCain. You could've scored an early knockout on your nervous rival, but you had erroneously chose to listen to your incompetent managers, who had cautioned you "not to make any gaffes". But ironically, that was your biggest gaffe...you held back your blows, and your glib, stammering opponent was let off the hook.

 


It was a scene eerily reminiscent of Rocky I. Obama as Rocky, McCain as Apollo. Rocky Obama knew he "just had to go the distance". He obviously had trained hard, had carefully studied his opponent, and knew where he was vulnerable. His handlers knew he could win by just hanging on till the end, because if their man was still standing, the judges (media) would fix the fight.  

 


In the post fight analysis, the judges agreed that Obama had been bloodied, but awarded him a close decision, only because he hadn't been knocked out. Most of the spectators went along with the verdict, but stunned McCain supporters had every right to cry foul. To an impartial observer, it was apparent that the McCain scorecard was way ahead by the end, despite his "rocky" start.

 


Well Senator McCain, what do you do, now that you fully realize that you're against a Machiavellian opponent, who's been able to out-clever your campaign at every turn? You're now left to fight alone against a political Mafioso that, like the Al Capone mob, has its origins in south Chicago...an opponent who uses the laws to act in an outlaw manner...an opponent whose disinformation would make the KGB seem amateurish.

 


Senator McCain; please throw aside your advisors, they naively want to play by the rules, because they understand little of the strategy of ruthlessness. The thuggish enemy against you is playing for keeps. They operate under a guise of 'civic' organization. Even their name seems benign (ACORN). But like a malignant political cancer, once they quietly invade any area, they will subtly eat away at the opposing organism, and weaken and destroy it before it can fight back.

 


Even you do not realize the extent to which the Acorn cancer has penetrated. It's metastasized into college campuses in all the swing states, employing illegal "instant voter" registration tactics, including same day registration/absentee balloting. If challenged, ACORN will tie up the issue in court, and if the state secretary and state supreme court are pro-democrat, ACORN wins; you lose. ACORN fights for relaxed voter rules that allow early balloting. One no longer need present a reason to justify an absentee ballot. Chicago machine politics has indeed been raised to an art form.

 


The Acorn malignancy has crept into every major TV newsroom across the country, where staffers mock videos of the Palin-Couric interview, but censor any whiff of an Obama misstep. They spread the cancer of ACORN, but in ways imperceptible to anyone but the closest observer. They lie to the public by omission. They do not seek the truth. They worship only your opponent, because they see him as a rainmaker.

 


Mr. McCain, take this Reagan-esque advice: "Tear down this wall"...the wall of bi-partisanship and political correctness that your advisors have erected around you. Your maverick status is at stake. You best fight alone now, because that’s how you fight best. The media and the young are in the camp of your opponent. And the remaining voting public has begun to sing that democratic song titled, "You're not in touch". They do not realize they've swallowed the bait.

 


Forget about Iraq. Your opponent has the right idea...talk about HIM. He speaks mostly of you. You've fallen into their trap. They have you on the defensive. So get aggressive, before the clock runs out. We're in the fourth quarter.  

 

 

Playing not to lose is costing you the Whitehouse. Is this any way to win an election, trying to dispel your previous reputation? Did it ever occur to you that you're the polar opposite of your glib opponent? And that's just what the undecided people are looking for! Someone with the fire and backbone to run our country. Go ahead, lose your temper...let the public see the real McCain again. Reclaim your respect. 

 

 

You are a sincere, patriotic, straight-talking, courageous war hero. You have principles. You have always taken a stand for what you believe is right for your country, while you opponent always takes a stand for what is right for only himself and his party. Your country has always come first. Your opponent has always said "I'm first".

 


You must bluntly counteract your opponent's polished oratory using the very thing that got you here in the first place...straight talk! But here's your challenge, bring back the straight talking, but limit it to one subject; your opponent's credibility. Defeat it in the only way you know how-- by telling the truth. Forget the media criticism, your advisors, the pundits, and start being commander McCain again! What have you got to lose?

 


Give people the real story. Call it, "the Great Revelation strategy". Leopards don’t change their spots. Start from the beginning, and go forward. Drop all the negative TV commercials. Save the media buys. Use the money for some good old fashioned campaign mailings. We still have freedom of the press. Let loose with a blizzard of straight-talking literature. Let the people read the truth. Unmask the imposter!

 

 

Let the the people know of your opponent's political origins in south Chicago. Does the public know of his ties to ACORN? Nope. Does the public know he despises ALL guns? Does the public know he's virulently anti-oil, and is for higher gas prices as a form of forced conservation? Does the public know that in 2005, he earmarked 1 million dollars to his wife's employer, only a few months after the hospital had TRIPLED her salary? How's that for starters? The public is not aware of any of this.

 


Meanwhile, back at your opponent's ranch, they've been unable to dig up any real dirt on you. So they continue to say that you're out of touch. But that's the best they'll do. So put your advisors on an expedition of their own; let them start mining some dirt on this deeply-flawed candidate. They won't have to go very deep. Call an impromptu series of Town Hall meetings. Talk about how your opponent received $126,000 from Fannie Mae right after he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator. Was this hush money? Let the public decide.

 


Criticizing your opponent won't tarnish his sacred, media-worshipped image. So, just keep telling the truth about him. Your “great revelation strategy” may go down in election history like the famous Truman "whistle stop" train tour of his last thirty days before the 1948 election. Truman's opponent (Dewey) was a polished eloquent speaker, and was way ahead in the polls. Truman decided to tour the country, and speak from the back of a passenger train.

 


Even on the election night, the media still had difficulty accepting the fact that Truman could win. But once Truman shucked the political rhetoric, it reinforced his image as a fiery leader who avoided all pretense, and understood the average voter. Truman ultimately won against his elitist and extremely haughty opponent.

 

 

Well Senator McCain...time for history to repeat itself. Hop on your bus, get on your soapbox, and make the campaign stops. Trust your own instincts. Be your own campaign strategist. Rise again from the ashes like you did a year ago before the primaries. Make history. Become the next Harry Truman.

 


But above all, make sure you remind everyone of one thing all will agree: Government by division is always in the public's best interest. A democratic Congress and a Republican president preserves democracy, and portends prosperity. Or vice versa. Remind them of the glory days of the 1990's, when Clinton was held in check by Newt Gingrich. Or the 1980's when Reagan was held in check by Tip O'Neil. Times were good during those years.

 


Remind the people that a democratic sweep will be four years of reign by those who caused all the problems in the first place. Let them know the real truth about Fannie Mae. You warned it was sinking, but the democrats were the ones who sandbagged the rescue. Clamor loudly that "this won't happen on my watch, but only if the government is divided between the 2 parties!" They'll elect you in a landslide!

 


Let the great revelation reveal that Pelosi and Reid will reinstate the permanent ban on drilling. You know it's true, so it's your duty to let the people know. Be blunt, tell them point-blank: THEY are ones out of touch with the real story...they are being led by the media into a leftist ambush. You need not speak like Churchill. Just warn them repeatedly that a democratic sweep will subordinate the majority to a leftist agenda of unchecked liberal legislation, and the irreparable transformation of the face of our nation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Four more years!...four more years!...4 more years!"

 

Yes-- this is about change. How about we move on, and do some serious de-emphasizing of that oft-repeated political number, 4. Quatro? Yes four. Agree? We can blame it on Ronnie Reagan. He started it all back in that presidential debate of 1980, when he trashed Carter after asking us his famous closing rhetorical question. Of course, our nation wasn't better off back then after 4 years of the bumbling, liberal wanderings of Jimmie Carter. It was a disaster.

 


But ever since then, whenever its an election year, nary a hour passes by in the media without hearing some politician banter on about "four more years" of something. Especially this election. And even more especially, from the great savior...Barack Obama. Is there ever a day that passes when Obama (plus all his campaign surrogates) forgets to make an utterance about..."four more years of the same failed policies of George Bush". Or: "Four more years of the failed policies of the current administration?” Stop it!

 


Obama has that "4 more years" brainwash ringing in our years. Ever since he beat Hillary, we've heard a form of that soundbite no less than 300,000 times! Puh-leeze Barack…ENOUGH! Ca-peesh! We understand! Move on! How about we take a look at what YOU have planned for the NEXT 4 years?

 


Didn't you say you were going to give 95% of Americans a tax cut? But aren't you planning on revoking that after one year? Remember? Better jot that down; you don't want to keep forgetting to mention that. And naughty-naughty...mustn't forget to tell all your ardent supporters about your idea to tax natural gas utility bills; or telling us about the carbon tax you plan on imposing on utilities that burn coal. That would certainly jolt the economy, especially when we open the higher electric bills we'd all be paying.  Yes we can! 

 

 

But we understand Barack, we know deep down...you've said it about 6 trillion times...you want to "help working families". But aren't your policies all geared toward helping people who DON’T WORK? Tsk-tsk Barocky; better study thy history. Try the fizzle of the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson in the 60's. It just wasn't all that great. Or the failure of Frankie Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's. In retrospect, both of those administrations tried nobly, but failed miserably to eradicate poverty. Maybe that'll teach ya to remember better.

 


And you wouldn't dare appoint a bunch of leftist liberal federal judges, who would mandate a slew of new Affirmative Action orders nationwide, and impose a swarm of onerous regulations on small businesses. That wouldn't be too nice. It might even spurn a lot of unintended business failures and layoffs. No way would you want to cause that. It might hurt all the nice working families you care so much about.

 


Surely, you wouldn't want a bunch of undeserving people holding jobs in lieu of other vastly more qualified people. That certainly wouldn't help our nation's economic progress. Gee, it might even dumb-down the entire society, and eventually turn us into a second rate country; and we know you wouldn’t want that to happen; you have such good, patriotic intentions. 

 

 


And we were all wondering about your curiosity-provoking idea to build the economy from the bottom up. Hmmm...that definitely sounds innovative...building the economy from the bottom. But is it okay if we axe you a couple of pertinent questions about it? So, instead of sending our resumes to a corporation or business, would we instead be applying to the Salvation Army, or the Rescue Mission? St Vincent de Paul Society? Mother Theresa?...St Jude? Who? Where? Please clarify. But it DOES sound revolutionary: The triumph of the bottom-feeders! Why didn't someone think of that before?

 


Barack Obama...the Rainmaker! You surely will go down in history! Wow...prosperity coming from the bottom up...the fat cats come toppling down! Wall Street eclipsed by Skid Row! Homeless people posting their resume's online. Dress codes at the Rescue Mission!  Section 8 condos on South Beach. The reverse possibilities are endless. All the poor nations of the world would be copycats. Losers become winners!

 


Perhaps, building the economy from the bottom up could revolutionize human services everywhere. Yes, instead of just vastly expanding human service budgets, you could elevate the Welfare Department as the Third House of Congress. Think of all the nice, liberal, bottom-up laws they could pass. Boy that would sure shake things to the rafters.

 


And think of all the new Cabinet seats you could add! You could expand them to the "Department of the Disadvantaged": "The Dept of Community and Diversity": "The Department of Those in Need". And don't forget not to leave out the "Department of Reconciliation and Conflict Resolution". And let's not omit our friends at the very bottom...the "Department for the Advancement of Animal Welfare". 

 

 


And hey now, we know you wouldn't want that neat-o Global Poverty Act (co-sponsored by you in the Senate last year), to hurt our debt-laden economy. But it's for a good cause! We annually give just O.7% of our national gross domestic product (a measly 60 billion), for distribution to African poor countries.  Yes Barack; you want us to support the entire world. That would sure make amends for all those dum-dum failed foreign policies of George Bush. And we sure don't want anyone to think that that all this money would probably end up in some well-intentioned dictator's hands, because all the cool people at the U.N. would control the funding. Think of all the nice "Thank You" e-mails we all would be getting from the grateful honest people in Nigeria.

 


And ever the mastermind, we know of your brilliantly-crafted plan to fund the social service expansion of your bottom-up government-- taxing the rich. A truly novel idea. Oops, wait a minute...didn't William J. Clinton once try that same plan in the 90’s with his 10% luxury tax on yachts? But the darn thing just caused the opposite effect. The evil rich people stopped buying boats; the U.S. economy lost 7600 jobs, and all the unemployment benefits paid out far exceeded the tax revenue generated. Golly Barack...don'tcha remember that?

 


And gee whiz Barack, if you re-raise taxes on all those blackhearted rich people, and raise capital gains, wouldn't they again stop buying luxuries, jewelry, and cutting back on travel and chic restaurants, and cease investing in stocks and new businesses? How many people would that put out of work? After all, somethin's gotta give! 


And unlike the Federal Reserve Bank, the evil rich people would get arrested if they tried to print money to make up for their bigger tax burdens.

And come to think of it, how many of your cherished "working families" have jobs with companies owned by poor people? So wouldn't many of these families be hurt if the rich greedy business owners were over-taxed, and had to layoff? Heck, this might even cause a deeper recession. No? Well, maybe it'll be different this time when you become president. We'll keep an open mind.

 


But one thing that might not fly too well is your $250,000 income threshold for the new higher tax bracket. Doesn't it include BOTH spouses in those dear working families you seek to help? Caution Barack! Better think that one over a little more. Nowadays, households with that level of income are pretty common; and they probably ain't feelin' too rich. Many of them are already teetering, courtesy of the nasty gas and food prices. But maybe you can tactfully remind them to just eat more peasant-like, turn down the thermostat, and ride the bus.They'll probably be cool with it.  

 


Yes General Barack, you couldn't possibly be planning a subtle form of class warfare, using your bottom up economic strategy. Make-work government jobs? Wealth re-distribution via taxation? No way you could stand for that. It would be socialism. And we know your grandma in Mizzou probably taught you a lot better than that
 
 
Yes Barack we have faith in you. We'll all be watching you eagerly., because we know that if you're president, you'll certainly be changing the lives of working families everywhere, but in ways they never would have imagined.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Our new Constitution," as dictated by Nancy Pelosi...freedom fighter of the people!

 

What can possilbly be more fun these days than getting the latest Washington D.C. news? What a party! Were facing a perfect storm of problems.

 


And thank God for our liberal leftist media, who soundbite us to death with an unending parade of who they would have us believe is to blame. But we're a free country...we're Americans! We can do anything if we just put our minds to the task. We'll all just roll up our collective sleeves, and get to work, and things will be rosy again in no time.

 


Sorry Charlie; not this time. Not until our media starts to 'fess up and reveal the real story. Meanwhile, we'll continue to fly blind. Were descending rapidly into a sea of ignorance and disinformation; and if we crash, the rescue might not arrive for generations to come. What? Disinformation? This isn't the Iron Curtain. We have freedom of the press! After all, its found right in our Constitution. But does anybody (especially our beloved Congress) even bother to look at the Constitution anymore? Apparently not.

 


Our Founding Fathers had it right from the beginning. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. And it's only taken less than 2 years for a Katrina-sized storm of leftist liberalism to bring it to near extinction. How? Just pick up any major newspaper; or tune into almost any newscast (not Fox). See the endless stream of reports, pundits, newscasters, analysts, etc. who are nearly unanimous in slanting the blame on, "the present administration that's been in power for the last eight years"...oh, and don't forget "in bed with big oil".

 

 

And they never let up! It's like they all graduated from the Stepford college of broadcasting and journalism. Is there ever a day when you won't hear about "big oil", or..."the failed policies of the Bush Administration?". Well up until about the middle of 2007, things weren't all that bad. Actually they were pretty good. But what happened after that?

 


For this answer, we turn back to the wisdom our most brilliant Founding Father, Thomas Jeffferson, who once said ..."WHERE THE PRESS IS FREE, AND EVERY MAN IS ABLE TO READ, ALL IS SAFE". Man did he ever get it right. Too bad we couldn't have saved a sample of his DNA and clone Jefferson back to life. He was a man of uncanny foresight. Today our free press is suppressing the real news, and not every American is able to read it; they're too busy working two or three jobs, so they and their families can survive.

 


But could Jefferson have foreseen that a near majority of Americans now read at an 8th grade level, and have zero depth about the news? He couldn't imagine people downloading postings on Face Book, or watching out-of-context TV soundbites. These are ideally suited for slanting and bias. Newspapers are becoming passe'. The result? Just as Jefferson foretold...a subtle brainwashing of the people. All is not safe!

 


But the majority of Americans seem not know any better. They'd rather let Letterman, or the hallowed staff of reporters on Comedy Central form their political opinions. Try asking a younger voter why they like Obama..."He's cooler than McCain". Ask them why the gas prices are so high, and they'll say "Uh, big Oil"...or..."Bush"..."Cheney"..."Halliburton!" Duh

 


Yes folks, ignorance is truly blissful, especially when your own elected officials in Congress are surreptitiously usurping every one of your rights, one by one, in fine anti-Constitutional style. But aren't we supposed to be a democracy? Not if Nancy Pelosi remains unchecked. In the brief time she's been Speaker of the House, she's literally eclipsed everyone in DC in raw political power, (even Bush), mainly because 95% of what she does goes unreported by the media.
 
 
For each day that has gone by since her ascension as House Speaker, she has flaunted the Constitution, and defied the will of the majority. She has turned the average middle class person's life into a slow-motion nightmare of worry. If Our Founding Fathers were around today, they would have re-written the Constitution.

 


There are no checks and balances for House speaker. Pelosi knows it. She is second in line for President, but she wields authority with the ruthlessness of a banana republic dictator. She knows the rules of the House intimately. She sets the entire legislative agenda. She can bury any bill, no matter how important to the country. With her subservient Democratic majority, she can pass ANY new legislation to suit her intentions.  

 


The results have been calamitous! Our nation is at the verge of financial default. If insolvency were to befall our country, she would probably assume even more stature on Capitol Hill. This is all courtesy of our leftist liberal media, who lie to the public by omission.

 


If there's a deep recession, Pelosi can blame Bush. If there is a second Depression, she can say that..."the free market has failed us" (i.e. more regulation is needed). Then the blizzard of new government expansion will commence, and she will really consolidate her power. If the economy recovers, she can claim the credit for her party, who took control of Congress in Jan 2007.

 


Examine the root cause of any of our problems. Except for the hurrricanes, she's lurked behind it all. It's the Pelosi domino effect. Higher gas prices began the very month she assumed the speakers podium. Commodity traders (not big oil) who set the world price for crude, all went long on oil (bid upward) because they knew of her political intentions to block all new U.S. drilling. Now the economic perfect storm had begun (Hurricane Nancy).

 


After gas prices rocketed past 3 dollars, it was the breaking point for the ENTIRE economy. Auto sales collapsed. Retail tanked. Grocery prices and inflation took off. No more discretionary spending. Second hand clothing stores began selling out their inventory.

.

 

But Pelosi trumpeted away about the stimulus package that she had "pushed through" last spring, and showed incredible political savvy, letting the people think that she and the Democrats were for "working families". She had stabbed the middle class in the gut, and made them feel happy for the band aid she would be applying.

 


Now the lay offs began. Unemployment jumped. Pawn shops flourished. Even the wealthy from the upper strata of society were coming in with their jewelry. It didn't take long before people, just barely making their house payments, were now faced with either tapping their 401K, or foreclosure. We were exporting $60 billion a month to OPEC. Horrible.

 


Now the dominos began to fall faster. Foreclosures hit 10,000 a month. The investment banks on Wall Street began to crumble. Large and small commercial banks failed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were next. Mysteriously-valued mortgage securities were held everywhere. Now, since no one bank really could know what their assets actually were worth, credit dried up, and all domestic economic activity slowed down, which in turn, affected the entire financial world.

 


All the while, our beloved speaker Nancy, sat dutifully in Washington, writing her book, and thinking up new environmental reasons for blocking drilling: "So what if we have to send OPEC $700 billion a year?  I'm trying to save the planet". Good girl!  Hurricane Nancy saves earth...destroys American Middle Class. Thanks for the memories. Put those in your book.

 


You can lovingly write in your memoirs that you knew how you held the safest seat in the House (San Francisco congressional district)…about how you knew that if the price of oil stayed high, your large position in the Boone Pickens alternative energy company would make a killing. Write about the one million Americans who could have gotten new, high paying domestic drilling jobs, but you kept exploration illegal. And definitely don't leave out that the current economic disaster that we face, is a direct result of the high oil prices that you so steadfastedly were able to defend, using your unchecked political power.

   


Meanwhile what was happening on Main street? People were screaming at their congressional representatives, "We want cheaper gas...why can’t we drill for our own oil?" The heat was on. The voters would no longer stand for it. Forget the polar bears. The democratic vassals hurried back to lord Nancy, and reported that their seats were in jeopardy. Uh-oh! 

 


Suddenly, dear Nancy seemed to forget about saving the planet. She cared only about keeping the party going. She quickly drew up a bill, that would allow drilling, but only past fifty miles offshore, where no infrastructure existed, and no tract had ever been explored.

 


It was Hurricane Nancy at her political best. The deceptive bill passed easily in the House by her democratic majority. The nasty pro-drilling Republicans had been outwitted, and all the good Democrats wrote home that they had indeed, passed a drilling bill, and could resume their merry work in the House, without fear of reprisal from any snooping media, who were all on their side.

 


So it was more happy days to come. Everone knew they would all get re-elected, and carry on their patriotic duties, defending their constituents from knowing what was actually happening on the House floor. And as long as the House remains status quo, Pelosi will continue to thwart the will of the majority, extend regulations over business, and tax the people left right and center, in the name of liberalism and bigger government.

 


Can she be stopped? She suddenly has dropped all her opposition to all offshore drilling. But what happened to saving the planet? But have faith; ole Nance hasn't softened. No way. It's just another example of her political ingeniousness,

 


Nance sure knows how to time things: drop all the bans on offshore drilling,..placate the angry voters... all democratic seats are safe, and then re-instate the ban next year after the election. And without the press to worry about, the cluelesss electorate will bend to her will. If Machiavelli himself was a Republican opposing her, the smart money would be on Pelosi.

 


Unfortunately for us all, the only people who aren't fooled are the ones that really count: the commodity traders. They know there won't be any new U.S oil production with Hurricane Nancy at the Speaker's helm. The irony is unending. Oil prices will stay high, the cost of living will remain ridiculous, the middle class will shrink, America will continue to enrich OPEC, the nation will remain starved for capital. and the trillions of dollars of wealth we have in the ground offshore, in ANWAR, and the shale in the West, will literally remain illegal.

 


Thomas Jefferson...where are you?   


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"C'mon Mr. McCain: time's a-wastin'...forget that bus and ride that hi-speed train into Washington!"


There’s no denying it: John McCain certainly loves riding around the country in his campaign bus. But you  have to wonder: has the very distinguished and honorable Senator McCain ever once been a passenger on a train?

 

 

John McCain grew up in a military family, and graduated from the Annapolis Naval Academy. He became a flight commander, and went on to become a Vietnam war hero. Afterwards, Mr. McCain goes to Washington, and begins yet another long stint in service to his country. But after 25 years in D.C. it's too bad John Sidney never once hooked up with good buddy Joe Biden for a Delaware ride home on the Amtrak; otherwise we might have an entirely different look to today's contentious, nearly deadlocked campaign.

 

 

McCain can blather on all he wants to about, "committing yourself to a cause greater than your own self  interest", and "country first". Yes it's very wonderful and noble. No one doubts that. But the average middle class voter is thinking a lot more about 'ME' first..."how in the world am I gonna survive in this scary new era of hellishly high energy prices, and cost of living increases?"

 

 

We're all worried because everything from food to super glue is heading north, so the average John Doe wants to know..."Why is this guy talking about 'fighting on with me for change in Washington', when I need a job that pays enough to live on?" Today's voter isn't looking for miracles, just the guy who can cast some sort of positive picture for the future, like Eisenhower had when he pushed through the Interstate Highway Act in the 50's; or Kennedy, when he challenged America in the 60's to land on the moon.

 

 

Americans have a history of responding to presidential challenges. We love to be inspired, but only with a worthwhile national goal, like defeating the Axis in World War II, or beating the Russians in the space race.

 


But in this election, we have a bona fide voter enigma. It's no wonder there are so many undecideds. There's a candidate who's inspirational, yet seems insincere and hollow, and can't offer America a truly worthwhile vision. And the other guy has many visions, but is just plain uninspirational. But we need only one goal, but it must appeal to every one.

 


However, at least give Mr. McCain an 'A' for patriotism and sincerity. He's already rich. He loves to serve the nation. He needs only to be provided with some truly inspirational idea, and get fired up with a game-changer that could be key to a Republican victory. So how about we all get on board with the McCain train? Yup, it's about that time.

 


Have you ever heard anybody say..."ecch, I HATE trains", or "I hate riding on trains"? No? Okay now, could you apply that same comparison to flying on a plane nowadays, or commuting on our jammed interstates? That's because trains are just plain neat. They are mechanical creatures with a certain romanticism. They project an aura of mystique. Most have their own memorable logos. There are many train enthusiasts. There are clubs, model railroad fanatics, and train nostalgists everywhere. Most people love trains or even train-watching, for whatever reason.

 


Now contrast that to all those interstate highway enthusiasts throughout the country. Or how about all the airplane and airport lovers that abound? Oh, you say you don't know any? In the old days of propeller flight, some tightwad would breakdown and splurge on two ice cream cones, and then take his girl on a cheap date to the airport, 
watching the planes take off and land. It was a novelty back then. But you get the idea. The need  for high speed rail in this country is long, long overdue, and you can bet that the opposition would be practically non existent.

 


People never think of it, but if a lot of the undecideds had any concept of the potential for high speed rail in America, they would cast their vote to Obama, who occasionally mentions..."establishing economic corridors in this country, connected by high speed rail networks". Obama's plan to end the Iraq war immediately, and instead spend the $10 billion a month here on infrastructure, may or may not be a foreign policy blunder, but at least Barack is on the right track in this one. He actually DOES understand the huge economic efficiencies of high speed rail networks. Plus, the mostly flat topography of our country makes the idea all the more feasible.

 


Even the Chinese, our trustworthy Asian competitors, have successfully introduced a high speed rail corridor from Beijing to the Tianjin airport. The two cities, with a total population of 30 million, are now connected with 200 mph overhead electric-powered bullet trains. The trip takes just thirty minutes, and has reduced the overcrowding at the old Beijing airport. The Chinese are taking the idea nationwide. High speed rail has been a huge success on every continent so far. The Australians have decided to be next; so what are we all waiting for? 

 


All political issues have two sides, but opposing high speed rail in this country would be a bona fide head scratcher. What group or party would object to the all the new jobs generated by an actual, completely new industry? It could re-vitalize the stagnant manufacturing sector, particularly in the rust belt. And this wouldn't be another political

promise boondoggle.  

 


Just like the exists off interstate highways sparked new suburbs and nearby proximal land development, high speed rail would generate at least a ten to twenty year boom in construction jobs, and engineering, surveying and legal jobs in building out the corridors, and securing the right-of-ways.

 


After the startup, there'd be permanent high paying railroad jobs both on and off the trains. We'd have steel and manufacturing jobs; railroad and construction jobs, plus jobs requiring signal technology employment. There would be a whole new sector of "destination jobs" that would be created at the junction stops and cities, such as hotel-motel, car rental, restaurant, retail, and even tourist jobs.

 

 

Hi-speed rail travel would be as much of a lifestyle effect on our culture as the interstate highway. This would be similar to how the American economy exploded in the late 19th century after the trans continental train network was completed in 1869. Nearly all towns west of St. Louis (Las Vegas) were originally founded because of spurs or stops on the transcontinental railroad.

 

 

Could there be any bitter opposition against not having to travel jammed interstate highways between major east coast cities? (There'd be no longer need to widen I-95). People could leave their cars at home. The road rage and time wasted in traffic jams would be supplanted by relaxing on a train, socializing, text messaging, laptop work, watching a movie, eating a quality meal, reading, or sightseeing out the windows at 130 mph. It sure beats looking at cloud tops from a window seat, or getting flipped off by some aggressor in an interstate traffic jam.

 


These days, have you ever heard any one say..."Can't wait to fly to Phoenix tomorrow!" Yeah! Or "Man, I can't wait for the weekend to go by so I can commute to work Monday on the interstate". Luv those vacant HOV lanes! On a train you don't get trapped in traffic, or go postal waiting to take off for an hour with a flight delay. Remember the old days when people could buy crash insurance policies at the airport? (Such a comforting thought). Fatal train accidents are occasional, but are mostly rare in the U.S. 

 

 

What about our jammed airports and flight corridors? Would there be opposition (other than luggage-handler job losses) to no longer being searched like a felon after waiting in some obnoxious security line? That would indeed be hard to give up. What about all the decline in short regional flights; or the fast-rising ticket prices, with those wonderful luggage surcharges? On the train you can actually bring all your stuff. Many major airlines would be spared from bankruptcy. 

 

 

And how bout the idea of eliminating the federal gas tax? Now that would be sorely missed. A 100 car high speed, intermodal freight train carrying 200 piggy-backed semi trailers, would remove thousands of 40 ton trucks off the interstates, and would eliminate the billions spent on the annual road break up, and all those glorious lane-restricted bridge repairs. But caution...this may put a lot of orange barrel manufacturers out of biz. The road barrel lobby would be up in arms, but the amount of diesel fuel saved would conserve millions of barrels of oil over time.

 

 

And how tired are you of hearing that dreadful ominous phrase..."our addiction to foreign oil"? Ugh. Who in the world came up with that one? How about our addiction to foreign cars? How about our addiction to foreign Walmart-type imports? How about our addiction to foreign food (Chinese/Italian)? Like the money we spend, oil is necessary to run our economy.

 

 

And what could possibly conserve more gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, or whatever fossil fuel, than high speed railways? How much annual transport time would be saved on a national basis? Our GDP could actually spike after the first few years after start-up.

 

 

We would now have a way to provide an actual reduction of our capital exports to OPEC, and shift our trade deficit to a surplus. The money saved by keeping it in this country would provide capital investment for the maintenance and build-out of the hi-speed infrastructure, which could go on well on into the middle of this century. 

 

 

The only possible objection might be our neo-Marxist friend Obama. His intention is to have the government run the new rail networks, but Amtrak's perennial deficits and mismanagement would belie that possibility. Amtrak will never see a profit because there's no incentive for its workers to be efficient. But where would any true opposition lie? Even the dreaded environmentalists would be chirping at the possibility of reducing fossil fuel use and improving  air quality.

 

 

Could one actually raise even one cogent argument against the idea? Sure it would cost mega billions. But the people could buy bonds to raise the huge capital required. However, since the rails would be privately owned and operated on an anti-Amtrak basis, they would make a profit and give bond investors a yield on their money.

 

 

Besides the binge of permanent, high-paying skilled employment, we'd have the one thing that's been lacking since the 1960's...we'd be united in purpose and have a national goal-- building the rail network.  Just look to the NASA moon shot of the 60's; or the Alaskan pipeline of the 70's. Not only would there be an offspring of huge economic benefits, it would again make us feel proud of our country, possibly even Michelle Obama, for the second time in her adult life.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Of course, doesn't everyone know? Community organizers always make the best presidents"

 
 

In 1985, When Barack Obama graduated from Columbia in New York City , he was tempted to go to Wall Street and be an investment banker. But appealing to his more nobler instincts, Mr. Obama dutifully accepted a job as a community organizer in Chicago at a starting salary of $13000 per year, plus a car. But we knew he had these humanitarian instincts within him all along. After all, hope (instead of Hussein ) should have been his middle name. 

 

But there’s one little problem... just what what in the world IS a community organizer? Frankly, its a job description heretofore unknown before the likes of Obama hit the scene. Well, since we have communities everywhere, a proper definition would probably depend on what one would be organizing. Would that pertain to social services?...food donation?... the homeless?...hmmm. Since there's an unlimited scope of things to be organized in any given community, this seems to be one job description with a considerable amount of latitude.

 

Problem is, everyone KNOWS Barack Obama was a community organizer, but has anybody had enough curiosity to ask him just WHAT the heck that is?  Ole Baracky seems to have gotten away with one here.

 

Obama has always been a strong union supporter. So first of all, did he become a member of the national community organizer's union?.. the local union? Or do community organizers even have a union? Interesting question. We could definitely use a little clarity on this one. For him to have been a community organizer and not formed a community organizer's union could be a matter of grave concern.

 

Obama says he moved to the south side of Chicago after his college days where, "he worked with steelworkers who'd lost their jobs when the local steel mill closed down". OK good Barack...but what did you do with them after that?...retrain 'em al to be community organizers? Did you find them new jobs? What? Problem is, Obama never does say what happened to these unemployed steelworkers A good guess would be that they were encouraged to retrain in some service work like home health care aides, or seek a grant to attend nursing school: All the usual insipid stuff a government agency would suggest to middle-aged, blue-collar ex-steelworkers that the they would never consider.

 

But ever the restless gun, Obama then decided to take a shot at law school. Maybe he'd organized enough communities by then to qualify for pension benefits. He doesn't say. But whatever the real reason, he was accepted into Harvard law school, and returned to Chicago as a civil rights attorney. Tsk-tsk-tsk, another glorious community organizer career, tragically abbreviated. Oh what might have been...all those unorganized communities in south Chicago, left to fend for themselves. Shame. But life goes on.

 

At heart, Barack does remain a community organizer. But as president, Obama sees his opening..."I want to organize the world community". Obama has never said this , but his first rule of order would be implemented through the United Nations. He wants to enact the World Poverty Act, where  America  annually MUST send 0.7% of our gross national product to poor countries around the world. He intends to allocate a trillion dollars of new spending on government social programs. Talk about some serious federal bureaucracy; Obama has objectives that only he could fathom.

 

"Helping all Americans serve their country." Obama has repeated this in all his speeches. It's one of  many of his principal objectives as president. It's basically a make-work, newer form of the New Deal from the 1930's, but don't tell Barack that...no-o-o; that doesn't sound noble enough for him. Nobility of purpose is the very essence of Obama's soul.

 

Obama wants to fight back at the "failed eight-year policies of George Bush ". But gosh darn, Barack, couldn't you puh-leeze think of a cheaper way to do it? "Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies". Well, since Obama seems to have this community organizing thing embedded deep into his liberal brainstem, let's add up the damages.

 

As president, Obama will offer voluntary service programs for everyone except pre-schoolers through grade 5. He probably figures that if you keep everybody busy, they won't complain too much if he turns out to be the next Jimmie Carter . But given the vast scope of his proposals, you'd think he could have been a little more ingenious than his idea to triple the size of the Peace Corps. He'll also give it an international flavor. This won't come cheap either.

 

Next we have the very stellar, "Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)". Sounds like a big deal. But it's just a re-hash ofAmeriCorps, VISTA and the Senior Corps. And Barack ain't playing around with this boondoggle.  Obama plans to triple the scope of AmeriCorps from 75,000 "slots" to 250,000.  Factor in a proportionate increase (1 billion) added to AmeriCorps funding already allocated,  and were talking some serious money for a program that's basically your typical liberal job creating agency.

 

These budget busters have little relevance to our gross national product, but place a direct inflationary burden on the economy. Anytime you pump more money into bureaucracies, this puts more dollars into the system, without any goods or services that can be purchased...ergo more inflation. Well, they don't call them bureaucrats for nuthin', eh Barack?

 

But wait; there’s more! Obama wants a CNCS: Classroom Corps where people can volunteer to help in "high-need and underserved schools..." Health Corps, where volunteers are "trained to assist health professionals..." Clean Energy Corps, where volunteers can "promote energy independence through efforts like weatherization, and renewable energy projects..."Veterans Corps,  and the Homeland Security Corps ".  How much will these cost?

 

But lets at least give Obama some credit, he does have a new idea, but with an old twist, the very esteemed Global Energy Corps. This, Obama says, "will be composed of scientists and engineers who will help reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide, and promote low-carbon and affordable energy solutions in developing nations." What a brainstorm! He wants to deprive a poor developing nation from using those dumb fossil fuels. Let 'em keep their mules and buggies; any thing to save the planet is cool with Obama. Trouble is, he's willing to pay for it big time with OUR money! 

 

Whoops, we certainly can't forget the hallmark of all of Obama's stump speeches...the free college tuition handout. This is really going to turn out to be a budget-ballooner. Obama's American Opportunity Tax Credit will essentially pay $40 per hour, up to $4,000 a year, for 100 hours of public service. This fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university. "Recipients of this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public service a year".

 

But leave it to Obama; he’s not forgotten any one who doesn't want to go to college for free. We also will have the dreaded Green Job Corps. This is one of Obama's great ideas for our energy independence! It will create "service opportunities to improve energy conservation and efficiency of homes and buildings right there in your neighborhood."

 

Ho hum, c'mon Barack, the money probably would be better spent on graffiti removal, or clearing vacant lots of trash. Retrofitting old buildings in the 'hood' for energy efficiency just doesn't sound like such a great idea, when you think of the jack it's gonna cost the taxpayer.

 

And, Obama will expand the Youth Build Program, that offers low-income young people a chance to "learn housing construction skills jobs and complete their high school education."

 

The 2007 budget of this U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) program was $50 million.  Obama plans to increase its slots from 8,000 to 50,000, with a proportionate budget increase to about $300,000,000.

 

Obama estimates that, when fully implemented, his alphabet soup of service agencies will cost $3.5 billion per year. Hardy har...just try to even calculate the number of federal employees required to coordinate all these new government agencies.  Is this FDR gone mad or what?

 

Imagine some new government buildings in your neck of the woods. A County Federal Citizen Volunteer Coordinating Center (CFCVCC), where government service bureaucrats representing all these programs have their offices, will be needed across the country. Now consider the electronic paperwork required to enlist, assign, and monitor volunteers 365 days a week. And it's staggering in the very scope of all the new money that might be spent building all these new offices.

 

Barack Obama is a community organizer and gifted orator, who got a law degree so he could enter politics, and address the social problems he couldn't solve in south Chicago . You can take the man out of south Chicago , but you can't take south Chicago out of the man.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Yes we can!" Those wild and crazy ideas from Obama just keep on comin'.

 
Ah yes...who woulda thought it? When all is said and done, Barack Obama may turn out to be the second coming of Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie started out as a telegraph clerk at the Pennsylvania Railroad in Pittsburgh. Obama stated out as a community organizer in South Chicago. Carnegie worked his way up in his railroad job to where he envisioned that even greater wealth could be realized by not working for the railroads, but by building them.
 
Barack Obama worked his way up through the political corridors of South Chicago, where he envisioned that even greater wealth could be obtained, not by petitioning the government for more public service grants, but by actually becoming one of the politicians who legislated the grants.
 
Carnegie founded the Homestead Steel co in Pittsburgh. Obama successfully captured a seat in the Illinois senate. Both of these men showed remarkable acumen and great foresight as young men. Their ambitions were boundless. Carnegie went on to succeed beyond his wildest ambitions in the steel business. He was the true Bill Gates of his day in the early 1900's.
 
Now fast-forward to the present. Barack Obama has equal, if not bigger ambitions. He's on the fast track to be the next President. He wants to put the middle classs back to work by creating an all-new manufacturing base...an all new empire of export-proof jobs that will revitalize America. He's promising a new industrial paradigm; he'll create plants to produce windmills, solar panels and biofuels, right here in America. What a visionary!
 
Recently on a tour of a plant near Monaca, Pa, Obama hailed the owners of the operation who were synthesizing biofuels from chicken fat. Obama, speaking enthusiastically about the future, declared, "We can duplicate these plants all over America"! Yes we can Barack! We can literally play chicken with OPEC and reduce foreign oil imports. Jeez, why haven't those clueless Republicans come up with some of these bold strokes of industrial brilliance?
 
The grandeur of Obama's vision knows no bounds. Recently on a swing through the midwest, Obama promised to bring jobs to hard-pressed Lima, Ohio. "We're going to invest $15 billion a year in making highly efficient cars of the future right here in America!" Hurrah-hurrah...another bold new idea! But ah, wait a minute Barack; of what kind of energy-efficient cars do you speak? Will these cars of the future save energy by running on wind power? Uh, solar power? What? Oh of course, we'll create a chicken-powered, gas-saving SUV that will be coveted by middle class soccer moms everywhere across the USA.
 
Everywhere Obama has campaigned, he's delivered this same economic message of hope for new American non-exportable jobs. But there are a few things that seem just a little out of kilter. For instance, when Obama says "WE", or "WE ARE" is he not speaking of our wonderfully efficient government? Yes he is! So let's do the analysis.
 
Will Obama have the government in the auto manufacturing business? Or are they just going to hand GM and Ford 15 billion a year and say, "Git busy you all, and create them cars of the future". And there's that little question of where the 15 billion dollar-a-year slice out of the budget would come from. Is it the oil company's obscene profits tax? And that then begs the question, while these cars of the future are being designed, manufactured and tested, what kind of vehicles will we be able to purchase and drive in the meantime?
 
Of course Obama never has been much for details. He can throw these ideas out there fast and furious, vacillating back and forth, depending on whatever crowd he's addressing. Obama has no fear of any accounting to the media. After all, who wants to question one of the greatest oratorical speakers of our generation? He might actually have to explain something in detail; something he has yet to do on any of his economic proposals. Plus there's the clear and present danger that this might even cause him to stammer, and spoil those eloquent, highly orchestrated addresses that the media pundits venerate to no end. 
 
So let's not dare be nitpicky with anything as simple as an untested, entirely new way of manufacturing our vehicles, and providing a whole new untested, unfunded way of providing alternative sources of energy to our entire nation. But since we ARE talking about our next possible president, maybe we should examine in a little detail something that Obama's future is riding high on: The wind.
 
On a recent tour through Youngstown, Ohio, Obama spoke futuristically about re-vitalizing the area's lost steel industry... "producing windmills and solar panels right here in the Mahoning Valley". The crowd erupted and applauded furiously..."Yes we can", they shouted! It was Obama at his rock star finest. But there's one small detail O' mighty Barack: Once you make all these windmills, where do they go? And once you get them in place in the windy areas, how does the power travel back to the load centers in the urban areas that will actually be needing the electricity? And who would be responsible for funding al the new transmission lines?
 
Despite all the flowery talk of wind by Obama, T. Boone Pickens, and the others, there's those limitations of the power grid which are putting a damper on many projects already on the board. The windiest sites have yet to be built because there's no way in place yet to move the electricity that would be generated from all the proposed wind farms.  And those doggone politicians in Washington have long known about grid limitations, but have made scant efforts to solve them. This is because every attempted upgrade of the grid provokes legal battles with local property owners.
 
There's always going to be that bedeviling problem of the grid's right of way. Fruit growers in southern California are up in arms about a San Diego proposal to construct a wind farm 200 miles north of the city, and funnel the power back in a path that would cut right through the heart of Southern California's "fruit basket". Local fruit farmers are organizing in each of their municipalities, and have already prepared lawsuits to stop the idea dead. Wind turbines and solar panels need to be placed in areas off the beaten path, and it's not yet clear if enough transmission capacity could ever be developed in the decades to come. 
 
The hidden secret of wind energy is that generating it is getting easier, but moving it to market is becoming a legal and political battle royal. We're not talking about a little quaint country of windmills like the Netherlands. The vastness of our country will always be an impediment. Of course the facts of reality have never gotten in the way of our possible first 'green' President. And is Obama really much concerned with wind or solar power, or is he just painting all these rosy pictures to obtain a more coveted source of energy ...political power?
 
But if Obama actually believes we can replace all foreign oil imports in ten years by using alternatives, than it sure looks like he'll never be mistaken for a great visionary like Andrew Carnegie. Or maybe Obama is just counting his chickens before they will ever hatch.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Will catastrophic ignorance doom America's energy future?"

 
A lot of people believe that Barack Obama has a keen eye for America 's energy future. Well then, just drive by any large demolition or construction sight, and picture  America's energy future for yourself. You'll probably see huge Caterpiller front-loaders, heavy dump trucks, and cranes of various heights. These cumbersome vehicles run on diesel power; and they'll be here for a long time to come. They are vital to our economy, and essential to our modern way of life.
 
Then consider Obama's plan to abandon oil in ten years, and his alternative energy proposals for wind, solar and biodiesel; you may then be overcome with a chilling feeling about him as our first truly green president. Have we become a nation of such total ignorance, and so bereft of scientific knowledge, that we're now incapable of making any logical conclusions about our own best interests as a free nation?
 
We are moving toward a society of self-condemnation...that we are dirtying the planet in front of the eyes of the rest of the world, and selfishly using the earth's resources to the disadvantage of all the other countries on the planet. So should we plead guilty to energy treason, and apologize to the U.N. for our mortal sin of "addiction" to oil?  
 
Yes, we Americans are the environmental villains that are using up 25% of the world’s energy, and fouling the clean air with our mammoth CO2 footprints. If we don't stop this dirty fossil fuel habit, we will literally burn up the world in an inferno of climate change, and sink the land masses with oceanic overflows from polar ice cap melting.
 
Yes, this is the mind set that is seeping through all the media.  It's being taught in the schools: it's being supported by scientists with credentials. We Americans are the problem. We are the guilty ones. We need to be the ones to change all this.
 
But do the pundits ever say what's going on across the pacific 6000 miles away? Do they make any mention that the developing nations of China and India are full speed ahead with finding new oil resources, and building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants? Is anyone over there talking about wind, solar and biodiesel? Can you imagine the laughs when they hear of our dedication to stopping climate change- that America  can unilaterally reverse "global warming".
 
Does any one in America actually believe its possible to INVENT new sources of energy?..or that the earth is warming so fast that the rising oceans will literally swamp all coastline life off the earth in this century? Well that's what Obama and the environmentalists want us to believe.
 
Are we aware of the fact, or have any idea of how many billions of dollars are behind this global warming anti-oil initiative? Any time any scientist does a study, and discovers evidence of climate change, they automatically qualify for grants of research money from universities, foundations, and governments (particularly Britain ) to do further studies.
 
And are we cognizant of the fact that you can't invent a new source of energy? Or that theres no way to..."put all of our best minds together in a room and pay them to until they achieve a breakthrough". It may be awhile before any new sources of energy are discovered. Energy can only be harnessed. It cannot be created or destroyed.
 
How about the story of, "the guy who has an invention that will enable a car to get get 100 miles a gallon, but the oil companies pay him to keep it off the market". Or there's the belief that we could mandate all the auto company's fleet vehicles to average 50 MPG by the year 2025. The only reason these myths persist is the nation has become extraordinarily dumbed down about science, math, and physics. If these wives tales were repeated to a group of phycisists, they would chuckle.
 
Force, mass and energy all are considered when calculating the distance any vehicle can travel. For a car to get 100 miles a gallon, it would have weigh less than a thousand pounds with passengers, and have a lawn mower-sized engine, traveling on completely level ground. For a truck to get 50 MPG, it would have to be made of plastic and aluminum, which would not stand up under heavy duty.
 
But Americans everywhere believe that they are a well-informed, intelligent body of people, who are capable of rational decisions about their lives, and the leaders and officials they elect. But look around everywhere and all the evidence is to the contrary.
 
Newspaper readership is declining...internet chat sites and social sites are thriving. Network news viewership is shrinking, while John Stewart's ratings are booming. Saturday Night Live has become a major influence on our elections. More people get their news from Comedy Central than from the nightly news. People view sound bites and video clips on YouTube, instead of reading newspapers. 
 
Where is all this leading our nation? Is the present generation better informed than the previous generation behind them? Ask the young people why they primarily all support Obama; most of them will tell you that, "he's a lot cooler than McCain".
 
So with all these things "going for us", is it any mystery then why Barack Obama could propose that wind, solar and biodiesel will replace oil by 2030, and America won't miss a beat? The media isn't questioning this absurdity. Is it any mystery then that our military might be unable to defend us in 10-20 years because we were cut off by OPEC, who by then will be supplying 90% of our oil (at our 2% annually declining U.S. production rate). Do people believe we could develop a solar-powered tank, or wind-powered fighter jet, or a fuel cell Hum-vee by 2030? This is what the trend of our popular political thinkers would have us think.
 
We ignorantly cling to the past- that America has always risen to any previous occasion. So this would seem to automatically guarantee our welfare in the future. But what safeguard can there be for America when its people's beliefs have no basis in reality, and a population whose information is compromised by television and the internet? If knowledge is power, we are soon to become a skeleton of our former selves as a nation
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Is McCain ready to fire a Second Amendment broadside at Obama?"

The once-stagnating McCain presidential campaign has taken on a new life recently. The appointments of Steve Schmidt and Terry Nelson as new campaign strategists have re-vitalized Senator McCain's standing in the latest presidential poll: the result? John McCain seems to be on a roll. The election of Barack Obama is no longer a foregone conclusion. We've now got a genuine presidential horse race in the making!

Mr. Schmidt has been creative in his attacks on Obama. No more softball: he's got McCain firing some genuine hard-nosed bullets at Obama's credibility, and his eligibility to take up residence in the Whitehouse next January. You can almost picture a newly-energized McCain sitting with his new roundtable of advisors, plotting with military precision how they'll next cast Obama. Here follows a probable insight to one of their late night political "skull" sessions.

SCENE: McCain, Steve Schmidt, and Terry Nelson are discussing ways to cast Obama as an "extreme radical leftist". They decide the next attacks will center on gun control, and Obama's obvious abhorrence to handguns.

Today's charge...Obama is pro-gun control.

Sen. McCain- "Barack Obama would ban all handguns! He would leave millions of Americans defenseless in their homes against violent intruders!"

NEWS MEDIA: "How's that Senator? Mr. Obama said he agreed with the recent Supreme court decision that overturned the D.C. handgun ban".

McCain- "No, Obama didn't SAY he agreed with it, he just paraphrased the ruling . What he actually said was (quote), "The Supreme Court has ruled that handguns are permissible, according to the Constitution" (unquote).  See, you all are missing my point. Obama merely restated the court's opinion.  But as president, he would BAN all handguns!"

NEWS MEDIA: "How can you say that Senator?"

Sen. McCain- "Easy! Just look at his record in Illinois. He had his handwriting on some handgun control questionnaire during his years with the Illinois legislature;and he had his staff try to fudge about it by saying that an assistant had filled it out. Believe me, Mr. Obama is a chameleon about Americans having handguns.  Pay very close attention to how he parses his words on controversial issues. He's said he believes in the Second Amendment, but also said it may be overridden by local legislative decree with safety concerns. Obama takes a local ‘eminent domain’ approach to handgun ownership...public safety precludes an individual's rights."

RESULT: Obama's campaign is caught off-guard, and struggles for an answer to this serious charge. Obama is on the defensive for the rest of the day, and the evening news opens with this as their lead on all 3 major networks 

Of course, the above scenario is all hypothetical, but the way McCain's campaign has re-invented itself in the last 3 weeks, don't be surprised if the next tack taken by the Republicans is to roll out the pro-gun-control "format" against Obama. It has always done heavy damage during  previous close elections because it puts the Democrats on the defensive. Bush helped sink Dukakis in '88 using it. Bush Jr. used it against Kerry in Ohio in '04. And it’s only a matter of time before McCain rolls it out. Even if he doesn't, you can bet your last shotgun shell that Wayne LaPierre and  the National Rifle blood-brotherhood  is ready to spring it with a predictable firestorm of  527 ads saying "Lock up your guns…Obama is coming!"

But it all might end up a dud . Why? Too predictable. People care, but for once, gun violence is on the back burner during this election. Economic violence from high gas and grocery prices has the middle class up in arms these days. They know their standard of living is under attack not by criminals, but OPEC. People are more concerned about dipping into IRA's, than dodging bullets.

Actually,  McCain might be better off talking bullets than guns when using the strategy against Obama. For one thing, it would re-label him as a "new idea man" rather than a maverick version of Bush. If McCain were to dump the over-used  argument...''Guns don't kill people, people kill people," it might actually give him some traction with undecided votes. Try something like, "Guns don’t kill people...bullets kill people". Yes folks, introduce ‘bullet-control’ to the public. Declare "the war on handgun ammunition". People have a right to all the shotgun shells they can buy at Walmart, but no more 22's, 25's, 38's, or 44's. These are for cops only.

Or talk about NOT licensing hand guns, but licensing bullets. You pass a written test, then a marksmanship test, and you're issued a license to buy bullets. Or  instead of gas rationing, we have handgun ammunition rationing. You only get six rounds, but plenty enough to fell 1 or 2 household invaders, and not have any leftovers for domestic arguments or child's play. Yes indeedy, McCain might look pretty darn smart to them city folks who abhor guns, and remain a heroic innovator to  rifle-loving, shotgun-totin' rural voters. Imagine watching November election returns, and hearing Tom Brokaw or Charles Gibson  announce..."the gun issue seems to be deciding this election in favor of John Sidney McCain".

But let's not underestimate the shrewdness, or the "evasiveness" of Obama. No doubt he's ready for the probable coming of the Second Amendment barrage by the Republicans against his "radical leftist" position.  After all, ever since his star-struck European adventure, he's had to dodge quite a few shots at his campaign already.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »