I can’t help but blog again about politics, and Obama in particular. I just read Stanley Kurtz’ article in National Review, “Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?” and it raises even more questions about Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers than we have already had.
Of course, some of us know that Mr. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dorn were terrorists with Weather Underground during the 60s, that they bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol, that they are unrepentant for their actions—Ayers posed, stomping on Old Glory, for a magazine and was quoted by The New York Times as saying that the notion of the United states of America makes him want to puke, and that he felt that he had not done enough, and he was in Venezuela in recent years speechifying and ranting “Viva La Revolution”. And, some of us know that Obama’s wife, Michelle worked in the 90s with Bernadine Dohrn at the same law firm. And some of us know that, a few months prior to kicking of his first political campaign in an event hosted by Ayers and Dorn in their home, Obama became chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, founded and guided by Ayers to radically—the key word here is radical—change education in schools. Some of us also know that Ayers and Obama worked together in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to effect this “CHANGE”—Obama, as we know, is very big on “change”—in the way education worked in Chicago, altering the focus of the traditional English math and science focus to (as I understand it) questioning authority and everything else. Some of us know these things even though the mainstream media has yet to look into the Obama/Ayers relationship. They are satisfied with Obama’s statement that Ayres is “Just some guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Incidently, I wonder if they still have the Che Guevara picture up in some of Obama's campaign offices.
This has not been enough for journalist Stanley Kurtz who has been looking into the Obama/Ayers relationship in great depth. Oddly, Mr. Ayer’s refuses to shed any light on their relationship, and Obama is sticking to his story that they are just neighbors. In his investigation of Obama and Ayers work together at Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Kurtz keeps hitting brick walls in being allowed to see documents of the organization held at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago which would clearly shed light on their work together and, perhaps, the reality of their political agreements. He draws the conclusion that perhaps Ayers himself is responsible for keeping the documents out of his reach. Please read Kurtz’s 8/18/08 article at National Review for the details.
With what we know already, that Ayers is not just a guy in Obama’s neighborhood, we should be, at the very least, very afraid. If the guy is afraid to let us know the details of his friendship or “comradeship” with Ayers, it leaves us with the only conclusion we can arrive at: it would hurt his chances to get elected. Just as it would hurt his chances to get elected, if he admitted that during his over twenty years of attending the Black Liberation Theology “church”, he sat through anti-American and racist ranting (sermons) by his mentor and great friend, Reverend Wright. Still, Obama claims, with a straight face, he never heard such things from the Rev. It seems clear to me that Obama is lying about who he is and what his agenda as president will be. If more than just some of us knew who he really is we would reject him and his neighbors and mentors.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
These Controlled Debates Don't Tell Us What We Reaaly Need To Know!
I have watched three debates so far and have not been very impressed with anyone other than the leftish media’s control of the events and their shameless efforts to protect Obama. These debates do us a real disservice in regards to informing the public. They pick questions that leave the respondents with the option to sit on their pat answers and not veer away from their speech material. From my perspective, the questions of character and judgment are the most important. The candidates can say anything they want at this point and claim as Bill Clinton did when he promised middle class tax cuts and then reneged because the economy and government coffers were in worse shape than he expected once in office. When you neglect character and judgment, you get leaders like Clinton and Carter: Clinton, who cheated on his wife in the Oval Office—not that she did not know that he was doing it or was perfectly capable of it—committed perjury (lied under oath—this was the reason for the impeachment trial, coo laid drinkers, not for his classless sex acts in the Oval Office—accepting illegal foreign campaign money for obvious quid pro quo give-a-ways to China in the form of rocketry secrets and to Indonesia in the form of tying up our clean coal reserves in Utah by Presidential dictate and giving Indonesia—the only other significant possessor of such reserves—a literal monopoly on the resource; and Carter who, because of his outrageously bad judgment almost ruined our economy and military beyond repair.
I find it amazing appalling that no one in the debates can ask Obama about his past associations with the terrorist Ayers family—his political dealings with them and their attempts to indoctrinate children through education programs that Obama fed government money into—the Reverend Wright and Obama’s laughable denial of having heard any of his hundreds of outrageous racially divisive and politically charged sermons in twenty year of attending his church—or his associations with Tony Rezko, who sits behind bars, but was instrumental in Obama’s real estate deals and a major contributor and fund raiser for Obama’s Political career. I think, if Obama would have to respond to such questions in front of a bunch of people who are just now beginning to pay attention a little bit, the voters would be better informed about who he is and make a more informed choice. Obama can say anything at this point and not follow through. The public needs to know what the media refuses to inform the public about: Obama has substantial baggage which should give us good insight to his character and judgment. He, in my judgment will likely be a costly mistake, even worse and more dangerous than Carter was.
But, I also am frustrated by the republican’s choice for the presidential spot. I know we were unaware of the looming current financial crisis when the primaries were going on, but I can’t help imagining Mitt Romney debating Obama at this point, instead of McCain. Not only would he have had a better grasp of the problems we have at them moment, but he would also most assuredly be better equipped to deal with them. He looks better on camera—McCain has a hard time looking cool to the younger set—and he is squeaky clean in the character and judgment category.
Hindsight is obviously 20/20—though not for me, I voted for Romney in our primary—but we could have done better. Religious prejudice may likely have cost the republicans the White House, if something fortuitous does not happen in the next moth to expose Obama for the empty shell or clandestine Marxist—in my opinion, he is the latter—that he is. I think that Palin was a terrific choice and she and Bobby Jindal and other young Conservatives are our future, but we have likely shot ourselves in the foot with our choice this time around. We have to fight against three enemies in today’s political landscape: The liberal Democrats, the liberal mainstream media, and the ignorant electorate who do not pay attention or care to ask the right questions of their leaders. Character and judgment matter, at least to some of us.
I find it amazing appalling that no one in the debates can ask Obama about his past associations with the terrorist Ayers family—his political dealings with them and their attempts to indoctrinate children through education programs that Obama fed government money into—the Reverend Wright and Obama’s laughable denial of having heard any of his hundreds of outrageous racially divisive and politically charged sermons in twenty year of attending his church—or his associations with Tony Rezko, who sits behind bars, but was instrumental in Obama’s real estate deals and a major contributor and fund raiser for Obama’s Political career. I think, if Obama would have to respond to such questions in front of a bunch of people who are just now beginning to pay attention a little bit, the voters would be better informed about who he is and make a more informed choice. Obama can say anything at this point and not follow through. The public needs to know what the media refuses to inform the public about: Obama has substantial baggage which should give us good insight to his character and judgment. He, in my judgment will likely be a costly mistake, even worse and more dangerous than Carter was.
But, I also am frustrated by the republican’s choice for the presidential spot. I know we were unaware of the looming current financial crisis when the primaries were going on, but I can’t help imagining Mitt Romney debating Obama at this point, instead of McCain. Not only would he have had a better grasp of the problems we have at them moment, but he would also most assuredly be better equipped to deal with them. He looks better on camera—McCain has a hard time looking cool to the younger set—and he is squeaky clean in the character and judgment category.
Hindsight is obviously 20/20—though not for me, I voted for Romney in our primary—but we could have done better. Religious prejudice may likely have cost the republicans the White House, if something fortuitous does not happen in the next moth to expose Obama for the empty shell or clandestine Marxist—in my opinion, he is the latter—that he is. I think that Palin was a terrific choice and she and Bobby Jindal and other young Conservatives are our future, but we have likely shot ourselves in the foot with our choice this time around. We have to fight against three enemies in today’s political landscape: The liberal Democrats, the liberal mainstream media, and the ignorant electorate who do not pay attention or care to ask the right questions of their leaders. Character and judgment matter, at least to some of us.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Un-Civil War: The 2008 Elections
I heard Peggy Noonan this morning on the radio saying something to the effect that the civility needs to come back into politics. I only heard the last little bit where she extolled the virtues of Reagan and his refusal say cruel and hateful things about his political adversaries. The feedback from other listeners seemed to reflect that she was saying that we of conservative bent needed to be nicer in our political discourse. The majority of the respondents seemed to disagree with her. And, without having heard exactly what she said, I would say we on the political Right have very little to apologize for. If anything, Conservatives take it too easy on the liberal Left.
Reagan was indeed a great example. The most hateful thing I can remember him saying to an adversary was, “there you go again.” He saved his harshest statements—evil empire and the like—for his and our true enemies. But for all of his graciousness he was insulted and degraded by the left and the left-leaning media as only a nutty actor, homophobic and racist tendencies. If you had seriously studied his life at all, you could never have arrived at such a prejudiced conclusion. But the Left was not interested in the realities of Reagan. They hated his conservative ideals and they easily transferred their hate to his person.
Much of what the Left dislikes about us on the Right is our contention that there is a Wrong and a Right. We believe that morality is important in both personal and public behavior. Non-religionists are very uncomfortable with the concepts of wrong and right, because, judged by the traditional Judeo-Christian principles and the Ten Commandments upon which our nation and its laws were founded, they could possibly be found guilty of something. In truth, Conservative religious people who honestly practice their religions understand that we all fall short in our efforts to follow God’s commandments in respect our fellow man. We are willing to forgive. But we expect that our leaders reflect our ideals as much as possible.
When Bill Clinton ran for president the first time, I distrusted him. The many stories of his marital infidelities troubled me. And, if I believed that if he was unable to be faithful to commitments to his marriage, how could I trust him to be faithful to his commitments to the United States of America. Needless to say, as a Conservative, I was opposed to him on political grounds and I would have voted against at any rate, but his character flaws, as I saw them made me suspect of every action he took as President. History, I believe, has shown that I was right to doubt Bill Clinton. He was indeed the philanderer that his critics had warned us he was. His actions as President only reinforced my beliefs about him; that he was self absorbed and egotistical, more worried about himself than his country. He was basically a dishonest man.
The Liberals were embarrassed by Bill Clinton, but mainly because he was caught. Most of the leadership in the Democrat party knew of his character flaws, but he was their ticket to political power after 12 years of being out of the White House. We on the Right felt vindicated in our criticism, but those on the Left were angry about our righteous indignation. Nothing could have irritated them more than losing a contested election in 2000 to a Born Again Christian named George W. Bush.
Liberal Democrats still claim that the 2000 presidential election was stolen, even though it was Gore who tried to keep overseas military ballots from being counted and only wanted recounts in heavily weighted democrat districts. And, they tenaciously hold this opinion in the face of every recount and study that has substantiated the election results since. This close election of a man who professed strong religious faith created the “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” The Left was so eager to pin the label “Liar” on some one from the Right, because of their embarrassment over Clinton that they have had to jump over huge logical and reasonable hurdles to make the claim that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush came into office with high expectations of working with both parties to create more civility and bi-partisanship, but the bitterness over the close election left him little real hope of working with the opposition. Even the short lived respite from political divisiveness the 9-11 created was destroyed by the thought on the left that Bush was becoming a hero. At every turn, the Left and the leftist-media have tried to discredit him; attacking his efforts in the war on terror, focusing heavily on the costs in blood and treasure, and ignoring the successes. And through all of the attacks on his character, the labeling of “liar”, “Hitler,” and the incessant disparaging remarks on his intelligence, Bush has acted gentlemanly, never resorting to the tactics of his foes.
Now we find ourselves ready to elect a new president and we see more of the same in the way the Left and the media are serving up their opinions on McCain and Palin—especially Palin. Sarah Palin is a thumb in the eye for many on the Left. She is a powerful woman in politics who has strong values of a religious and moral base. The media has been almost humorous in their attempts to find something on Palin that will discredit here in Conservative’s and keep them from the polls; On the other hand, the Democrats have nominated a man who has clear background problems by his associations with despicable characters—thieves, racists and terrorists. Again, the Left and the leftist media know and do not care about these associations, or they are reluctant to look too closely for fear of exposing something that will turn off the voter in the political middle who pays little attention or has few core beliefs beyond their personal comfort. Again, I am not voting for Obama on political differences, but I am even more disturbed by his character questions than I was with Bill Clinton.
So, getting back to the civility question, we, on the Right, need not worry about being more civil. The Left will go crazy on Palin and McCain and ignore their own problems. We are generally not the offenders. If anything, we need to be more assertive, and honestly expose the Left for who they are and what they want to do. Do I here a big Amen?
Reagan was indeed a great example. The most hateful thing I can remember him saying to an adversary was, “there you go again.” He saved his harshest statements—evil empire and the like—for his and our true enemies. But for all of his graciousness he was insulted and degraded by the left and the left-leaning media as only a nutty actor, homophobic and racist tendencies. If you had seriously studied his life at all, you could never have arrived at such a prejudiced conclusion. But the Left was not interested in the realities of Reagan. They hated his conservative ideals and they easily transferred their hate to his person.
Much of what the Left dislikes about us on the Right is our contention that there is a Wrong and a Right. We believe that morality is important in both personal and public behavior. Non-religionists are very uncomfortable with the concepts of wrong and right, because, judged by the traditional Judeo-Christian principles and the Ten Commandments upon which our nation and its laws were founded, they could possibly be found guilty of something. In truth, Conservative religious people who honestly practice their religions understand that we all fall short in our efforts to follow God’s commandments in respect our fellow man. We are willing to forgive. But we expect that our leaders reflect our ideals as much as possible.
When Bill Clinton ran for president the first time, I distrusted him. The many stories of his marital infidelities troubled me. And, if I believed that if he was unable to be faithful to commitments to his marriage, how could I trust him to be faithful to his commitments to the United States of America. Needless to say, as a Conservative, I was opposed to him on political grounds and I would have voted against at any rate, but his character flaws, as I saw them made me suspect of every action he took as President. History, I believe, has shown that I was right to doubt Bill Clinton. He was indeed the philanderer that his critics had warned us he was. His actions as President only reinforced my beliefs about him; that he was self absorbed and egotistical, more worried about himself than his country. He was basically a dishonest man.
The Liberals were embarrassed by Bill Clinton, but mainly because he was caught. Most of the leadership in the Democrat party knew of his character flaws, but he was their ticket to political power after 12 years of being out of the White House. We on the Right felt vindicated in our criticism, but those on the Left were angry about our righteous indignation. Nothing could have irritated them more than losing a contested election in 2000 to a Born Again Christian named George W. Bush.
Liberal Democrats still claim that the 2000 presidential election was stolen, even though it was Gore who tried to keep overseas military ballots from being counted and only wanted recounts in heavily weighted democrat districts. And, they tenaciously hold this opinion in the face of every recount and study that has substantiated the election results since. This close election of a man who professed strong religious faith created the “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” The Left was so eager to pin the label “Liar” on some one from the Right, because of their embarrassment over Clinton that they have had to jump over huge logical and reasonable hurdles to make the claim that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush came into office with high expectations of working with both parties to create more civility and bi-partisanship, but the bitterness over the close election left him little real hope of working with the opposition. Even the short lived respite from political divisiveness the 9-11 created was destroyed by the thought on the left that Bush was becoming a hero. At every turn, the Left and the leftist-media have tried to discredit him; attacking his efforts in the war on terror, focusing heavily on the costs in blood and treasure, and ignoring the successes. And through all of the attacks on his character, the labeling of “liar”, “Hitler,” and the incessant disparaging remarks on his intelligence, Bush has acted gentlemanly, never resorting to the tactics of his foes.
Now we find ourselves ready to elect a new president and we see more of the same in the way the Left and the media are serving up their opinions on McCain and Palin—especially Palin. Sarah Palin is a thumb in the eye for many on the Left. She is a powerful woman in politics who has strong values of a religious and moral base. The media has been almost humorous in their attempts to find something on Palin that will discredit here in Conservative’s and keep them from the polls; On the other hand, the Democrats have nominated a man who has clear background problems by his associations with despicable characters—thieves, racists and terrorists. Again, the Left and the leftist media know and do not care about these associations, or they are reluctant to look too closely for fear of exposing something that will turn off the voter in the political middle who pays little attention or has few core beliefs beyond their personal comfort. Again, I am not voting for Obama on political differences, but I am even more disturbed by his character questions than I was with Bill Clinton.
So, getting back to the civility question, we, on the Right, need not worry about being more civil. The Left will go crazy on Palin and McCain and ignore their own problems. We are generally not the offenders. If anything, we need to be more assertive, and honestly expose the Left for who they are and what they want to do. Do I here a big Amen?
Friday, September 19, 2008
But OBAMA Has Great Educational Credentials!
The following is from an email my conservative friend, Mike, forwarded to me that some liberal friend sent to him, I guess, to persuade him to rethink his vote for President, and my response to it. I don't really know if Mike has made up his mind yet on McCain, because like me, he was not excited by the Republican nominee because of unpredictability on things conservative and a seeming penchant to side with democrats on important issues of conservative import. However I suspect McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate may have appeased him a bit. But I digress...
The email from his liberal friend was pretty funny, if not insulting to the intelligence of a conservative thinker. The absence of logic in his argument is glaring, but I do not suspect that liberals, without corrective lenses and their inability to see a broader perspective with their usual blinders on, would be able see it.
The Email:
======Hope you won't be too upset Mike=========
You are The Boss... which team would you hire?
With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually critical election year. The idea of "leadership" must be broadened from mere "experience" to include knowledge, learnedness and insight.
Let's look at the educational background of your two options:
Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
vs.
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899
& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
Now, which team are you going to hire ?
My response:
Who was that guy? Is he allowed to work with sharp tools? Can he get out of his straight jacket? Is he out on his own recognizance? What an elitist!
In response to his argument voiced below, let's look at who the mentors and associates of the job applicants are and the achievements and judgments the applicants have made in the past.
Obama:
James Cone (liberation Theologist). Rev. Wright (Racist Kook). Tony Rezko (Crook and one of the prison population that is busting a the seams as we speak and would surely vote for Obama, if he could), Bill "Kill all the Rich" Ayres (Weatherman terrorist), Bernadine "You Go Bill, hand me another bomb" Dohrn (Weatherman Terrorist)--let me say here, to Osama's credit he only seems to want to tax the Rich more at this point, even though they already supply over seventy-five percent of income tax revenue--Father Pfleger (an embarrassment to the Catholic Church), Rashid Khalidi (PLO intimate and supporter), Louis "waiting on the mother ship" Farrakhan (anti-Semitic, anti-white, racist), and the list goes on…. His wonderful education has turned him into a brilliant judge of character--a perfect example of the man's powerful insight. Obama has never voted against his party on anything, even when it came to placing more oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as McCain tried to do in 05'. Again, great judgment. He has, to my knowlege, never voted against a tax increase, and he has never voted for a tax cut.
Biden:
Has been in the US Senate 15 years longer than McCain, so he has had a long time of association with the Democrat Party, has the third most liberal voting record in the Senate--Obama's number one--and praised for his knowledge of foreign affairs, constantly makes the wrong assessment, as he and Obama did with the military surge in Iraq--McCain seems to have guessed that one right, like he did with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insight.
On the other hand…
McCain:
Ronald Reagan. That says something to me--it probably does to the liberals too, they hate to hear his name spoken, kind of like Maynard G. Krebbs, when he heard the word "Work". He got an education defending his country a went to the North Viet Nam Scool of Hard Knocks--very hard knocks. He has spent over twenty years in the US Senate, often irritating members of his own party--me included--but voting his conscience, proving that he will do what he thinks is right and not what the good old boys of his party might expect. And, he has never placed an earmark on a spending bill to feather his own political nest, like the extremely well educated Obama and Biden do. His insight has been good enough to know how to win in Iraq and will not be afraid to protect the US no matter what the socialist Europeans think about it.
Palin:
Ronald Reagan. Again, this says to me that she sees America as a special place, a shares the vision that America needs to be "city on a shining hill". Unlike Obama and Biden, she has worked in the private sector and learned lessons from the middle class. She has also governed on the local and state levels and has proven to be a reformer, not afraid to go against her own party to root out corruption.
Now, since my hope for America is that it does not become a European-styled socialist nanny state, afraid of its own shadow, with an economy perhaps worse than when the Brilliant nuclear scientist Jimmy Carter was president, I think my choice is clear.
It seems to me that the liberal thinker will reject all other information that competes with the idea of soaking the "Rich" and "evening the playing field"--redistribution of wealth. When Obama was asked not to long ago about raising taxes on the "wealthy" likely hurting or slowing the economy, his brilliant response was, "it is the fair thing to do". When the economy is hurt, everyone is hurt, especially the poor, you dolt! For the last 60 years, at least, the liberals have been the enemy of capitalism. Taking money from people who earn it to give it to people who haven't is anything but fair. They promote class envy and warfare and racial devide to reach their political goals: socialsm, or out and out comunism.
Our government was not founded on a principle of everyone having the same things, no matter their productivity. The American ideal was to allow everyone to prosper in proportion to their efforts, without government dictating their lives and to have personal freedoms such freedom of religious expression. The federal government has gone way beyond what its founders intended. It is supposed to protect us from foreign enemies and to make sure that the US Constitution is not infringed upon by the state and local governments. Sadly, liberal state and federal judges are accomplishing from the bench what our liberal legislators have not been able to do in Congress, in pushing forward the liberal and socialist agendas.
I know many educated idiots. I argued with them every day in college--they were usually the professors. The liberal elite think the common man is largely prejudiced, because of their lack of higher education and their outdated Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles. In the case of religious expression, liberals either find such expression offensive or unimportant in the balance of personal freedom, and they are unwilling to see that it is protected as it should be under our Constitution. So, there is no validity in the argument that an education prepares one to lead. Leadership does not come with a college degree. I have a BA in history and Master of Science in Occupational Safety and Health, but it is my study and efforts to understand the Constitution and apply it to my moral and religious understanding that qualify me to make choices in politics. Who understands our country and the world at large as I do? I don't think Obama and Biden are qualified to work for me. I don't care how many degrees they have and from what institutions they may got them from. It is what they want to do! They have proven themselves, by their associations and past votes to be wrong-headed. And they are wrong on every issue today, as I see it. I would have to be an idiot to vote for someone who thinks and acts opposite of my views and values, because of their education. One of the most brilliant men in the country in my book is Thomas Sowell, a man with a really impressive education, backed by common sense. I think I'll vote like he will surely vote.
The email from his liberal friend was pretty funny, if not insulting to the intelligence of a conservative thinker. The absence of logic in his argument is glaring, but I do not suspect that liberals, without corrective lenses and their inability to see a broader perspective with their usual blinders on, would be able see it.
The Email:
======Hope you won't be too upset Mike=========
You are The Boss... which team would you hire?
With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually critical election year. The idea of "leadership" must be broadened from mere "experience" to include knowledge, learnedness and insight.
Let's look at the educational background of your two options:
Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
vs.
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899
& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
Now, which team are you going to hire ?
My response:
Who was that guy? Is he allowed to work with sharp tools? Can he get out of his straight jacket? Is he out on his own recognizance? What an elitist!
In response to his argument voiced below, let's look at who the mentors and associates of the job applicants are and the achievements and judgments the applicants have made in the past.
Obama:
James Cone (liberation Theologist). Rev. Wright (Racist Kook). Tony Rezko (Crook and one of the prison population that is busting a the seams as we speak and would surely vote for Obama, if he could), Bill "Kill all the Rich" Ayres (Weatherman terrorist), Bernadine "You Go Bill, hand me another bomb" Dohrn (Weatherman Terrorist)--let me say here, to Osama's credit he only seems to want to tax the Rich more at this point, even though they already supply over seventy-five percent of income tax revenue--Father Pfleger (an embarrassment to the Catholic Church), Rashid Khalidi (PLO intimate and supporter), Louis "waiting on the mother ship" Farrakhan (anti-Semitic, anti-white, racist), and the list goes on…. His wonderful education has turned him into a brilliant judge of character--a perfect example of the man's powerful insight. Obama has never voted against his party on anything, even when it came to placing more oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as McCain tried to do in 05'. Again, great judgment. He has, to my knowlege, never voted against a tax increase, and he has never voted for a tax cut.
Biden:
Has been in the US Senate 15 years longer than McCain, so he has had a long time of association with the Democrat Party, has the third most liberal voting record in the Senate--Obama's number one--and praised for his knowledge of foreign affairs, constantly makes the wrong assessment, as he and Obama did with the military surge in Iraq--McCain seems to have guessed that one right, like he did with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insight.
On the other hand…
McCain:
Ronald Reagan. That says something to me--it probably does to the liberals too, they hate to hear his name spoken, kind of like Maynard G. Krebbs, when he heard the word "Work". He got an education defending his country a went to the North Viet Nam Scool of Hard Knocks--very hard knocks. He has spent over twenty years in the US Senate, often irritating members of his own party--me included--but voting his conscience, proving that he will do what he thinks is right and not what the good old boys of his party might expect. And, he has never placed an earmark on a spending bill to feather his own political nest, like the extremely well educated Obama and Biden do. His insight has been good enough to know how to win in Iraq and will not be afraid to protect the US no matter what the socialist Europeans think about it.
Palin:
Ronald Reagan. Again, this says to me that she sees America as a special place, a shares the vision that America needs to be "city on a shining hill". Unlike Obama and Biden, she has worked in the private sector and learned lessons from the middle class. She has also governed on the local and state levels and has proven to be a reformer, not afraid to go against her own party to root out corruption.
Now, since my hope for America is that it does not become a European-styled socialist nanny state, afraid of its own shadow, with an economy perhaps worse than when the Brilliant nuclear scientist Jimmy Carter was president, I think my choice is clear.
It seems to me that the liberal thinker will reject all other information that competes with the idea of soaking the "Rich" and "evening the playing field"--redistribution of wealth. When Obama was asked not to long ago about raising taxes on the "wealthy" likely hurting or slowing the economy, his brilliant response was, "it is the fair thing to do". When the economy is hurt, everyone is hurt, especially the poor, you dolt! For the last 60 years, at least, the liberals have been the enemy of capitalism. Taking money from people who earn it to give it to people who haven't is anything but fair. They promote class envy and warfare and racial devide to reach their political goals: socialsm, or out and out comunism.
Our government was not founded on a principle of everyone having the same things, no matter their productivity. The American ideal was to allow everyone to prosper in proportion to their efforts, without government dictating their lives and to have personal freedoms such freedom of religious expression. The federal government has gone way beyond what its founders intended. It is supposed to protect us from foreign enemies and to make sure that the US Constitution is not infringed upon by the state and local governments. Sadly, liberal state and federal judges are accomplishing from the bench what our liberal legislators have not been able to do in Congress, in pushing forward the liberal and socialist agendas.
I know many educated idiots. I argued with them every day in college--they were usually the professors. The liberal elite think the common man is largely prejudiced, because of their lack of higher education and their outdated Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles. In the case of religious expression, liberals either find such expression offensive or unimportant in the balance of personal freedom, and they are unwilling to see that it is protected as it should be under our Constitution. So, there is no validity in the argument that an education prepares one to lead. Leadership does not come with a college degree. I have a BA in history and Master of Science in Occupational Safety and Health, but it is my study and efforts to understand the Constitution and apply it to my moral and religious understanding that qualify me to make choices in politics. Who understands our country and the world at large as I do? I don't think Obama and Biden are qualified to work for me. I don't care how many degrees they have and from what institutions they may got them from. It is what they want to do! They have proven themselves, by their associations and past votes to be wrong-headed. And they are wrong on every issue today, as I see it. I would have to be an idiot to vote for someone who thinks and acts opposite of my views and values, because of their education. One of the most brilliant men in the country in my book is Thomas Sowell, a man with a really impressive education, backed by common sense. I think I'll vote like he will surely vote.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
ASK RANDY: Government Bailouts? How Can I Get One?
That was the question a sarcastic young conservative friend of mine asked via an email recently. My name is not Abbey or Anne, but I am able to dish out advice with the best of them. So, here goes...
Well, it's actually pretty easy. First you become a huge financial firm or company on Wall Street, or you become a quasi governmental mortgage company with ties to powerful politicians that provide "oversight". Then, you hire a thirty-something CEO, who sees the potential of feathering his own nest at investors' (you) expense. Then, you ingratiate yourself with the politicians who "oversee" (both parties , but primarily Dems in the case of Fannie and Freddy) by donating to their re-election funds. Then, when the CEOs run the institution into the ground and bailout with their golden parachutes in tact and billowing in the wind, you can turn to the politicians who were supposed to be "watching" and warning the public of the danger ahead, and tell them that lots of people are going to be hurt if we are allowed to fail. The politicians take that argument to the public and say, "we're worried about the investors (you), so we feel compelled to bail them out with our money tree" (you, tax payer). And of course if the money tree (you, tax payer) dries up, Government can always print more money. So, in a nutshell, you just have to do stupid things and consort with unsavory people (sleazy CEOs and sleazy politicians) and put yourself between a rock and a hard place. It's easy!
If you have a question about anything at all, feel free to send you query to "Ask Randy" at rmundy@digis.net
Well, it's actually pretty easy. First you become a huge financial firm or company on Wall Street, or you become a quasi governmental mortgage company with ties to powerful politicians that provide "oversight". Then, you hire a thirty-something CEO, who sees the potential of feathering his own nest at investors' (you) expense. Then, you ingratiate yourself with the politicians who "oversee" (both parties , but primarily Dems in the case of Fannie and Freddy) by donating to their re-election funds. Then, when the CEOs run the institution into the ground and bailout with their golden parachutes in tact and billowing in the wind, you can turn to the politicians who were supposed to be "watching" and warning the public of the danger ahead, and tell them that lots of people are going to be hurt if we are allowed to fail. The politicians take that argument to the public and say, "we're worried about the investors (you), so we feel compelled to bail them out with our money tree" (you, tax payer). And of course if the money tree (you, tax payer) dries up, Government can always print more money. So, in a nutshell, you just have to do stupid things and consort with unsavory people (sleazy CEOs and sleazy politicians) and put yourself between a rock and a hard place. It's easy!
If you have a question about anything at all, feel free to send you query to "Ask Randy" at rmundy@digis.net
Friday, September 5, 2008
Republican Silver Linings?
I have been watching our political parties’ convention events the last couple of weeks and am pretty encouraged by what I have seen. The Democrats were as obnoxious and shrill as they normally are in their over-the-top condemnation of George Bush or any other Republican President in the past, how the world has lost respect for us, the world is more dangerous today because of Bush’s “bullying” “unilateral interventions and foreign policy “blunders”. It is always the worst economy in 40 to 50 years in the Liberal Democrat mind. Obama was his usual slick self in laying out his vision for America, creating social injustice in the minds of the public and selling the old tried and untrue liberal answers to our Country’s ills—whether they truly exist or not—actually presenting plans that will only make matters worse or create additional problems for the future like FDR, LBJ, and the great (ingrate) Jimmie Carter: plans that will increase taxation, spending, size of government, and cost of living for all of us.
The Republican Convention provided me with hope. As I mentioned in my earlier blog, I am waiting for an American Maggie Thatcher to vote for. From the speech she gave a couple of nights ago, I am inclined to believe that we may have her in Sarah Palin. I think a virtual political star was born Wednesday night in Sarah Palin. Palin could not have given a more powerful speech to fire up the conservative base of the Republican Party and attract some conservative-thinking unaffiliated independents. She was brilliant in her gentle attacks on Obama and company (media included) with a smile on her face. She was truly fun to watch. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani were also very good at presenting the case for McCain, using their humor to skewer the “anointed one” and his “disciples”. Even John McCain, himself, gave a passably good speech, laying out the big differences between him and his opponent and blasting both parties for dropping the ball. We could have made good progress with a Republican majority in congress and residency in the White House, but the republicans squandered that opportunity, a major gripe for most Conservatives during the past seven years and big reason they allowed the Dems to take control two years ago. McCain pinpointed the problem in his speech and promised to do his duty in reducing spending, cutting taxes, where he could, and using his veto pen overtime. Such promises in combination with the advent of Sarah Palin are the silver lining we have been looking for on an extremely cloudy political day for conservative Republicans.
So, it looks to me like we may well win this thing after all. With the Republican Convention behind us, I feel pretty confident that the Republicans will get a significant bump in the polls. We will still have to deal with the mainstream media, who are firmly in the tank for Obama, but their over-reaching attacks and investigations and criticisms of Sarah Palin will likely create a backlash further exciting the Conservative voters into action that much more. The polls typically favor the left because of the way they are constructed, in my mind, so we can expect that tie in the polls will actually favor the Republicans. So, if it’s close or the Republicans have a slight lead, I will feel comfortable about a win for the presidency. But we will need to do some heavy lifting still for Congress. The veto pen will help us keep the status quo on legislation and the power to nominate judges will help us to possibly hold our own on federal judge appointments. A friendly or fearful Congress will make our efforts to change Washington much easier. Hope and change!
The Republican Convention provided me with hope. As I mentioned in my earlier blog, I am waiting for an American Maggie Thatcher to vote for. From the speech she gave a couple of nights ago, I am inclined to believe that we may have her in Sarah Palin. I think a virtual political star was born Wednesday night in Sarah Palin. Palin could not have given a more powerful speech to fire up the conservative base of the Republican Party and attract some conservative-thinking unaffiliated independents. She was brilliant in her gentle attacks on Obama and company (media included) with a smile on her face. She was truly fun to watch. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani were also very good at presenting the case for McCain, using their humor to skewer the “anointed one” and his “disciples”. Even John McCain, himself, gave a passably good speech, laying out the big differences between him and his opponent and blasting both parties for dropping the ball. We could have made good progress with a Republican majority in congress and residency in the White House, but the republicans squandered that opportunity, a major gripe for most Conservatives during the past seven years and big reason they allowed the Dems to take control two years ago. McCain pinpointed the problem in his speech and promised to do his duty in reducing spending, cutting taxes, where he could, and using his veto pen overtime. Such promises in combination with the advent of Sarah Palin are the silver lining we have been looking for on an extremely cloudy political day for conservative Republicans.
So, it looks to me like we may well win this thing after all. With the Republican Convention behind us, I feel pretty confident that the Republicans will get a significant bump in the polls. We will still have to deal with the mainstream media, who are firmly in the tank for Obama, but their over-reaching attacks and investigations and criticisms of Sarah Palin will likely create a backlash further exciting the Conservative voters into action that much more. The polls typically favor the left because of the way they are constructed, in my mind, so we can expect that tie in the polls will actually favor the Republicans. So, if it’s close or the Republicans have a slight lead, I will feel comfortable about a win for the presidency. But we will need to do some heavy lifting still for Congress. The veto pen will help us keep the status quo on legislation and the power to nominate judges will help us to possibly hold our own on federal judge appointments. A friendly or fearful Congress will make our efforts to change Washington much easier. Hope and change!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Racist, Sexist, Ageist America?
So what are we Americans going to prove to be? Will we be racists, sexists or ageists? What ever the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election, you know an argument will be made for one of these moral deficiencies in the American electorate. If Obama loses, the left will decry the racist Right and lament the fact that we are just not ready to elect a black man to the highest office in the land.
This has been the argument from the media and the left from early on in the 2008 campaign. A liberal friend asked me several months ago before the revelations of Obama’s ties to his loony anti-American pastor, the Reverend (?) Wright, his criminal financier Tony Vesco, and his friendship with the dynamic Weathermen Ayres duo, and his ultra liberal voting record during his half term as a U.S. Senator, if I was ready for a Black President. My response was that I hoped it wasn’t this one. I know of several Conservative Black thinkers and politicians that I would love to see as the first Black President, like Mike Steel, Lt. Governor of Maryland; economist, Dr. Walter Williams, of George Mason University; and one of the most brilliant minds in America today—in my humble opinion—Thomas Sowell. Generally speaking, and opposite of what Liberals prejudicially think, we Conservatives are all about policy and how it is connected to right and wrong issues, not right and left. I will applaud louder than anyone on the left, when a black man or woman is elected President, but only if he reflects my political, moral, and ethical values.
On the Republican side, we have the oldest man ever to possibly be elected to the Presidency with a running mate who is decidedly a woman. McCain was not my first, second, or even third choice for the top spot. Though he has been great on the war on terror and has always opposed government over-spending and ear-marks, and been firmly pro-life, he has been goofy on his attempts to reach over the aisle on some crucial freedom of speech issues and seems to be almost as ignorant about the overall economy and ecology as the Liberal Democrats. His earlier acceptance of the global warming scam leaves me to doubt his intellect. My first choice, of course, was Romney. He had all of the Conservative credentials—though some had evolved, like his beliefs on right to life to a strong conservative stand. He is a brilliant business man who truly understands the world economy, supports the war against extremist Islam and understands how lower taxes and cutting government waste improves the economy and increases revenue. But, that is not what we got. It was my hope that Romney would at least get the V.P. nod to help McCain with some Conservative votes back and possibly tutor him on the realities of the economy. But, that too was not to be.
Enter Sarah Palin. Palin was obviously picked to try to get the female vote—presumably the disenchanted female vote that was supposed to go to Hillary Clinton, if she had made it on the Democratic ticket. I’m not sure how that will go, but happily, Sarah Palin is someone I can support. This might come as a surprise to some on the left, but we Conservatives are not opposed to “Conservative” women in politics. The Pelosis, Boxers, and Clintons of the feminine Left are not obnoxious to the Right because they are “women”, but because they are Liberals, who are exceedingly obnoxious to boot. I would have loved to have had the opportunity to have voted for a Margaret Thatcher or a Jeane Kirkpatrick. Sarah Palin is truly conservative who has demonstrated in her short time Alaska politics to be a strong advocate of pro-life, pro-gun rights, low taxes, cutting wasteful spending, and supporting the war efforts and our troops. She understands the issue of energy independence through opening up drilling for natural gas and oil everywhere we can and returning to build nuclear energy plants and new refineries. Hopefully she will have an impact like Thatcher or Kirkpatrick.
The truth is we on the Right are willing to vote for the Conservative person, no matter their race, sex, or age. When the choice is there, we will pick the person who reflects our values and will not be convinced that we are racist because we see Barak Obamma for what he is. Obama is a talented empty-suit speaker who says virtually nothing and associates almost exclusively with socialist extremists, and has the most liberal voting record in the Senate—his running mate, Joe Biden, has the third most liberal voting record—so it is easy to imagine what we would get. And the thought is not pretty. I will vote my clean conscience again this time: I’m voting for the fussy old Moderate and the hot young woman Conservative.
This has been the argument from the media and the left from early on in the 2008 campaign. A liberal friend asked me several months ago before the revelations of Obama’s ties to his loony anti-American pastor, the Reverend (?) Wright, his criminal financier Tony Vesco, and his friendship with the dynamic Weathermen Ayres duo, and his ultra liberal voting record during his half term as a U.S. Senator, if I was ready for a Black President. My response was that I hoped it wasn’t this one. I know of several Conservative Black thinkers and politicians that I would love to see as the first Black President, like Mike Steel, Lt. Governor of Maryland; economist, Dr. Walter Williams, of George Mason University; and one of the most brilliant minds in America today—in my humble opinion—Thomas Sowell. Generally speaking, and opposite of what Liberals prejudicially think, we Conservatives are all about policy and how it is connected to right and wrong issues, not right and left. I will applaud louder than anyone on the left, when a black man or woman is elected President, but only if he reflects my political, moral, and ethical values.
On the Republican side, we have the oldest man ever to possibly be elected to the Presidency with a running mate who is decidedly a woman. McCain was not my first, second, or even third choice for the top spot. Though he has been great on the war on terror and has always opposed government over-spending and ear-marks, and been firmly pro-life, he has been goofy on his attempts to reach over the aisle on some crucial freedom of speech issues and seems to be almost as ignorant about the overall economy and ecology as the Liberal Democrats. His earlier acceptance of the global warming scam leaves me to doubt his intellect. My first choice, of course, was Romney. He had all of the Conservative credentials—though some had evolved, like his beliefs on right to life to a strong conservative stand. He is a brilliant business man who truly understands the world economy, supports the war against extremist Islam and understands how lower taxes and cutting government waste improves the economy and increases revenue. But, that is not what we got. It was my hope that Romney would at least get the V.P. nod to help McCain with some Conservative votes back and possibly tutor him on the realities of the economy. But, that too was not to be.
Enter Sarah Palin. Palin was obviously picked to try to get the female vote—presumably the disenchanted female vote that was supposed to go to Hillary Clinton, if she had made it on the Democratic ticket. I’m not sure how that will go, but happily, Sarah Palin is someone I can support. This might come as a surprise to some on the left, but we Conservatives are not opposed to “Conservative” women in politics. The Pelosis, Boxers, and Clintons of the feminine Left are not obnoxious to the Right because they are “women”, but because they are Liberals, who are exceedingly obnoxious to boot. I would have loved to have had the opportunity to have voted for a Margaret Thatcher or a Jeane Kirkpatrick. Sarah Palin is truly conservative who has demonstrated in her short time Alaska politics to be a strong advocate of pro-life, pro-gun rights, low taxes, cutting wasteful spending, and supporting the war efforts and our troops. She understands the issue of energy independence through opening up drilling for natural gas and oil everywhere we can and returning to build nuclear energy plants and new refineries. Hopefully she will have an impact like Thatcher or Kirkpatrick.
The truth is we on the Right are willing to vote for the Conservative person, no matter their race, sex, or age. When the choice is there, we will pick the person who reflects our values and will not be convinced that we are racist because we see Barak Obamma for what he is. Obama is a talented empty-suit speaker who says virtually nothing and associates almost exclusively with socialist extremists, and has the most liberal voting record in the Senate—his running mate, Joe Biden, has the third most liberal voting record—so it is easy to imagine what we would get. And the thought is not pretty. I will vote my clean conscience again this time: I’m voting for the fussy old Moderate and the hot young woman Conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
