Michael Kreyssig has sent you an article from HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE with the following personal message:
SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday
by Connie Hair
In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.
“[I] don’t know, ‘cause they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said.
“The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”
Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven’t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.
The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.:
"The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon."
Meanwhile, at an earlier presser Thursday, Pelosi -- while talking about legislation regarding school construction funds -- said it was vital to see the language of a bill before making decisions. ReadtheStimulus.org had the following quote:
“With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward."
"Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it, I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right."
Congressional members are also exchanging barbs via the popular social network Twitter. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittered, "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that."
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) twittered back, “Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through.”
-----------
Read more articles like this at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE!
http://www.humanevents.com/
Showing posts with label National Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
To Be; Or Not To Be...
I am annoyed right along with all the watchdog groups out there pointing out all of the corporate extravagance going on by companies that have received government bailout cash. However the companies wasteful spending does not bother me as much as the direction I see the watchdog groups and the government taking us, which is basically the complete acquisition of the private sector into the new socialist state under the guise of protecting the "tax payers money".
"You are wasting the taxpayers money, so if you want more; you better do as we say." The wimpy CEO's not wanting to give up their lavish lifestyles fold. It's still greed, just of a different nature, and a different revenue stream.
I say if the goal is to protect the tax payers money, then Corporate America should never have been given OUR money in the first place, but since they did get it, and they appear to continue squandering it; cut them off!
But no no, the government will put up its fake fight, with a fake slap on the wrist, and a fake "warning, and then happily continue to purchase the private sector right out from under the American People with their own money. The CEO's won't notice, they'll be cruising around in their new Porsche' 911. It's hard to notice anything at the speeds those babies can achieve!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Republican Senator Questions Where Bailout Money is Going (Mobile Post)
A while back I mentioned how I thought it was suspicioius that Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail, but AIG was not. I refferenced Secratary Paulson's ties to AIG via Goldman Sachs. Now the Republican Senator is also questioning where the bailout money is going.
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau - 11/16/2008He criticizes Henry Paulson for changing the $700 billion bailout plan. WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation's financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion "blank check'' it gave the Bush administration. "It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,'' the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World. "It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.'' Inhofe's comments, unusually pointed even for a senator known for being blunt, come on the heels of Paulson's shift in how he thinks the bailout funds should be spent. Last week the Treasury secretary announced he was abandoning his plan to free up the nation's credit system by buying up toxic assets from troubled financial institutions. Instead, Paulson wants to take a more direct action on the consumer credit front. "He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn't do it,'' Inhofe said. "So, that's enough reason right there.'' Inhofe recalled earlier comments opposing Paulson's plan because the administration's point man did not have answers for a number of questions. He also recalled questioning the rush to get the bailout passed. "I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth,'' he said. "And this is one of those nine times.'' Inhofe has laid out his legislative plans for this week on the bailout package in a letter to his Senate colleagues. He wants to freeze what is left of the initial $350 billion — reportedly $60 billion, but Inhofe concedes he does not know for sure. Then he wants a provision requiring an affirmative vote by Congress before Paulson can get his hands on the second $350 billion of bailout money. Current law lays out a scenario where President Bush submits a plan on the second half of the funding. Lawmakers have 15 days to disapprove it, but Inhofe questions that wording. "Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary,'' he wrote. "However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.'' In the interview, the senator said his plans can provide "redemption'' for those senators who supported Paulson. Inhofe's plan appears to be a long shot at this point. Senators originally approved the bailout plan by a 74-25 vote. He does not know how much support he has among his Republican colleagues, and he concedes Democratic leaders could block it. Bush also could veto it if it were to make it out of Congress. Neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office nor the Treasury Department commented. Reid, D-Nev., wants to use the upcoming lame duck session to push economic issues such as extending unemployment benefits and aid to the nation's ailing auto industry. Inhofe opposes both. "You don't stimulate the economy by giving away more money,'' he said. In response to concerns expressed by some that allowing even one of the big automakers to fail would be too much of an economic hit for the nation, Inhofe said reality must be accepted. "If we keep on nursing a broken system, then we can't expect to have a different result come later on,'' he said. "I just think we have to draw the line someplace, and the time is here.'' Jim Myers (202) 484-1424 jim.myers@tulsaworld.co
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Why McCain Lost
American Thinker
By Jewish Odysseus
John McCain's incoherent, C- campaign did not deserve to win the Presidency this year. On the other hand, America doesn't deserve the punishment an Obama presidency is about to inflict upon us. Unfortunately, as a great Democrat once said: Life isn't fair.
John McCain, a genuine American war hero with a long, moderate-to-conservative voting record, has just been trounced by the callowest, least-accomplished, most far-left candidate in modern history. It is important to understand how we got here.
The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.
Conservatives must understand McCain's candidacy in its full context: McCain's nomination represented the joint successes of two independent and mutually hostile projects -- the Media/Political Left's project, and McCain's own.
McCain represented a shrewd strategic choice by the leftist "hive"-he nearly won the nomination in 2000, when he had half as many GOP votes in the GOP primaries as Bush did. That near-death experience should have been a wakeup call to our slumbering "state party activists" to vaccinate their parties against any future Democrat pollution/manipulation. But, unfathomably, they stayed in their comas, and, sure enough, in 2008 the GOP primary candidate who got the 2d most GOP votes became the GOP candidate. He repeatedly positioned himself as "the anti-Republican Republican." And now we wonder why he had trouble making Republican arguments while running as a Republican?
McCain's own project planned to draw massive numbers of "moderate" Democrats and independents over to the Republican side. He had been calculating and executing this strategy since at least as far back as the early 1990s (when he and John Kerry were allies in normalizing relations with Vietnam). McCain's uber-rationale was this: America wanted a moderate leader who would seek out support from the other side, a task which in theory should have been made much easier if the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate. Sure enough, the Democrats did. Unfortunately, the far-left candidate had two unusual, (but by March 2008 easily foreseeable) advantages: he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1) with which to savage McCain and glorify himself. This was a completely unprecedented situation, since by definition newcomers are generally unable to drum up the funds to compete with entrenched powerful pols. Obama in fact outspent McCain by a ratio heretofore reserved for shoo-in incumbent Presidents over mismatched challengers.
With these advantages, Obama was able to attack McCain's strategy directly, by in fact making McCain out to be the "risky," even "ideological" choice versus the reasonable, moderate, bi-partisan Obama. Result: McCain was unable to get independents or centrist Democrats not named Lieberman to support him (or at least get them known!) And, quite foreseeably, the media hive has been bursting with stories about "lifelong Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama."
Speaking of the hive, it needs to be said the 2008 election actually saw the culmination of two of their long-term projects, with McCain's nomination being the first. To a lot of media/political types, the Clintons represented a heart-breaking concession to evil capitalism. The Clintons gladly partnered with big business, and almost never manifested the type of red-meat soak-the-rich attitude that had energized the Democrat left for decades. Not only did the Clintons win twice, but they explicitly, smugly, repeatedly lectured the Left that that was the only way Democrats could possibly win. The Left hates, hates, HATES being told that undiluted Leftism is a political loser. Therefore, their second project was to ensure the nomination of a genuine leftist for the Democrats.
History will show that Hillary Clinton was an eminently suitable candidate for the Left, but through a combination of shrewd analysis and execution by Obama's campaign and frankly astounding incompetence, over-confidence and lack of discipline by her own, all topped off by some mischievous and fickle big-money Hollywood backstabbing, the Hillary candidacy finished as nothing more than high-priced roadkill: the most inevitable nomination in modern times was aborted, and the far-left was energized in a way not seen since LBJ withdrew in 1968.
With both the media/political hive projects of 2008 successfully completed, the media/left effectively held a "checkmate" position since March -- no matter what happened, they would get their way in November. Of course, they would do everything to make sure their true choice was elected, but even a docile McCain "who knew his place" and would sign off on Democrat legislation would be acceptable to them. This understanding was what had conservatives so dispirited until August 29.
Enter Sarah Palin. The Palin choice represented an unthinkable occurrence to the hive: McCain had forgotten who his benefactors were, and was instead listening to Republicans. The energizing of the right and the demonizing by the now-wounded hive were almost physically equal-and-opposite effects. The Palin choice restored a strategic parity to the campaign, wherein McCain had a strong, viable shot at repeating Bush's previous electoral wins, and appeared to even open up a few Dem-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch -- his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it. He choked. And everyone forgot about Obama's horrendous response to Russia's Georgia invasion just a month earlier.
At that point, McCain had a month to restore his campaign, but being avalanched by paid Obama ads and the unpaid hive ads (remember the 2004 comment by Newsweek's Evan Thomas that the liberal media support is "worth maybe 15 points" in the polls), he would need to do it the unfamiliar way -- he'd need to argue for it, using information and persuasion, and punchy confrontations in the remaining debates. So how did he use those weeks?
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, McCain never mentioned Obama's "bitter clingers" comment
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's breaking his word to use public campaign financing (a McCain signature issue on which he had relentlessly beat up fellow Republicans!)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's plan to "bankrupt" the US coal industry. (and where was McCain's research staff on that San Francisco interview, which had been posted on the internet for 9 months before they noticed it?! Simply inexcusable.)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's "price of arugula" comment, a nice populist dig waiting to be made.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never cited the Clinton campaign's many tough arguments against Obama -- he could have just quoted Hillary!
That was McCain's (and our) downfall: You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn't a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain's tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, "most liberal senator," etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from "bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign," even though Hillary had...Why not?
It wouldn't have looked moderate enough.
So here we are, on the verge of the greatest accomplishment by the American Left since...Well, maybe ever. To them, the Clintons represented the Menshevik phase, while Obama represents the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. So, to quote the original Bolshevik himself, what is to be done?
First, the Republican Party needs to relentlessly reform its state electoral rules to ensure that those voters choosing the Republican candidate are genuine Republicans who have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart. This self-evident corrective of course should have been completed by early 2001. It wasn't, so here we are, with a self-admittedly weak-on-economics candidate trying to talk his way through a financial meltdown. It has been pathetic. Second, we as voters and activists need to re-examine the emphasis we place -- or don't place -- on communication skills. Conservatives need to rediscover the importance of communication and argument in our representatives. It is important to note that the only Republican in recent history who received any compliment from the media hive was Ronald Reagan, who they labeled "The Great Communicator." This was of course an apparent put-down, since they were writing off Reagan's successes as the result only of his hypnotic, inscrutable speeches. But that non-compliment-compliment was the hive's acknowledgment that Reagan had been effective against them.
Going back to Bush 41 in 1988, the Republican's have nominated a string of candidates who have been at best "poor" in communications. As the 1960's Left demographic takes its seats in the highest offices of the media, academia, entertainment, arts, "public policy" think tanks, polling organizations, even business and finance, we have to assume that every one of our initiatives will be maligned, marginalized and targeted for oblivion, while the most crackpot schemes of the Left will be given respectful and favorable commentary. In this environment, we simply cannot afford any more tongue-tied leaders who are unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.
The author blogs at jewishodysseus.blogspot.com.
By Jewish Odysseus
John McCain's incoherent, C- campaign did not deserve to win the Presidency this year. On the other hand, America doesn't deserve the punishment an Obama presidency is about to inflict upon us. Unfortunately, as a great Democrat once said: Life isn't fair.
John McCain, a genuine American war hero with a long, moderate-to-conservative voting record, has just been trounced by the callowest, least-accomplished, most far-left candidate in modern history. It is important to understand how we got here.
The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.
Conservatives must understand McCain's candidacy in its full context: McCain's nomination represented the joint successes of two independent and mutually hostile projects -- the Media/Political Left's project, and McCain's own.
McCain represented a shrewd strategic choice by the leftist "hive"-he nearly won the nomination in 2000, when he had half as many GOP votes in the GOP primaries as Bush did. That near-death experience should have been a wakeup call to our slumbering "state party activists" to vaccinate their parties against any future Democrat pollution/manipulation. But, unfathomably, they stayed in their comas, and, sure enough, in 2008 the GOP primary candidate who got the 2d most GOP votes became the GOP candidate. He repeatedly positioned himself as "the anti-Republican Republican." And now we wonder why he had trouble making Republican arguments while running as a Republican?
McCain's own project planned to draw massive numbers of "moderate" Democrats and independents over to the Republican side. He had been calculating and executing this strategy since at least as far back as the early 1990s (when he and John Kerry were allies in normalizing relations with Vietnam). McCain's uber-rationale was this: America wanted a moderate leader who would seek out support from the other side, a task which in theory should have been made much easier if the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate. Sure enough, the Democrats did. Unfortunately, the far-left candidate had two unusual, (but by March 2008 easily foreseeable) advantages: he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1) with which to savage McCain and glorify himself. This was a completely unprecedented situation, since by definition newcomers are generally unable to drum up the funds to compete with entrenched powerful pols. Obama in fact outspent McCain by a ratio heretofore reserved for shoo-in incumbent Presidents over mismatched challengers.
With these advantages, Obama was able to attack McCain's strategy directly, by in fact making McCain out to be the "risky," even "ideological" choice versus the reasonable, moderate, bi-partisan Obama. Result: McCain was unable to get independents or centrist Democrats not named Lieberman to support him (or at least get them known!) And, quite foreseeably, the media hive has been bursting with stories about "lifelong Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama."
Speaking of the hive, it needs to be said the 2008 election actually saw the culmination of two of their long-term projects, with McCain's nomination being the first. To a lot of media/political types, the Clintons represented a heart-breaking concession to evil capitalism. The Clintons gladly partnered with big business, and almost never manifested the type of red-meat soak-the-rich attitude that had energized the Democrat left for decades. Not only did the Clintons win twice, but they explicitly, smugly, repeatedly lectured the Left that that was the only way Democrats could possibly win. The Left hates, hates, HATES being told that undiluted Leftism is a political loser. Therefore, their second project was to ensure the nomination of a genuine leftist for the Democrats.
History will show that Hillary Clinton was an eminently suitable candidate for the Left, but through a combination of shrewd analysis and execution by Obama's campaign and frankly astounding incompetence, over-confidence and lack of discipline by her own, all topped off by some mischievous and fickle big-money Hollywood backstabbing, the Hillary candidacy finished as nothing more than high-priced roadkill: the most inevitable nomination in modern times was aborted, and the far-left was energized in a way not seen since LBJ withdrew in 1968.
With both the media/political hive projects of 2008 successfully completed, the media/left effectively held a "checkmate" position since March -- no matter what happened, they would get their way in November. Of course, they would do everything to make sure their true choice was elected, but even a docile McCain "who knew his place" and would sign off on Democrat legislation would be acceptable to them. This understanding was what had conservatives so dispirited until August 29.
Enter Sarah Palin. The Palin choice represented an unthinkable occurrence to the hive: McCain had forgotten who his benefactors were, and was instead listening to Republicans. The energizing of the right and the demonizing by the now-wounded hive were almost physically equal-and-opposite effects. The Palin choice restored a strategic parity to the campaign, wherein McCain had a strong, viable shot at repeating Bush's previous electoral wins, and appeared to even open up a few Dem-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch -- his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it. He choked. And everyone forgot about Obama's horrendous response to Russia's Georgia invasion just a month earlier.
At that point, McCain had a month to restore his campaign, but being avalanched by paid Obama ads and the unpaid hive ads (remember the 2004 comment by Newsweek's Evan Thomas that the liberal media support is "worth maybe 15 points" in the polls), he would need to do it the unfamiliar way -- he'd need to argue for it, using information and persuasion, and punchy confrontations in the remaining debates. So how did he use those weeks?
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, McCain never mentioned Obama's "bitter clingers" comment
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's breaking his word to use public campaign financing (a McCain signature issue on which he had relentlessly beat up fellow Republicans!)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's plan to "bankrupt" the US coal industry. (and where was McCain's research staff on that San Francisco interview, which had been posted on the internet for 9 months before they noticed it?! Simply inexcusable.)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's "price of arugula" comment, a nice populist dig waiting to be made.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never cited the Clinton campaign's many tough arguments against Obama -- he could have just quoted Hillary!
That was McCain's (and our) downfall: You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn't a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain's tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, "most liberal senator," etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from "bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign," even though Hillary had...Why not?
It wouldn't have looked moderate enough.
So here we are, on the verge of the greatest accomplishment by the American Left since...Well, maybe ever. To them, the Clintons represented the Menshevik phase, while Obama represents the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. So, to quote the original Bolshevik himself, what is to be done?
First, the Republican Party needs to relentlessly reform its state electoral rules to ensure that those voters choosing the Republican candidate are genuine Republicans who have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart. This self-evident corrective of course should have been completed by early 2001. It wasn't, so here we are, with a self-admittedly weak-on-economics candidate trying to talk his way through a financial meltdown. It has been pathetic. Second, we as voters and activists need to re-examine the emphasis we place -- or don't place -- on communication skills. Conservatives need to rediscover the importance of communication and argument in our representatives. It is important to note that the only Republican in recent history who received any compliment from the media hive was Ronald Reagan, who they labeled "The Great Communicator." This was of course an apparent put-down, since they were writing off Reagan's successes as the result only of his hypnotic, inscrutable speeches. But that non-compliment-compliment was the hive's acknowledgment that Reagan had been effective against them.
Going back to Bush 41 in 1988, the Republican's have nominated a string of candidates who have been at best "poor" in communications. As the 1960's Left demographic takes its seats in the highest offices of the media, academia, entertainment, arts, "public policy" think tanks, polling organizations, even business and finance, we have to assume that every one of our initiatives will be maligned, marginalized and targeted for oblivion, while the most crackpot schemes of the Left will be given respectful and favorable commentary. In this environment, we simply cannot afford any more tongue-tied leaders who are unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.
The author blogs at jewishodysseus.blogspot.com.
And So it Goes...
Well he we are at the dawn of a new chapter in American History. The question is; where will it take us? What does this election mean?
I would first like to recognize the brilliance of the Obama Campaign, as well as the milestone that has been reached in this stage of American History. Our first black President...perhaps the divide now will finally heal.
Where are we going? How will Obama govern? These are the questions we need to now ask ourselves.
Many of the Pundits on TV last night began discussing (once it became clear McCain had lost) whether this meant that the country had moved from Center Right, to Center Left. I think we are still a Center Right Country, but 58 million people decided that they wanted something different. Really, this election signifies the end of the old guard in Washington. The McCain's, Bidens, Franks, Reids, they are all on their way out the door. The dawn is setting on this period of American Politics, and to quote Kennedy, "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans".
This is in fact a new age for America, and the next generation of leaders is beginning to emerge across this great country. If will be a battle of news ideas versus deep-rooted tradition. Our morals will be challenged, even changed.
The America of the future faces tests not only of it's ever evolving world view, but a test of the values we have held dear for generations. The value of our grandparents. The incoming generation, to quote Palahniuk are "The middle children of history, no great wars, no great depressions. Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives." We live detached from the world around us even though we are connected like never before. We breath fiction into reality, because in our worlds they can be one and the same. We don't know real pain, merely inconvenience and disappointment. The great nation that our parents and grandparents built has sheltered us from the pain that exists outside our borders. Our only exposure being from the 24/7 news shows that change faster than we can blink; YouTube videos that we can turn off if they show something that we do not like, and go back to our world, our fantasies, where the pain cannot touch us.
In the 1930's and 1940's when this country was facing world wars and poverty this nation fought together, bleed together, held each others starving children in their arms together. They hoped together, they prayed together, and ultimately they found faith together. They got through the tough times and came out stronger, more unified. Changed.
My generation for the most part has lacked for nothing. We have either been provided for by our parents, or by the government. We have been taught either directly or indirectly that we are entitled to everything life has to offer whether we have worked for it our not.
That is the new battle in America. Will we allow ourselves to become complacent and reliant on the state, or will we bring in a new dawn in America that shows the world what can be achieved through hard work, determination, creativity, and unification?
If Obama does one thing as President I hope it is this; that he does work to unify the country. I hope he leads the fight in setting aside our differences so that we can work together to bring meaningful change to this country instead of pushing an ideology of the few, so that we can pull ourselves out of the rut of state reliance, entitlements, and again lead the world with our wealth, or innovation, and our might.
Time will tell. Obama is only the first step in what my generation has to offer this country. Will we rise to the challenge and shape a new future, or will we fall back on the past?
I would first like to recognize the brilliance of the Obama Campaign, as well as the milestone that has been reached in this stage of American History. Our first black President...perhaps the divide now will finally heal.
Where are we going? How will Obama govern? These are the questions we need to now ask ourselves.
Many of the Pundits on TV last night began discussing (once it became clear McCain had lost) whether this meant that the country had moved from Center Right, to Center Left. I think we are still a Center Right Country, but 58 million people decided that they wanted something different. Really, this election signifies the end of the old guard in Washington. The McCain's, Bidens, Franks, Reids, they are all on their way out the door. The dawn is setting on this period of American Politics, and to quote Kennedy, "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans".
This is in fact a new age for America, and the next generation of leaders is beginning to emerge across this great country. If will be a battle of news ideas versus deep-rooted tradition. Our morals will be challenged, even changed.
The America of the future faces tests not only of it's ever evolving world view, but a test of the values we have held dear for generations. The value of our grandparents. The incoming generation, to quote Palahniuk are "The middle children of history, no great wars, no great depressions. Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives." We live detached from the world around us even though we are connected like never before. We breath fiction into reality, because in our worlds they can be one and the same. We don't know real pain, merely inconvenience and disappointment. The great nation that our parents and grandparents built has sheltered us from the pain that exists outside our borders. Our only exposure being from the 24/7 news shows that change faster than we can blink; YouTube videos that we can turn off if they show something that we do not like, and go back to our world, our fantasies, where the pain cannot touch us.
In the 1930's and 1940's when this country was facing world wars and poverty this nation fought together, bleed together, held each others starving children in their arms together. They hoped together, they prayed together, and ultimately they found faith together. They got through the tough times and came out stronger, more unified. Changed.
My generation for the most part has lacked for nothing. We have either been provided for by our parents, or by the government. We have been taught either directly or indirectly that we are entitled to everything life has to offer whether we have worked for it our not.
That is the new battle in America. Will we allow ourselves to become complacent and reliant on the state, or will we bring in a new dawn in America that shows the world what can be achieved through hard work, determination, creativity, and unification?
If Obama does one thing as President I hope it is this; that he does work to unify the country. I hope he leads the fight in setting aside our differences so that we can work together to bring meaningful change to this country instead of pushing an ideology of the few, so that we can pull ourselves out of the rut of state reliance, entitlements, and again lead the world with our wealth, or innovation, and our might.
Time will tell. Obama is only the first step in what my generation has to offer this country. Will we rise to the challenge and shape a new future, or will we fall back on the past?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Coal Comment
Obama's comment about coal is very interesting and believe it or not could turn out to be devastating.
Why?
Pennsylvania. One of, if not the biggest, producers of coal in the world. And...it is a battle ground state. If McCain takes Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida it could very well cost Obama the election. McCain over the weekend has closed the gap and even passed Obama in quite a few of the battle ground states.
Real Clear Politics right now puts Obama with 278 EV's to McCains 132 EV's (Electoral Votes). With 128 EV's up for grabs. Seems dismal if you are a McCain Voter until you realize that Obama was up as high as 356 EV's earlier in the week, and Friday he had 311 in his corner.
One of the biggest things that any political strategist is going to look at in polling is "trending". If a candidate is trending up in the polls the campaign is happy, if they are trending down, that is bad, especially when it is consistent over a period of time. In politics a week is like 7 dog years.
In order for McCain to win he needs to take Fl,GA,OH,PA, and either NC or VA. He has closed the gap in NC and both Candidates are Polling at 47.8% each with 4.4% either undecided or voting for a third party. So that is a state to watch.
PA Polling is less promising with Obama enjoying a 51.3/43.7 lead. Which is why this coal remark could be so devastating. The Philly area is pretty much the only part of the state that is an Obama Strong-hold. But if Western PA comes out in droves, and Philly doesn't that could turn the tied in McCains favor, and make for a very long election night.
Also watch NH. It's only 4 electoral votes, but Obama is holding a fairly comfortable 10 point lead there. If NH ends up going to McCain, that could be very indicative of where some of the other battle grounds states, and former "Red States" might end up going. NH should be in first. So we may have a good idea if the "Bradly Effect" is in play after all.
Why?
Pennsylvania. One of, if not the biggest, producers of coal in the world. And...it is a battle ground state. If McCain takes Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida it could very well cost Obama the election. McCain over the weekend has closed the gap and even passed Obama in quite a few of the battle ground states.
Real Clear Politics right now puts Obama with 278 EV's to McCains 132 EV's (Electoral Votes). With 128 EV's up for grabs. Seems dismal if you are a McCain Voter until you realize that Obama was up as high as 356 EV's earlier in the week, and Friday he had 311 in his corner.
One of the biggest things that any political strategist is going to look at in polling is "trending". If a candidate is trending up in the polls the campaign is happy, if they are trending down, that is bad, especially when it is consistent over a period of time. In politics a week is like 7 dog years.
In order for McCain to win he needs to take Fl,GA,OH,PA, and either NC or VA. He has closed the gap in NC and both Candidates are Polling at 47.8% each with 4.4% either undecided or voting for a third party. So that is a state to watch.
PA Polling is less promising with Obama enjoying a 51.3/43.7 lead. Which is why this coal remark could be so devastating. The Philly area is pretty much the only part of the state that is an Obama Strong-hold. But if Western PA comes out in droves, and Philly doesn't that could turn the tied in McCains favor, and make for a very long election night.
Also watch NH. It's only 4 electoral votes, but Obama is holding a fairly comfortable 10 point lead there. If NH ends up going to McCain, that could be very indicative of where some of the other battle grounds states, and former "Red States" might end up going. NH should be in first. So we may have a good idea if the "Bradly Effect" is in play after all.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities
This is the second article in two days that I have read from MSM news sources criticizing Obama. One was on CNN where the reporting wrote a great article reminding us that the reason Obama was able to purchase 30 minutes or air time on 3 networks was because he has a lot of cash. Something he would not have had he stuck to his promise of excepting public financing for his campaign. It was also pointed out that the attacks from the 527 groups (his reason for bowing out of Public Funding) never materialized.
Maybe it is to little to late, but hey....here's to hoping right?
Now this article below from the AP ripping apart said 30 minute add for lacking any substantive facts.
-Mike
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities
By CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Maybe it is to little to late, but hey....here's to hoping right?
Now this article below from the AP ripping apart said 30 minute add for lacking any substantive facts.
-Mike
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities
By CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Hey Stupid!
It's been a while since I have personally written anything for this blog. The way new information is changing and updating so rapidly; I as a working class individual have had little time to sit and formulate my thoughts the way I would like. Besides, the information I have been posting was written by individuals with far more knowledge and skill than yours truly.
But I would like to take a moment to sit back; to pause, and have a "Come to Jesus" moment here regarding the Presidential Election that is less than 7 days away.
These are no doubt trying times in our country. Basically anything that could have gone wrong, is going wrong, and it is doing it all at once. People are struggling. I'm struggling, you may be struggling, many of our neighbors and relatives are struggling. In uncertain times the tendency in all of us is to look for help. To find a solution. However in an age where ideology is the cornerstone of our Main Stream Media and hard facts are a thing of the past, it becomes increasingly difficult to put our fingers on the source of the problem.
Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism is what built this country into the superpower that it is today. Greedy individuals is what put us in this position. Greedy Capitalists, Stupid Consumers, and government officials who are in bead with both of them.
Politicians lie to us and put the blame on other parties, other companies; anyone but themselves. The media reinforces those lies, because the two have been in bed together for so long that for the media to suddenly report facts would be in essence, them admitting that they have been unrepentant whores for Washington all these years. Specifically they have been whores for the left wing agenda.
So naturally when we are faced with this current crisis of the economy, this crisis of the fabric of our society, we are on the lookout for the fix, the godsend. And the media presented him to us as Barak Obama, the Messiah, the patriarch of the middle class. The One. And it looks like we have bought the product, unseen, unproven, and without a warranty.
People don't think much for themselves anymore. They rely on the media to tell them their opinions. We watch a debate on television, and then we rely on the CNN pundits to tell us what was actually said. We get our information from headlines without actually reading the meat of the article. We are becoming a society of sheeple, a dumbed down culture that is spoon feed it's new set of progressive morals by a bunch of talking heads positioned on the bright box centered in every home in America. We don't think. We think we think, but we don't. We think that because we can recite the talking points of every campaign, we are well informed of the issues. We think that because we read the NYT or the Huffington Post that we are well informed; because we read, regardless of the one sidedness. And the more we are spoon-feed the misinformation, or the sterilized-approved-for-the-masses information, the more we alter our senses. The more we accept the idea that we are in fact victims of a capitalistic machine.
"Our faults are not our own, they were forced upon us by a vile CEO of some company. I did not get ahead in life because I didn't work hard enough, but because I was held back by another force that exists in a high rise building somewhere on Wall Street. It was not my fault that I declared bankruptcy because I couldn't pay my 100% mortgage with a piggy-back equity loan, or my 30,000 dollar credit card bills that I racked up buying my new big-screen tv, furniture, home entertainment gallor. It's not my fault, the bank offered me the credit, they said I could afford it, so if they said it, I must be able to. I didn't think I needed to read the contract I signed that said that my interest rate was adjustable so that my payments might actually go up. I didn't bother trying to correct my credit, or debt problems in the three window that I head before the rate changed so I could refinance into a fixed rate mortgage. Those details don't concern me."
Oh yes they do, had you been intelligent enough for analytical thought, you would have known that.
Just once I want to hear someone say that they support Obama even though he is a socialist. At least they admit that, and by admitting that they are showing that they are at least informed of the facts, and not some mindless couch potato who gets all of his "facts" from CBS news evening edition.
To all those who say that Obama is not a Socialist...you are stupid, and mindless, and deserve what you get because you were either to blind, to illiterate, or just to damn lazy to go out and get the facts for yourselves. To say that he is not a socialists only proves that you never even bothered to go out and learn what socialism is.
But don't worry, Obama likes lazy. In fact he will reward lazy with a monthly check from the state, posted directly into your government bank account so you won't even need to leave your couch and your TV to go cash it. And with a little luck...Obama thinks...You will teach your children to live the same way so that generation after generation will continue to be controlled and suppressed and spoon feed by the state. Because his goal is to take away the pain of having to try and succeed in an evil capitalists society, and replace said society with a Communist Utopia.
Oh the bliss.
This is not our grandparents America. Our grandparents worked for everything they had. Some of them get filthy rich, some of them didn't. But they never blamed anyone, they never demanded that someone who had more than they did, give them a peace of the pie. They excepted the fact that some people were just lucky, got a good break, they even celebrated for them. They did not try to regulate them to try and make it harder for the next guy to get ahead.
Not everyone is going to be monetarily rich. If that happened there would not be anyone left to do the manual work. But there are plenty of other forms of riches to experience in life, and we as Americans have forgotten most of them.
The richness of accomplishing a difficult task.
But I would like to take a moment to sit back; to pause, and have a "Come to Jesus" moment here regarding the Presidential Election that is less than 7 days away.
These are no doubt trying times in our country. Basically anything that could have gone wrong, is going wrong, and it is doing it all at once. People are struggling. I'm struggling, you may be struggling, many of our neighbors and relatives are struggling. In uncertain times the tendency in all of us is to look for help. To find a solution. However in an age where ideology is the cornerstone of our Main Stream Media and hard facts are a thing of the past, it becomes increasingly difficult to put our fingers on the source of the problem.
Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism is what built this country into the superpower that it is today. Greedy individuals is what put us in this position. Greedy Capitalists, Stupid Consumers, and government officials who are in bead with both of them.
Politicians lie to us and put the blame on other parties, other companies; anyone but themselves. The media reinforces those lies, because the two have been in bed together for so long that for the media to suddenly report facts would be in essence, them admitting that they have been unrepentant whores for Washington all these years. Specifically they have been whores for the left wing agenda.
So naturally when we are faced with this current crisis of the economy, this crisis of the fabric of our society, we are on the lookout for the fix, the godsend. And the media presented him to us as Barak Obama, the Messiah, the patriarch of the middle class. The One. And it looks like we have bought the product, unseen, unproven, and without a warranty.
People don't think much for themselves anymore. They rely on the media to tell them their opinions. We watch a debate on television, and then we rely on the CNN pundits to tell us what was actually said. We get our information from headlines without actually reading the meat of the article. We are becoming a society of sheeple, a dumbed down culture that is spoon feed it's new set of progressive morals by a bunch of talking heads positioned on the bright box centered in every home in America. We don't think. We think we think, but we don't. We think that because we can recite the talking points of every campaign, we are well informed of the issues. We think that because we read the NYT or the Huffington Post that we are well informed; because we read, regardless of the one sidedness. And the more we are spoon-feed the misinformation, or the sterilized-approved-for-the-masses information, the more we alter our senses. The more we accept the idea that we are in fact victims of a capitalistic machine.
"Our faults are not our own, they were forced upon us by a vile CEO of some company. I did not get ahead in life because I didn't work hard enough, but because I was held back by another force that exists in a high rise building somewhere on Wall Street. It was not my fault that I declared bankruptcy because I couldn't pay my 100% mortgage with a piggy-back equity loan, or my 30,000 dollar credit card bills that I racked up buying my new big-screen tv, furniture, home entertainment gallor. It's not my fault, the bank offered me the credit, they said I could afford it, so if they said it, I must be able to. I didn't think I needed to read the contract I signed that said that my interest rate was adjustable so that my payments might actually go up. I didn't bother trying to correct my credit, or debt problems in the three window that I head before the rate changed so I could refinance into a fixed rate mortgage. Those details don't concern me."
Oh yes they do, had you been intelligent enough for analytical thought, you would have known that.
Just once I want to hear someone say that they support Obama even though he is a socialist. At least they admit that, and by admitting that they are showing that they are at least informed of the facts, and not some mindless couch potato who gets all of his "facts" from CBS news evening edition.
To all those who say that Obama is not a Socialist...you are stupid, and mindless, and deserve what you get because you were either to blind, to illiterate, or just to damn lazy to go out and get the facts for yourselves. To say that he is not a socialists only proves that you never even bothered to go out and learn what socialism is.
But don't worry, Obama likes lazy. In fact he will reward lazy with a monthly check from the state, posted directly into your government bank account so you won't even need to leave your couch and your TV to go cash it. And with a little luck...Obama thinks...You will teach your children to live the same way so that generation after generation will continue to be controlled and suppressed and spoon feed by the state. Because his goal is to take away the pain of having to try and succeed in an evil capitalists society, and replace said society with a Communist Utopia.
Oh the bliss.
This is not our grandparents America. Our grandparents worked for everything they had. Some of them get filthy rich, some of them didn't. But they never blamed anyone, they never demanded that someone who had more than they did, give them a peace of the pie. They excepted the fact that some people were just lucky, got a good break, they even celebrated for them. They did not try to regulate them to try and make it harder for the next guy to get ahead.
Not everyone is going to be monetarily rich. If that happened there would not be anyone left to do the manual work. But there are plenty of other forms of riches to experience in life, and we as Americans have forgotten most of them.
The richness of accomplishing a difficult task.
Planting flowers in your very own garden that you worked hard to get, even if it is only the size of a bathtub.
The richness of seeing your child finally take off on that two-wheel bike after months of skinned knees and broken side view mirrors from bike into car collisions.
The richness of that first dance recital, or that first soccer game that looks more like an ant colony attacking a half eaten apple.
The richness of teaching your children that there is no substitute for hard work, and the sense of accomplishment when they grow up and actively contribute to society.
Helping others less fortunate...seeing the smile on their faces when they receive a gift as simple as kindness.
Just being alive and healthy can be the richest feeling of all for many.
We need to stop and appreciate the everyday things around us. To pause for a moment or two and realize what are real priorities should be. How many problems from yesterday, today, and tomorrow would have been, could have been, solved, had we just remembered that?
Think about it...
The richness of seeing your child finally take off on that two-wheel bike after months of skinned knees and broken side view mirrors from bike into car collisions.
The richness of that first dance recital, or that first soccer game that looks more like an ant colony attacking a half eaten apple.
The richness of teaching your children that there is no substitute for hard work, and the sense of accomplishment when they grow up and actively contribute to society.
Helping others less fortunate...seeing the smile on their faces when they receive a gift as simple as kindness.
Just being alive and healthy can be the richest feeling of all for many.
We need to stop and appreciate the everyday things around us. To pause for a moment or two and realize what are real priorities should be. How many problems from yesterday, today, and tomorrow would have been, could have been, solved, had we just remembered that?
Think about it...
The Obama Temptation
By Mark Levin, National Review
I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.
But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.
Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.
The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.
I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.
But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.
Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.
The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.
Obama's Education Groups Funded Controversial Organizations
Fox News
The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows.
In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.
The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear -- it is simply listed as "for special purposes" in the group's IRS tax form.
It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground.
Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network -- which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers' and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society -- and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic.
The Woods Fund did not respond to questions about the funding.
When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself "a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students," it gave to some of the same groups -- partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.
It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg's archived Web site, are "to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing."
But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge:
"Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us," one page of the application reads.
Click here to see the application.
Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found the collaborative's original application when going through Annenberg's archives.
Asked to comment, Yvonne Williams-Kinnison, executive director of the collaborative's parent group, the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore said, "I don't want to put more fuel on the fire. You can call us back after the election.... I don't want to compromise the position."
Late Afrocentrist scholars Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard were both invited to give SSAVC teachers a training session, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge noted in a report, adding that the "consciousness raising session ... received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey session."
But Carruthers has been a controversial figure because of inflammatory statements he made in writing.
"The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy," Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, "Intellectual Warfare." "Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture."
In the book, he compared the process of blacks assimilating into American culture with rape.
"We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist," Carruthers said.
Hilliard has come under fire for advocating what many consider an extreme Afrocentric curriculum.
He selected the articles for the "African-American Baseline Essays" published in 1987 and first used in the Portland, Ore., school district. The essays have been criticized for claiming, among other things, that ancient Egyptians were the first to discover manned flight and the theory of evolution.
An Obama spokesman called investigation of these ties "pathetic."
"This is another pathetic attempt by FOX News to distract voters from the economic challenges facing this nation by patching together tenuous links to smear Barack Obama," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.
"The Annenberg Challenge was a bipartisan organization dedicated to improving the performance of students and teachers in Chicago Public Schools that was funded by a Republican philanthropist who was friends with President Reagan and launched by Republican Gov. Jim Edgar."
But Kurtz says those founders of the Annenberg Challenge would not have known the details about to whom their Chicago office -- one of 18 around the country -- was giving money.
"If you read Ayers' proposal to Annenberg, it doesn't sound radical. But if you actually read Ayers' education writings, they are very radical indeed," Kurtz said. "Ayers, like so many other savvy professors, knows enough not to state his actual views frankly when applying for money. But you can find the truth in his writings."
The controversial donations make up only a small portion of the overall amount doled out by the Annenberg and Woods funds. The Woods Fund gave over $3.5 million to 115 different groups in 2001, and the Annenberg Chellenge dispensed nearly $11 million to 63 groups at its height in 1999.
Most of the groups are mainstream and well respected, ranging from the Jazz Institute of Chicago to the Successful Schools Project.
But Kurtz says that this should not obscure what he describes as controversial donations.
"If John McCain had given to white supremacist groups and people said, 'Hey, the majority of funding didn't go to supremacist groups' -- that wouldn't even cut the ice," Kurtz said.
"I feel certain [Obama] knew about these radical groups," Kurtz said. "We know that he read the applications because he made statements about the quality of proposals."
The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows.
In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.
The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear -- it is simply listed as "for special purposes" in the group's IRS tax form.
It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground.
Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network -- which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers' and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society -- and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic.
The Woods Fund did not respond to questions about the funding.
When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself "a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students," it gave to some of the same groups -- partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.
It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg's archived Web site, are "to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing."
But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge:
"Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us," one page of the application reads.
Click here to see the application.
Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found the collaborative's original application when going through Annenberg's archives.
Asked to comment, Yvonne Williams-Kinnison, executive director of the collaborative's parent group, the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore said, "I don't want to put more fuel on the fire. You can call us back after the election.... I don't want to compromise the position."
Late Afrocentrist scholars Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard were both invited to give SSAVC teachers a training session, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge noted in a report, adding that the "consciousness raising session ... received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey session."
But Carruthers has been a controversial figure because of inflammatory statements he made in writing.
"The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy," Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, "Intellectual Warfare." "Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture."
In the book, he compared the process of blacks assimilating into American culture with rape.
"We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist," Carruthers said.
Hilliard has come under fire for advocating what many consider an extreme Afrocentric curriculum.
He selected the articles for the "African-American Baseline Essays" published in 1987 and first used in the Portland, Ore., school district. The essays have been criticized for claiming, among other things, that ancient Egyptians were the first to discover manned flight and the theory of evolution.
An Obama spokesman called investigation of these ties "pathetic."
"This is another pathetic attempt by FOX News to distract voters from the economic challenges facing this nation by patching together tenuous links to smear Barack Obama," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.
"The Annenberg Challenge was a bipartisan organization dedicated to improving the performance of students and teachers in Chicago Public Schools that was funded by a Republican philanthropist who was friends with President Reagan and launched by Republican Gov. Jim Edgar."
But Kurtz says those founders of the Annenberg Challenge would not have known the details about to whom their Chicago office -- one of 18 around the country -- was giving money.
"If you read Ayers' proposal to Annenberg, it doesn't sound radical. But if you actually read Ayers' education writings, they are very radical indeed," Kurtz said. "Ayers, like so many other savvy professors, knows enough not to state his actual views frankly when applying for money. But you can find the truth in his writings."
The controversial donations make up only a small portion of the overall amount doled out by the Annenberg and Woods funds. The Woods Fund gave over $3.5 million to 115 different groups in 2001, and the Annenberg Chellenge dispensed nearly $11 million to 63 groups at its height in 1999.
Most of the groups are mainstream and well respected, ranging from the Jazz Institute of Chicago to the Successful Schools Project.
But Kurtz says that this should not obscure what he describes as controversial donations.
"If John McCain had given to white supremacist groups and people said, 'Hey, the majority of funding didn't go to supremacist groups' -- that wouldn't even cut the ice," Kurtz said.
"I feel certain [Obama] knew about these radical groups," Kurtz said. "We know that he read the applications because he made statements about the quality of proposals."
Monday, October 27, 2008
Philidelphia Judge Dimisses Obama Lawsuit
From Americas Right.com
The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.
The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.
Various accounts, details and ambiguities from
Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a
natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff
cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television
news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude
that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or
through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by
relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there
with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have
the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen
Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered
up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s
cover-up.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
95 % of Americans will get a Tax Break...
That's what Obama says anyway. Here is the problem anyway; only 62% of Americans actually pay taxes. So that means 38% of Americans will get a tax return who never even payed any taxes to begion with.
Wealth Distribution is what it is....
Obama and Socialism (Part 2)
American Thinker
For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.
Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.
The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.
In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.
It helps to begin by understanding what socialism is not. It isn't Liberalism and it isn't mere Leftism. Frankly, those terms (and their opposites) should be jettisoned entirely, because they have become too antiquated to describe 21st Century politics. The political designations of Left and Right date back to the French Revolution, when Revolutionaries sat on the Left side of the French Parliament, and the anti-Revolutionaries sat on the Right. Terms from the internal geography of the French parliament as the ancient regime crumbled are striking inapposite today.
Likewise, the terms Liberal and Conservative date back to Victorian England, when Liberals were pushing vast social reforms, such as the end of child labor, while Conservatives were all for maintaining a deeply hierarchical status quo. Considering that modern "liberals" are seeking a return to 20th Century socialism, those phrases too scarcely seem like apt descriptors.
If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism." "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state. The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.
And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama: Socialism.
Although one can trace socialist ideas back to the French Revolution (and even before), socialism's true naissance is the 19th Century, when various utopian dreamers envisioned a class-free society in which everyone shared equally in what the socialist utopians firmly believed was a finite economic pie. That is, they did not conceive of the possibility of economic growth. Instead, they believed that, forever and ever, there would only be so many riches and resources to go around.
The original utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality. Instead, they relied on each enlightened individual's moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end. All of them failed. (For many of us, the most famous would be the Transcendentalist experiment in Concord, Massachusetts, which almost saw poor Louisa May Alcott starve to death as a child.)
It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.
Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas. Herewith some examples:
My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.
Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state. Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state. Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.
We all know what life was like in this Nazi socialist state. Citizens immediately lost the right to bear arms; thought crimes were punished with imprisonment and death; children were indoctrinated into giving their allegiance to the state, not the family; the government dictated the way in which people could live their day-to-day lives; and people who appeared to be outliers to the harmony of the conscienceless government entity (gays, mentally ill-people, physically handicapped people, Jews, gypsies) were dehumanized and eventually slaughtered.
And here's something important for you to realize as you think about what happened in that socialist state. While a core group of people, Hitler included, undoubtedly envisioned these extremes as their initial goals, most didn't. They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world. It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand.
Here's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In my liberal days in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very popular to downplay what was going on in the USSR and, instead, chalk up fear of the Soviets to the foul remnants of McCarthyism. This was extreme intellectual dishonesty on our part. The fact is that life in the USSR was always horrible.
From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin. Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens. Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly. Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.
I've got another example for you: the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.
Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.
British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.
The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)
Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.
Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Fanny and Freddy's Investment in Lawmakers
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer
When the federal government announced two months ago that it would prop up mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, CRP looked at how much money members of Congress had collected since 1989 from the companies. On Sunday the government completely took over the two government-sponsored enterprises, and we've returned to our data to bring you the updates, this time providing a list of all 354 lawmakers who have gotten money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in July we posted the top 25). These totals are based on data released electronically from the FEC on Sept. 2 and include contributions to lawmakers' leadership PACs and candidate committees from the floundering companies' PACs and employees. Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that. This week we also wrote about how much money lawmakers had invested of their own money in the companies last year--a total of up to $1.7 million.
All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008.
Mikes Note: Barak Obama is number two on this list, and has only been in the Senate for 4 years.
See the Complete list of who recieved Money
When the federal government announced two months ago that it would prop up mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, CRP looked at how much money members of Congress had collected since 1989 from the companies. On Sunday the government completely took over the two government-sponsored enterprises, and we've returned to our data to bring you the updates, this time providing a list of all 354 lawmakers who have gotten money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in July we posted the top 25). These totals are based on data released electronically from the FEC on Sept. 2 and include contributions to lawmakers' leadership PACs and candidate committees from the floundering companies' PACs and employees. Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that. This week we also wrote about how much money lawmakers had invested of their own money in the companies last year--a total of up to $1.7 million.
All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008.
Mikes Note: Barak Obama is number two on this list, and has only been in the Senate for 4 years.
See the Complete list of who recieved Money
Palin VS Biden
This the debate was far more entertaing to watch then the McCain/Obama debate.
I think Sarah did a great job of holding her own. It bothered me that she dodged a few questions, but I think the standards were higher for her. What candidate doesn't dodge questions in a debate? Usually the questions is dodged because they don't want to answer them. In Sarah's case I think it was because she really didn't know.
That's not a bad thing, it just means she has spent 35 years debating in the Senate like Biden has.
Overall I think she did a great job appealing to her base, and maybe some independant, undecided voters. I doubt that she changed any minds though. But at this point in the game if you have made up your mind you probably are not going to change it. This is a passionate election. Right now both sides are after the undecided Indy voters.
I think Sarah did a great job of holding her own. It bothered me that she dodged a few questions, but I think the standards were higher for her. What candidate doesn't dodge questions in a debate? Usually the questions is dodged because they don't want to answer them. In Sarah's case I think it was because she really didn't know.
That's not a bad thing, it just means she has spent 35 years debating in the Senate like Biden has.
Overall I think she did a great job appealing to her base, and maybe some independant, undecided voters. I doubt that she changed any minds though. But at this point in the game if you have made up your mind you probably are not going to change it. This is a passionate election. Right now both sides are after the undecided Indy voters.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
McCain Pulling out of Michigan
McCain had hoped to make it into a battle ground state, but has fallen sharply behind in the polls there. All TV adds and mailing will be dropped and most of the campaign staff will be relocated to more competitive states.
Obama pulled out of North Dakota in late September.
Obama pulled out of North Dakota in late September.
451 Pages of Pork
And John McCain voted for them. So much for vetoing any bill that had earmarks in them and making the person who put them in there "famous".
I think John McCain may have lost my vote. I am tempted to right in Ron Paul next to every person on the Ballot who voted in favor of this bill.
Here are some of the earmarks placed in the bill:
New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
Wooden arrows, Race Tracks, and Wool research?! That's where the problems with our economy started?
Please...
I think John McCain may have lost my vote. I am tempted to right in Ron Paul next to every person on the Ballot who voted in favor of this bill.
Here are some of the earmarks placed in the bill:
New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
Wooden arrows, Race Tracks, and Wool research?! That's where the problems with our economy started?
Please...
Friday, August 15, 2008
Mcain Fundrasing/Obama Miscalculation?
John McCain raised 27 million dollars in July, so he has about 21 million dollars spend going into August. The beauty of this is; McCain is excepting public financing. This means that after he formally accepts the Republican nomination in September he can only spend the 84 Million allocated to him out of the public funds. So essentially he is going to have to drain his bank account between now and his nomination. Have you noticed the McCain adds during the Olympics?
Obama on the other hand got cocky, and opted out of public funding "because the system is broken". Whatever that means. Basically he thinks he is going to be able to raise another 200 million or so. I tend to doubt that. Most of his big money donors have maxed out their 2300 dollar limit buy now. The economy sucks, and let's not forget it's the republicans who are the rich ones, not the democrats. Right? Right??
Obama on the other hand got cocky, and opted out of public funding "because the system is broken". Whatever that means. Basically he thinks he is going to be able to raise another 200 million or so. I tend to doubt that. Most of his big money donors have maxed out their 2300 dollar limit buy now. The economy sucks, and let's not forget it's the republicans who are the rich ones, not the democrats. Right? Right??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
