Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Something is desperately wrong

For quite some time, I ignored those who said Obama might not be a natural born citizen of the U.S. It sounded a little off the deep end, like the desperate ramblings of folks who operate a little too close to the edge of reality.

Here are the facts pertaining to Obama's birth certificate, as I understand them. I ask that you try to read the links cited below with an open mind.

The copies of the birth certificate posted on the net to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii were fakes. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/such-a-liar-oba.html

Obama refused to turn over the documentation that would prove where he was born and whether or not he renounced his citizenship. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

He has chosen to visit his ailing grandmother in Hawaii after she was released from the hospital but on the same day that a suit was filed to obtain Obama's birth records. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/obama-goes-to-hawaii/

Why is this a big deal? Because the Constitution states you have to be a natural-born U.S. citizen to become President. What does Obama have to do to make this all go away? Just release the documents requested by Philip Berg and Andy Martin in their suits. So, the question is, what does Obama have to hide?

The answer could have something to do with Indonesia. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/obama-is-indonesian-is-anyone-investigating/

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Joe knows taxes

The democrats are for the little guy, so long as he doesn't do too well, then he's fair game.

Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'

October 16, 2008 2:46 AM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports:

John McCain may have found a blue-collar face to help him argue that no American -- not even the richest 5 percent -- should pay higher taxes.

"Joe The Plumber" has weighed in on Wednesday's presidential debate and he says that Barack Obama's tax plan "infuriates me."

"To be honest with you, that infuriates me," plumber Joe Wurzelbacher told Nightline's Terry Moran. "It's not right for someone to decide you made too much---that you've done too good and now we're going to take some of it back."

"That's just completely wrong," he added.

Wurzelbacher, who says no one from the McCain campaign got in touch with him before Wednesday, was a centerpiece of the third and final presidential debate.

The plumber's brush with fame began on Sunday when he confronted Barack Obama outside of Toledo, Ohio. Wurzelbacher challenged the Democratic candidate on his plan to raise taxes on the top five percent of earners -- a policy which would, by the Obama campaign's own estimation, mean higher taxes for 184,000 small businesses.

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year," Wurzelbacher told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Under Obama's plan, individuals making more than $200,000 per year, or couples making more than $250,000 per year, would pay higher taxes on income, capital gains, and dividends. Starting ten years from now, Obama supports an additional 2-4 percent tax on individual income above $250,000 per year to help shore up the Social Security system.

To evaluate how Wurzelbacher and his wife would fare under Obama, one would need to know his wife's income (if any) plus what the plumber meant when he told Obama that the company he is getting ready to buy "makes" $250,000 - $280,000 per year.

Was Wurzelbacher referring to gross revenue or net profits?

Obama's higher taxes on small businesses would be leveled against those whose net profits exceed $250,000 per year, according to Obama's campaign.

While at least 184,000 small businesses would face higher taxes under Obama, the Illinois Democrat is also proposing a series of tax credits that could aid small businesses.

Obama has proposed a $3,000 tax credit for every new job that companies create in the United States over the next two years, a small business health tax credit on up to 50 percent of employee premiums paid by employers, and elimination of capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up businesses.

Regardless of how Wurzelbacher would personally fare under the candidates' plans, he suggested to ABC News' Nightline that he is against all forms of progressive taxation.

During his telephone interview with ABC News, the Ohio plumber argued that the government should not tax some more than others and argued that this principle should extend not only to Americans at his income-level but also to the world's richest man.

"I don't like it," said Wurzelbacher. "You know, me or -- you know, Bill Gates, I don't care who you are. If you worked for it, if it was your idea, and you implemented it, it's not right for someone to decide you made too much."

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Is this really surprising?

If this is true, we better start getting the word out, pronto.


After thinking about it for a minute, however, I don't think this information would dissuade many hard core Obama-ites. There are too many of them that think the same way he does and, for the rest, they tend to subscribe to a "nothing can be worse than the last eight years" mentality. Little do they know.

Obama's getting desperate

Yet more proof that Obama and his bunch aren't so sure they really have this election in the bag.

From James Hibbard's The Live Feed

Exclusive: Obama buys half-hour of network primetime

83178871 Barack Obama has purchased a half-hour of airtime on CBS, sources confirm.

The Obama campaign will air a half-hour primetime special on Wednesday, Oct. 29, at 8 p.m.

Sources say the Obama camp is also in talks with NBC and Fox. NBC is said to be very near a deal. With Fox, the matter is likely to remain uncertain as the time period could conflict with Game 6 of the World Series.

A CBS spokesperson declined comment. The buy will push comedy "The New Adventures of Old Christine" to 8:30 p.m. and pre-empt "Gary Unmarried." The buy is being placed by Washington-based ad firm GMMB.

The direct purchase of such a large block of national airtime right before an election used to be more commonplace before campaigns began to focus their end game strategies exclusively on battleground states. Such a move is not without precedent in modern presidential politics, however -- Ross Perot did a similar purchase in 1992.

This year has seen the first time in many years that presidential campaigns have bought national broadcast TV advertisements. In the past 12 years, much of the billions of dollars in political advertising spent has gone to local TV stations in battleground states. While some money has gone to national cable channels, the thinking has always been that it would be more prudent to target battleground states' voters instead of addressing the entire nation, including states that reliably vote for one party or another.

The first instance was in August, when Obama spent $5 million and McCain spent $6 million, each to advertise in NBC's coverage of the Summer Olympics from Beijing. The networks' evening newscasts have also seen campaign ads for the first time in years. Before that, the last nationally broadcast campaign ad ran in the 1996 campaign.

The Obama campaign earlier this year opted out of the public financing system, which meant that it was free to raise and spend as much as it could. It has, in states like Michigan, outspent the publicly financed McCain campaign by a margin of at least 3-to-1.

It's not unprecedented for a candidate to buy longform broadcast network time, though it hasn't happened in a while. In October 1992, Perot drew audiences of 16.5 million and 10.5 million for 30-minute lectures/campaign ad aimed at voters. But in Perot's second run in 1996, the candidate was rebuffed by the Big Four networks in an attempt to sell airtime. The FCC backed the networks in denying Perot airtime, saying that they acted legally in refusing.

Earlier this year, the Hillary Clinton campaign bought time on the Hallmark Channel, a nearly fully distributed cable channel, for a town-hall meeting before Super Tuesday.

Obama has run many 30-second spots across the country, and one two-minute spot that was particularly effective among experts where Obama directly faced the camera and spoke to viewers about being able to feel their economic pain.

While broadcast networks in the past have given presidential candidates free time for campaign statements in the final days before the election, those were done in the news programs -- outside the expensive primetime hours.

From the start, Obama has been more focused on primetime than any other Presidential candidate. Defying conventional wisdom to have political ads clustered around local news, during the primary season the Obama campaign poured 40% of its TV cash in primetime, compared with about 18% for Clinton.

More details to come ...

-- Nellie Andreeva and Paul J. Gough contributed to this report

ACORNS, nuts, yadda-yadda

Ya know, I think sufficient conservative turn out could overcome the usual democrat voter fraud, but this is getting ridiculous.




Once again, why are the dems going to all this trouble if their man is a shoe-in for the big chair in the Oval Office? Liberals never trust the people to vote the right way.

as usual, the dems want it both ways

And, as usual, Rush is right.

The Obama campaign gets its knickers in a twist because McCain called his opponent "that one" in their most recent debate. And they're really pissed off and start launching legal investigations when people use Obama's full name.

Please find an opinion and stick with it! Then again, these are Obama-ites we're talking about.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Legally sanctioned election fraud

What a load of crap. The Ohio secretary of state (a democrat) changed the election laws to work in the dems favor, i.e., opening wide the door for voter fraud and election shenanigans.

Ohio Homeless Driven to Polls to Vote Obama

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

CLEVELAND — Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.

The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.

Republicans have argued that the window could lead to widespread voter fraud because officials wouldn't have an opportunity to verify registration information before ballots were cast.

Among the volunteers were Yori Stadlin and Vivian Lehrer of the Upper West Side, who got married last week and decided to spend their honeymoon shepherding voters to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

Early today, Stadlin's van picked up William Woods, 59, at the soup kitchen of the Bishop Cosgrove Center.

"I never voted before," Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. "Without this service, I would have had no way to get here."

Republicans, ever wonder what the Democrats really think of you (as if there was really any doubt)?

Barney Frank, democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says the GOP is appealing to the racists who comprise its base by criticizing the dems' handling of the housing crisis.

Articles like the one below are educational. I get to find out what congressional democrats really think of me and we get to see that the dems accept no responsibility for promoting policies which forced lending institutions to make home loans to folks who really couldn't afford them.

So, let me see. Frank thinks I'm a racist. Based on Biden's comments in the democrat debates, I'm not mentally qualified to own a gun, since I'm fond of my AR-15. Obama believes that I'm bitterly clinging to my religion and guns.

Yes, friends, these are definitely the folks I want in D.C. representing my interests. Someone has to protect me from myself, since I'm way too much of a neandertal to handle that on my own.

Frank says GOP housing attacks racially motivated
Oct 6 08:12 PM US/Eastern
AP Political Writer

Frank: Bailout Law Not The Cause Of Dow Plunge

BOSTON (AP) - Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated.

The Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act.

He said that blame is misplaced, because those loans are issued by regulated institutions, while far more foreclosures were triggered by high-cost loans made by unregulated entities.

"They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

Frank also dismissed charges the Democrats failed on their own or blocked Republican efforts to rein in the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The federal government recently took control of both entities.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called Frank's remarks "a lame, desperate attempt to divert Americans' attention away from the Democratic party's obstruction of reforms that would have reined in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and helped our nation avoid this economic crisis."

"Congressman Frank should retract his ridiculous statements and start taking responsibility for the role he and other top Democrats played in putting Main Street Americans in this mess," Boehner said.

Frank said Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years and passed no regulation, while Democrats passed a Bush administration Fannie and Freddie regulation package since gaining control of the House and Senate in January 1997.

"If I could have stopped a Republican bill during the Bush years, I would have started with the war in Iraq. Then I would have gone to the Patriot Act. Then I would have gone on to the hundreds of millions in tax cuts," said Frank, to applause from the audience.

The longtime congressman is being challenged this fall by both Republican and independent candidates. He has been criticized in his liberal district for being one of the leaders of congressional efforts last week to win approval of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan.

Saturday, October 04, 2008

McCain lets Palin off the leash

Someone in McCain's campaign told Sarah Palin to go get 'em. That's all the prompting she needed.

Read paragraph eight first. The lead should be "Unrepentant Terrorist Hosts Event for Obama." More unbiased coverage from the MSM.


Friday, October 03, 2008

We're in a world of hurt

Let's face it, if you're a conservative looking for a candidate in this election, you're screwed.

McCain helped curtail some of our First Amendment rights with his campaign finance reform bill. He wants to shut down Gitmo. He thinks the rights of private citizens to sell firearms to each other should be infringed, i.e., closing the so-called gun show loophole. He derailed any possibility of the GOP prohibiting fillibusters of Supreme Court nominees in the Senate with his gang of 14. He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. If elected president, he wants to work with Al Gore to reduce carbon emissions. He doesn't want to drill in ANWAR for fear of bruising a caribou. He wants to spit in the face of people trying to gain legal citizenship in the US by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

In short, McCain is a liberal who is far more likely to attack members of his party than man up and point out democrats' shortcomings.

Obama is a socialist with totalitarian leadings. These stories indicate that he would much rather shut down those who tell the truth than respond to their accusations http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Banne/2008/09/27/135118.html?s=al&promo_code=6BBA-1 http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Biden is a flaming liberal and a rabid anti-gunner. Let's not forget this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ&feature=related

The Libertarians support everyone's individual right to do what they want, so long as no one else is harmed. This point of view does not include unborn babies, however. They can be ripped out of the womb and tossed in the trash if their moms feel like it.

The Constitution Party has a platform that most conservatives can get behind except for a weak stance on the war on terror. We can't bury our heads in the sand and try to be isolationists in this day and age.

In short, Sarah Palin is the only candidate worth voting for and she has to tow McCain's line. If she were at the top of the ticket, I would vote for her.

My dillweed republican congresscritter voted for the bail-out bill (both times). He was the only reason I was going to bother showing up at the polls.

Here's to Palin and Jindal in 2012.

The View vs. Reality

The kindly ladies on The View told John McCain that his ad depicting Obama as voting against the rights of abortion survivors was a crock of the purest malarkey. Here are the facts, get 'em while they're hot.


What Palin should have said during the 20/20 interview

When the condescending Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin, "Seventy percent of this country supports a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Do you?" she gave the wrong response.

While her answer that she did not agree with that sentiment was all well and good, here's what she should have told her supercilious interviewer: "Actually, the term semi-automatic assault weapon is an oxymoron. In order for a gun to be an assault weapon, it has to be capable of fully-automatic fire, basically turning the weapon into a machine gun with the flick of a switch. These weapons are not readily available to the general public. Actually, the media has done the people a grave disservice by blurring the distinction between semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and military versions of the weapon such as the M16 and M4. We would never send our troops into battle with rifles that only fire one shot with each pull of the trigger, like an AR-15 does. They would be at a distinct disadvantage."

What the Founding Fathers thought about income redistribution

So long as we're on the topic of higher taxes for "worthy causes," let's investigate what the founding fathers had to say about this.

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Here's a good quote pertaining to punishing those who get big bonuses, "obscene profits," etc.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

And to those who say that we really not giving up that much of our money or conceding that much of our freedom:

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

Those cold-hearted founders. What were they thinking?

A few fundamental truths

This past Monday, Jason Lewis reminded me of a couple of socio-political truths that are worth a mention.

1. "Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men," - from Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. This is the kind of basic definition that seems obvious at first glance and but has a lot of implied meaning the longer you think about it. By this definition, the surge in Iraq has increased freedom in that country by permitting Iraqis to collaborate more freely with U.S. forces to suppress terrorism.

2. And what are our "rights" as Americans anyway? "The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another." - Walter E. Williams. We have the right to freely cross state borders, speak freely about whomever we want whenever we want. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as we aren't depriving someone else of his/her own rights. However, don't say anyone has a "right" to universal health care. The only way that "free" health care can be providing is by imposing the obligation of higher taxes on me to foot the bill. No, thanks. My first obligation is to me and mine. I need the $$ I make to keep a roof over my family's head, buy groceries, put gas in the car, and maybe put some dollars back for my kids' college days. I think the founding fathers knew better than to make the gov't a nanny state, punishing those who make money to provide for those who don't. I need to do more research into the matter, but I think the founders wanted private institutions and churches to provide for the poor. BTW, it's illegal for a hospital to refuse emergency room care.

This is getting lengthy, so I'll call it quits for now. The truth is out there. You just have to dig a little for it. But don't take my word for it. Start digging.