Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Seems to me she gets it just fine! I think she interpeted Joe Biden’s remarks the other day quite well!

Hat tip to Texas Darlin’ for the video. And Deadender’s blog who posted the vide on youtube.

And here’s something else to ponder. I only wish the major news outlets would report on this stuff.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html?s=al&promo_code=6DC0-1

‘Smears’ About Obama Largely True

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

 

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

 

Obama’s http://www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama’s ideological allies are not dominant.

 

These “smears” and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

 

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

 

In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

 

 

 

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”

 

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

 

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama’s campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

 

“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”

 

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama’s allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

 

“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”

 

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.

 

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

 

Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

 

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

 

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

 

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)

 

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”

 

“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.

 

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

 

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

 

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

 

“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

 

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”

 

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.

 

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.

 

And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

 

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”

 

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

 

As Newsmax has documented in [“Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,”] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

 

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

 

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, “[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”

 

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.

 

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”

 

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

 

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”

 

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”

 

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September [“NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,”] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

 

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

 

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

 

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

 

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

 

Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

 

True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

 

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

 

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

 

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

 

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

 

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama’s visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”

 

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

 

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

 

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

 

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

 

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

 

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

 

Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined “Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid.” Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.

 

It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

 

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

 

 

Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

 

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

 

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.

 

“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”

 

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

 

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

 

 

Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”

 

As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

 

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

 

Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”

 

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

 

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I’ve been hearing for a while now the common theme that  the McCain/Palin camp is supposedly inciting racism, hatred and violence. See https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/newest-obamacrat-talking-point/  for more on this.

 It has even been “proclaimed” that Mac and his supporters are trying to get someone to assassinate The One. Total BULLSHIT! Just another “poor me the victim” claim from camp Obama and it’s just as false as all the rest.

I’ve read and heard many say that the anger expressed by supporters at McCain/Palin events is “out of control rage and racism” and that supposedly McCain isn’t doing enough to stop it. I’d say it’s more like they don’t want this socialist in control of the country and they are angry because the race is close when they think it should be a slam dunk for Mac against the worst candidate ever.

I feel the same way. I cannot believe the people who tell me they are not at all concerned about Obama’s radical associates, his connection to foriegn and domestic terrorists, his ties to ACORN (Yes he IS tied to ACORN in a very big way), his affection for radical religious leaders like Rev. Wright, Father Phleger, Louis Farrakkan and more. Mostly radical religious leaders who peddle hate speech as sermons.

Not only that but these are the same people (Obamabots) who have posted things on The Daily Kos and even the Official DNC website not only advocating but in some cases out right calling for physical and/or sexual violence against Hillary Clinton and many of these hateful posts are still on display for all to see while any reference to anything not positive about The One is immediately deleted and the user(s) banned and admonished as haters and racists.

Remember the “Bros Before Hoes” T-Shirts or all posts about “Hitlery” or all the times even MSM seemed to say she should be taken in a room by someone and “only he comes out”? I suppose that was in no way inciting hatred or violence?

This from the campaign that told supporters “I want you to get in their face”, and “if they bring a knife then we’ll bring a gun”. The wonderful candidate who has blogs from his supporters on his own website demanding that they commit to making sure Obama got the nomination “by any means necessary” and the same supporters who have written numerous blogs and essays about how “violence and rioting will ensue” if Obama is not the next president.

This from the guy that went to Kenya on the taxpayers’ dime to campaign for his cousin Ralia Odinga. You know the guy that lost his first attempt at power and incited race riots, ethnic cleansing and general chaos afterward claiming that the election was “stolen” from him though it was clearly not. The guy who won his second attempt in large part because of those tactics and the fact that he basicly bought the support of radical muslims by promising to install Sharia Law. The cousin who took notes from Obama on how to do this. If you don’t beleive me read up on Odinga. Or you can watch this video. 

Seriously these Obama supporters have been the nastiest, the rudest, the most hateful and violent I have ever encountered in an election cycle. They will threaten, stalk, hack whatever it takes to supress any views other than their own. I have heard of more death threats and threats of violence and various reprisals from Obama supporters than should ever be allowed and yet I have not once seen him try to reign them in.

Well , he did say that the families were off limits after his supporters and his official surrogates had already been smearing sarah Palin and her children for a week or so. It’s easy to speak out after the damage is done.

Suddenly telling the truth is racist and hateful. I had one message from an Obama supporter saying that she did not care one bit about his relationship with Bill Ayers and she wouldn’t care even if he were still doing the despicable things he did back then. It would have absolutely no effect on her decision making!

I have to wonder if these people are all complete nuts. Anyone who doesn’t care if the candidate they want to see in the white house has friendships with terrorists really isn’t smart enough to vote. Sorry but there it is. If you can seriously look at all his associations and think  nothing of it you are a fucking idiot of the highest order.

Seriously does this guy have even one friend or associate that is not either a criminal, a terrorist, a radical hate monger or a far-left nutjob? Not even one normal friend?

How many of us would have this number of anti-American leaning friends? All we hear from camp Obama is how he’s the poor widdle victim of hate and wacism and the mean ol repubwicans are trying to kiwl him! (Sorry for the tweety bird speak I just can’t help it)

Ever notice no matter what happens or who says or does what Obama attacks then claims he is attacked. he is always the “victim” and those of us who love America and democracy are always the “bullies”. Funny because if you look around you won’t see threats from Hillary Clinton supporters or from McCain/Palin supporters. That is unless you consider people saying they won’t vote for Ovbama a threat. I don’t. I call it a promise!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Told you this would be the next talking point!

From http://rallygrrrl.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/palin-uses-hate-to-motivate/

The ‘dangerous road,’ however, is not just a generic attack on Sen. Obama’s trustworthiness or honesty.  Rather, the McCain campaign has chosen to stand before campaign rallies and accuse Sen. Obama of hiding sympathies with domestic terrorists–to accuse their opponent, essentially, of being a terrorist.

With the McCain campaign now using the Palin stump speech to accuse Sen. Obama of hiding a terrorist agenda, the McCain campaign has staked its future on rhetoric that skirts the boundary between character assassination and incitements of actual violence against their opponent.

Inspiring progress is good. Inspiring assassination is bad. Ironically, this kind of rhetoric actually makes Palin sound like a domestic terrorist herself.

Idiots abound! Seriously Palin remarked that Obama “pals around”with a domestic terrorist not to promote hate or incite violence. No! She points this out because it is TRUE!

Apparently to Obamacrats she was promoting hate and inciting people to assassinate Obama! How and where did they get this out of the statements made by Sarah Palin? See if you can read any of that stuff out of this statement.

I see nothing in that that would incite hate or violence. Now even though Obamacrats will say it’s all so untrue, it’s a smear, a travesty, a character assassination, “I mean Barrack was 8 years old!” and all that standard crap, the fact remains that William Ayers is in fact an unrepentant terrorist, the only reason he is not rotting in jail for his crimes is a technicality in his trial and he has said publicly on many occasions that he is not sorry and he wishes they had set more bombs.

I don’t care that Obama was 8 when Ayers did this but I do care that Obama, the adult has had a long, working relationship with this man and continues to do so completely aware of what he did and the fact that the man is still not sorry to this day and in fact said he did not want to discount the possiblility that he could do such a thing again in certain circumstances.

Obama sat on the board of the Woods Foundation and the Annenburg Challenge with Ayers, they live in the same neighborhood, they not only know each other Obama’s political career was launched from Ayers’ living room. The organizations they served on together gave money to ACORN, Trinity United Christian Church, Louis Farrakkan and the Nation of Islam, Kahlidi and others.

You know it would be one thing for the bots to say this is just guilt by association if in fact Ayers were someone who had admitted his crimes, repented and asked forgiveness for them. It would be one thing to say it’s just a smear if in fact Ayers was “just some guy in the neighborhood” and not the long standing association that is the case here. Ayers in fact does not consider the bombings and acts of terror crimes and is even quite proud of them. As for repentance or forgiveness you can forget that too. In fact Ayers was quoted on Sept. 11, 2001 as saying he “wished they could have done more”.

I could forgive someone who once did something wrong as a young, idealistic, college student if the student actually grew up and admitted that they were wrong and he regretted his actions. I cannot forgive a man who insists to this day he was right and does not regret any of it.

I’m also tired of bots saying that no one died as a result of the bombings. That is total BULLSHIT! People did die. People went to prison. In fact it really wouldn’t make it any more right if they did not kill people but they did. Here’s a video that tells a bit more of the story about Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like far more than just some angry college kids protesting. Protesting the war I understand. Bombing buildings, violence, disregard for innocent bystanders I will never understand or tolerate. Could you be “friends” with a guy like this? Really? Not me. Never. Period.

So you have to ask yourself how is it that Sarah Palin referring to the well known fact that Obama is friendly with and has worked with Bill Ayers, the fact that they have given speeches at the same events, the fact that Obama launched his career from Ayers’ living room translate to “The republicans are trying to incite assassination!”?

Answer: It doesn’t but the Obamacrats want you to think it does and they want to razzle, dazzle you into looking away from the facts. They would have you believe that it’s all some right wing conspiracy designed to promote race and class wars and to incite violence. In fact it is the far left who have been flirting with turning this into a violent revolution and they have not been shy about it. Brazen is a word you could use to describe some of the blog posts I’ve read urging people to use “any means necessary” to get Obama elected.

Then you have all the threats of the havoc that will suposedly ensue if the election is lost, “stolen” from Obama. You know his cousin Ralia Odinga in Kenya has had very similar campaigning “techniques” and to be brutally honest the violence that ensued after Odinga lost a bid for the presidency and claimed it was “stolen’ from him were terrifying and cannot be allowed to go on here.

Obama is the least patriotic, most dangerous and the least qualified candidate we have ever had. We have never had a presidential candidate with so many ties to so many extremist and criminal people!

Yet the media and the DNC continue to spoon feed us with the “he-is-the-greatest-thing-to-come-along-since-sliced-bread” and “if-you-critisize-or-question-him-you-are-a-bigot with-qestionable-motives” memes. It amazes me that in this day and age so many people still wait for the media to tell them what to think instead of thinking for themselves. If anyone can get through this election cycle and not see that the media are not credible sources in fact they are basically all about the ratings and the advertising revenues well , they are either naive, hiding out in a cave or lying to themselves.

Long gone are the journalistic standards we came to depend on like say, Walter Kronkite for one. If we have learned anything it is not to trust the media. I suggest that we also suspend the trust in the leadership of the DNC at least in it’s current form as they are the schmucks who got us into this situation by nominating a complete and utter fraud.

Many say that if Obama loses and we have four more years of Republican control it will be the fault of Hillary and PUMA. I say to you no that it is/will be the fault of the DNC for discarding the only candidate with a chance of winning and the candidate who had the solutions to fix what ails America.

They discarded a candidate with a true servant’s heart, one that had the desire and willingness to serve the people (all of them) of America to instead nominate a candidate who is far more like a spoiled brat with a huge ego and an overblown sense of entitlement.

In short they axed a candidate who longs to serve to nominate a candidate who longs to be served. (Think of teenagers who want to live in your house and let you pay the bills while they drive the car you bought for them and eat the meals you cook and serve and wear the clothing that you paid for and launder for them…getting the similarities here?) Can we really expect anything good from someone with his almost child-like insistence that he “voted” against the war ( He wasn’t a senator yet so it wasn’t an option at the time) and he toured Europe and lived in Indonesia, Plus he ran his campaign so that qualifies him and we are never to question this! To question is to admit you are a card carrying racist! Can we expect any quality results from a candidate of this calibur?

The republican candidate, John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin also have a desire to serve. Like “my” candidate, Hillary, they want to serve their country while Obama wants the country to serve him, his buddies and his socialistic ideas that serve the same.

Our choice this time is of the greatest importance! The outcome of this election is make or break for Democracy as we know it! It usually comes down to the lesser of two evils but this time that difference is so much more stark! The stakes have never been higher!

I will vote McCain/Palin to defeat the evil that is Obama. This is not an easy or a happy decision but it is the right one. No Obama. No Way. No How.

CQ

Read Full Post »

I’ve been swamped lately and hard pressed to find time for much but I had to comment on last night’s debate while it’s still fresh in my mind.

First I suppose we have to look at the expectations for each candidate. It’s no secret Biden has a tendency to let his mouth get him into trouble. We could all think of at least two or three things right off the top of our heads. What’s more if you complied the list from that you’d find it goes far beyond a few.

Joe has what my mom would call incurable hoof-in-mouth disease. He can’t help it. It’s his nature. He sometimes manages to control it but it is always there awaiting an opportunity. I’m quite sure many Obamacrats were holding their collective breath last night. Hoping he wouldn’t make some blunder or come off as condescending.

For the most part I believe he managed to meet expectations in this regard, though I take issues with other aspects of the debate.

Palin on the other hand has been under fire from the far left and the MSM from the minute she was announced as the VP pick. We have been “informed” by the media that she is a complete idiot and that she would not stand a chance in the arena of real political debate with a veteran politician.

The press has been pushing this theme from day one and they have gone all out to portray it as such. The heavily edited interview with Charlie Gibson comes to mind as I saw the un-edited version and the difference in the over-all feel of the interview was definitely coloured by the edits. Just as I feel the interview with Katie Couric was scripted for the spin.

In truth between the media and the Obamacrats, Sarah Palin could not help but exceed expectations. She did so with a lot of personal style and spirited responses. She showed that she can take it and dish it out and do it all with class.

So, no train-wrecks, no major screw ups. Both candidates fared better than feared and really there was no clear winner. Having said that I also thought both candidates could have done better on certain issues.

Biden, for starters, seemed absolutely shocked that Palin was not just some babe-in-the-woods that he could marginalize and intimidate with his “father-knows-best-so-run-along-and-play-now” approach. In fact, to my surprise and amusement, she actually had him on the defensive a few times and did not allow him to control the situation. Miss Sarah is no pushover!

I couldn’t help imagining a thought bubble over Joe’s head as he kept grinning ear to ear. He seemed to be thinking, “Man! They said this was going to be an easy one! Just keep from making any gaffes and treat her like a silly, misguided girl they said! Be gracious they said! She won’t be able to hold up under pressure. Be cool and let her lose on her own. Jeez! She’s not gonna give it up. She’s like a dog with a bone. Who said she could DO that?” All the while grinning like a guy who knows he’s been had.

I found it really tiring that he kept going back to Bush, Bush, Bush. Much as I personally detest Bush, John McCain is NOT Bush and it was really not getting anywhere going on and on about Bush. He also said several things about McCain not being a maverick and not being worried about the sub-prime mortgage crisis that were not true. He claimed Obama warned about this two years ago. I call BS there because he never said a word about it until Hillary announced her 10 point plan for the economy at which time he immediately took it changed it up slightly and announced it as his. Just like her health care plan and so on. Obama had no concerns about the mortgage crisis until it was upon us.

The other thing Biden kept injecting was his “greatness” as told by him. Seriously he tried to stay on the McCain = Bush thing but often resorted to blathering on about himself and his roots. Blah, blah, blah. I want to hear what you are really going to do and why you think you can characterize wealth re-distribution as “fairness”.  Or why he said Obama voted against funding for the troops for political reasons risking thousands of lives and now defends it.

As far as speaking for his ticket, he spoke more of himself than of Obama’s abilities and he far from honest about the cost of all the spending that would accompany the proposed changes. He also stated his position in the administration would be to be there for every meeting and decision to advise Obama. That doesn’t speak too well to Obama’s confidence or ability to lead without a “mentor”. (read: training wheels) Hmmm sorta reminds one of Cheney/Bush no?

The moment that really cracked me up was after Sarah Palin talked about how Americans were ready for Hockey moms and Joe Six-Pack types in office because the could relate to them and vise versa. Biden began his rebuttal with his “for you to say that because I’m a man I don’t know what it’s like to raise a child and worry whether they will make it, sniff, sniff, well that’s just sniff, that’s just not right…” as he tried to play the “sexist” card on Palin! Too funny! She never once intimated that he did not understand any of that she was stating that Americans relate better to people more like themselves, more like her. Small town hockey mom turned Mayor/Governor/Vice Presidential Candidate. It was ridiculous for Biden to try playing it that way and looked desperate in my opinion.

As to Palin’s performance I have to say she earned some respect as a strong debater. She knocked him off his game a bit and scored some points talking to the voters and the camera. She was warm and honest but I admit it was frustrating when she wouldn’t answer the question and would steer the debate back to what she wanted to get across. But you have to admit it was an effective tactic and it seemed to serve her pretty well. She’s not the first or the last to implement such strategies.

I thought over-all she came across as passionate, not nearly as stupid as the far left and the media would have us believe and she seems to have a better grasp on energy policy as it relates to the economy and foriegn policies than expected. She held her own and made some points for her team. I think she made her ticket proud. I may not agree with her on certain issues but I can respect her and I think the candidate at the top of the ticket is more important anyway.

When the time comes to cast my vote I’ll be thinking of who I can trust, who really has the willingness, the desire and the passion to serve rather thanan ego driven need for power and fame. I’ll be thinking about who can actually get someting accomplished instead of talking in platitudes about vague “changes”. I’ll be thinking about how one candidate has a record of accomplishments and a reputation for being a straight talker and the other candidate has none of the above.

I’ll be thinking about how one candidate spent time being tortured in a POW camp even after being given an opportunity to leave. How he stayed for his men and what he had to endure in that awful place because of his service to and love for his country. I’ll be thinking about how another candidate was using the lives of our troops as pawns in his bid to get elected to the highest office in the land by trying to halt negotiations to bring our troops home from Iraq until after the election because he wanted to use the war for his own means.

When the time comes to vote I’ll be thinking of how putting the country first is the only way we will ever achieve the goals we set. How it is the only way to keep our country and our democracy safe and how it is the only way we can force our party to remember we are the base and they cannot take us for granted. The only way we can set the standards of principal before party. The only way we can make the DNC accountable and bring them back to the principals we hold dear. We must not reward treachery and abandonment of principals.

No instead we must ensure adherence to principals regardless of partisan politics and electoral victories. If we have no principals then we have no party, no country, no democracy. The founders wanted this to be protected at any cost. This year it will cost the Obamacrats the election. I shudder to think what it might cost should Obama actually win. Country first!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Today in the Wall Street Journal there is an Op-Ed piece from Hillary Clinton that shows us how if we had listened to her this situation might not be so bad right now for the markets or for the homeowners involved.

Unlike Obama or McCain she had a concrete plan that would have stabilized the mortgage market by a measurable degree. Set up a Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help home owners refinance their homes at a fixed rate they can afford allowing millions more to stay in their homes and keeping foreclosure rates lower and allowing the markets time to adjust and correct. Sounded like a good plan to me when she first proposed it almost two years ago and it still sounds like a good plan to me now.

 

Hillary Clinton: Let’s Keep People in Their Homes

By Hillary Rodham Clinton

There is a broad consensus that Congress must act to stave off deeper turmoil on Wall Street. Irrespective of the final agreement yet to be reached, there are several principles that must be part of a broader reform effort that begins this week and continues in the coming months.

This is not just a financial crisis; it’s an economic crisis. Therefore, the solutions we pursue cannot simply stabilize the markets. We must also deal with the interconnected economic challenges that set the stage for this crisis — and reverse the failed policies that allowed a potential crisis to become a real one.

First, we must address the skyrocketing rates of mortgage defaults and foreclosures that have buffeted the economy and ignited the credit crisis. Two million homeowners carry mortgages worth more than their homes. They hold $3 trillion in mortgage debt. Nearly three million adjustable-rate mortgages are scheduled for a rate increase in the next two years. Another wave of foreclosures looms.

I’ve proposed a new Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), to launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. The original HOLC, launched in 1933, bought mortgages from failed banks and modified the terms so families could make affordable payments while keeping their homes. The original HOLC returned a profit to the Treasury and saved one million homes. We can save roughly three times that many today. We should also put in place a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and freeze rate hikes in adjustable-rate mortgages. We’ve got to stem the tide of failing mortgages and give the markets time to recover.

The time for ideological, partisan arguments against these actions is over. For years, the calls to provide borrowers an affordable opportunity to avoid foreclosure as a means of preventing wider turmoil were dismissed as government intrusion into the private marketplace. My proposals over the past two years were derided as too much, too soon. Now we are forced to reckon with too little, too late.

As a result, the home-mortgage crisis slowly eroded the value of debt instruments upon which Wall Street firms were depending. That is how this house of borrowed cards began to fall. If we do not take action to address the crisis facing borrowers, we’ll never solve the crisis facing lenders. These problems go hand in hand. And if we are going to take on the mortgage debt of storied Wall Street giants, we ought to extend the same help to struggling, middle-class families.

Second, American taxpayers should have a voice and a stake in the resolution of this market crisis. If the Treasury proposal is enacted in its current form, the American government would assume enough financial risk to become the majority shareholder in the companies rescued by taxpayer dollars.

The American people are bearing the risk and therefore deserve to reap the rewards of a shared equity model. And mortgage securities bought by taxpayers must be valued accurately at prices disclosed in real time, with checks and reporting requirements to prevent abuse.

Third, taxpayers are being asked to bear an unparalleled degree of financial risk. We cannot allow taxpayers to take on this burden so that Wall Street and the Bush administration can hit the “reset button.” This historic intervention demands a historic shift in priorities: an end to the broken culture on Wall Street, and the broken economic policies in Washington.

Corporations that will benefit must be held accountable, not only to large shareholders but also to the American people, who are rightly tired of business as usual: short-term profit at the expense of long-term viability; lax oversight and regulation; obscene bonuses and golden parachutes regardless of performance; reckless risk-taking that has placed the markets in jeopardy; rewards for foreclosing on middle-class families and selling mortgages designed to fail; and outsourcing good jobs to serve short-term stock prices instead of America’s long-term economic health.

This is a sink-or-swim moment for America. We cannot simply catch our breath. We’ve got to swim for the shores. We must address the conditions that set the stage for the turmoil unfolding on Wall Street, or we will find ourselves lurching from crisis to crisis. Just as Wall Street must once again look further than the quarterly report, our nation must as well.

Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat, is a senator from New York.

You know there is a lot of talk and anger (rightly so) about the bailing out of the big Wall Street Investors and the irresponsible people who took loans they could not afford. The fact is a lot of the blame here also lies with some lenders who out of greed made loans that they should have known were high risk at best.

The fact remains though that not every family facing foreclosure is in this situation because they were irresponsible or because they fraudulently acquired credit they could not afford. Are there some who did that? Yes. Are all of them in this situation for those reasons? No.

A lot of people went out to buy homes and they could afford a payment and the maintenance on said home. They work hard and pay their bills like most everybody but then the lenders said “With rates this low you can afford so much more and you can just re-finance before the rate goes up.” And then oil went to record breaking highs and the prices of gasoline and groceries and heating bills went higher and higher. People who could afford their payments suddenly found themselves in a crunch.

Enter the lenders who expected to win either way and the rates go up, the payments go up and with the other expenses rising people began feeling more than a crunch. They were now caught in a vise. The lenders figured either way they would win because the families would either continue to pay with the higher interest rates or they would re-finance giving the lenders another chance to make a nice chunk of change for that.

What they didn’t count on was all the other economic factors, the inflation, the Wall Street crowd suddenly waking up to the fact that some of the loans that were packaged and sold were not going to pan out and should never have been made in the first place. Then suddenly we have a tightening of credit standards (better late than never?) and the people who were told to refinance suddenly can’t qualify.

The payments continue to go up, other expenses go up and the number of options available to them goes down. It seems to me that the average, working, responsible homeowner is now caught in a very bad situation not (at least not entirely) of their own making.

Now enter the Congress and Bush who decide we need to stop the bleeding in the market but where is the help for the homeowner who wants to be responsible? They want to keep thier homes and pay for them.

Look at it this way if we do not help those homeowners by giving them an option that allows them to stay in their homes we have more foreclosures and the very families that get ousted will now have to spend the money they would have paid on a mortgage on rent! They will not be better off in fact they will be far worse off and at the mercy of the rental market. At that point they no longer have any chance of hedging against inflation in their housing. They are at the completely and truly screwed. They will still be buying a house just for someone else.

Maybe there are some who willingly entered into risky deals that should then pay the price for bad decision making but we cannot hold every borrower responsible for the rouges. It is in our best interest to allow as many people to stay in their homes as we can and have them paying those mortgages rather than turning homeowners into a money machine for the investor class and thereby increasing the size of the lower-middle and lower classes. Rather than lifting them up and promoting healthy economic growth it will simply place a lower ceiling on it. Rather than empower the average American it will empower the wealthy investors who need no help to grow.

Hillary knows what we need to do to turn this crisis around and she knows how deep it runs for all those involved. She’s not just worried about Wall Street and the markets. She’s worried about the average Joe or Jane and she’s working to see that they don’t get forgotten.

Obama has yet to come up with any plan economic or otherwise that he didn’t steal from someone wiser and more savy. It’s what he does. He plagerizes speeches and he takes others’ ideas, tweaks them just a bit and tries to grab the credit. This guy wouldn’t know a solution if it hit him in the ass!

He’s not the President but he plays one and he just knows he could do it! “Come on! Howard, Donna and Nancy promised it was MY turn!”

Can we please have Hillary back now?

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

I haven’t watched The View for quite a while now. Since the became all about the Obama love. However since it is Bill I’ll make an exception.

In Part 1 he talks about whether or not Hillary wanted to be VP, complex reasons that people vote and the need to respect that as well as sexism in society and in the election. You only have to listen to him for a quick minute and you suddenly remember why they call him the Big Dawg! This man could talk for days and you’d be content to listen.

Part 2 is all about the economy, the mortgage crisis and the bailout that is in the works. Bottom line is he thinks this is necessary but not enough. We should have gone with Hillary’s plan to creat a system to refinance peoples’ mortgages so they could afford them and the end result could actually have made a profit in the long run. Boy that hillary is smart. Can we have her back now?

Part 3 he says Barbara reminded him that a year ago he said McCain would be the republican nominee because he is the only republican that could win. He also says Obama will win but in the same breath said wonderful things about John McCain. Hmmmm. I have to wonder what there is that he didn’t say but might have wanted to? Plus you gotta say he brings out the best in people. Whoopie even wore a dress!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

 A few words about justice and justification.

People can find a way to justify pretty much anything. The only requirement is the ability to momentarily (or in some cases permanently) suspend reality. It’s like a different facet of denial in that way.

Consider this, Al Capone, notorious mobster, murderer, breaker of the law, considered himself to be a misunderstood and persecuted individual who , in his own words, was a “great benefactor to the people”.

I guess he thought that his running of the gambling, prostitution and illegal liquor establishments was somehow a humanitarian effort. All those murders committed by him and at his request were obviously acts of “public service” and he should have gotten the keys to the city!  

Apparently to Capone the law and it’s enforcers were unfairly and unjustly persecuting him because they expected him to obey the laws of the land and they intended to stop him and prosecute him for not doing so. I suppose every criminal in the prison system probably thinks the same way. It’s part of their make up. If they admitted to themselves, or anyone for that matter, that they were in the wrong they might be forced to really think about their actions and the repercussions of them. Thus to them they are innocent and wronged by the system.

The Justice system sees things quite differently indeed. If you break the law you will pay the price. Message: Don’t break the law and you won’t have a problem.

We’ve seen an awful lot of this in the last 19 months. It seems lots of law breaking has been “justified” and gone unpunished.

A prime example is the recent hacking into the personal email account of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. It’s old news to anybody who surfs the net and it’s starting to get some exposure on MSM. Her personal email account was hacked, password changed and screen shots of her emails, contact list, photos of her family and email addresses and cell phone numbers of her family were published on the web by the hacker.

I have heard time and again from Obama supporters that the hacker was supposedly justified because there were reports she might be using her personal email to hide work related things she doesn’t want the public to see. Bullshit! Even if that were the case it is for officials and law enforcement to find out not some snot-nosed college punk who proudly calls himself an Obamacrat.

We are not allowed to take the law into our own hands in this country for a reason. So even if the allegations were true (the hacker himself admitted there was nothing incriminating in the emails) it is not the “job” of non-professionals to break the law to find out.

I have also heard that Sarah Palin supposedly “deserved” it or that this should prove she is incapeable of being VP because her email was hacked. First off who deserves to have their privacy invaded? Second how in the hell is that her fault or does it prove that she is not up for the job? Someone broke the law and invaded her privacy but we’re told that this makes her unqualified?

So what about when Obama’s, Hillary’s and McCain’s passport info was accessed illegally?  (by people connected with the Obama campaign no less) Wouldn’t that make Obama unqualified too by those standards? I mean if it makes Palin unqualified how come Obama was just a “victim” when it happened to him? Answer: because according to Obama and the Obamacrats he is ALWAYS the victim in any circumstance. It’s just a given.

When ever there is any question they automatically give the points to their guy just like the RBC meeting in May when the DNC gave Obama the uncommitted delegates and then the gave him 4 delegates that Senator Clinton earned even though his name wasn’t even on the ballot. Yup! And they broke their own sunshine rules to do it with a secret vote during their 2 1/2 hour lunch break.

Oh but they were “justified” in doing so because, well, because they wanted Obama to win. We’re up to here with their “justification”.

This is far from the first time Obama and his supporters have broken the law. Hillary supporters have been hacked, threatened, had their blogs shut down, been kicked off of previously democratic web sites that are nothing more than Obama shills now and the list goes on and on. Alot of these activities are illegal but we’re told that the Bots are justified and if we didn’t have the sites there they wouldn’t be able to hack them. It’s our own fault according to these people because we won’t just shut up and go away.

So I guess in their view if you speak out against them or speak out for what is right you are standing in their way and according to them that is a crime. I have news for them it is not a crime to refuse to vote for someone. It is not a crime to speak out for what you beleive is right. In fact is the opposite. Speaking out against corruption and evil is a civil duty of the highest order!

Then we have the fact that the hacker in question turns out to be the 20 year old son of a Democratic Senator from Tennessee. According to one MSM source he says “he was just playing around” and there are supposedly no charges being filed? That’s what I heard on CBS last night anyway.

I don’t care if he was playing around or not it is a crime to access someone’s personal correspondence and it should be treated as such. Plus they said he was the son of a “prominent democrat” but failed to mention just how prominent. Just one more example of how Obama has the media in his pocket.

If this was my email account, or yours, or anybody else’s they would be steaming mad and rightly so. Why is it only a crime if it’s against Obama but not when it’s against his opponents? This kid should be prosecuted for breaking the law and the media should be honest about the fact this is a crime and who his father really is. We are tired of them protecting the politicians they want to protect and crucifying the ones they don’t.

Actually we are tired of the media as a whole period. They should just go find jobs as hot dog vendors or carnival workers and leave the news to real journalists with scruples and ethics.

What about the crime Obama committed by trying to stall the troops withdrawal from Iraq for his own political gain? It is a crime. It is a felony. He violated the Logan Act. It is treason.

Thanks to Shtuey at http://ohmyvalve.blogspot.com/ for the excellent video!

Not to mention the fact it’s about as phony and hypocritical as you can get to campaign on the whole “Stop the war and bring our troops home” all the while wheeling and dealing behind the scenes to manipulate the public.

I suppose IF we hear anything about it from the MSM it will be somehow “justified” too. I suppose Obama is “justifying” any deaths that occur because of the delays caused by his meddling as a sacrifice that must be made in order for him to gain control and therefore “save” us! Pfffft! Don’t even get me started on that one!

Every single one of the soldiers serving overseas is worth more than a hundred Obamas! Every single one of them is out there fighting to protect the rights Obama would bargain away at the drop of a hat and issue some lame “justification” afterwords. He is not worth the spit they shine their boots with!

On a lighter note I found this on http://harddriller.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/new-nickel-design/ while tag surfing!

It was just too funny not to steal!

 

Oh such sweet truth!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »