A Contrary Opinion

I hesitate to feature the attached article four days before the election because I disagree with much of what is written and with the conclusion drawn.  But I do not shy away from the opinions that I disagree with. 

The Economist is a publication that I respect.  They tend to see the world and when they view the United States, they view us in context on the bigger stage.  It is a point of view that I sometimes find helpful. 

I offer an editorial from the Economist endorsing Barack Obama not because I agree with it but because I have been strong in my pro-McCain presentations as we run up to the election and I think we all need to remind ourselves that no candidate  is as good as his supporters say he (or she) is and no candidate is as bad as his (or her) detractors may say.  And although I support Senator McCain and Governor Palin, I like a balanced view.

I should point out that historically I don’t seem to agree with The Economist endorsements for American President very much of the time.  In 2004, they endorsed Kerry, in 2000, Bush. 1996 brought a Dole endorsement after a Clinton choice in 1992.  The Economist editors endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980 but made no endorsement in 1984 or 1988. 

The editors choice in 2004 to support Senator Kerry was a preference for change rather than continuity.  That is not, despite Senator Obama repeated statements, our choice this year.  Both candidates represent change from the Bush years.  While I find much to admire with President Bush, there are also areas of disagreement – but the simple truth is that Mr Bush is not running this year.  Get over it.

I continue to look favorably at John McCain for his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges and justices; his assurance to be conservative in his economic policies and to cut spending; and his recognized positions on the Iraq war,  US strategic interests, the military and homeland security. 

For a slightly different opinion, I cite the editors of the Economist.

My source: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1

The presidential election
It's time
Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017

The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running

That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

 

 

 

Employee Free Choice Act - a Liberal Betrayal

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is the first in a series of quid pro quo actions to be expected with the liberal princes in Washington (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) and their supporters in the labor unions. 

Briefly put, it removes the secret ballot protection from the process of union organizing. 

Senator McCain has stated that strongly opposes the act (not yet passed in the Senate – passed as HR 800 in the House).  “Not only is the title deceptive, the enactment of such an ill-conceived measure would be a gross deception to the hard-working Americans who would fall victim to it.”  Later in 2008, McCain said of the measure, “It is dangerous for America, it’s dangerous to small business.  And I think its a threat to one of the fundamentals of democracy.”

But opposition to the bill has come from an unexpected source – former Democrat Presidential nominee and Senator George McGovern who wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “We cannot be the party that strips Americans of the right to a secret ballot election.  We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class.  To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.”

But Senator Obama supports  passage of the EFCA.

Here is an ad paid for by George McGovern:

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afjp4Cx-3W0

A bit of Straight talk about Taxes

As I have indicated recently, I have a few more rants left in me before the election.  Fasten your seat belts – its going to be a bumpy ride.

I am getting very frustrated with the class warfare and name calling by the left and the chosen one.  When you talk about taxing a corporation, you are talking about taxing shareholders.  You punish everybody with a 401k that has Exxon/Mobile – every stockholder and every employee. 

Only the left tries to target tax policies to further social engineering agendas.  Senator Obama says that the Bush tax cuts only favor the rich. (which has nothing to do with Senator McCain, by the way – but I will come back to that another time).  I have a news flash for you Senator – the rich are the only ones paying any taxes.  When you cut tax rates across the board, the people who pay the most in taxes are likely to see the greatest impact.  It wasn’t that we wanted to only give a tax cut to the wealthy – but they are the only ones left on the tax rolls.  The top 5% of income earners are paying almost 70% of the income taxes now.  The bottom 50% of income earners are paying less than 3% of taxes.  At least, if we cut taxes to those persons and business that create jobs we will stimulate the economy, create jobs and increase government revenues.  Not bad for a tax cut.

When Senator Obama talks about tax cuts for those who are not paying any taxes it is sophistry.  He is going to send a check to those who do not pay any taxes – then call it what it is.  Welfare or income redistribution.

Remember readers.  There is a basic truth to our government system.  In order for the government to give me a dollar - they have to take it away from someone else (probably you) by force.  That is the basis of our tax system. 

So Senator Obama – if you want to take from the rich and give to the poor – if that is your vision of government – then call it what it is and run on that promise.  Stop speaking in code and stop lying to the public because we see you and we know what you are.  But at some point, you will have too many people feeding at the trough and not enough paying to support it.  When you soak the rich - everybody gets wet.  There are already too many people trying to ride in the wagon and too few pulling it.  That is enough mixed metaphors for one paragraph.

I have a brief parable that explains the operation of tax cuts.  This story is not original with me.  I have seen the following article on a variety of internet sites and in a number of emails.  I and others have featured the story on Active Rain or in my personal blogs previously.  I cannot establish a source, which is too bad - it is an excellent explanation for which I would gladly give credit.  It is usually attributed to one of several economics professors - all of whom have disclaimed authorship.  But it is too good to pass up - and contains more than an element of truth. So I propose a toast to the anonymous author and thank him (or her) for a clear explanation of a complex and politically controversial subject. 

Understanding Tax Cuts

Author Unknown

 Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. 

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: 

a.. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 

b.. The fifth would pay $1. 

c.. The sixth would pay $3. 

d.. The seventh would pay $7. 

e.. The eighth would pay $12. 

f..  The ninth would pay $18. 

g.. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. 

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. The first four would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' 

 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: 

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). 

a.. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). 

b.. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). 

c.. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). 

d.. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). 

e.. The tenth (the richest) now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! 

 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

Return of Reverend Wright

This is a National Republican Trust PAC production. 

Game on.

<y source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3IAjphhw6E

An Endorsement from the Heart

I found last weeks Charles Krauthammer article to be a strong, even moving endorsement of  John McCain.

It has been frustrating to listen to the Obama campaign complain of the negative attacks on their candidate while, from this observers perspective, the Obama campaign has been the leader in untrue and negative attacks. 

Well, we are just a week from the finish line (the campaign finish line, that is – who knows when the result of the race will be known) and I for one will be glad to see it over. 

But Krauthammer is a fine writer and he lays out his position with his usual precision.  It seems to me that he has his facts in line better than General Powell last week in his contribution.

My Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/10/24/mccain_the_stalwart?page=full&comments=true

Friday, October 24, 2008

McCain the Stalwart

by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Telling Truth to the Public

One of the frustrations of trying to communicate ideas in the highly charged atmosphere of this years election is that neither side even sees the existence of the other side of the argument.  It is actually a good thing that the two major political parties are fielding candidates who represent very different points of view.  But that does sort of require that both sides recognize that there are two points of view.  Otherwise, the discussion runs on emotion and a liberal and I could (to quote the song from The Music Man) stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye to eye. 

For the record, I see the talents of Barack Obama.  I see the rhetorical skills, the lawyer’s analysis, the disciplined mind and the excellent campaign decisions.  I also see some flaws in the elitist ivy league education, the radical and racially charged community activism and a collection of associates, mentors and partners that are troubling even for a Chicago politician.  The other side cries “Foul” at this point in the dialog, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the facts that Senator Obama is who he is because of who he was.  And the foundations of his life are visible in his grandmother, his college friends, his associations in Chicago and his political party currently in power.  It has been my position in these pages that these influential forces in the life of the candidate can be explained to my satisfaction – but they cannot be denied.  And his attempts to deny them has given rise to a concern that is much darker and sinister than would have existed in an environment of openness and explanation which was available to the candidate if he had been honest and forthcoming with me and millions of my closest friends.

So the ads keep running, and the allegations keep being shouted back and forth across the aisle.  Regardless of which sides wins now, we are all more like losers because the process has been damaged.  Senator Obama will have spent more than a billion dollars to buy this election.  This is unprecedented in our history and will fuel many discussions in the near future to try to limit expenditures -which is counter productive and decidedly unAmerican.  But there are questions as to the legality of some contributions and the identity of Mr Obama’s supporters.  The candidate has chosen to ignore these questions, further damaging himself and the process. 

And finally, the watchdog of our society and our election process – a free press with investigative teeth has given Senator Obama big juicey kiss on the mouth and a major league pass on all questions of history, ethics, substance and associations.  The free press with investigative resources and commentators to provide a critical and rational look at each of the candidates has turned a blind eye on all questions Obama.  Such is the power of social and political agenda – and we will never be the same again.  The process is fractured.

So before we get to the point of discussing the differences in core beliefs and opinions that exist between a voter on the right and a candidate on the left, we have a disconnect caused by distrust for the candidates unexplained past and the abdication of the the press from their necessary duty to investigate and fairly present these issues so that an informed electorate could make an intelligent decision. 

In coming articles in these pages this week, I will discuss the policy positions which I believe to be held by Mr Obama that I hope will be carefully considered by people of both political stripes and some of the issues of the current President which are having such an affect on the current race.  This race is unique in a hundred years as no member of the current administration is a candidate for office but the policies, achievements and shortcomings of the present executive team weigh heavily on the current race.  More to come this week – but today I would feature an article by Thomas Sowell, writing for Townhall.com, who captures many of my points in his normal rational concise fashion.

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/27/obama_and_the_left?page=full&comments=true

Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama and "The Left"
by Thomas Sowell

 

Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with.

ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.

Nor was Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric in an election year.

Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are recipients of money from Obama.

Bill Ayers is not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.

Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.

It was not this year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.

That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.

People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.

Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.

Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called "real issues."

A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.

If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.

No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.

If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.

Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.

But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.

Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.

 

 

Obama is refusing to release Documents

Newsmax.com is carrying an article by David Patter describing how the Obama campaign is not releasing documents in response to media inquiries.  The article closes with the observation that the media has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.  Now there is a surprise.

Candidate Obama has refused to release health records in detail; refused to releases official papers concerning his term as a state legislator such  as correspondence or appointment calendars;  undergraduate and graduate college transcripts or documents; State bar application to address allegations that his bar application was not accurate; donor information for donations to his campaign of less than $200.  He also has refused to release client lists and papers from his legal practice – but I may agree with his position on client privileged documents. We may have an interest in knowing how he earns his money and from what sort of client but there are client rights to be considered there too.

Two weeks left – do we know this man well enough to elect him to the highest office in the land?

My source: http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_secrecy/2008/10/22/143157.html?s=al&promo_code=6DFC-1

Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Presidential Candidate Ever

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:58 PM

By: David A. Patten

Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending.

But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama’s record for openness gets an "F" grade.

During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history” and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.

Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.

And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant documents available.

And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling.

A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.

Among the examples:

* Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.

* Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”

* Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.

* Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.

* Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)

* Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”

* The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.

* Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.

* Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.

* Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.

On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.

When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).

Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.

Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them.

But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is “part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous.”

The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

 

Obama's Greatest Hits - RPOF style

The RPOF (Republican Party Of Florida issued the following press release with Senator Obama’s top ten flip flops. (with footnoted sources no less)

Enjoy

 

For Immediate Release                                                                  Contact: Katie Gordon
October 22, 2008                                                                                          (850) 339-7087

Senator Barack Obama's Top Ten Flip-Flops

World Series Edition

 

Tallahassee–Tonight, as the first pitch of the 2008 World Series is thrown in St. Petersburg, Florida, the Republican Party of Florida highlights Senator Obama’s Top 10 flip-flops:

 

10. In June 2008, after the Supreme Court made its ruling, Barack Obama said the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. However, in late 2007, his campaign released a statement that said “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” [10]

 

 9. Senator Obama constantly rails against Big Oil and the tax breaks they receive. As it turns out, Senator Obama voted in favor of the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill that gave billions of dollars in tax breaks to Big Oil companies. [9]

 

8. Barack Obama claims to have been a longtime advocate for public financing -- and he even agreed to accept it during the presidential campaign, but he broke his promise when he saw an opportunity to gain a political advantage. While John McCain releases information on all his donors, Senator Obama is hiding information about many of his donors. [8]

 

7. During the Democratic primary, Senator Obama said "I don't think NAFTA has been good for America, and I never have.” Now, Senator Obama says his anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the campaign was overheated and that NAFTA has been positive for the U.S. in many ways. [7]

 

6. At the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in June, Barack Obama said he supported Jerusalem being the “undivided” capital of Israel. In what might have been the quickest flip-flop in American politics, Obama said the very next day that he only meant the city should not be divided by barbed wire. [6]

 

5. In 2004, Obama said that it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba.” When he decided to run for the president in 2007, however, Obama changed course and said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.” [5]

 

4. Senator Obama said repeatedly in the Democratic presidential debates that he would meet with leaders of State Sponsors of Terrorism “without precondition.” Since then, he has backtracked, and he now says he has always believed there should be preparations for such meetings. [4]

 

 3. Senator Obama originally said he would reduce funding for NASA in order to pay for his education plan. Yet, when he came to Florida’s Space Coast recently, Obama pledged to increase spending for NASA. [3]

 

2. Senator Obama tells people that he will not raise their taxes, but he told Joe the Plumber that he planned to “spread the wealth” around. [2]

 

1. Last week, Barack Obama called himself a Phillies fan. Now, he claims to be showing love for the Rays. [1]

 

Sources

 

[10] Howard Kurtz, “Pretzel Logic,” Washington Post, 5/27/08

[9] Obama Voted For The 2005 Energy Bill (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Yea)

[8] Washington Post, Top Obama Flip-Flops, February 25, 2008  

[7] Obama Softens NAFTA Rhetoric, CNN Political Ticker, June 18 2008 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/19/obama-softens-nafta-rhetoric/)

[6] Glenn Kessler, "Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem," The Washington Post's "The Trail" Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 6/5/08

[5] Washington Post, Top Obama Flip-Flops, Monday, February 25, 2008; Page A04

[4] CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC 7/23/07

[3] Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Plan for Lifetime Success through Education," www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07; Barack Obama, Remarks, Titusville, FL, 8/2/08

[2] Barack Obama, Toledo, OH, 10/12/08

[1] Kenneth Vogel & Carrie Budoff Brown, “Can’t Lose: Obama Backs Rays, Phillies,” The Politico, www.politico.com, 10/20/08

 

Drivers Licenses and Social Security for Illegal Aliens - Ask Senator Obama

Current TV ad run by the National Republican Trust PAC. 

my Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KznfyCqL44c

Ask him today – only two weeks to go

Remember the Disclosure brought on by Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth around?

 

It gets Worse - if you keep Looking

I have criticized the media for blind disregard for the truth.  I have been appalled at obvious propaganda statements by people whom I might otherwise respect such as General Powell.  But as we get nearer to the election, it is getting worse. And the media with their professional investigative resources either need to get into the fray or get off of the bus.  Either they do their job and demonstrate that the information being circulated is false – and prove it – or they do their job and verify the information that is being alleged.  Either way, our country will be better for it. The current lack of media investigation is despicable.

Those who read my meanderings in prose will know that I try to sit in my office and review information from a variety of sources and tell the truth as I see it.  But I am not a news organization with a world wide cast of thousands.  Where is the media ?

So I am now reading troubling things which fit with previous information but go much farther and though I do not wish to be the one who cries fire in a crowded theater – I smell smoke.

I have for a long time now read a commentator, Daniel Pipes, for information on the middle East.  Daniel reads and speaks the local languages so he has access to primary sources that I would not otherwise enjoy.  He holds a PhD in Medieval Islamic History from Harvard and has written or co-authored 18 books.  Daniel has taught at Harvard, University of Chicago and other schools.  He has been published in the Washington Post, New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.  He has founded an organization which critiques news coverage and scholarship concerning the Middle East and Islam – his areas of special expertise. Daniel is not universally accepted.  Among his friends he is given heroic status – among his detractors he is reviled (quote from New York Times).  I enjoy his writing and try to remember that not all agree with him. (or me for that matter)

But recently he has written a series of articles about Senator Obama in which he stated that it is beyond question that Obama was a Muslim early in life.  Daniel, and others, offer such documentary evidence as Obama’s school registration in Indonesia where he is listed as Muslim. Daniel has said that he does not doubt Obama’s later conversion to Christianity but worries about Obama’s refusal to admit what seems obviously true about his youth.  He also warns that Obama’s previous Muslim status will not help him in negotiating with Islamic nations now as they are likely to view him as an apostate who turned away from their faith – a serious concern to a Muslim.

So I recommend serious readers to explore Daniel’s blog and receive his newsletters. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, he is worth reading.

Now, this week Daniel has written an article decrying Colin Powell’s statement that Obama has always been a Christian and discussing Islamic ties Daniel believes to be credible to extremist Islam throughout Obama’s career to include the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR – tied according to the US Government to Hamas) and the Nation of Islam and its leadership Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan. 

I am featuring the text of Daniel’s Oct 21 article – but I recommend you go to my source where all links and notes are preserved and some photo are included.

My source: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5983

Obama Would Fail Security Clearance

by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Bulletin
October 21, 2008

With Colin Powell now repeating the lie that Barack Obama has "always been a Christian," despite new information further confirming Obama's Muslim childhood (such as the Indonesian school registration listing him as Muslim), one watches with dismay as the Democratic candidate manages to hide the truth on this issue.

Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."

First, Obama's ties to Islamists:

• The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Al-Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Al-Mansour, a black American (né Don Warden), became advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Al-Mansour holds standard Islamist views: he absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery, he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem, and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and al-Mansour deny Sutton's account.)

• The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a south Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate in Philadelphia to create a Muslim-only residential area. Also, as the self-styled "amir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "amir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)

• The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust, with Jamal Said, another unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.

• The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about thirty Muslims including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad; the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups; and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work."

Second, Obama's ties to the Nation of Islam:

Obama's long-time donor and ally Antoin "Tony" Rezko partnered for nearly three decades with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of NoI leader Elijah Muhammad, and says he gave Jabir and his family "millions of dollars over the years." Rezko also served as executive director of the Muhammad Ali Foundation, a rogue organization that, without Ali's permission, exploited the name of this CAIR awardee.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama's esteemed pastor for twenty years, came out of a Nation background, recently he accepted protection from an NoI security detail, and has praised Louis Farrakhan, the NoI's leader, as one of the "giants of the African American religious experience." Wright's church celebrated Farrakhan for his having "truly epitomized greatness."

Farrakhan himself endorsed Obama, calling him "the hope of the entire world," "one who can lift America from her fall," and even "the Messiah."

That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.

Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.

 

 

 

And Another Thing... revisited

Active Rain members Aaron Gordon and Inna Hardison came on my earlier rant in defense of Governor Palin and expressed opposing thoughts in a civil manner in the best traditions of political discussion on AR.  I thank both of them for their opinions – with which I still disagree.  The above link will take you to the earlier post and their well expressed thoughts.

Since my response got a little long (now there is a surprise) and since my earlier rant was as much about Colin Powell and the media as about Governor Palin, I am repeating my comment here in an effort to further the discussion.

I understand that Governor Palin’s initial interviews were not what I might have hoped for but she had been thrown into the deeper end of the pool with a couple of sharks.  Charles Krauthammer who claims to have invented the phrase "Bush Doctrine" says that Charles Gibson doesn't know what it means and misused the term in his attempt to ambush Governor Palin. Katie Couric interviewed Sarah on the eve of her saying good bye to her son for deployment to the Middle East.  So I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt if she was a bit distracted. 

I also watched her debut performance in Ohio and at the RNC Convention.  While those venues were supposed to be scripted, the convention was a fluid schedule with late changes and teleprompter malfunctions.  She took all of that in stride and gave stellar performances.  I have watched her in other venues with considerable pressure, attacks and ridicule from the media, and some tough home problems into the bargain.  She continues to shine through it all. 

I like her record - including going against her party in Alaska when she thought they were wrong.  I like her brains and her guts.  She connects with people at a visceral level as a genuine human being - which is a rare gift in a politician.  She reminds me of Margaret Thatcher in some ways.  I admit there is a bit of country left in the girl - but Alaska is a bit of different culture than inside the Washington DC beltway.  None of these things are disqualifying.

Who is qualified to be President - I would argue that only Bush 41 had a true President's resume in recent history.  Truman had never been even briefed on the atom bomb.  Kennedy clearly botched his first meetings with the Soviets in Vienna - leading Kruschev to believe he could get away with the Berlin Wall and Cuba.  Reagan had only been a Governor and a union leader for the movie industry.  Neither Clinton nor Bush 43 were ready on day 1.  Nobody is.  We try to predict how a person will handle the stress and pressures of the job - but it is a guess.  Carter was a failure.  Events have driven the course of Clinton and Bush 43's terms.  (and look how both have aged in office).

But if you really want to talk about qualifications - what in the hell has Barack Obama ever done to be qualified.  Hillary had it right - Hillary has qualifications - McCain has qualifications - Obama gave a speech.  The voters through the primary system made Obama's qualifications a moot point.  But people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  Barack is a bright and talented man - but what has he accomplished in his life to make him more qualified than a sitting governor to be President.  In terms of life experience he has barely been out of the city limits of Chicago since law school.  He is the least qualified person to represent a major party for election to President in the history of this country. Do I think he can learn and can surround himself with advisors of depth and experience - of course I do. (But I still disagree with his beliefs about the role of Government)

But so can Sarah Palin, if the need arises.  The percentage of voters that are polling negatively toward Governor Palin are reading the news reports of a biased agenda driven media and buying into the stories - though they should know better by now. 

She got tossed into interviews on topics that were outside her area of current expertise in the early going.  But I certainly think she went toe to toe with a 36 year Senator in her extemporaneous debate and gave a very creditable performance which everyone seems to have forgotten.  And Biden was much more fast and loose with his facts then and has made remarkable misstatements in other venues as VP candidate - which are ignored.  Nobody is asking him to resign from the ticket - or asking him if he should have been a Senator while he was a single father with kids at home, now that I think about it.

Aaron and Inna - you (and all of us) are both free to disagree with Governor Palin's positions (and mine) but I expect both of you to be more discerning about the qualifications talking points.  And if you have even the slightest lingering concern for our Vice Presidential candidate's qualifications - remember at least that we (the Republicans) have our training program at the bottom of our ticket - unlike the Democrats who have theirs at the top. 

I am voting for McCain/Palin for the traditions and values of my Country. 

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

And another Thing...

I seem to have a few more rants left in me this morning. 

First, from Colin Powell to the sleazy media there seems to be a set of talking points that suggest that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be a candidate for Vice-President.  This is a fabrication and an insult to the Governor of Alaska.

Governor Palin is the highest elected official in her state.  In addition to appointed board positions in State government, Sarah served her constituents in her city as councilwoman and mayor.  As Governor of Alaska she has the highest approval ratings of any sitting governor of either party.  As commander of the Alaska National Guard, the Governor had unusual national security responsibilities due to the strategic location of her State.  In addition she is better informed on issues of national importance for energy because of Alaska’s vital role in energy production for our nation in a time of world unrest. 

We are all welcome to decide for ourselves whether we agree or disagree with Governor Palin’s positions on issues – but the question of qualifications is only a concern for the vicious campaign and media spin doctors.  The public in the Democrat primaries made the thin qualifications of Senator Obama a moot point – but to say that the junior Senator from Illinois is qualified and then call Governor Palin unqualified is pure sophistry and General Powell should be ashamed of himself.  He had better facts to back him up when he made the UN case for the War in Iraq. 

Governor Palin, unlike Mr Obama, lives her positions on issues.  I haven’t heard her conceal and obfuscate at every opportunity.  She meets the demands of her public life head on and does exactly what she has said she would do.  Unlike candidate Obama who has to conceal who he is from the public with the complicity of the media until after the votes are cast.

There are cultural differences between Alaska and the Washington beltway.  Thank God for that. We can make fun of these differences on SNL, that’s OK.  But in the privacy of the voting booth, I hope Americans will sober up long enough to figure out who is really perpetrating a joke on the American people and which candidates represent the best traditions and values of America.

 

Branding enters the Reverse Mortgage Industry

I have watched with interest as sports arenas have become named for corporate sponsors.  We have all seen the official cruise line, rental car company, sports shoe manufacturer or sports drink for major theme parks or cultural events.  I have no doubt that if enough money could be paid we would see ads for the official condom of the Winter Olympics.  Commercialism has gone way past Christmas there days.

So I should not have been surprised to see in the Reverse Mortgage Daily blog that Financial Freedom is now the official reverse mortgage provider for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

Joint announcements from the management of the VFW advocacy group and Financial Freedom stated that Financial Freedom has formed an alliance with the VFW to become the exclusive provider of reverse mortgages for its qualified members.

<Link here> for the full article and links to educational and advertising resources for both parties. 

 

 

 

The Picture is still not Clear - Two Weeks Out

I have provided a series of discussions in these pages about my preference for Senator McCain as my candidate for President.  Today I was interested to read an article by Neal Boortz on his views.  Neal is an attorney and a nationally syndicated talk show host originating from the Atlanta area.  He is conservative to libertarian in his views, but he will tend to offend almost everybody during the course of his program.  He is an organized thinker and very direct in his explanation of his points.  I enjoy his programs, books and occasional articles. 

His article today is a bit long, even for me, so I will provide a link to the full article <link here> and send you on your way.  He covers tax and spend issues, associations, Supreme Court nominations and other solid important issues. 

I do want to pick up on one thread from his article, since I have not covered it in previous rants.  I have suggested that Senator Obama’s plans and promises will not, in my opinion, be good for our economy.  In fact I have tactfully suggested that you would have to be nuts to want to raise taxes on anybody during the current stressed status of our economy.  It is likely that the move from recession (which may describe our current situation) to depression could be triggered by increased taxation of businesses and job providers. 

There is another Obama initiative beyond just tax issues which may, in my opinion, be harmful to our business environment and economy.  Organized labor is a major force for the election of chosen one.  Unions will want to be paid back for their contributions of campaign funds and workers.  The payback is called the “Employee Free Choice Act”.  From the Boortz article…

“Now since we’re talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah’s “Employee Free Choice Act.” Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words “free choice” to Obama’s plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words “fun sex” to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama’s plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time … and it’s all behind Obama’s candidacy.

To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote “no” on the secret ballot if that’s how they truly feel…

That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that’s simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed … and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law … the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and “urge” them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: “Mrs. Johnson, wouldn’t you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?” Now put yourself in the worker’s place!

Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying “You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don’t you?” And you’re going to tell him no?

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don’t see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It’s payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides … the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.”

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2008/10/21/to_the_undecided_voter?page=full&comments=true 

How is that for fairness under an Obama administration.  Eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing elections ? That violates American tradition and common sense in one step. This is only the beginning, Folks.

Wake Up, America.

Now they tell us...

Newsmax.com has an article today that is a major statement.  The Obama campaign has maintained a website to fight smears against the Senator for many months.  But it is a conclusion of a headline story investigation that the smears are largely based in truth and the Obama campaign uses half truths, clever language and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.  Not that this is news – but I am just delighted to see the words investigation and Obama in the same sentence from any source. 

The Newsmax.com article takes on ten allegations against Senator Obama which are discussed and rebutted on his website.  Allegations about William Ayers, ties to Fannie Mae, corporate and foreign contributions to his campaigns and others are discussed, the campaign response and the Newsmax.com conclusions are discussed in some detail.

The article is a good read and can be found <here>

Enjoy

Say that Again ?

Larry Thornberry of Tampa is a writer of quick wit, sharp edges and glorious verbal images.  He is a friend and a damn good writer into the bargain.  And on things political, he and I tend to agree most of the time which earns him a long credit mark in the ledger.  Larry is a contributing freelance author for the American Spectator Magazine and he frequently sends me his articles to feature in my blogs after they have be published in the American Spectator. 

In todays article, Larry talks about the density between the ears of the media about William Ayers, et al and the delightfully entertaining announcement by Colin Powell that he is supporting Senator Obama.  I respect the General for his accomplishments and his patriotism.  But his endorsement speech was not as well written as his UN Iraq presentation and his facts were a whole lot thinner.  General Powell has earned the right to vote for anybody he chooses – but he is not changing my vote. 

My source: http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/20/did-i-hear-that-right

Political Hay

Did I Hear That Right?

Posted by Larry Thornberry on 10.20.08 @ 6:08AM

Perhaps one day someone smart will write a book explaining how to parse political logic, because the political kind is very different from the regular logic we all use, with varying degrees of skill, to get through the day. The only sane response to some of the downright peculiar syllogisms we hear from the campaign trail is, "Say what?"

One of the most dazzling examples of faux logic from the trail is Obama's excusing of himself for hanging around with former Weatherman (not the kind you see on TV every day at 6 and 11) Bill Ayers, a man who gave his heart and soul (if he ever had either) to a terrorist organization that murdered Americans and would have liked to have murdered more in order to bring America down. It's OK to do business with this guy, Obama explains, because Ayers and his merry associates committed their atrocities when, in Obama's words, "I was only eight years old."

This is the most perverse statute of limitations I've ever heard of. Who the hell cares that Obama was just a kid when Ayers was in league with murderers and America-hating crazies? Using this logic Obama would be free to hang around with Dr. Mengele if he were available, as Dr. Joe's terrible work was done before Obama was even born.

The fact that Obama is allowed to slip his responsibility on this one using a transparent non sequitur demonstrates again, as if another demonstration were necessary, the double-standard that exists in the left-stream media. If John McCain (or any Republican or conservative) had a relationship as close as Obama's with Ayers with someone who was an unrepentant Klan member it would be page-one news and clear evidence to the chattering class that McCain was unfit for high office.

As lame as Obama's Ayers defense has been, John McCain's dealing with it has been only slightly more coherent. McCain has been saying on the campaign trail, and I paraphrase here from memory, that it doesn't matter that Obama associates with a washed-up Weatherman, but it's important that Obama should be honest with the American people about his association with Ayers.

Huh?

Of course it matters that Obama associates with anti-American, far-left extremists who have admitted to but never apologized for or showed repentance for the most despicable acts. This goes directly to character and world view. But if McCain takes the peculiar position that this kind of association doesn't matter, why is he bringing it up at all? And why should McCain make such a point of Obama's association with Ayers while at the same time putting his even longer and closer association with Rev. Wright out of bounds for discussion. Trying to follow McCain's twisted logic re Obama, Wright, and Ayers reminds me of the time I listened to Yogi Berra on television trying to explain the infield fly rule.


NOW COMES General Colin Powell gracing page one of most of America's dailies with the less-than-shocking news that a social liberal who supports affirmative action (discrimination against white people and Asian-Americans) will be voting for another social liberal who supports affirmative action. Thus is news judgment these days. All these editors missed the bigger point of the story, which is how much more comfortable the general would be as a Democrat.

The NYT tells us that Obama fetched in the general because he, Obama, is reaching out in a "more diverse and inclusive way across our society." Diverse and inclusive are two words with political meanings quite different from the meaning the words have traditionally carried for the apolitical. In operation they basically mean, as affirmative action means, including as few straight, white males in on the good stuff as possible while escorting minorities, women, gays, and members of other certified victim-groups (certified by the left) to the head of the line and catering to their interests. I don't mind a political party whooping these policies up, but it frosts me that these policies are hidden behind cuddly-sounding adjectives like "diverse" and "inclusive."

General Powell also said Obama has the gravitas and the understanding to conduct foreign policy and to be commander in chief, which is a pretty breathtaking conclusion based on the evidence. In giving Obama his blessing, Powell went on to complain of how far to the right the Republican Party has come (would it were so) and to assert how he would not like to see "two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court." We're deep into RINO-land now.

Powell says he has gotten to know Obama, has followed the campaign closely, and claims that Obama has demonstrated "intellectual vigor," and has crossed intellectual, ethnic, and racial lines. Hmm. I guess I was out of town the weekend when Obama did all this.

Powell even said McCain's criticism of Obama for his relationship with Ayers was "over the top." It's the general's view that McCain should not be suggesting that Obama "pals around with terrorists" just because he, well, pals around with terrorists. At least has a history of hanging out with them, though of course his guest list has been sanitized of late for the campaign. The general has well learned the lesson from the left-stream media that the life-time associations of Republicans, particularly the more conservative ones, must pass a Marine Corps white-glove inspection. But if a Democrat works and plays with Old Scratch himself it would be tasteless and narrow-minded and not at all inclusive to point it out.

Here's some G-2 for you, General. You're a Democrat.

Somebody smart, I forget who or I would give credit, said, "Most political campaigns in America are mere exchanges of nonsense. To the extent a candidate has a case -- and it's rare that one does -- he almost never states it clearly." There's been little in this gaudy election cycle to prove this melancholy diagnosis wrong. Hey, maybe the guy who came up with this insightful quote could write the book on political logic. It would be a public service. And it's clear that this guy understands American politics.