Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama "Untested?"

Who cares? My reason for not voting for Obama is simple: he's a SOCIALIST. Socialism involves TAKING money and property FROM people who EARN their own way and GIVING that taken to those who DON'T. That would be theft if done by an individual, but it is "sharing" if done by the government for the benefit of the "leeches" of society who will not work, and DEMAND they be "kept" by others. I'm really getting tired of helping to support those who will not work and support themselves; those who "step all over each other" to show how "needy" they are, and want "their share" of what others EARN. To them, "need" is a DEMAND on the earnings of others. I have nothing against helping those who CANNOT earn for themselves, but I resent being FORCED to help those who are able-bodied and have sufficient intelligence to hold down a job, but who will not. I don't care if Obama is "untested." I DO care that he is a dedicated radical socialist, and always has been. (Just common sense)

Obama Lies About Heritage Approval

As usual, Obama is lying. This time it is an obvious, PROVABLE lie; he claims the Heritage Foundation "approves" his socialist tax plan. They don't. They have sent him a letter of protest and a demand to "cease and desist," and neither Heritage, nor their attorneys have gotten a reply. Meanwhile, Obama continues to run this lying ad. Will the liberal media report on this? Doubtful. They're "in the tank" for Obama and continue to lie for him. Is this the kind of president you want? If so, I feel sorry for you. If not, it shows you're more intelligent than many. (Heritage Foundation)

Not Just Negative

Stupidly negative. In a Colorado congressional race, Betsy Marky (D) is running against Marilyn Musgrave (R). Both are running ads that are not only "negative" (which is expected, for how do you win an election by saying only "positive" things?), they're STUPIDLY negative. One involves "putting Markey under a lie-detector," (even if that were possible) and getting lie after lie in answer to certain questions. Another says Musgrave "has been declared one of the most corrupt politicians in Congress." But then you look at the "small print" where they give their source, and it's a VERY liberal organization that sees "corruption" in everything a Republican does, whether or not it is there. Then there is "Boulder liberal" Mark Udall (D), who is running ads saying he's a conservative. He resents being called a "Boulder liberal." Does he think we don't remember all his liberal and socialist votes? I'll be glad when all these stupid commercials and lying is over. (Just common sense)

Thursday, October 30, 2008

"Joe" Unmasks Obama

Actually, Obama unmasked himself. Obama tries hard to be seen as a "moderate." But one question from an ordinary American and his lame answer (We need to "spread the wealth.") clearly unmasked him. The liberal media tried its best to stop it, but Obama's answer itself told America that he was a collectivist (socialist) who wanted to take money away from working Americans and give it to NON-working Americans. (that's the ONLY translation of his answer) This statement alone may cost Obama the election (one can only hope) and his gang will try their best to destroy Joe for asking the question the press dare not ask. (NRPAC)

If Obama Loses the Left Will Riot

They've promised it. "What was once considered the anti-American Left now has the power to define who is and who is not a good American. Seeing victory in sight, they grow more bold and unapologetic. Over the last few days, instead of denying charges thrown at Obama, they have readily conceded them and basically said: So what? To them, Obama's 'spreading the wealth around' comment isn't a cringe-inducing gaffe but an applause line and sound basis for policy. What's wrong with the state redistributing wealth? More than a few of them have asked, including, by the way, Colin Powell after his Meet the Press appearance before reporters." Remember the sixties when Obama's close friend, Bill Ayers was running the "Weathermen" and they were running around bombing government buildings and the HOMES of judges who ruled against them? Remember the violence they created and the deaths they were responsible for? Now one of their children is running for president and might even win. The left's long fight to impose socialism on us will be over if he is elected and the Democrats gain enough seats to have a "filibuster-proof" Congress. I fear for this country. I got into the information business because I felt Rush was evidence of a "return to intelligence" in this country. But the liberals have done a good enough job of muting his warnings that many of you will ignore this because the source is Rush. I won't. I don't agree with all his OPINIONS, but I've never caught him in a lie. (Rush Limbaugh)

Illegal New Orleans gun Confiscation

New Orleans Mayor Nagin has finally admitted that he illegally confiscated guns after the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans. This after many years of "stonewalling" and obfuscation. The court placed an injunction against the city preventing them from confiscating any more firearms. They have been required to make "reasonable efforts" to return all guns confiscated after the hurricane. But they have applied onerous paperwork requirements upon those wishing to get their guns back. The process, so far, has been VERY slow and shows no sign of speeding up. Additionally, let me know if you see anything about this in the liberal media. (NRA-ILA)

Big government Promoter is Obama "Adviser"

Surprise, surprise! From what I know about Obama, there's nothing surprising about him having such an "adviser." Paul Volker (former Fed chairman) favors an "international regulatory agency" (translation: UN) to "oversee our capitalist system." That's a contradiction in terms. A "free market" is a "free market" only so long as it's free. If it becomes "regulated," it's no longer free and becomes socialism. He's also in favor of "bigger government;" collectivism (socialism). Now, why would a socialist want another socialist as an "adviser?" (One News Now)

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"Nothing Substantive" on Joe

The press is complaining that they have found "nothing substantive" on Joe the Plumber. Who the hell are they to even LOOK for something "on Joe the Plumber?" He's just a guy trying to earn a living; he can't send your son off to war? He's not running for ANYTHING. He didn't ask Obama to knock on his door? It's the heights of arrogance to try and "find" something "on" Joe. Now Joe is having problems earning a living because the De3mocrats have noted that he didn't "have a license." Since when does a man working for a plumbing COMPANY need a license? When I was a sign painter working for a sign company, I didn't need a license, although if I started my own sign company, I would need one. Not to be a sign painter, but to own a BUSINESS. Now Joe is going to have even more financial problems than Democrat policies led to for all of us because of the Democrats. And THIS party wants to run this country? (Just common sense)

Obama's Campaign Based on Lies

"The U. S. Health Care System is the Worst in the World" (Actually, it's the best). "Corporations are Evil" (Actually, they are what keeps our economy going. Without them we'd be a "fourth-rate country." With them, we've outstripped the entire world.). "We're Losing the Iraq War" (Actually, we won it in the first week. We're just "mopping up" now). "Drilling Won't Work" (Actually, it WILL)."We're in a Depression" (Actually, we haven't been in a REAL depression for years). "Global Warming is a Major Problem" (Actually, a cyclical increase in global temperature of one quarter degree in 100 years is NOT a "major problem"). "They Will Try and Scare You Because I Don't Look Like Other Presidents" (Which is an obvious attempt to say if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist). If you buy this crap, you'll have the president you deserve. (Just common sense)


Since it won't help you right this minute? Environmental extremists say we shouldn't drill in ANWR because it will be ten years before we see any increased supply from it. If we followed that advice in other things, we would never plant a crop; never get married; never do ANYTHING because it won't give us "instant gratification." But did you see what happened the minute Bush threw out the Executive Order banning drilling in the U. S.? Oil prices immediately started downward, just on the POSSIBILITY of us drilling in the U. S. That action caused the Sheiks to wet their robes and OPEC increased its production. I think their thinking is wrong; we don't NEED to see "increased production" right now. Just the POSSIBILITY will cause oil prices to go down. (Common Sense)

McCain "Creeping Up" on Obama

Obama screwed up BIG with "Joe the Plumber."Hugh Hewitt (prime blogger and radio host) says, "The steady creep in the polls for John McCain continues, with Ohio showing one respectable poll tipping the state back toward McCain by a point for the first time in over a month. It's not because of Colin Powell's ho-hum endorsement of Barack Obama. That only excites the media elite. It's because McCain is closing the deal with independents over Obama's socialist policy plans, Joe the Plumber, and Sarah Palin." Joe the Plumber hurt him bad; not because he said Obama's ideas "sound like socialism to me (which is true)," but because of Obama's answer, "We want to 'share the wealth," which IS socialism. We find out more about Obama when he's not "scripted" than we ever do in his speeches, which are always geared to tell us what we want to hear. It's because of Sarah Palin, who brought a lot of excitement to the McCain campaign and a lot of FEAR to the Obama campaign. They wet their pants at the sound of her name. They're trying their best to destroy her because of that. They hope they can minimize her effect, and that will be very hard to do. (Hugh Hewitt)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Government Takeover

The Democrats have run the "perfect swindle," and it came to the fore at exactly the right time for their presidential hopes (It was planned that way). They disparage "millionaires" and "the rich," as if making more money than you was a "bad thing." Tell me . . .isn't it "every man's" ambition to become rich? Yet they successfully gain support from "the middle class" for their continuing efforts to make poor people out of "the rich." But what happens when there are no longer any "rich" to invest in moneymaking projects that create jobs and paychecks for the rest of us? How does it help YOU to take money away from rich people so they can no longer invest in those projects? The Democrats are "killing the goose that lays the golden egg," and way too many people in this country are going along with it. I would like someone to write me and tell me (logically) how we are going to survive when all the "rich people" are gone. Tell me what WE gain from hurting "the rich?" Poor people never created any jobs--except those overseeing the giving away of money stolen from the rich in the form of various welfare programs.

When all the rich are gone, where is the government going to GET the money they give away to the "leeches" of society (the moochers)? They don't give away THEIR OWN money. They give away that stolen from people who EARN their own way and have some left over (they never include THEIR "riches," which aren't EARNED by them. They were earned by their ancestors). Part of "looting the rich" was the passage of the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA); a Democrat (liberal) scam that had a "stated goal" of making it easier for those who couldn't afford it to buy homes. That's ridiculous on its face if you examine it logically. If they can't AFFORD it, how is a law going to make it possible without taking money away from others who can (They say people "have a right to their own home." But it's not a "right" when it has to be TAKEN from others in order to give it to them.)? So they FORCED lenders to loan money to those who could not pay it back--ever, and created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "buy up" those mortgages to "stave off" the inevitable crash when the money ran out until the "crash" it created helped them win an election. That scam has come to fruition and they're falsely blaming "Republican policies" for the financial crunch, suggesting that Barack Obama, one of the CREATORS of the scam can "solve the problem" THEY created with his help.

But they can't point to any LOGICAL action of the Republicans that created this problem, while their own actions are crystal clear. They made this law in a Democrat -controlled Congress and it was signed by a Democrat president (Bill Clinton). So how in hell can they blame this on Bush? Bush tried and tried (12 times) to stop their scam, but was rebuffed every time with people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (the CREATORS of the scam) saying, over and over, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." We now know that was, and is false. But they still repeat, over and over, the lie that this "financial crunch" is the "fault of eight years of Bush's failed policies." What a whoop that is! At the same time, Congress AND the Executive BANNED drilling for oil in any territory controlled by the United States, A "formula for disaster" because when fuel prices rise, the price of EVERYTHING rises because everything you buy must be shipped at some point in its life. This created yet ANOTHER "financial crunch" in addition to that created by the CRA. They SAY that it is "capitalism" that failed. Actually. NOTHING failed. Their scam worked perfectly.

They CLAIM they "have the best interests of America" in mind, but they don't. They WANT the cost of fuel to rise and create this "crunch" just before a presidential election to make Americans mad and frustrate them while they consistently (and falsely) blame it on George Bush (with nothing LOGICAL to back it up). This "two-pronged attack" on our economy was Democrat-created to help them win an election they do not deserve and put a SOCIALIST in the White House to advance their socialistic ideas. Bush rescinded the Executive ban on drilling, but the Congress has not. So it's STILL a Democrat-created and maintained problem. Yet they may be successful in getting not only a Democrat president elected, but also in getting a Democrat-controlled Congress with a "filibuster-proof" majority so they can do ANYTHING they want, without meaningful interference from the Republicans. They will have created a "bloodless coup" on our government. (Just common sense)

Typical Democrat Scam

In Ohio, the GOP wanted to have the records checked to see if the name on a voter registration matched driver license or other official records. The Supreme Court said, no; go ahead and cheat. The Democrats said (with nothing to back it up) "this is a way to disenfranchise voters." Actually, it is. To disenfranchise voters who register falsely and numerous times. You know; people the Democrats want to register and have vote Democrat. The screaming about having to show a "picture ID" is the same. As long as election officials can't truly ID voters, the Democrats can commit voter fraud at will. And that's the way the Democrats want it. Maybe the GOP should sponsor voter fraud, too, so we can get as many fraudulent votes as they do. (Breitbart)

"Not Bothered" By Wright and Ayers

Liberals have been bragging lately about a recent poll by one of their friends that seems to say, "Most people aren't bothered by Obama's close association with racist Rev. Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers." Tell me--why would anybody even DO such a poll unless they were worried about the effect of Obama's close association with these two will have on Obama's election hopes? Actually, they're doing what they always do; "making news" by "taking a phony poll" and reporting the results as if they were actually news. Truth? Way too many for Obama's liking ARE "bothered" by these associations because they say a LOT about his judgment. I'm not bothered by those associations because I am bothered by Obama's SOCIALISM. I don't want him anywhere NEAR the White House in ANY capacity, any time. (Just common sense)

Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama to "Change the World"

That's what he says, anyway. This is the usual generalization that means nothing. But if he DOES mean anything by it, he means he is going to "change" the world to collectivism (socialism). When Obama, or ANY Democrat (liberal) talks about "change," it MEANS toward socialism, because that's what they're promoting, and what they are. They really ought to quit calling them the Democratic Party. There's nothing "democratic" about them. They're SOCIALISTS, pure and simple. Just listen to what they say. It's all about "sharing," which, to them, means YOU "sharing" with OTHERS, by allowing YOURSELF to be taxed at a higher rate so they can give more money to the leeches of society. This then, is the "change" Obama promises. (London Telegraph)

"Not Interested . . . Right Now"

That's what John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi's choice for her second-in-command said to an investigator who offered him a bribe, leaving the door open for future bribes. That got him listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the AbScam investigation. He lost out to someone else, and that's a good thing, except for the fact that the man he lost out to is an "ultra-leftist," too. I guess not having been impeached for corruption is what beat him out. I guess it takes a conviction, in the case of Alcee Hastings, to get a real job with Democrats. Typically, CNN referred to this as "old allegations (without denying them)," while ignoring the fact that those "old allegations" were never resolved. They make a big thing about him "not being convicted of anything," while ignoring that same fact about Congressman Mark Foley (who, by the way, is a Republican). (News Busters)

Does Anybody Believe That?

Hillary says there will "probably" not be another run for the presidency for her. Would that it was true that we never again have to worry about our "Evita Peron" (look her up) ever getting a chance at the "big chair. I don't believe it, though. She's way too ambitious to ever give up on her dearest wish. Sure, she's a millionaire now from "tagging along" on Bill's coattails. That's why she stays with him in spite of his "willy-wagging ways." But that's not enough for her. She ALWAYS wants more. And you can bet she'll go after it. (Yahoo News)

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Stealing the Election

The Democrats are still "in denial" about Bush winning the 2000 election. They think, just because Kerry got more POPULAR votes, we ought to change the rules "mid-election" to allow him to win. But that's not how we elect presidents. We elect them by "Electoral College" votes, and always have. Now they're trying to steal the current election by vote fraud. Their primary vote-fraud outfit, ACORN, has garnered so many accusations, and more than a few CONVICTIONS in voter fraud cases, that their name has become synonymous with vote fraud. Yet they're still in business, because they're careful to never put anything illegal down on paper so they can blame it all on their workers who, they say, "often get too excited" and overstep themselves. And like the old television show, they "disavow" their connection if they're caught, and they're "on their own." This Ramirez cartoon says it all. (Michael Ramirez/IBD)

Socialism is Like Communism Used to Be

People ridicule you for being concerned about it. One of the most famous ridicules of anti-communists who were trying to "wake up America" is, "He sees communists under every bed." Meanwhile, communists WERE "under every bed." When all was done, the "anti-communists" were proven right. Communists were EVERYWHERE. They were in the bureaucracy, they were in elected office, they were in our schools, our colleges, literally everywhere. The only thing that saved us was the collapse of communism in Russia, their biggest "success story," which survived for 75 years. They now want us to think "communism is dead." So we'll "go back to sleep." The then Soviet Premier said as much in a speech before their "ruling body." He told them not to be concerned at what's going to happen (Peristrioka), it's just a scam to make the Americans "go to sleep." And it is working. America IS mostly "asleep" when it comes to SOCIALISM, which is just one more style of collectivism. Many people don't even know what socialism IS. People are today ridiculing people who "fear the word socialism," as if "the word" was all there was to it. But it's not. Socialism is just a name for something that if it ever gains total control over this country, we'll ALL suffer. The bureaucrats will tell us everything we can do, and if we don't, they'll punish us.

They will CONTROL everything we used to own, without buying it from us. They'll simply TAKE it. How we have remained relatively "free" this long, I don't know, because Americans are so smug, they don't think it's possible for people to take away their freedom. Meanwhile, socialists are "working feverishly" to do just that. And they're succeeding. There ARE numerous communist governments left. Cuba is one, though it is on ITS "last legs." China is another, although it is growing fast, due to its government's embracing capitalism for its dealings with other countries. Venezuela is another, and is still prospering after Hugo Chavez' "nationalizing" (stealing) its oil industry. There are many more, and while they survive while looting the rest, they're dangerous. If Obama gets elected president in America, and Democrats gain enough seats to have a "filibuster-proof" Congress, we'll move even faster toward complete socialism in our government. I'm old. So I won't have to live through much of it (I hope). But my children and grandchildren, and theirs will, and I don't want that. (Just common sense)

Democrat in Sex Scandal

Will the liberal media report it as well as they've reported EVERY "sex scandal," real or imagined, by a Republican? Will it be something that's on every outlet for days, even weeks? Or will it be a "one-day wonder" and forgotten? I doubt it; they never do. They always try and "sweep under the rug" any "scandal" involving a Democrat, while "shouting to the skies" any scandals connected to Republicans. The "double standard here is so obvious you can't miss it unless you're not paying attention (unfortunately, most people are not). Remember the Republican politician who was arrested by a biased policeman who hated gays because he "moved his feet wrong" in a restroom? How about the Democrat (Barney Frank) whose boyfriend was running a whorehhouse out of his (Barney's) apartment? Didn't hear about that, huh? I'm not surprised. Barney even got "censured" for that, but it didn't hurt his career a bit. He keeps getting re-elected. But his state is "Taxachusetts, what can I say? Such sex scandals never DO hurt Democrats. How about John Edwards, the former vice-presidential campaigner whose sexual affair he confessed to, saying his wife, who has cancer, was unable to satisfy him? If you don't listen to Fox on television or to a radio station that doesn't follow the liberal line, you won't. (ABC News)

Telling the Truth

You can always tell when the McCain camp "hits a sore point" by telling the truth; the Obama camp screeches like a stuck pig. Then they try and force the McCain camp to stop saying that. Obama is probably the ONLY presidential candidate I know of who has been (somewhat) successful in DICTATING how his OPPONENT must run his own campaign, and what that candidate CANNOT say. But he's very lucky in that his opponent is very frightened to "offend" somebody, most of all his opponent. If Obama wins this election and imposes a socialist government upon us, it will be because HE controlled not only his own campaign, but also that of his opponent. Now he's trying to control the press. Joe Biden was so surprised at the REAL question asked by a Florida news anchor he asked if it was a joke. Then he flat-out LIED in his answer and cried to Obama, who "froze out" this station for future interviews and demanded the FCC "punish" this station and its anchor for having the temerity to ask a REAL question of his VP candidate. (Just common sense)

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Pelosi Buying Votes With YOUR Money

After adding $150 billion of YOUR dollars (in pork) to the $700 billion bailout promoted by the president, she is now preparing to add yet ANOTHER $300 billion dollars' worth of pork to buy votes from those who will benefit from it (It's amazing how they throw your money around). This is so obvious, even people who don't pay attention have to be able notice it. But she doesn't care. She figures she can "spin it" to the extent even THEY will not object--or at least not in such numbers as to put a stop to it. Do these people think money "grows on trees?" Maybe not. But for Washington politicians, it DOES grow on printing presses. Sheesh! Obama is the worst of all. He has promised so many things there will not be enough money in the world to pay for them, even with the government's money printing presses working full time, printing large denominations. (Just common sense)

Amadjinijerk Blames U. S. for Economic Problems

As if he knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately he's right. But for the wrong reasons. It is NOT our "meddling in the Middle-East" It is our OWN liberal politicians who have literally CREATED the economic problems now plaguing us. The very people now crying the loudest for "oversight" (control" of the "bailout" the president is proposing, the largest "takeover" of private business enterprise in history), is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. There are two names that "rise to the top" as creating the problem: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have blocked every effort to "clean up "Fannie May" and "Freddy Mac" while profiting to the tune of MILLIONS from their operations. President Bush tried three years ago to put a stop to their scam, but who blocked it? Barney and Chris.

The scam was to buy up bad loans and backdate them, making it look like Fanny and Freddie were having an amazing growth in "assets," upon which the multi-million dollar bonuses of the CEOs were based. Naturally, Fanny and Freddy were giving MILLIONS to politicians, top among whom were Barak Obama and John Biden. They used them to take BILLIONS from the taxpayer in the form of political contributions. Where are Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines, former CEOs of Fannie and Freddie? They're Barack Obama's "A-Team." Can you put two and two together? Now Democrats are trying to convince you that capitalism is responsible for this "economic problem." That's a lie. It is the idiot policies of LIBERALS in Congress (and in the presidency during Clinton's term) that are responsible. Don't buy their bull droppings. (Yahoo News)

Tax Breaks for Hiring People is Stupid!

But that's what Obama is promising to do. That is the ONLY kind of "tax break" you'll EVER be able to get from Obama. A "TARGETED" tax break, to make you do HIS bidding in return for a tax break. But you don't hire people to get a tax break; you hire people to make money! That supposed "tax break" is an INSULT to intelligent people! You figure out if that person you hire will make you money or COST you money. If he/she does make you money, you may hire more people (Is he going to raise your taxes if you fire anybody?). Hiring people who do not help you make more money just COSTS you money--maybe (probably) more money than you get from Obama's silly little offer. Hiring an employee will COST a lot more money than the $3,000 "tax credit" he is offering!

Obama doesn't know anything about what he is doing. He keeps listening to other people (who may or may NOT know what they're saying) and spouts (parrots) what they tell him. Unfortunately, they might be telling him different things. Wrong things. That causes him to promise things directly opposed to each other without knowing it. Frankly, ALL of Obama's promises are silly. If he actually DID all the things he's promising, it would cost more money than there is in the world (even with the government printing it by the billions). Barack Obama's pronouncements on the economy are curiously confused. Every time he opens his mouth on the economy he shows his ignorance. I can't remember any other politician that so incensed me with his/her ignorance. Maybe Clinton in his first election; but I can't say that because I wasn't "paying attention to politics" then. (Pajamas Media)

Friday, October 24, 2008

Afraid of One Word: Socialism!

The other day, I heard a man talking and this was his comment. "Too many people are afraid of one word: socialism." It's as if, to him, "socialism" is JUST a word. It's not. It is a system that has caused the death and the ruination of millions of people under one name or another. One name was "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics." Another was National Socialism (Nazism). Canada is a socialist government, and so is Cuba and Venezuela. Some people crow about the "great health system" (socialized medicine) in Canada, but ignore the fact that people who CAN, come to the United States for medical treatment so they don't have to WAIT months for an appointment just to see the doctor. In Cuba, they have a "two-tier" system: one tier for Castro and his friends, and other "bigwigs," and the other for the rest of the Cubans. The best medical care going is in Cuba, but it is reserved for the "top tier." This guy evidently has no idea of what socialism IS, or he wouldn't make such an ignorant statement. Socialism is the GOVERNMENT making ALL your decisions, while taking away most of your money. Either owning, or CONTROLLING all the property and means of production while the citizens own NOTHING

A government where you need a "permit" to do just about ANYTHING-you need to go, "hat in hand," to some faceless bureaucrat (who shouldn't have that much power) and ask PERMISSION to do things that SHOULD be your own decision. No, I'm not AFRAID of socialism; I'm afraid of the RESULTS of socialism on our way of life (if I survive it). I'm "afraid" of giving OTHER PEOPLE the right to tell me how to live my life and to be forced to finance it with my tax money. I don't mind paying REASONABLE taxes to finance things that are necessary for the government to do. But I RESENT paying EXCESSIVE taxes so they can give MY money to the "leeches" of society who WILL not work and support themselves and insist their "need" is a DEMAND on part of MY earnings. And that's what socialism is. Their basic "mantra" is "FROM each according to his ABILITY, and TO each according to his NEED." Meaning it is okay for the government to FORCE people capable and willing to EARN their own way to PAY for the "needs" of others, who will NOT. I have nothing against helping those who CANNOT pay their own way. That's what CHARITY is for. But I will not pay the way of those I see lounging around on street corners, smoking cigarettes and even "weed" they always seem able to pay for (usually with MY money, which they get from the Welfare Department). They always seem to be able to pay for dope and sex. (Just common sense)

Denying the Obvious

Barney Frank says his gay relationship with a Fannie Mae executive was "definitely not a conflict of interest." Does he really expect anybody to BELIEVE that? Unlike his previous lies about there being "nothing wrong with Fannie Mae," we already KNOW that his gay relationship with Herb Moses while Moses was a Fannie Mae executive and Frank was on the House Banking Subcommittee IS a "conflict of interest," And no amount of denials will make us believe it wasn't. Frank can scream "gay-hater" all he wants. He can't change the facts. I don't care what he did in his bedroom with Moses. That's his business. But I won't allow him to use that to deflect ALL criticism of his financial malfeasance. Frank is very good at denying the obvious and "continuing on" as if anybody believed him. But it's growing very thin. Pretty soon he's not even going to believe himself. This article says Frank only got $40,000 from Fannie Mae, but I'll bet that figure goes up as time goes on. (Paxalles)

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Obvious Press Bias

This writer in the Las Vegas Review-Journal calls our attention to the fact that on the day the stock market bottomed at 777, they had to send out for bigger type to print the number in the headline (so to speak). Then the next day when it hit its highest number ever, 936, you couldn't find that number with a magnifying glass. If that isn't obvious press bias, I don't know what is. (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

NRA is NOT Republican

The Democrats find it hard to believe that the National Rifle Association (NRA) supports some Democrats. They find it "interesting." They just can't understand that ALL politicians who support the right to own and use guns for self-defense are not necessarily Republicans. So they support SOME Democrats. So what? It just proves that the NRA is NOT "just a right-wing organization." It IS a "one-issue" organization though. Personally, I wouldn't vote for a Democrat ANY time. Mostly because they're ALL socialists, to some degree. (Well, mostly. I HAVE seen a couple of Democrats who have good values, and I MIGHT vote for one of them. But I can't see why they don't become Republicans. Maybe they enjoy the "infighting" in their own party. (Prime Buzz)

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

McCain is "Creeping Up" on Obama

Obama screwed up BIG with "Joe the Plumber."Hugh Hewitt (prime blogger and radio host) says, "The steady creep in the polls for John McCain continues, with Ohio showing one respectable poll tipping the state back toward McCain by a point for the first time in over a month. It's not because of Colin Powell's ho-hum endorsement of Barack Obama. That only excites the media elite. It's because McCain is closing the deal with independents over Obama's socialist policy plans, Joe the Plumber, and Sarah Palin." Joe the Plumber hurt him bad; not because he said Obama's ideas "sound like socialism (which is true)," but because of Obama's answer, "We want to 'share the wealth," which IS socialism. We find out more about Obama when he's not "scripted" than we ever do in his speeches, which are always geared to tell us what we want to hear. It's because of Sarah Palin, who brought a lot of excitement to the McCain campaign and a lot of FEAR to the Obama campaign. They wet their pants at the sound of her name. They're trying their best to destroy her because of that. They hope they can minimize her effect, and that will be very hard to do. (Hugh Hewitt)

Not Enough Money in the World

The Democrats are wondering if Sarah Palin even understands the constitutional definition of the very JOB she is seeking! How stupid and insulting. Sarah Palin scares the hell out of Democrats. She has (and will) bring out the very WORST in them because they wet their pants at the sound of her name. Her very presence puts FEAR in their hearts and has reinvigorated the Republican Party like nobody else has, or can. They're actually "fighting back" more now than I've ever seen them since "The Contract With America." Dems talk about "fighting two wars!" We're NOT. Those wars were won in the first week! What we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is "cleaning up" and consolidating control in the hands of their people. That takes time, and with so many murderous terrorists sniping at whoever is running things, it's going to take a while and cost some money. Iran is "preparing" for a "war with America," as if they could win such a war! Obama is proposing so many "bread and circuses" plans, there's not enough money in the WORLD to pay for them! He apparently isn't smart enough to know this, and the Democrat Party doesn't think YOU are, either. That's their standard scam, and they will use all those impossible promises as an excuse to raise your taxes. As did Clinton, who was elected on a "lower taxes" promise, they'll say, "We worked as hard as we could, but what we found when we got into office leaves us no choice but to raise your taxes." (Just common sense)

More Guns Needed

In New Zealand, "dairies" (their equivalent of a convenience store") are arming themselves because of a recent increase of violent crimes against them. They call the job of clerk in their stores as "one of the most dangerous jobs out there." Some keep baseball bats, cricket bats, knives and other weapons short of a gun because of the tight gun laws that do nothing toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (who don't obey laws) but DO keep guns out of the hands of most honest people--those who really NEED them. But some are actually putting guns under their counters in defiance of the law because "it's better to be judged by 12 instead of carried by six." I agree. If I had such a job, I would DEFINITELY have a gun close to hand, law or no law. (New Zealand Herald)

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

New Poll Out

Obama must be getting desperate to stop people from thinking about his close association with a racist preacher and a former terrorist murderer. So he commissioned a new poll (most likely taken among only his Democrat pals) that says "most people are not bothered by his close associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. Are they bothered by his support for, and promotion of, collectivism (socialism)? Should we "pull out" of Chicago (There were more murders in Chicago last year than in ALL of Iraq)? Many polls have Obama up against McCain. How many polls had Kerry beating Bush in the last election? Who won (by ANY LEGAL measure)? Americans (they say) hate Bush more than any president in the past. Polls say so. But you can't trust those polls any more than the ones you see today. They are used by the candidate with the most money (usually Democrats) to promote the ideas and candidates they want you to vote for or against. They're not true. They can be twisted any way they want, just as statistics can be. (Just common sense)

They Never Mention Socialism!

There seems to be a prohibition on use of the word "socialism" or any derivative by politicians on either side. In the latest debate, McCain took Obama to task for his "spreading the wealth" comment, but he never mentioned what that means, and is a part of. "Spreading the wealth" is part and parcel of collectivism, of which socialism is just one form. Communism is another and Nazism is yet another. Collectivism has been responsible for the deaths and ruination of millions, in Russia, in Cuba, in Germany, and elsewhere. They give it different names to aid confusion, but ALL these are COLLECTIVISM. So why don't politicians use this "fateful" word? They're afraid. Afraid people will criticize them for it. They understand (at least on the Republican side) how dangerous collectivism is, so they "talk all around it" without ever mentioning its name. But whatever DETAIL they're talking about, collectivism (socialism) is at its base.

The basic motto of collectivism is "FROM each according to his ABILITY, and TO each according to his NEED." Meaning it's okay to steal from those capable and willing to EARN their own way and GIVE that stolen to those who are not. That comes right out of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." That doesn't mean Obama is a communist. Probably he is not. But he IS a collectivist. All other collectivists use that same motto. It is apparent from every word out of his mouth. I could detail that, but it would take far more space than I have here. He talks of "sharing," and of "sharing the wealth." What is that but collectivism? People have criticized me for being against "altruism." I'm not. I AM against FORCED altruism. If you see someone in need and YOU DECIDE to help them, THAT is "altruism." There's nothing wrong with that. If someone is in need and the GOVERNMENT decides to help them with YOUR money, that is "FORCED altruism," which is just another form of collectivism; and there is a LOT wrong with that. (Just common sense)

Controlling the Internet

If Obama gets elected president, look for "conservative talk radio" to disappear; especially if the Democrats gain enough seats to have a filibuster-proof Congress. They WILL reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine," where if ANYBODY says anything (or writes anything) against someone, that someone MUST be allowed time (or space) for a rebuttal. That ignores the fact that most of today's media ARE biased in favor of the liberals, and conservative radio IS "FAIRNESS." This would also probably" get rid of me," and other people like me who try and GIVE you "fairness," because the left does not count the TRUTH to be "fairness." Fox News wouldn't have a problem because they already have more liberals "on staff" than ABC, CBS, or NBC, though they don't get as much "face time" because Fox DOES also bring you the conservative side and ABCCBSNBCNYTWP does not. The liberals ought to be careful what they wish for, because that "fairness doctrine" can work both ways. Next, they'll want to impose the "Fairness doctrine" on the print media. The big problem here is "who decides" what is "fair?" I guarantee you it will be a liberal. (Town Hall Magazine)

Monday, October 20, 2008

ACORN Again!

Why anybody accepts voter registrations from ACORN is beyond me. They've been caught so many times in fraud, only the Democrats, who TRADE in voter fraud, believe their efforts are honest. And this is the organization Barack Obama was working for when he was a "community organizer" (read: "agitator" and "thug") in Chicago. Another thing: the "head honcho" of Fannie May (the organization the Democrats used to loot America) is now one of Obama's FINANCIAL advisers. Will he advise Obama to do the same things HE did when he was boss at Fannie May? The things that forced him to give back millions of dollars when they fired him? Does Obama think he can hire such people to advise him financially and WIN the election? They make a lot of noise about McCain's associates, but none are felons, ex-felons, or CEOs who stole millions of dollars. You might also want to read Malkin's article about fraud in La Raza. The link is on her page. (Michelle Malkin)

This Proves It!

In England, they care more about thieves than they do about homeowners. One man put up a barbed-wire fence and they told him to "take it down because it might hurt thieves" breaking in. Amazing! I know Britain has some of the tightest anti-gun laws in the world (guaranteeing more gun crimes). But this is ridiculous! Meanwhile, back in the U. S. A., presidential hopeful Barack Obama thinks people should not have the right to defend themselves against violent criminals, and has so voted. He is a "big time" gun-hater. In addition, he has many times signaled his opposition to honest people being able to carry guns for self-defense. Meanwhile, he has armed security following him around. He doesn't carry a gun because they do it for him. I wonder what he'd do if somebody attacked him. Just let them hurt him? (Fox News)

"Sarah 'Lawfully' Violated the Law"

What? How do you do that? They say she violated an "ethics law" for trying to get her former brother-in-law fired from the State Police. Forget that he abused his wife and threatened her father with death. He WOULD have been fired for that if his former sister-in-law had NOT been governor and nobody dared to fire him. You don't threaten the father or any other member of a governor's family and expect to keep your job on the State Police. This is NOT an "ethics violation." She had real CAUSE to have him fired, and the refusal of the head of the State Police to do it (among other things) was insubordination--which is what led to his firing. (Denver Post/Associated Press)

Sunday, October 19, 2008

McCain "Backs Away" from the Truth

I was both amazed and gratified to hear John McCain actually TALK about the REAL cause of this "economic meltdown," Democrats Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Raines (who is black, so if you want to call me "racist," have at it). He even mentioned the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977," a law passed in a DEMOCRAT-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president (Clinton). Rush Limbaugh (rightly) predicted he would soon "back away" from what he must consider a "lapse." I call it "simple truth," and something he should NOT "back away from. This is not "an attack" on Obama. It is THE TRUTH (That's what Obama always calls it when they tell the truth about him). He knows it. He has spoken it, and should stick to his guns. He even spoke the NAMES of the top three responsible; Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and Franklin Raines (who was forced to return much of the money he stole from Fannie. This is how he will be able to win this election; by showing what a Chicago thug radical socialist who will do ANYTHING to get elected. Obama is, and telling the people what a BAD mistake America would make if they elected him (Okay; now call me racist because I "attacked" [told the truth] about a crooked politician who happens to be [part] black.). I can't understand why ANYBODY who has ANY intelligence at all would vote for this man! Call me what you want. I judge each person INDIVIDUALLY, and I judge this individual to be a radical socialist, a "Chicago thug," and I don't want him anywhere NEAR the White House, in ANY capacity. Especially not as president. The liberal press talks about Obama "working with" former terrorist William Ayers on "community projects" which is "code" for making sure Chicago children are properly conditioned in school to believe SOCIALISM is the "way to go." (Yahoo News)

When Will the Liberal Media Do its Job?

Hugh Hewitt SAYS, "When will the mainstream media do its job and look into the growing evidence that Obama campaign manager, David Axelrod, has ties to the Winner firm, allegedly responsible for the smear attacks being leveled at Sarah Palin, David Freddoso, and anyone else who dares to question Barack Obama publicly? Lots of MSMers were on the conference call Monday with McCain campaign senior advisors Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt, but will any of them go after the Obama camp with the same fervor and zealousness they've shown toward Governor Palin?" When, indeed? Will they do their jobs? Don't hold your breath. To do their job would be to elect John McCain, and they don't want that. They're "in the bag" for Obama. (Examiner)

Who's Going to "Bail Out" Obama?

Obama is promising "deep cuts" in spending while telling us all the expensive things he's going to DO "for us" with other people's money. It's common knowledge that Obama's proposals will cost more money than there is in the world, so how is he going to "slash spending?" I think this man is insane and if he is elected president we're all going to suffer. (Café Hayek)

Friday, October 17, 2008

They're Afraid!

This is what causes ALL recessions and depressions. People listening to others who convince them a "recession" or "depression" is coming. So they hang onto their money; take it out of the market, and actually CREATE the recession or depression they fear. That's why the market is fluctuating so wildly since a Senator's assurance that a recession is already hers caused a run on several banks, which led to the government "bailing them out" and panicking, which led to the $700 billion "bailout, which rose to $850 billion when all the "pork" was added. In addition, there have been several other "bailouts" of differing amounts on top of that. I don't know where these politicians think they're going to get all that money, since we're ALREADY "overdrawn" to the extent of $3 TRILLION dollars! Then there's the cost of everything Obama has promised if he gets elected, for which there is not enough money in the world. Now I'M afraid. But I'm old enough I won't be around for most of it. (Yahoo News)

"Criminal Web Links?"

Is it a "criminal act" to post a link to a municipal web site? The mayor of the city of Sheboygen, Wisconsin seems to think it is, and he threatened to arrest a blogger who had tried to get him recalled, for posting a link to his police department. She had committed no crime; just posted a link to the Sheboygen Police Department. They sent her a "cease and desist" order and she originally removed the link. But after consulting a lawyer, restored it and the city "shut up." Apparently they finally realized they could not shut this blogger up. The blogger is suing. Reminds me of the time I sent a copy of a print newsletter I was publishing to the Mayor of Denver (Wellington Webb) as a courtesy, since I was criticizing him (this was early Internet). His "press hack" protested, and I answered him, sending him a copy of a similar item in an Internet "List" I was publishing, too. He sent me one back telling me to "stop sending spam." I wrote back and asked him why an otherwise intelligent man didn't know the difference between spam and a personal e-mail. I never heard from him again. (Common Sense)

Hannity Slams Obama

Obama says people like Sean Hannity "attack" him from a distance, but is afraid to say the things he says to his face. Hannity has repeatedly invited Obama to come onto his show so he can "say those things to his face." But as of this writing, Obama hasn't had the guts to take him up on his offer. I figure Obama is "all talk and no action." It is OBAMA who is afraid to go "face-to-face" with Hannity, or Limbaugh, or any other commentator who has paid enough attention to politics to be able to KNOW how Obama wants to move us closer to socialism as fast as he can. Obama even suggested one of his supporters would "tear Hannity up" if HE went on Hannity's show. So Hannity invited him on, and NOBODY got "torn up." But that's how Obama operates. He sends someone else in his place instead of doing it himself. So he can sit in his "comfort place" and drink (whatever) while watching it on television (By the way: Obama is reported to be a "heavy smoker" in private. There's nothing wrong with that, but he's afraid for his anti-smoker supporters to find out). Hannity is "not too impressed" with Obama's continued avoidance of a confrontation with him, and neither am I. But I'm not surprised. Obama is afraid of Hannity, and Rush, and many others. He has repeatedly refused to appear with them. Some think it will happen someday. I don't Obama doesn't have the guts. (Town Hall Magazine)

Thursday, October 16, 2008

My Reasons for Not voting for Obama

Actually, though I have many reasons for not voting for Obama, only one is sufficient. He is a socialist. He wants to "share MY wealth." Not his own. Have you ever known a liberal to want to "share HIS wealth?" Every word out of Obama's mouth is collectivism (socialism). He talks about "sharing." But he means YOU "sharing" with someone else. Not HIM "sharing" with you. YOU and I and all Americans (except him) are the "source" of ALL wealth to be "shared." Not him. Never does a collectivist want to share HIS wealth. It's always YOUR wealth that must be "shared." If Obama gets elected president, YOUR income will shrink because he will take YOUR money to TRY and do all the things he has promised, even though there isn't enough money in the world to pay for it all. He complains about McCain wanting to tax medical benefits, but ignores ALL the things HE'S going to tax you for. If you think you're paying too much in taxes now, elect Obama and just wait. (Just common sense)

Negative Ads Are Inevitable

All candidates gripe and whine about all the "negative ads" that have been run against them. What the hell do they think election campaigns are FOR? Both sides have to convince voters the "other guy" should not win. How do they do that without "negative ads?" Obama calls ANY ad that "tells the truth" about him an "attack," or a "negative ad." Obama says McCain's ads have been "100% lies," which, in itself, is a lie. Politicians should shut up about "negative ads" and "attacks" and just go on and run their own. They're only showing their own ignorance when they whine about it like a kicked dog. (Just common sense)

"Dog and Pony shows"

The presidential AND vice-presidential debates are nothing more than a "dog and pony show." They ask questions like, "What do you plan to do for the economy?" Questions that would require HOURS of details to answer, and expect them to answer in five minutes or less. There is NO WAY they can give substantive answers to such questions so they resort to their "boilerplate (stock)" answers that don't really mean anything. You can't learn anything substantive from such shows, unless a candidate really screws up with one of his answers, as Obama did with his "share the wealth" answer to "Joe the Plumber's" question, which was brought up time after time (Joe was mentioned 23 times during just that debate). That answer revealed a lot more about Obama's socialistic leanings than anything I could have said. (Just common sense)

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

"Bloodless Coup"

You think there is no possibility for a "bloodless coup" in this country? Unfortunately, we are in the middle of an ongoing one by George Soros and his liberal, socialist cronies. The GOP says, "With only 21 days until Election Day, liberals have their eyes on a prize almost as valuable as capturing the White House -- a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate majority. called this coup 'The biggest untold story in politics.' That's why and their allies are pouring it on to seize total control of our government. 'We have a historic opportunity to gain a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate this year -- paving the way for real progressive change. ... This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity ...' ( email, 3/26/2008) If Democrats secure 60 seats on Election Day, each and every liberal proposal will sail through both the Senate and House without debate. Quite simply, this is the most serious threat to conservative values in a generation." If Obama is elected, and they gain a big enough majority in the Congress, it WILL be a "bloodless coup." They will have "taken over" the entire United States government (that part they don't already control, that is). They will be able to reform this country into a socialist (collectivist) dictatorship if they wish--and they wish, don't make any mistake. If you don't believe this and aren't willing to even entertain this idea, I feel sorry for you for soon you will be a "subject" of "King Obama" and you won't even know it. (Just common sense)

"Spreading the Wealth"

When asked by a plumber at one of his rallies why he wants to raise his taxes, Obama responds, "It's not that I want to hurt you. We just need to spread the wealth around." That's pure SOCIALISM! That comes right out of the "Communist Manifesto!" How can a man like that ever hope to be president? In America! This is not Russia! If we put Obama in the white house, we might as well elect Vladmir Putin as President of the United States, because if he gets his way, this will become the "Union of American Socialist States." Putin is wetting his pants at the possibility of Obama, one of his "soul mates," becoming president. So is Castro; and Hugo Cavez, dictator of one of the biggest communist dictatorships in this hemisphere. Doesn't that tell you anything? Islamic terrorists SUPPORT Obama. That tells me a LOT. They figure they can twist him around their little fingers--and they're right. If he is elected, they won't have to FIGHT to take over America, Obama will GIVE it to them on a silver platter. If that ever happens, I'll disappear, because people like me will be among their first targets. (Just common sense)

Media Protecting Obama

They just won't report things he has done and is doing (such as his personal connection with ACORN, the outfit that is falsifying voter registration all over the country, using government money. Meanwhile, they're "trashing" Sarah Palin on unproved rumors, fostered by Obama and his liberal (socialist) friends. There's no proof of ANY of it, but they continue to report it as if it were true. Tinsley, as usual, covers it all with one drawing. No wonder his strip is in hundreds of papers, even if his original VERY liberal paper fired him because of his conservative views. But he didn't car; by then he was in hundreds of papers and gave them the "one-finger salute" as he walked out their door with a boxful of his property. (Mallard Fillmore)

Monday, October 13, 2008

How Obvious Can It Be?

Nobody; not even the Republicans, want to talk about it: the DEMOCRATS did everything they could to CREATE this "Economic crunch (McCain, to his credit, DID mention it recently, in answer to am pointed question--even mentioning names [Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Raines, the main players], but he has since apologized for "going negative," [which means he actually told the TRUTH about the Democrats]. Many of them actually took home millions, maybe even BILLIONS of dollars in some cases, on this massive SWINDLE, which was DESIGNED to subvert the party in power just before the presidential election, so they could put a Democrat in the White House, while adding more Democrats to Congress and allowing them to "siphon off" a lot of money for themselves, while hoping to make a "filibuster-proof" Congress they could control absolutely, without meaningful opposition by a weakened Republican Party. They did it by passing the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977," passed by a Democrat-dominated Congress during a Democrat presidency (Bill Clinton) that FORCED lenders to make loans to people who could not hope to repay them, promising Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would buy the paper so they wouldn't lose. Only the taxpayer would lose.

They backed it with threats of "investigation and prosecution" for "redlining" made by a Democrat Attorney General (Janet Reno). The CEO of Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines, took home $90 billion dollars, by himself (although when he was caught, he had to return some of it to avoid criminal charges). I hate to keep repeating this time after time, but with the Democrats (who are the culprits) blaming the whole thing on the Republicans, SOMEBODY needs to talk about this. The liberal news media are following the Democrat (liberal) line, pretending it IS the "greedy lenders" and the Republicans who are at fault. There is only one thing wrong with their reasoning: how could the "greedy lenders" profit from making loans that could not be repaid without government intervention? Sounds like "the pot calling the kettle black" to me. They're counting on most people "not paying attention to politics" until just before an election when the lies are flying to be able to fool enough people to be able to pull off this swindle. Did you know that Barack Obama was second only to Chris Dodd in money gotten (as political contributions) from Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? Check out the list of political contributions and see how many Republicans got money. Not many, I'd bet. (Just common sense)

Do Facts Matter?

Obama has gotten a big push from the "economic crisis," which makes me wonder: how stupid are Americans? It was Obama's party that CREATED the crisis, and which BLOCKED any "oversight" or regulation, saying, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae of Freddie Mac." Since we now know they were lying through their teeth, why IS it that this "Crisis" has resulted in a "bump" for Obama? "Do facts matter? Or is Obama’s rhetoric and the media’s spin enough to make facts irrelevant? Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years--including the present year--denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting sub prime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today’s financial crisis." They were warned, by (Fed Chairman) Alan Greenspan and many others in the Republican administration, but they weren't listening until the "bottom dropped out" and it could no longer be ignored. And Obama is now LEADING because of it? Gimme a break! Read this article by a REAL economist, who DOES know the truth. (Thomas Sowell)

Obama Is NOT for Self-Defense!

He wants to be able to prosecute anybody who "hurts" anybody while acting in self-defense. "The Democratic nominee pays lip service to Second Amendment rights while calling for “common sense,” “reasonable” restrictions [That's "code words" for "gun control." -RT]. But Obama’s sense of what’s reasonable, while common among the left-liberal politicians and activists inside his comfort zone, may seem decidedly unreasonable to the pro-gun voters the NRA is trying to mobilize against him." Don't buy it! Obama commonly lies whenever he wants. It doesn't matter if lying would advance his position or not. He'd lie anyway. I didn't think I'd ever find a worse liar than Bill Clinton, but I have. My question about bill Clinton, "How do you know when Billy is lying? His lips are moving," also applies to Obama. So now all you "racist-hunters" out there can call me a "racist" for (truthfully) criticizing a "black man" (or at least a "partly" black man). (The Atlasphere)

Friday, October 10, 2008

When Will the Media Do Its Job?

Hugh Hewitt SAYS, "When will the mainstream media do its job and look into the growing evidence that Obama campaign manager, David Axelrod, has ties to the Winner firm, allegedly responsible for the smear attacks being leveled at Sarah Palin, David Freddoso, and anyone else who dares to question Barack Obama publicly? Lots of MSMers were on the conference call Monday with McCain campaign senior advisers Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt, but will any of them go after the Obama camp with the same fervor and zealousness they've shown toward Governor Palin?" When, indeed? Will they do their jobs? Don't hold your breath. To do their job would be to elect John McCain, and they don't want that. They're "in the bag" for Obama. (Examiner)

Some "Friend"

"ORLANDO, Fla. - A teenager who mental health experts say wanted to become a serial killer was convicted Wednesday of luring his 14-year-old friend to a middle school bathroom and stabbing him to death in 2004." Looks like he won't realize his goal. Not if he gets either imprisoned for life or is put to death for his first murder (he's claiming insanity). It amazes me how some teenagers think. They actually think they can GAIN from killing people. Maybe that comes from the cheapening of life by the government itself suborning the murder of innocent, helpless, unborn infants. Today, the "average" sentence for killings (of all kinds) is THREE YEARS in prison. You just have to have the right lawyer. Look at O. J. He "beat the rap" in the murder of his wife and her boyfriend, but might "go down" for robbery and kidnapping for (he says) trying to get his own property back. A man who raped and murdered an elderly female friend of mine in Denver and left her to freeze to death in an alley is STILL sitting in jail (I hope) and nothing has been said about his trial. Maybe that's one of the bad things: that it takes so long to bring the killers to trial, people (except the victim and her family) forget about it. (Fox News)

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Mallard Right Again--Sorta

This cartoon is about archaeologists from the future finding an artifact from "a forgotten civilization from the past" called "America," intimating it failed a long time ago after running TV ads "begging" its citizens to vote. I agree. Asking people who "don't pay attention to politics" until shortly before an election is BEGGING them to vote for socialists like Barack Obama. That COULD lead to this country's demise as a free country. Asking them to "pay attention to politics" before voting might not. (Mallard Fillmore)

Iran: Enemy No. 1

That's what they said about Hitler, way back when--before Hitler ignited a world war, saying the same things Iran's president is saying right now. And predictably, the "doves" in this country are saying Iran is too small to concern us, exactly what they said about Hitler's Germany, which is not even as big as is Iran. Hitler didn't even have the help of a bunch of religious idiots willing to die to kill people who don't believe the same way they do. As they did before WWII, they'll probably continue to belittle the danger posed by a country run by an idiot who wants to make all Jews disappear, and who is in danger of soon having nuclear capability. These people will continue talking that way until an Iranian atom bomb wipes them out. They were instrumental in the deaths of millions of people at Hitler's hands. Will they continue until they ignite yet another world war? (Just common sense)

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Transparent Swindle

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Raines (who barely avoided prosecution for fraud, and had to return MILLIONS of dollars--but not as much as he made in the swindle) set out to make themselves richer, while creating an "energy crunch" that would convince the American people to elect another Democrat (socialist) to the presidency, while keeping the Congress in the hands of the same party so as to move us closer and closer to socialism (I don't know why they don't change the Democrat Party's name to "The Socialist Party"). It's really a "transparent swindle" if you're paying attention to what they're doing. As recently as last July, during one of the Republican efforts to find out what was going on with Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the Democrats violently blocked every effort (12 of them) made, saying, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie May or Freddie Mac" (Barney Frank).

We now know he was not only wrong, but it was a calculated effort to STOP any investigation of his personal "piggy bank" and his scam to whip the Republicans. The swindle is very transparent to those who pay attention, but Frank and his cohorts worked hard (and still do) to keep people from "paying attention to politics," and most don't, except just before an election, when the lies are flying. Other politicians are still trying to figure out what CAUSED the "financial crunch" because to define the REAL cause, the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977," a" LAW that made it a violation of the law NOT to loan money to people who could not repay it (a "recipe for disaster). They KNEW it was such, and they had only to wait until the "bubble burst" and they could blame the Republicans after profiting handsomely themselves. They've made themselves rich at the expense of the investors, who have lost BIG. Democrats still sing the "lack of regulation" song after they OPPOSED any effort to regulate Fannie or Freddie. Is anybody "investigating" these people? No. They're Democrats, and they CONTROL the means of investigation and prosecution. (Freedom Zone)

Jumping on Sarah Look-Alike?

How stupid is it to send hate mail to a woman just because she looks like Sarah Palin? But that's Democrats. We really have some stupid people in this country! Not ignorant; ignorance is merely a lack of information. Stupidity is having access to good information but ignoring it or refusing to credit it. How does LOOKING like someone equate to "bad things?" And these people have the right to vote! Personally, if not for one thing, I'd say people should have to prove they pay attention in order to be allowed to vote. That one thing is, "who decides?" Who decides if they're sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to vote? But that can't happen;. Even the "village idiot" is allowed to vote. (Hot Air)

Good Excuse Better Than None

Mayor Bloomberg, in New York City, was adamant about "term limits" when he wanted to unseat an incumbent, popular mayor. But now that his two terms are up, he's getting a little ambivalent about the possibility of a third term for himself. He even has the support of the man who was responsible for New York's term limits ordinance as the council tries to overturn it. They talk about it being "dangerous" to give someone else the "reins" in this "economic trying times." But they didn't care about the one that followed 9/11 (which dissipated under Giuliani), when they got rid of Giuliani. But I guess a "good excuse" is better than none, huh? (Common Sense)

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

"Admitting" the Obvious

CNN "correspondent" Aneesh Raman has finally admitted his bias. He has quit to join the Obama campaign. Why, I don't know. This campaign will end in three months and there won't be a job for him (unless he has an agreement with CNN to hold his job). I'd like to see a lot more of those liberal CNN workers admit their bias somewhere besides the voting booth where 90% or more of them vote Democrat by their own admission (but of course that doesn't "color" their news reporting). Gimme a break! Just look at CNN's news coverage to put the lie to THAT. (News Busters)

Harry Reid is Mentally Ill!

He says they "had an agreement in principle" until John McCain came in at the last minute and "screwed it up." One (Democrat) Senator even went so far as to say the president should tell McCain to "get out of town." What actually happened is that they tried to put Obama in charge early on, and HE "screwed it up." He even ADMITTED it later when he said, "I'm better at dealing with people over the phone" (which makes me wonder what's going to happen when "President" Obama has to face his first real life challenge that doesn't come over the phone). This makes me wonder what meeting Reid was attending? It certainly wasn't the one in which both presidential candidates spoke. Reid and the Democrats are seizing on this opportunity to "put McCain away" in the presidential race. But it won't work. There are too many honest people who were in that room who know what REALLY went on. If, and when they DO come up with an agreement and implement it, we'll just have to see if it works--and who is REALLY responsible. We KNOW who is responsible for the economic upheaval. Reid and his Democrat cohorts. And now THEY are "in charge" of "fixing" it. Reid said that they only had to do the paperwork and have a vote, and McCain "screwed it up" with a few words. If they were actually all that close, how could ANYBODY "screw it up" with a few words? I think Reid is just trying his best to "sink" McCain with words. (Michelle Malkin)

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Not A Word About the Real Cause

It's NOT Wall Street's Fault, no matter how hard the liberals (Democrats) try to convince the world it is. It is the fault of the Democrats in Congress, who passed the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. I hate to keep repeating this but I will, so long as NOBODY else (other than the "alternative media" that is) will talk about it. NOBODY speaks about the law that caused all the economic problems, the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977," passed into law that year (by a Democrat-controlled Congress) and signed by Bill Clinton (A Democrat president). It was recently updated in 2005 (under another Democrat-controlled Congress) That infamous law made it a CRIME not to loan money to people who could not pay it back (a recipe for economic disaster), and FORCED banks to make those loans on pain of prosecution. When its "chickens came home to roost" and the economy faltered, the Democrats lied again, blaming the Republicans and George Bush, saying," This 'crunch' is the result of eight years of Bush policies." Actually, it's the result of FIFTY YEARS of DEMOCRAT policies. Not even Sarah Palin mentioned this law and its effect on the economy. Why not? Why does NOBODY, not even the Republicans, recognize the effect of this Democrat law on the economy? Why do I, just one old man sitting in my office, have to "instruct" our country's leaders on economics? the answer is, the Democrats are "taking us for fools" and scamming us out of BILLIONS of dollars by manufacturing an "economic disaster" for their "October surprise" hoping it translates into more votes for Democrats when ignorant people who buy their lies vote. (Federal Reserve Board)

It's Not About Iraq or Iran

The "war on terror" is what we're fighting. It's amphorus. You kill one head and two more take his place. Or maybe ten. You kill a thousand Islamic terrorists in whatever country, and ten thousand take their place. The Democrats keep taking about us "not getting bin Laden. They're wrong. The reason we can't find bin Laden is that he is a cinder. He became a "crispy critter" years ago when we bombed a cave in which he was living, and the Islamic terrorists have been trying for years to convince the world he's still alive and still running things. But we haven't seen a tape of him speaking that contains ANY proof it wasn't made years ago. We're not "at war" in Iraq or Afghanistan. We're "at war" with Islamic terrorism worldwide. Iraq and Afghanistan are merely BATTLES in this war. Those wars were over within weeks (or less). The problem is, these murderous thugs are hard to find. So we have to keep killing them as fast as we find them. We killed another top al Qaida leader in Iraq this week (at this writing) but again, two more will "spring up" to replace him. In a culture where getting killed is a GOOD thing, there are no shortage of idiots ready to take his place on a slab somewhere. (Just common sense)

Friday, October 3, 2008

"Green" Extremists Trying to Hijack Bailout

They're saying that ANY "bailout should have "green" tie-ins. In other words, even if such tie-ins destroy what is trying to be done, they want them anyway. That's what columnist Thomas Freidman (not to be confused with economist Milton Freidman) thinks. They want the power to implement "green" requirements. Talk about taking advantage of others' problems! These environmental crazies just can't wait to take advantage of the "financial market's problems." That's their "modus operandi." Stick their or in ANY major problem and make "green concessions" a REQUIRED part of ANY bailout. (News Busters)

Fannie and Freddie "Oversight"

The liberals say the reason Fannie and Freddie failed is "not enough oversight." But what do they do when the agency designed to have "oversight" on Fannie and Freddie tries to do so? They mock them and talk about how incompetent they are, saying "There's nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie." We now know that is incorect. There WAS "something wrong" with them and they have now failed. The fact that Bush tried on twelve occasions to "look into" their operations and was rebuffed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (both Democrats). "Long before the sub prime crisis, the Bush administration not only warned of impending calamity, they had a plan to avert it. Fannie Mae, under the leadership of Clinton appointee Franklin Raines (who's now an Obama insider and economic adviser), and Freddie Mac, had issued over one-and-a-half trillion dollars in loans, but their accounting was in shambles. The agency that Congress set up to monitor them had failed to rein 'em in, so on September 11, 2003 -- this is five years ago -- President Bush proposed the agency that Congress set up to monitor them. He proposed what the New York Times called the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. The New York Times called it that. Central to Bush's proposal was creating a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie." Did it happen? No; because Frank and Dodd, with the help of today's Obama finance adviser Franklin Raines, blocked it. These are ALL Democrats, but nobody (in the news media) seems to notice that. They BELIEVE the bull droppings that the "Republicans are at fault." How stupid can people be? With Democrats it's not stupidity, it's "covering up" their swindle. With the average American, it's "not paying attention to politics" that produces such ignorance. (Rush Limbaugh)

Thursday, October 2, 2008

The Biggest Swindle in the History of the World!

No, it's not "global warming." That political swindle has forever been relegated to second place by the "big bailout" that Democrats have twisted so that it looks like they have "saved the country's economy" by "dedicating" not $700 billion, but $850 billion dollars to what might be an IMAGINARY "panic on Wall Street." Like Rush Limbaugh asked: "What was the 'trigger' in this?" He can't find it, and I can't find it either. Yes, there were a few large, old, respected companies that failed because they loaned money to too many people who couldn't afford to pay it back and they (finally) realized they couldn't continue; that doing so was a "recipe for disaster." But what WAS the "trigger?" We've already spent billions on the bailouts of those companies while actually "taking over" the two biggest offenders. Was the takeover of Fannie and Freddie the trigger? I don't think so. I think the takeover of these companies was just the thing that convinced the HONEST politicians in Washington there was a "big problem" so they would go along with the Democrat's "fix" which put more billions in their (Democrat) pockets. Meanwhile, they're LYING when they tell us this is necessary because there is "no money" available for loans. Try it. Call your bank and tell them you need a loan, have the 20% down payment and can make the payments. See if they turn you away.

Meanwhile, the very people who CAUSED this "problem" are in charge of "FIXING" it. Nobody's even TALKING about "investigating Barney Frank, who with Chris Dodd, blocked every effort (12 of 'em) to investigate and "rein in" Fannie and Freddie (Saying "There's nothing wrong with Fannie or Freddie"), the two most obvious offenders. Nobody is talking about investigating Franklin Raines, the CEO who "presided over" the swindle that got us into this mess (Who is now Obama's financial adviser, fergawd'ssake! That alone should tell you Obama is NOT the man to be president!), The Congresspeople and the president (Clinton) who passed and signed into law the very law that FORCED those investment companies to make such loans or face the "wrath" of the federal government. Why not? Are these people blind? Or are they all IN on the swindle? The Democrats are still saying it's "eight years of Bush's bad policies" when it's really 50 years of DEMOCRAT bas policies that got us into this mess. Why do people BELIEVE them? They're swindling us out of TRILLIONS of dollars (before it's done) and we're ALLOWING it. Those who don't want to allow it are the subject of derision. And they still think it's Bush's fault, when he was the only politician in Washington who actually TRIED to stop it. (Vancouver Sun)

They Don't Care

If a video provided to them by someone they don't even know depicts Jews (they say) killing Palestinians, they just run it--without even a cursory "fact-check." They just don't care. They know such videos gets them more viewers (for a time) so they run them. This is one reason why the so-called "mainstream media" is losing readers and viewers to the extent that many of them are "going under." They refuse to admit the reason WHY they're "going under." They blame it on the readers who, they say "just don't understand us." In other words, we're too stupid to understand them. The fact that we've grown tired of their one-sided "coverage" that leans way too far to the left doesn't occur to them. They think lying to us shouldn't cause us to turn to other sources (of which there ARE some, now). (News Busters)

Why Should She?

Barbara Walters scolds Elisabeth Hassleback for "never conceding a point" after she alone among the hosts defended Sarah Palin when the others said she wasn't "smart enough" to be vice president. Why should she when she's right? Barbara thinks she should concede that someone else just has a different opinion. That sounds like subjectivist thinking, to me. When she's right, why SHOULD she "concede a point?" (News Busters)

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

"Democrats Steal GOP Principles"

They're always crowing about how "Clintonomics saved America" when it was actually REAGANOMICS that did it, and Clinton's administration was the beneficiary, try though he might to do otherwise, though "scotched" by a "feisty" GOP minority (at the time). The good economy enjoyed during the Clinton administration was a "holdover" from the tax cuts by Ronald Reagan, and they "scream to high heavens" if you try and tell them that. But they can't cite FACTS to prove it. We CAN cite facts to prove our thesis. the first thing he did as president was to pass the (then) highest tax increase in history while telling America he had "worked harder than ever" to find ways to lower taxes, but couldn't. Then he tried to take over one-seventh of the economy (the health care system) and failed. Since then, he and Hillary have been trying to get it enacted piecemeal. (Human Events/Allan Ryskind)

Obama's Censorship Attempt

When David Freddosso, author of "The Case Against Barack Obama," a well-researched book that, if enough people read it will SINK the Obama campaign was engaging in a tapred debate on a popular Chicago radio show, "Extension 720," Obama sent out a mass e-mail to supporters telling them to call in and demand the show be canceled because Freddosso "has made a career out of dishonest (sic), hate-mongering (sic), even calling legislation to protect people from hate crimes 'thought police.' " That last might be true, but not under Obama's wording. "Thought police" legislation just adds one more layer of "enforcement" to crimes that already have a punishment, and represents "double punishment" for what a person is THINKING. So ANY right-thinking person would be against it. In any case, they wanted the show summarily canceled (pure censorship of ideas he doesn't agree with), not knowing it was on tape. Obama particularly disliked the sentence telling people he wanted to "raise taxes on the rich," the "rich" being described as anyone making more than $32,500 a year. Obama is well known to wish to "tax the rich," but over $32,000 a year? I used to make more than $40,000 a year, and I wasn't anything LIKE rich--and that was in a time when $40,000 a year was real money. Rich? Not on your life! Obama is a socialist and a "rich-hater," even though he, himself, is rich. He just hates those who make THEMSELVES rich through hard work and good ideas. Not the "coupon-clippers" like Teddy Kennedy and his ilk. Do you want that kind of man in the White House where he has REAL power? (Timothy Carney/Human Events)