Talk about somebody needing to get their BUT in the right place! Where Obama places his BUT is clear enough and should have been the defining moment of the debate last night. Unfortunately, the LSM, as usual, just didn’t get it.
Maggie got it and you can read about it in Maggies Notebook.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Oh, What A Tangled Web …
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” —Sir Walter Scott
Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated "Grassroots" Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them [Updated]
Who is behind the smear and lie campaign?
Obama and camp claims it’s independent bloggers and individuals who are funding the smear campaign, but evidence seems to indicate that once again the Obama camp and Obama “misspeak,” or they flat out are lying, as we call it in the mountains and here in Texas. Take time to look at some very strong evidence that supports the idea that it is not independents but the work of David Axelrod, master of Astro-turfing.
Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated "Grassroots" Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them [Updated]
Who is behind the smear and lie campaign?
Obama and camp claims it’s independent bloggers and individuals who are funding the smear campaign, but evidence seems to indicate that once again the Obama camp and Obama “misspeak,” or they flat out are lying, as we call it in the mountains and here in Texas. Take time to look at some very strong evidence that supports the idea that it is not independents but the work of David Axelrod, master of Astro-turfing.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
I Accuse...
"Since they dared, I too will dare. The truth I will say, because I promised to say it; if justice, regularly seized, did not do it, full and whole."
J'Accuse...! Emile Zola
We asked: Will the most damaging Obama scandal of them all be buried alive?
And from the entire mainstream media we received our unequivocal answer: Yes.
Read the rest of this travesty on MaggiesNotebook. If this does not make your blood boil then there is something very wrong with your thinking.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Different Approach to Personal Finances
I have written about the financial situation on several of my blog post of recent weeks. I have written how some individuals such as George Soros are willing to bring a nation to it’s knees for his own gain and that of his agenda. I have posted articles showing of one of the ways that the housing and financial market has fallen into this mess. We have watched as the Federal Government has attempted to bail out these banks and insurers just as they have attempted to bail out companies over the past 15 years or or so and with very little positive results. It seems that we have depended on the Government or man to straighten out our finances for us. To tell us how to spend our money, when to spend our money and where to spend our money.
Man/government has failed. Perhaps now it the time to look and see what God has to say about our finances for we have otherwise certainly failed.
Many folks only associate what God has to say about finances with preachers sermonizing on tithing or raising money for a need within the church, the community or the world but that is not the point of this. You see God feels very strongly about how we manage our finances and about money. You will find over 2300 verses about money in the Scriptures . Two thirds of the parables given in the New Testament by Jesus are about money. Given that it must be an important message that God wants to be delivered. I have found that when God says something one time it certainly is important, when he says it two or three times it is real important. For Him to stress something so many times it surely is of utmost importance.
The Spritual Side of Money is shown in Matthew 6:24 where the scriptures tell us: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Romans 12:2 shows how some are Set Up for Failure and how we can avoid it for certainly when it comes to finances failure is not good . This is what it says:
“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
Conforming to the pattern of the world would seem in todays world to spend all we can , while we can and borrow when we can and this my friends is why not only our country is in trouble but why so many families in this country are living from paycheck to paycheck and from credit card loan to credit card loan. They have leveraged against their homes and now are faced with foreclosure. They have overbought without counting the cost and the Scripture is very clear about this situation as well. In Luke 14:28 we find these words written: "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it?
Finances are the biggest competitors for our heart so we must have a Chazown for our finances. What is a Chazown or what does it mean? The word chazown is Hebrew for a vision or dream. The Bible says, "Where there is no vision (chazown), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:8)
We need to have a vision or dream, a plan for our finances. Believe me if you do not have a plan for your cash, someone else certainly does have a Chazown for it. They will do anything possible to separate you from your cash and destroy any Chazown that you may have had if you do not have a secure plan . God has a dream , a Chazown for His followers to live free from debt. Part of that plan for Getting There is by Giving: Acts 20:35 speaks of it this way: In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'
Ah, but now you say I knew it came down to getting my money in someway or the other. That is not the purpose of scripture quoted in Acts at all. First of all note that the writer is saying, In all that I did I showed you that it required hard work. In the previous verses Paul is telling the Ephesian Elders that I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions.
And he is saying that this required hard work and from the fruits of his toil and labors he helped others who were less fortunate than he. I know some are asking , how am I to help myself if I help someone else first. Well that is all part of Gods plan or Chazown for Getting There. The last part of the sentence in which Jesus said” It is more blessed to give than to receive” is all a part of the plan and I will attempt to show this as I go along.
The next part of Getting There is Getting Help: Proverbs 11:14, while addressing a nation , it also speaks to us as individuals. In Proverbs we read: “For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure.” We can certainly see how this has speaks to this nation because the nation has not sought the guidance and advise in the right places, depending on their own knowledge rather than seeking the knowledge of the Almighty as the founders of this country did. So in order not to fail we have to learn that we must “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;” Proverbs 3:5
There are many who offer good sound Godly advise on finances: A few sources are: Financial Peace and The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey;
Master Your Money and Taming the Money Monster by Ron Blue; and The Treasure Principle by Randy Alcorn.
The next step is Eliminate Debt: Proverbs 22: 7 says: The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. We have choices, Spend less or earn more or both. The books above have been a great help to many.
The next step is to plan for the Future: Proverbs 21: 20 says: “In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has”. Too many have proven to be foolish as I pointed out in the early paragraphs by borrowing, spending and living above their mean and now find themselves in dire straights. This country has done the same thing. We have had Congress after Congress that has failed in it’s duty to the people who elected them. They have chosen to do what is politically expedient rather than what is wise and good for the nation and now we find ourselves at the mercies of other countries from whom we have borrowed and at the mercy of those who desire to bring the economy to it’s knees. I have made no secret of what I have discovered about George Soros and his ilk. They are determined to bring the economy of this country to it’s knees. They are able to do so because the people of this country have not held their elected representative responsible and they have not taken on responsibility for their own financial well being.
To Get There requires planning. We need to plan for emergencies. Most recommend that we have three to six months savings in reserve to cover emergencies such as loss of job, illness and such. Most people have ZERO savings and some part of this lies in the fact that the banking industry has not made it attractive to save and people have not heeded the warnings given in God’s Word, instead we have been “leaning on our own understanding” and that has failed.
We should plan for future purchases such as Christmas , birthdays, anniversarys etc but instead we haul out the plastic and go ahead and “play now and pay later”. That is not part of the Chazown of God.
We should plan for college , at least those who have children who will be going that way in the near future. Cost are increasing constantly and the resources for paying for college are getting fewer. Of course some are recommending that the Federal Government pay for the privilege. Remember it is a privilege, not a right. No where in the Constitution does it guarantee anyone an education. Others in the government see it different and therein lies more of the same problem.
Yes, we even have a need to plan for death for it comes to all of us. It cost money to die, unfortunately for some it cost some more die than live. I can not stress the importance of having a will so that the unexpected does not take it’s toll.
Too many fail to plan for retirement as anyone can see. Social Security will not provide the lifestyle that most are use to in this country. Planning, saving and investment is of the utmost importance. One financial advisor has offered this advise. Pay yourself first!. They recommend that one put aside 10% and not touch it. I say in the realm of Getting There we should Pay God First for he says to “bring all the tithes into the storehouse.” The tithe is 10%, that is our minimum. To truly give it should be more but that is up to your Chazown .
There is a price to be paid: Proverbs 30:25 reflects such: “Ants—they aren’t strong, but they store up food all summer.” As the ant stores up food all summer for the winter so should we plan in order to Get There.
In conclusion consider this question. Where are you headed with your finances? Take time to read the Parable of the Talents as recorded in Matthew 25: 14-30 as you attempt to answer the question and set, hopefully , a Chazown for your financially future even among uncertain times.
14
16
19
21
22
23
24
26
28
*** All scriptures used are from the NIV.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Banking Crisis? If the Truth Be Known....
From the —Investor’s Business Daily:
“[Barack] Obama... blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the ‘trickle-down’ economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but ‘predatory.’ Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ‘90s by Clinton and his social engineers.”
“[Barack] Obama... blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the ‘trickle-down’ economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but ‘predatory.’ Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ‘90s by Clinton and his social engineers.”
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Beyond Outrage , Beneath Contempt
Please check out this from Maggie's Notebook. It is a true picture of the leftist and Obama supporters.
The Daily Kos: Beyond Outrage, Beneath Contempt
Friday, September 12, 2008
Where Is The Outrage & More
Where is the OUTRAGE from the left and from the Lame Stream Media over this. Oh, I forget the members of Congress from the left are given immunity from such. Let’s call it what it is, BS and nail the perps starting with Frank, Biden and moving on to Obama. He is as deep into it as the rest. If this were McCain or Sarah the LSM would be all over it like white on rice. It’s time to call the hand of the LSM and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH and I will as as my Dad use to say, “and too much is nasty”. Evidently it’s nasty, but only if you are on the right. The left seems insulated in toilet paper from such messes.
hattip FRC
AND IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH:
More trash talk from OBAMA. Keep it up “empty suit” you are letting your butt overload your mouth. The more you dig this woman ,the more stupid and scared you appear.
"She's on a wild ride," Obama told David Letterman, conceding she's the phenomenon of the moment. The Democrat cracked: "As somebody who used to be on the cover of
Thursday, September 11, 2008
MORE OF THE SAME PART 2
Is McCain more of the same with Bush? No. Actually, it is Obama who is more of the same with Bush. The similarities are amazing. I listed a lot of those in a previous blog post titled MORE OF THE SAME. In that post, I traced the early years and the personality similarities between the Bush and Obama. Now we come to the political side.
You ask: How can they be alike on the political side? Well, surprises never end. Let’s take a look at how they arrived on the scene and what experience they each had. Of course, when it came to executive experience, Bush did have the edge there since Obama had zero in that category. So there is a great similarity, one that needs not to be repeated.
How does their platforms line up:
Information taken from the 2000 Bush platform:
• Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. (This, of course, was before 9/11.) Bringing our troops home and stop deploying them.
Obama claims the same thing but is faced with more problems in foreign affairs than Bush prior to 9/11. He has said repeatedly that he will bring the troops home from Iraq. However, he seems to have had to make a course correction and now says he will send them to Afghanistan instead and has stated that he will attack Pakistan.
• Economy: Bush promised tax breaks for all. Obama promises the same thing, only he wishes to go about it just exactly opposite and tax those who pay the most taxes and give to those who pay no taxes. Overall, the plan is the same and the rhetoric is the same: Tax breaks for those who pay, or maybe it’s don’t pay in Obama’s case, but both promised tax breaks. Of course, we have to take into consideration that Obama has also promised tax hikes, so the similarity there ends.
• Education: policy named No Child Left Behind: This was a Bush plan and hooked up with Ted Kennedy to expand it and get it passed. It is another failed program from the 60s, IMHO, yet Obama embraces such a plan and wants to increase the size of it.
• Energy: The Bush campaign supports a comprehensive energy reform bill which includes initiatives for energy conserving technologies as well as decreasing the foreign dependence on oil. Obama claims the same goals but refuses to understand what T. Boone Pickens is talking about when he says DRILL DRILL until the technology comes into being to replace the oil we produce in the U.S. Still the goal is the same, but so far no real means to achieve this has come forth from Obama’s camp and Bush had no other real plan other than perhaps using what we had in the way of oil and other fossil fuels to get us through until other forms developed.
• Redesign of military: Both announced a plan to do this but in totally opposite directions. One wanted to increase our strength, Obama wants to destroy our strength, but both still advocate redesign of the military.
• As far as the 2004 platform we found that Bush was calling for an easier Immigration plan : Obama calls for the same today.
• Strengthening Our Communities … because our children deserve to grow up in an America in which all their hopes and dreams can come true. This is a direct statement from the GOP 2004 platform and is in direct unison with Obama’s stand today.
• On the family:
A choice between strength and uncertainty.
A choice between results and rhetoric.
A choice between optimism and pessimism.
A choice between opportunity and dependence.
A choice between freedom and fear.
And a choice between moving forward and turning back.
The 2004 Republican Party Platform makes clear:
We choose strength.
We choose results.
We choose optimism.
We choose opportunity.
We choose freedom.
If one actually reads this and then hears what Obama has repeated over an over, one has to wonder if he actually took this rhetoric directly from the GOP 2004 Platform. It sure sounds like George Bush, so more of the same, it seems, is in order.
The similarities do not stop there so…
Here is a bit more: Obama has zero foreign policy experience and neither did Bush. For me that is not a good omen in this day and time. However there is a very great likeness in this field. George Bush picked Dick Cheney as his VP, a man who was a powerhouse in foreign affairs and has had the most influence over foreign policy of any VP in history. Obama picks Joe Biden, another individual with knowledge of foreign affairs and who, like Cheney, would be a strong influence and strong voice in foreign affairs.
So far, we don’t know a lot about who Obama would have in his cabinet and, of course, that will not be announced until after the election.
What we do see is there is more likeness between Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush than there is in John S. McCain and George W. Bush.
The left does not want to be shown the likeness and can only rant against Bush’s policies and claim that McCain is more of the same, but when the facts are laid out on the table, it is Obama who is more of the same. Those who think the economy is in bad shape today, which is actually a media perceived situation rather than reality, will find that given Obama’s desire to grow the government as Bush has done will really bring the economy below where it is perceived today. Both these individuals had great ideas and plans but no real way to attain the lofty goals. I say that Obama is more of the same while McCain is actually the change that is needed. It is in reduced spending that change will come, not increased government interference and more of the same failed 60s programs being proposed.
You ask: How can they be alike on the political side? Well, surprises never end. Let’s take a look at how they arrived on the scene and what experience they each had. Of course, when it came to executive experience, Bush did have the edge there since Obama had zero in that category. So there is a great similarity, one that needs not to be repeated.
How does their platforms line up:
Information taken from the 2000 Bush platform:
• Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. (This, of course, was before 9/11.) Bringing our troops home and stop deploying them.
Obama claims the same thing but is faced with more problems in foreign affairs than Bush prior to 9/11. He has said repeatedly that he will bring the troops home from Iraq. However, he seems to have had to make a course correction and now says he will send them to Afghanistan instead and has stated that he will attack Pakistan.
• Economy: Bush promised tax breaks for all. Obama promises the same thing, only he wishes to go about it just exactly opposite and tax those who pay the most taxes and give to those who pay no taxes. Overall, the plan is the same and the rhetoric is the same: Tax breaks for those who pay, or maybe it’s don’t pay in Obama’s case, but both promised tax breaks. Of course, we have to take into consideration that Obama has also promised tax hikes, so the similarity there ends.
• Education: policy named No Child Left Behind: This was a Bush plan and hooked up with Ted Kennedy to expand it and get it passed. It is another failed program from the 60s, IMHO, yet Obama embraces such a plan and wants to increase the size of it.
• Energy: The Bush campaign supports a comprehensive energy reform bill which includes initiatives for energy conserving technologies as well as decreasing the foreign dependence on oil. Obama claims the same goals but refuses to understand what T. Boone Pickens is talking about when he says DRILL DRILL until the technology comes into being to replace the oil we produce in the U.S. Still the goal is the same, but so far no real means to achieve this has come forth from Obama’s camp and Bush had no other real plan other than perhaps using what we had in the way of oil and other fossil fuels to get us through until other forms developed.
• Redesign of military: Both announced a plan to do this but in totally opposite directions. One wanted to increase our strength, Obama wants to destroy our strength, but both still advocate redesign of the military.
• As far as the 2004 platform we found that Bush was calling for an easier Immigration plan : Obama calls for the same today.
• Strengthening Our Communities … because our children deserve to grow up in an America in which all their hopes and dreams can come true. This is a direct statement from the GOP 2004 platform and is in direct unison with Obama’s stand today.
• On the family:
A choice between strength and uncertainty.
A choice between results and rhetoric.
A choice between optimism and pessimism.
A choice between opportunity and dependence.
A choice between freedom and fear.
And a choice between moving forward and turning back.
The 2004 Republican Party Platform makes clear:
We choose strength.
We choose results.
We choose optimism.
We choose opportunity.
We choose freedom.
If one actually reads this and then hears what Obama has repeated over an over, one has to wonder if he actually took this rhetoric directly from the GOP 2004 Platform. It sure sounds like George Bush, so more of the same, it seems, is in order.
The similarities do not stop there so…
Here is a bit more: Obama has zero foreign policy experience and neither did Bush. For me that is not a good omen in this day and time. However there is a very great likeness in this field. George Bush picked Dick Cheney as his VP, a man who was a powerhouse in foreign affairs and has had the most influence over foreign policy of any VP in history. Obama picks Joe Biden, another individual with knowledge of foreign affairs and who, like Cheney, would be a strong influence and strong voice in foreign affairs.
So far, we don’t know a lot about who Obama would have in his cabinet and, of course, that will not be announced until after the election.
What we do see is there is more likeness between Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush than there is in John S. McCain and George W. Bush.
The left does not want to be shown the likeness and can only rant against Bush’s policies and claim that McCain is more of the same, but when the facts are laid out on the table, it is Obama who is more of the same. Those who think the economy is in bad shape today, which is actually a media perceived situation rather than reality, will find that given Obama’s desire to grow the government as Bush has done will really bring the economy below where it is perceived today. Both these individuals had great ideas and plans but no real way to attain the lofty goals. I say that Obama is more of the same while McCain is actually the change that is needed. It is in reduced spending that change will come, not increased government interference and more of the same failed 60s programs being proposed.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Desparation From the Obama Camp
The only qualifications that Gov.Sarah Palin has for VP is that she hasn’t had an abortion. That is the quote from the Chair of the South Carolina Democrat Committee.
That spells more good news for McCain and Palin and more bad news for Obama and Biden.
People think the “lipstick on a pig” comment got attention, just wait until this gets on blogsphere. Obama claims he doesn’t want to talk about this type of negative stuff but he can not even control his own camp from being stupid and he expects us to believe that he can control what? Those he will appoint to advise him , the congress, the terrorist? What a joke.
Obama would have been much better off saying, “look , if I offended anyone with that comment, I apologize” and then move on.He didn't and has attempted to use it against the McCain camp and it only backfires and keeps the fire burning. Apology?That is not in his arrogant manner to apologize for anything. I watched the clips of his comments on the "lipstick subject in Virgina this morning and the arrogance oozed from him as he made his statement of “that’s enough” blah , blah.
An arrogant empty suit and this is what some want leading this country. Sounds like more of the same to me since the Dems have always considered Bush to be arrogant. Now what kind of change is that. Can anyone on the left explain that to me.
Further desperation and confusion shows when they dispatch dozens of lawyers to Alaska to attempt to dig up dirt on Gov. Palin. I wonder if the Obama camp called on John Edwards to head up that team. He should be good at doing that.
Addendum
Here's the proof that the Dems are in disarray. The commenter was a woman no less!
S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion
South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.
Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.
“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.
Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."
That spells more good news for McCain and Palin and more bad news for Obama and Biden.
People think the “lipstick on a pig” comment got attention, just wait until this gets on blogsphere. Obama claims he doesn’t want to talk about this type of negative stuff but he can not even control his own camp from being stupid and he expects us to believe that he can control what? Those he will appoint to advise him , the congress, the terrorist? What a joke.
Obama would have been much better off saying, “look , if I offended anyone with that comment, I apologize” and then move on.He didn't and has attempted to use it against the McCain camp and it only backfires and keeps the fire burning. Apology?That is not in his arrogant manner to apologize for anything. I watched the clips of his comments on the "lipstick subject in Virgina this morning and the arrogance oozed from him as he made his statement of “that’s enough” blah , blah.
An arrogant empty suit and this is what some want leading this country. Sounds like more of the same to me since the Dems have always considered Bush to be arrogant. Now what kind of change is that. Can anyone on the left explain that to me.
Further desperation and confusion shows when they dispatch dozens of lawyers to Alaska to attempt to dig up dirt on Gov. Palin. I wonder if the Obama camp called on John Edwards to head up that team. He should be good at doing that.
Addendum
Here's the proof that the Dems are in disarray. The commenter was a woman no less!
S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion
South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.
Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.
“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.
Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama, George Soros, the Tobin Tax and the Tie That Binds
What do George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, and James Tobin have in common?
Most people know little of George Soros other than that he is a billionaire and the chief supporter and founder of moveon.org, the money behind the Democrat's finance machine to elect anyone but a Republican. And he is one angry dude because he spent $25 million dollars to get Al Gore and John Kerry in the White House and failed on both occasions. A few know him as the man who “broke the Bank of England" and that is about it.
Even fewer know about James Tobin, the author of the Tobin Tax Plan. First of all, just what the heck is the Tobin Tax? The Tobin tax is the suggested tax on all trade of currency across borders. Named after the economist James Tobin, the tax is intended to put a penalty on short-term speculation on currencies. Tobin got the idea from Keynes who had suggested a national tax on internal financial speculation as one of his reforms to get out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The idea was to encourage money-capital to be invested productively instead of being used for unproductive speculation.
Tobin was given a Nobel Prize for Economics in 1981 (not that this is worth much in academic terms; it's little more than a monetary prize), but no government took up his proposal. In fact, for it to work, all governments would have to take it up. The original tax rate he proposed was 1%, which was subsequently lowered to between 0.1% to 0.25%. In other words, it was an idea that, in the beginning, sounded good in that it stopped or slowed the speculation of currencies on the world market, a scheme that George Soros has used to make himself a billionaire many times over. It makes one wonder why George Soros would embrace such a tax. Like anything starting with good intentions, the actual road can lead to a hellish end, and this is where George Soros comes into the picture. More details will emerge as you read this.
The argument used by many who wish to see this tax put upon countries, businesses and individuals is that it is not anti-capitalist as some in the anti-globalization movement think. Those who support this scheme claim to be against what they call the neo-liberalism ideology. Let me stop here and say that the word liberal here is not the liberal as is used in the political sense of the word, but it makes little difference to those who are supporting the Tobin Tax as they have amended it. What these folks are for is a more regulated capitalism, which is a code word for socialism. They want states (countries) to intervene in controlling capitalism to make it more human and to suppress what they see as its worst excesses; in other words, profits and true capitalism.
One of the organizations that has taken up the cry for immediate acceptance of this scheme is a group called ATTAC, the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions to Aid Citizens. The name says about all that is needed to be said at this time about this group. Under their ideology, the Tobin Tax would be used to raise money to spend in the Third World, but it involves calling people on the streets not to denounce capitalist exploitation, so they claim, but to demand a minimal tax on the financial transactions in which capitalists try to swindle each other out of the proceeds of their past exploitation of the working class. It really is one of the most pathetic reform proposals for which people have ever been called upon to demonstrate. When one reads the code words it is easy to see the real intent and purpose of this scheme—redistribution of wealth.
Have you listened well to Michelle Obama and Barrack Hussein Obama, who both have embraced the theology of the church they attended for over 20 years that teaches Black Liberation Theology, whose goal is to create racial strife, just as the stated goal of Marxist class propaganda was to whip up class war? According to this group of people, all adhere to the belief that capitalism operates according to the rules of "no profit, no production" and "can't pay, can't have." They claim that, in the world market system, capitalism is what is responsible for the desperate plight of most of the world's population, and before anything lasting and constructive can be done about this, capitalism has to go; the productive resources of the Earth have to become the common heritage of all humanity, so that production can be directed to meeting people's needs—all people's needs—instead of to making profits.
How does this tie to George Soros?
Hopefully, you are beginning to see the picture, but here is an explanation of how it works together.
George Soros had taken the Tobin Tax a step farther and created what he calls SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, which is the method by which the taxes would be distributed. SDRs are part of a country's official foreign exchange reserves. They serve as a means of payment among Fund members. IMF creates SDRs "through a process of allocation and distribution to IMF members (International Monetary Members, created by the UN)." Before the U.S. could become involved in this scheme, it would have to be implemented by the U.S. Congress. Now hang on and you will see shortly how Barack Hussein Obama and his Global Poverty Bill fits into this scheme. Soros sees in this pending SDR allocation a readily available means "to finance the provision of public goods on a global scale as well as to foster economic, social, and political progress in individual countries ..." (Richer countries would donate their SDR allocations to specific improvement projects in poorer countries. Poorer countries would keep their allocations as an addition to their monetary reserves. Can you say, redistribution of wealth?)
Projects worthy of funding proposed by poorer countries would win a place on an approved list created by an independent international board to be set up by the IMF. "Eminent persons"(rest assured that George Soros would be the appointer) appointed for fixed terms and free of control by their governments would make up this board.
Donor countries, using their SDR allocations, would choose to fund any program from the list created by the international board. But unlike the usual practice in traditional foreign aid, the donor countries would not control the programs. An audit commission, separate from the international board, would monitor and evaluate. Donors' choices would be made public. Soros would limit the initial round of eligible programs to a few high-priority areas such as public health, education, information technology, or judicial reform.
The IMF's international board would thus work roughly the way philanthropic foundations work. Poorer countries would submit a proposal to the board the way, say, a college now submits a proposal to, say, the Mellon Foundation. But the board's approval of a program would merely be an enabling act. A richer donor country, interested in giving its SDR credits to a poorer country, would have to step up and select a project for funding from the list of approved projects. In doing so, it would be agreeing to follow the rules established by the board and IMF. Those rules would aim at keeping the donor country from using the "grant" for its own political purposes; and they would aim to place responsibility for executing the program in the hands of locals who were not agents of their governments. So far this type of system has failed but regardless there are those who will continue to call for such redistribution of wealth.
By now, hopefully, one should be getting the idea of where this is going. Now if you are familiar with Obama’s Global Poverty Bill you are seeing the complete picture of how all these are tied together.
Here is a bit about Obama’s only major sponsored bill during his “career” of 143 days in the US Senate. Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. Not surprisingly Joe Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.
The Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Back in February, Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. Is it any surprise why Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate? To think that many thought he was chosen because of his “foreign affairs expertise.” We now see that they are like-minded when it comes to giving away U.S. taxpayers' money to foreign countries.
The bill, which was item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day." (Like his half brother, so it was discovered, who lives in Kenya on $1.00 per day.)
The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development." Here one can see the tie between Soros' version of the Tobin Tax, his SDRs and Obama’s Global Poverty Bill.
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Of course, the leftists and Obamazombies deny that this is true, no matter that the information comes from the individual who is the expert on the Millennium Project, Jeffery Sachs. They claim that the money is only a suggestion, but we can see that Sachs says different and that the U.S. would be forced by the UN to pay this tribute to them. All the claims of helping those in the U.S. first seems to disappear when one gets the entire picture and ties all the ends together. They do not make for the picture that Obama wants to paint of the U.S. citizens first. Joe Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate (and we are sure to hear about this in the upcoming weeks) and a way to “buy” U.S. acceptance in the world view. If elected and the one to sign this bill because Bush will not sign it, the world would see Obama as the savior of the world, the messiah, the one who has come much the same way as the leftists and the guilt-ridden white liberals who see electing him as a means of penance for racial wrongs. The remainder of the Millennium Project and Obama’s Global Poverty Bill encompasses the broader vision, which Obama has spoken of during his many speeches. Of course, hearing it depended on which crowd he was addressing when you heard him speak. "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," according to Sachs. Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims. If you have been paying attention, these are all goals that Barack Hussein Obama has expressed and said that he would implement if elected.
So now you know the rest of the story and how George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, and the Tobin Tax are melded together in the Gordian knot. I would ask if this is the type of leadership that we want or need in this country. Only you can answer on election day.
Most people know little of George Soros other than that he is a billionaire and the chief supporter and founder of moveon.org, the money behind the Democrat's finance machine to elect anyone but a Republican. And he is one angry dude because he spent $25 million dollars to get Al Gore and John Kerry in the White House and failed on both occasions. A few know him as the man who “broke the Bank of England" and that is about it.
Even fewer know about James Tobin, the author of the Tobin Tax Plan. First of all, just what the heck is the Tobin Tax? The Tobin tax is the suggested tax on all trade of currency across borders. Named after the economist James Tobin, the tax is intended to put a penalty on short-term speculation on currencies. Tobin got the idea from Keynes who had suggested a national tax on internal financial speculation as one of his reforms to get out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The idea was to encourage money-capital to be invested productively instead of being used for unproductive speculation.
Tobin was given a Nobel Prize for Economics in 1981 (not that this is worth much in academic terms; it's little more than a monetary prize), but no government took up his proposal. In fact, for it to work, all governments would have to take it up. The original tax rate he proposed was 1%, which was subsequently lowered to between 0.1% to 0.25%. In other words, it was an idea that, in the beginning, sounded good in that it stopped or slowed the speculation of currencies on the world market, a scheme that George Soros has used to make himself a billionaire many times over. It makes one wonder why George Soros would embrace such a tax. Like anything starting with good intentions, the actual road can lead to a hellish end, and this is where George Soros comes into the picture. More details will emerge as you read this.
The argument used by many who wish to see this tax put upon countries, businesses and individuals is that it is not anti-capitalist as some in the anti-globalization movement think. Those who support this scheme claim to be against what they call the neo-liberalism ideology. Let me stop here and say that the word liberal here is not the liberal as is used in the political sense of the word, but it makes little difference to those who are supporting the Tobin Tax as they have amended it. What these folks are for is a more regulated capitalism, which is a code word for socialism. They want states (countries) to intervene in controlling capitalism to make it more human and to suppress what they see as its worst excesses; in other words, profits and true capitalism.
One of the organizations that has taken up the cry for immediate acceptance of this scheme is a group called ATTAC, the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions to Aid Citizens. The name says about all that is needed to be said at this time about this group. Under their ideology, the Tobin Tax would be used to raise money to spend in the Third World, but it involves calling people on the streets not to denounce capitalist exploitation, so they claim, but to demand a minimal tax on the financial transactions in which capitalists try to swindle each other out of the proceeds of their past exploitation of the working class. It really is one of the most pathetic reform proposals for which people have ever been called upon to demonstrate. When one reads the code words it is easy to see the real intent and purpose of this scheme—redistribution of wealth.
Have you listened well to Michelle Obama and Barrack Hussein Obama, who both have embraced the theology of the church they attended for over 20 years that teaches Black Liberation Theology, whose goal is to create racial strife, just as the stated goal of Marxist class propaganda was to whip up class war? According to this group of people, all adhere to the belief that capitalism operates according to the rules of "no profit, no production" and "can't pay, can't have." They claim that, in the world market system, capitalism is what is responsible for the desperate plight of most of the world's population, and before anything lasting and constructive can be done about this, capitalism has to go; the productive resources of the Earth have to become the common heritage of all humanity, so that production can be directed to meeting people's needs—all people's needs—instead of to making profits.
How does this tie to George Soros?
Hopefully, you are beginning to see the picture, but here is an explanation of how it works together.
George Soros had taken the Tobin Tax a step farther and created what he calls SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, which is the method by which the taxes would be distributed. SDRs are part of a country's official foreign exchange reserves. They serve as a means of payment among Fund members. IMF creates SDRs "through a process of allocation and distribution to IMF members (International Monetary Members, created by the UN)." Before the U.S. could become involved in this scheme, it would have to be implemented by the U.S. Congress. Now hang on and you will see shortly how Barack Hussein Obama and his Global Poverty Bill fits into this scheme. Soros sees in this pending SDR allocation a readily available means "to finance the provision of public goods on a global scale as well as to foster economic, social, and political progress in individual countries ..." (Richer countries would donate their SDR allocations to specific improvement projects in poorer countries. Poorer countries would keep their allocations as an addition to their monetary reserves. Can you say, redistribution of wealth?)
Projects worthy of funding proposed by poorer countries would win a place on an approved list created by an independent international board to be set up by the IMF. "Eminent persons"(rest assured that George Soros would be the appointer) appointed for fixed terms and free of control by their governments would make up this board.
Donor countries, using their SDR allocations, would choose to fund any program from the list created by the international board. But unlike the usual practice in traditional foreign aid, the donor countries would not control the programs. An audit commission, separate from the international board, would monitor and evaluate. Donors' choices would be made public. Soros would limit the initial round of eligible programs to a few high-priority areas such as public health, education, information technology, or judicial reform.
The IMF's international board would thus work roughly the way philanthropic foundations work. Poorer countries would submit a proposal to the board the way, say, a college now submits a proposal to, say, the Mellon Foundation. But the board's approval of a program would merely be an enabling act. A richer donor country, interested in giving its SDR credits to a poorer country, would have to step up and select a project for funding from the list of approved projects. In doing so, it would be agreeing to follow the rules established by the board and IMF. Those rules would aim at keeping the donor country from using the "grant" for its own political purposes; and they would aim to place responsibility for executing the program in the hands of locals who were not agents of their governments. So far this type of system has failed but regardless there are those who will continue to call for such redistribution of wealth.
By now, hopefully, one should be getting the idea of where this is going. Now if you are familiar with Obama’s Global Poverty Bill you are seeing the complete picture of how all these are tied together.
Here is a bit about Obama’s only major sponsored bill during his “career” of 143 days in the US Senate. Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. Not surprisingly Joe Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.
The Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Back in February, Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. Is it any surprise why Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate? To think that many thought he was chosen because of his “foreign affairs expertise.” We now see that they are like-minded when it comes to giving away U.S. taxpayers' money to foreign countries.
The bill, which was item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day." (Like his half brother, so it was discovered, who lives in Kenya on $1.00 per day.)
The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development." Here one can see the tie between Soros' version of the Tobin Tax, his SDRs and Obama’s Global Poverty Bill.
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Of course, the leftists and Obamazombies deny that this is true, no matter that the information comes from the individual who is the expert on the Millennium Project, Jeffery Sachs. They claim that the money is only a suggestion, but we can see that Sachs says different and that the U.S. would be forced by the UN to pay this tribute to them. All the claims of helping those in the U.S. first seems to disappear when one gets the entire picture and ties all the ends together. They do not make for the picture that Obama wants to paint of the U.S. citizens first. Joe Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate (and we are sure to hear about this in the upcoming weeks) and a way to “buy” U.S. acceptance in the world view. If elected and the one to sign this bill because Bush will not sign it, the world would see Obama as the savior of the world, the messiah, the one who has come much the same way as the leftists and the guilt-ridden white liberals who see electing him as a means of penance for racial wrongs. The remainder of the Millennium Project and Obama’s Global Poverty Bill encompasses the broader vision, which Obama has spoken of during his many speeches. Of course, hearing it depended on which crowd he was addressing when you heard him speak. "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," according to Sachs. Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims. If you have been paying attention, these are all goals that Barack Hussein Obama has expressed and said that he would implement if elected.
So now you know the rest of the story and how George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, and the Tobin Tax are melded together in the Gordian knot. I would ask if this is the type of leadership that we want or need in this country. Only you can answer on election day.
Monday, September 8, 2008
OBAMA SAYS MCCAIN CAMP IS LYING, BUT ...
It seems that Obama and his camp are running ads claiming that McCain is guilty of being the only one using lobbyists as part of his campaign. Of course, he never says that McCain's people are former lobbyists, and of course, never mentions that he has lobbyists running his campaign as well. "Oh, but that is different," the Obama camp will say. "Many are just volunteers." Yea, and if you believe that, I have a huge ski resort just 15 miles north of Dallas that I will sell you cheap.
Let's see just how honest Obama and his camp are being. Obama needs to 'fess up and stop lying. Here is what I have discovered in just a few clicks on the web. It ain’t hard, but the LSM lets him slide with more lies.
My momma always told me if you lie you gotta tell another one to cover that one, and after a while they are gonna come back and bite you. Obama’s momma evidently didn’t teach him that lesson.
Kirk Wagar, an Obama fundraiser from Florida, said he believes the campaign opted for a broad brush approach because it would be too hard to try to sort out which lobbyists were acceptable and which were trouble. That was to cover for the fact that Weldon Latham, a man who has spent years doing federal lobbying, is now part of the Obama camp. Weldon Latham has also had to accept that the candidate he is now strongly supporting spent the past 18 months helping turn people in his line of work into pariahs.
Who is Jim Demers? Easy, he's a registered lobbyist for Pfizer and PhRMA. He is also Obama's national co-chair. So why in the debate did Mr. Obama say that's not so?
Hodges Consulting describes itself on its web site as “well positioned to offer highly effective lobbying services and unparalleled state budget expertise. Hodges Consulting Group can also provides federal representation to clients."
Though Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state-based lobbyists, as previously reported. Once again, Obama is denying that he has lobbyists or takes money from them. Where I come from, it’s called a bald-face lie.
Reference for parts of the above are from Marsha Taylor, a Democrat and fellow blogger who now has a live radio show.
Jim Johnson’s loans from Countywide, the same firm that Nancy Pelosi’s son works for and the man leading his vice presidential selection team, is receiving highly questionable loans. With millions of Americans struggling to pay their mortgages, it raises serious questions about Obama's judgment when we learn that members of his campaign leadership are receiving favors that the average American would never get. Howard Dean attempted to shovel the BS under the haystack by saying, "Johnson doesn't get paid; he's a volunteer." Of course, Johnson had to resign, or was it that Obama threw him under the bus just like his other friends who drew too much attention and Obama found it not politically expedient to be friends with them any longer? Let's see, his preacher, his grandmother, his loan associate Renko, his friend Ayers, and now Johnson. The bus must be bloody underneath from running over all those bodies in the name of political expedience. You can about his affiliation with Johnson.
Let's see just how honest Obama and his camp are being. Obama needs to 'fess up and stop lying. Here is what I have discovered in just a few clicks on the web. It ain’t hard, but the LSM lets him slide with more lies.
My momma always told me if you lie you gotta tell another one to cover that one, and after a while they are gonna come back and bite you. Obama’s momma evidently didn’t teach him that lesson.
Kirk Wagar, an Obama fundraiser from Florida, said he believes the campaign opted for a broad brush approach because it would be too hard to try to sort out which lobbyists were acceptable and which were trouble. That was to cover for the fact that Weldon Latham, a man who has spent years doing federal lobbying, is now part of the Obama camp. Weldon Latham has also had to accept that the candidate he is now strongly supporting spent the past 18 months helping turn people in his line of work into pariahs.
Who is Jim Demers? Easy, he's a registered lobbyist for Pfizer and PhRMA. He is also Obama's national co-chair. So why in the debate did Mr. Obama say that's not so?
Hodges Consulting describes itself on its web site as “well positioned to offer highly effective lobbying services and unparalleled state budget expertise. Hodges Consulting Group can also provides federal representation to clients."
Though Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state-based lobbyists, as previously reported. Once again, Obama is denying that he has lobbyists or takes money from them. Where I come from, it’s called a bald-face lie.
Reference for parts of the above are from Marsha Taylor, a Democrat and fellow blogger who now has a live radio show.
Jim Johnson’s loans from Countywide, the same firm that Nancy Pelosi’s son works for and the man leading his vice presidential selection team, is receiving highly questionable loans. With millions of Americans struggling to pay their mortgages, it raises serious questions about Obama's judgment when we learn that members of his campaign leadership are receiving favors that the average American would never get. Howard Dean attempted to shovel the BS under the haystack by saying, "Johnson doesn't get paid; he's a volunteer." Of course, Johnson had to resign, or was it that Obama threw him under the bus just like his other friends who drew too much attention and Obama found it not politically expedient to be friends with them any longer? Let's see, his preacher, his grandmother, his loan associate Renko, his friend Ayers, and now Johnson. The bus must be bloody underneath from running over all those bodies in the name of political expedience. You can about his affiliation with Johnson.
Another body was thrown under the bus as well by Obama because he is supposedly a lobbyist. That would be Sen. Max Cleland. Cleland is registered to lobby for a company whose products are aimed at helping soldiers recover more quickly from battlefield injuries, Tissue Regeneration Technologies even though Cleland has never actually done any work for them. Guess being a prominent Democrat and a Vietnam war hero doesn’t count much when it comes to political expediency for Obama. Hmmm, makes you wonder about Obama’s real feelings toward the troops, now doesn’t it?
Max Linn's new fundraising web site, Must Change Congress, ties his effort to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Obama denies this. Another one thrown under the bus.
Other K Street players working to build momentum for Obama are former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuire Woods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.
Jimmy Williams of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers says, “He’s got that aura, and people are talking about him. You realize you’re in the presence of something incredible. He has broad appeal.”
“He won’t take our money, but we can go out and campaign for him." Guess Jimmy forgot to say that in campaigning for him we do raise money; we just don’t funnel it through our lobby company. Anyone with a brain and an idea of how lobbyists work knows this is a crock. While you may not directly give money, you are raising money just the same. Obama has received scores of donations from lawyers in these firms, and many of those firms also have a lobbying arm in Washington. So the question becomes: If a firm has corporate lobbying clients who contribute to the firm's bottom line and partner in the firm and they give money to Obama, is the candidate as sanitized as he would like voters to believe? Answer NO! Obama is lying again.
Obama declared he takes no money from Oil companies, but he failed to say that he takes money from their CEOs and other executives. Just more of the same, if you ask me, and certainly no change.
So Obama lies, and his ads lie about McCain’s lobbyist: An Obama ad features video of McCain walking toward the camera with a group of people in power suits, as the narrator says, "The lobbyists, running his low road campaign." None of the people pictured are lobbyists, not even former lobbyists, and two of them are Secret Service guys. The ad continues with more lies and makes a misleading claim that McCain favors "billions in tax breaks for big oil and drug companies." But McCain's tax policy doesn't target those industries. He calls for lowering the corporate tax rate for all. My, my, how the tale doth twist and turn.
Looks like Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, is a lobbyist for two of those big “bad” drug companies.
More ties with corruption and lobbyists by the Dems: Paul Pelosi continues another full-time job as a home loan officer at Countrywide Home Loans, part of Countrywide Financial, in San Mateo, a suburb of San Francisco. Isn’t this one of the corporations that Obama condemns for making bad loans?
Paul Pelosi also works for InfoUSA, based in Omaha. Pelosi said he reports to a small InfoUSA office in San Mateo.
In two interviews, Paul Pelosi confirmed that Gupta hired him as senior vice president for strategic development starting Feb. 1, just after Pelosi's mother took the gavel as speaker on Jan. 4. He said his mother is aware of his new job. A person familiar with the arrangement says Gupta treats Pelosi as a "trophy" and has the Speaker's son accompany him at high profile meetings around the country. Paul Pelosi said he met Gupta about three years ago when the businessman refinanced a $3 million Countrywide loan on one of his more than half a dozen homes. He said he decided to apply for a job with InfoUSA about six months ago.
And this is the Speaker of the House who so enthusiastically supports Obama. What happened to Obama’s anti-corruption in DC rant? Guess it must be “Just Words”.
Now when Obama claims the purity of a saint, just say it ain’t so. NOBAMA, we ain’t buying it.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
A SERVANTS HEART
I am not sure how many of the folks who were tuned in to the conventions in the past weeks noticed something that I took note of or not. I listed intently to Sen. Obama give his acceptance speech and I heard him talk a lot about how great he was and how he was the one to lead us out of the “wilderness” to the promised land, almost as if he were Moses . I listened to Joe Biden who really didn’t say much at all about anything at all except to talk about Obama and what Obama would do, not what he would do. Oh , he talked a bit about family, his family , and how he was taught to be a fighter and to get up if you got knocked down but he really never showed us that he had done any of this.
I listened to Sen. McCain give his speech the following week and listened intently as well to see if he would say something different than all the rest of the speeches that I had heard over the past weeks. I was not disappointed. Why, some will ask because to them it sounded just like another political speech where they play up themselves and knock down the opponents , but you know that is what most political speeches are about. However I caught one thing and to many it was just glossed over or missed entirely and it is such a minute thing some will say but I caught it and it was the defining moment in the difference in the two candidates for President of the
The night before I listed to Gov. Sarah Palin give her speech and I listened intently to see if she would say anything different from the usual political talk we hear during election speeches and yes I heard something very different than I heard from Sen. Joe Biden or Sen. Obama. I heard again what most didn’t hear and I found no mention of it by the media but it was one of the most important things said by any of the speech makers this election year. I heard it and it defined her not as a woman, not as a politician, but as a person. A person that I could place my confidence in regardless of her experience or even lack of such in some areas. I heard her make the same statement as her running mate, Sen. John McCain and it instilled in me the confidence that I had made the right choice in the candidates that I could support in this election year. They made a statement that is close to my heart, one that I have stated on many occasions and one that I feel defines a persons total being.
Sarah Palin expressed the true heart that everyone who is elected to office in this country should have when she said: No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the
John McCain said made the same statement when he said: I've been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I have been her servant first, last and always. And I've never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I didn't thank God for the privilege.
Both of these individuals gave us the opportunity to see inside their heart and to understand that this is what it takes to be a leader. Not great credentials, not great oratory abilities, not platitudes and clever sayings but a servants heart.
Jesus Christ himself made the same kind of statement over 2000 years ago when he said in Mark 9:35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."
And again in Mark 10:43 , he said: Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
No one in the media paid attention to these few simple words and I doubt that many listening heard these simple words either. I heard them and was listening for something that would define the candidates for leadership of this country, a country that I have been a servant in for most of my life. I am glad that there are those who realize that before one can lead , they must be a servant and that even being a leader you are still a servant of those you lead.
Thank you Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin for defining yourselves as servants .
"Let me learn by paradox
that the way down is the way up,
that to be low is to be high,
that the broken heart is the healed heart, that the contrite spirit is the rejoicing spirit, that the repenting soul is the victorious soul, that to have nothing is to possess all, that to bear the cross is to wear the crown, that to give is to receive, that the valley is the place of vision."
-Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions.
Friday, September 5, 2008
BE INFORMED CON"T
Over the past weeks I have posted where the candidates stand on the issues. Today I take the opportunity to post where Sarah Palin stands on the issues as well. You can compare them with the other candidates stand which I posted at BE INFORMED
Gov.Sarah Palins stand on the Issues:
Strongly Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(-5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(0 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(-5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(-5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 8:
Death Penalty
(-5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(-5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(-3 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(+2 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(0 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the armed forces
(-5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(0 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 17:
US out of Iraq
(-3 points on Social scale)
Sarah Palin is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.
FROM THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER
This is just too good not to post. Hat tip goes to PatriotPostUSA for their ability to call things as they are. The leftist will bray, not so, not so and go into total denial but facts are facts and this just goes to show that Obama doesn't have a clue.
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award
This week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Obama, “Some Republican critics say you don’t have the experience to handle a situation like this [Hurricane Gustav]. They’ve in fact said that Governor Palin has more executive experience as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state like Alaska. What’s your response?”
Obama replied, “Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2,500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years. Uh, and certainly, in terms of, uh, the legislation that I’ve passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak, indicates the extent to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.”
Memo to former “community organizer” Obama: Palin is, in fact, governor of Alaska, which has annual budget of approximately $11 billion and more than 20,000 employees. She manages far more than a campaign and has done far more than co-sponsor non-controversial legislation.
And if Obama were in charge of Wasilla, the town of 9,000 would no doubt employ 2,500 on a budget of $36 million a month.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
HOW DARE YOU, SCREAMS THE LEFTIST
After last night the leftist are enraged. I mean how dare someone question the positions and ideas of their Messiah, especially a woman who dares leave a downs syndrome child in care of her husband and who has a 17 year old pregnant daughter who she dares to bring to the convention with her. Oh but it was just fine for Almightybama and Joe,” loose tongue” Biden , to bring their families with them. You see they are enraged because last night the people of the USA got to see a “real” American family, not some Hollyweird cast type family whose warts and blemishes have been professionally made over by the media makeup crowd and the celeb’s make-up folks. How dare someone show a real down to earth family that Joe and Janie America can relate to, the same kind of family that lives next door, not the one living in some fancy house in a huge metropolitan city in a million dollar house bought through a crook who should be in jail instead of funneling money to an empty suit.
How dare they show a family who has always been proud of their country and not just now discovering that they are proud because the spouse was nominated for leadership of this country. How dare they show someone who has actually worked their way up without the benefit of affirmative action, elite private schools and help from terrorist and gangsters. How dare they show someone who understands what it takes to actually govern and actually has experience in doing so and hasn’t written a book telling all what a wonderful godsend they are and that all should bow down and worship because they have audacity of something they call hope.
The LSM and the leftist dirt diggers are already trying to paint Sarah Palin’s pastor’s as hate mongers and kooks but so far they have not found any of them who have blamed the government for all their problems or infecting a group of people with AIDS and screams Godd--n America from their pulpit while preaching hatred and contempt for anyone who disagrees. But oh, it was fine that their empty suited idol sat in a congregation for over 20 years and listened to such ranting and refused to condemn such until it became politically expedient to do so and then it was under the bus, preacher. The same thing occurs with his other friends, the terrorist, William Ayers and the gangster, Tony Renzko. Oh how the LSM and the lefties would love to find someone other than Joe and Janie next door types in Gov. Palin’s group of friends. It ain’t gonna happen and they are furious.
How dare Sarah Palin become the new superstar in the political arena and leave their messiah searching for a way to climb back to the top. Well, they think they have found a way to take some of the wind out of the GOP’s sail with their Messiah appearing on Bill O’Reilly. My question is , which O’Reilly will show up to question the Obamarama star. I don’t look for tough questions and hardballs to be thrown by Bill tonight. It seems he has lost a bit of his zeal in favor of ratings of late. Meanwhile the leftist are enraged and will be enraged regardless of what comes from the O’Reilly appearance for their idol has had to stoop to appearing on the most right slanted news channel on the air today.
Meanwhile look for the media to continue their attacks and attempts to degrade Gov. Palin. According to the polls , 51% of the American people already believe that the LSM is biased and is attempting to do so and I look for those numbers to grow as people awake from their slumber and begin to pay attention.
Last night Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and VP candidate shook up and awakened the slumbering giant of American voters who are looking for real change and not just talk of change. She also gave the LSM and the leftist fair warning as to her stand with them. In a short word, she doesn’t give a rat’s what they think of her.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
MORE DESPERATION ON THE LEFT
Well, the Democrats were hoping for a great big disastrous hurricane in Gustav in order to try to blame the GOP for all the damage. Fatboy Michael Moore from moveon.idiots claimed it showed that G-d was on their side. Now I ain’t so sure what god or whose god in need of Jenny Craing,
Shanto Iyengar, a professor of communications at Stanford University, completed some experiments in partnership with The
The ABC here and its handmaiden lefties in the US have never let us forget that the evil George W. Bush did nothing to help in New Orleans and deliberately so because the victims were mostly black or Hispanic. But what does the research actually show?
Democratic voters, of course, voted to give more money to hurricane victims and for a longer period. Hardly surprising, that: Democrats, like Labor voters here, are keen on giving away other people's money and, for them, a natural disaster is as good an opportunity for doing so as anything else.
But wait, what's this? The research shows Democrats were prepared to give $1500 more to victims if they were white than if they were black. What, give less money to innocent victims just because they were black? I'm afraid so. Moreover, Democrats would give more money to whites than to other minorities such as Asians and Hispanics.
So it was left-wingers who used race as the big test.
Republicans, on the other hand, were not influenced by race at all. The Republicans' view, as Iyengar put it, was more principled, as they supported individualism instead of handouts: "Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues." Even The
Now I am sure that these facts will not go over well with the leftist who might read this but who actually lack the courage to even comment when faced with facts.
Oh they can sure blast away at Governor Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter who is pregnant and not married and come up with comments that even grocery store check out lane tabloids would not print But then again that is the typical compassionate liberal leftist Democrat for you. They have so little to spew against Sen. McCain’s pick that they have to attack her family. Of course they also attacked her for daring to even carry a Down’s Syndrome baby to term and then abandoned it to run for VP. You would think that there wonderful warm compassionate, liberal, leftist, progressive Democrats would be singing the praise a woman who could overcome such and still run for office. You would think that this same crowd would be praising her husband for not fearing accusations of gender role swapping that the leftist would certainly like to say the uneducated, backwoods, God fearing, bible toting , gun clinging Republican voters would be more apt to do. Looks like the leftist got skunked again and as we use to say in the mountains, they thunk wrong… again, or should that be as usual.
The same crowd is going to try to make hay out of what they hope turns into Troopergate but they don’t realize that the bunked up charges were brought by Gov. Palin’s former opponent for office. The one she beat like a drum and is still sore that not only did a Republican do this to him but a woman, for crying out loud, that he will do and try anything to reek revenge but that won’t fly with folks who can actually read and know barnyard bovine excrement when they smell it.
I am waiting for PETA, the Vegan’s and the anti-gun nuts to make their run at Gov. Palin and show what a bunch of losers they are once again. I mean how dare she shoot moose, bears much less with a gun and then have the audacity to eat them when she could have had a “healthy , tasty, soy burger”. Oh the hue and cry we have to listen to from the loony left when they have nothing else to attack with.
It’s going to get real interesting after Governor Palin’s speech tonight. Expect the leftist to be ranting and raving. I am sure that what MSNBC’s Chris Matthews will feel up and down his leg tonight will not be what he claimed to have felt when Obama spoke. Instead what Matthews feels or perhaps smells will probably be more akin to the bovine excrement usually found in barnyards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)