Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Dear R -- you & the family are looking to relocate to guam? too expensive to travel from there... and you'll still have to pay income taxes & capital gains taxes since it's a U.S. territory... you might look at Rota (Spain) or Aviano (Italy) -- large American military presence and access to NEX/PX

we're considering Rota, Spain... although we're afraid Obama will contract our military bases overseas and that Rota (Spain) and Aviano (Italy) as well as our German and Asian bases will all be targeted for closure (a big socialistic "bring ALL the troops home" move) -- because neither Obama nor any of his advisors understand STRATEGIC placement and forward standing (which of course would leave us WIDE OPEN for attack...) scary scary scary.

______ (a 23 yr old wounded Iraqi war veteran) is considering moving to Canada (his birth father was born in Canada to American parents who were living & working there in the early 50's, so he could apply for his Canadian citizenship; while the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship, Canada does, so he w/n have to give up his US citizenship to live in Canada...) but when his mom told him it won't be economically bad for him -- he told her that but he can't bear to watch Obama declare defeat in Iraq and to know that all his friends (12 in all) died for nothing... and he doesn't want to live in a country that has a President he couldn't in good conscience defend or take orders from?? how sad is that?

the family has been discussing a bunch of scenarios (including moving offshore, buying additional guns, our spending, saving & investment strategies, the long-term effect of Obama policies (it may take him 4 or 8 to do the damage -- but it would take DECADES to undo them) and especially liberal appointments to the Supreme Court -- and when you look at how many crucial SC votes were just 5-4 THAT is one of the scariest things for us -- the complete erosion of individual rights and the complete pussification of America is before us!!!)

as I explained to our kids: there are 3 sources of income for the US Gov't and it is a finite amount. if you lower taxes in just a part of one area (only SOME people benefit from Obama's new & improved personal income taxes) then you MUST raise the money elsewhere... or cut how much you need to spend. In Obama's case, he wants to spend LOTS MORE and -- since he never once said he will eliminate pork spending (it's how you BUY legislators to do your bidding), the money will then have to come from one or more of the 3 income sources: business tax, capital gains tax, pers. income tax.

now, if you raise the corporate (business) taxes, they must raise the price of their products because that is the ONLY source of revenue (to pay bills) for a corporation -- large or small. Let's take a look at a loaf of bread (substitute any product here: milk, shoes, clothing, meat...): extra tax on the farmer (he's a business you know), extra tax on the wheat mill, extra tax on the baker, extra tax on the shipper, and an extra tax on the grocery store. Do you think each of these business can or will absorb this tax (which comes from their profits), or do you think EACH will pass it on to the price of the bread? A five cent increase for each business adds twenty-five cents to the price of the bread -- which now also increases the amount of sales tax you pay on the bread (it's a vicious cycle don't ya know!!)

Now, each of these businesses can cut expenses to make up for the extra tax, and the quickest way to do that is to eliminate employees -- less salary, less benefits, less taxes to pay... and they will still make the same amount of loaves because even if they have to pay overtime wages, it is still only 1/2 of another FT employee wages & taxes (but no additional benefit costs.) Now, if they decide to keep the staff they have, they simply pass on the increased costs (i.e., taxes -- and that includes increased payroll taxes, social security, medicare, etc. -- they don't get paid out of thin air, ya know!) to the consumer. If the taxes get high enough and the bread too expensive, they sell less bread. Less bread means the need for less workers, so they lay off workers. Not rocket science, but you need to be smarter than a 5th grader. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Same with this "punish the rich" theory of taxation: the highest taxes are on the highest producing individuals in a society. Let's take a physician. he/she pays 34% fed. income tax + 6.2% soc. sec. (to $109K in '09) + 1.45% medicare (no income limit) + 9.7% average state. inc. tax... on a salary of say $500,000, the doc has "disposable" income of about $267,500 or 53.5% (and in addition to all the expenses you and I pay from "disposable income" like mortgages, utilities, autos, etc., doctors pay all or some of their medical malpractice insurance premiums -- many tens of thousand of dollars -- continuing educational requirements, not to mention about $250,000 in educational loans, etc.)

If the tax rates go up 5% federal (as Obama proposes), and the income cap comes off soc. sec. (as Obama has suggested), medicare ins. rates double (also a waggle from Obama), and state taxes rise 2.5% (to cover the federally mandated programs and reductions in federal funds available)... that's $197,000 in disposable income. But the doctor's personal expenses are the same (or more as other expenses rise) and he needs to make up the additional $70,500 in income taxes. How do you think he does that? Yes,!! Of course!! He/she raises the cost of their services!! So now the "middle class" can either pay the bigger fees when they need medical service, pay increased insurance rates because the insurance companies have to pay more (and higher business taxes, I might add), or you can skip medical care. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

And how Obama's proposal for health insurance will fix this problem is a mystery -- unless of course we're going fully into socialism and your income is capped and you can make no more than some amount (set I suppose the same way Obama defines "rich" and "unrich"... whatever number he likes on any given day...)

now let's look at investments. When we save for retirement, we put money in our 401k plans -- tax free but when we take money OUT we will get taxed on it -- so if the income tax rate goes up, we won't be taking money from these retirement funds unless we absolutely have to... instead, we'll spend less and won't make any unnecessary or large purchases. That hurts in 2 ways: businesses suffer AND state & local governments (which rely on sales taxes for THEIR revenue) make less. Of course the local governments still need the same amount of money and their other source of income is PROPERTY TAXES. We're hit again. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Then there's capital gains taxes. In addition to our investments in our IRAs, like good responsible citizens, we saved money and invested it in stocks, bonds & mutual funds. We were taxed on the money we invested because it came from our income. Every year if our investments pay dividends and interest, we pay tax on that as well. If we need money for a purchase -- a car, a vacation -- whatever -- we sell a stock or two or a mutual fund... and we get taxed on any profit we made on the sale (if you take a loss, your losses are limited and it may take years of carrying the loss from one tax year to another to recover your money -- there is no limit on the profit that can be taxed in a year -- funny thing.) Right now we pay 15% tax on our capital gains (the max. is 28%) -- for investments you have had at least two years. Lots of retired people actually live on the income from their investments or the sale of the investments. Obama proposes to increase these tax rates until the highest rate is 38%.

Keeping in mind that money invested in stocks & bonds are investments in American companies -- which they use to build and expand factories, invest in new equipment... and if you increase expenses of those businesses, they have less money to return to shareholders and if you're going to take about 40% of the profit every time and investor sells a stock , bond or mutual fund AND these companies are paying smaller dividends anyway (the higher the dividend = the more investors you attract!) why should anyone bother investing in these? I'd just as soon put my money in cash -- at least I'd only be taxed on the income and I could take my money out any time I wanted without being punished for having the smarts to save it in the first place!!! Imagine what happens when companies can no longer attract money? They DON'T expand or they look for FOREIGN investment and foreign ownership. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Now let us move on to energy. Obama proposes to add taxes to our CURRENT sources of energy to fund NEW sources of energy. So, if the taxes on the oil -- and gasoline, deisel, kerosene and heating oil, natural gas, and electric are raised (or on the comapnies that produce these products -- and whether it is an increased tax rate, a new tax or a "loop hole" that's closed... whatever -- the result is the same) ... who do you think will get to PAY those increased taxes (and don't forget the new business taxes!) Yup -- smarter than a 5th grader -- WE DO!! Higher electric prices, gasoline & heating costs! And don't forget -- these higher costs for energy ALSO hit businesses (like our loaf of bread, gallon of milk, school shoes...) AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO PAY FOR THOSE AS WELL!!! Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Let's not even begin to discuss Obama's stated desires to dismantle the military and its funding... abandon Iraq and Israel, capitulate to Iran, Russia, Syria... make nice with Cuba and Hugo Chavez... Can I get a "Whoohoo Obama" from y'all? No, didn't think so.

Nothing that the government does can be done for free. If the gov't is going to rely on taxes for its programs... and adding programs only adds government jobs -- it does not create opportunity and it does not create wealth... and this country will go broke paying for it all.... well, except for those who pay no taxes and are expecting to get something for nothing). Can I get a "Whoohoo Obama" from y'all? Yeah, I thought so.

the whole being careful of what you wish for -- sometimes you get what you deserve keeps ringing in my ears.

I saw this written on a car this morning already: Dear Obama: now we will HOPE you're as good as you say you are AND that you will represent ALL Americans and not just some.

And as I said to a friend this morning, this man represents nothing that I believe in or stand for... I cannot imagine at any time in my life that I will ever consider this man "my president". I am sure there are worse things in the world right now, I just cannot think of even one today. I think it was all hYpe -- and there is no hOpe.

'Twas the night before elections, and all through the town
Tempers were flaring-emotions upside down

I, in my bathrobe with a cat in my lap,
had cut off the TV, tired of the crap

When all of a sudden there arose such a noise
I peered out my window saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet-they wanted me to pay
To give to the others who had not worked all that day!

He snatched up my money and quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon as I sat trying to think

He then rallied his henchmen who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out tearing this country apart

On Fannie, on Freddie, on Biden and Ayers
On Acorn, On Pelosi he screamed at the pairs

They took off with a jerk as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at us who wouldn't stand up and fight

So I leave you to think on this one final note
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!!

Undecided???

click to enlarge image
x
x

a cousin forwarded a condescending email that an Obama supporter had sent her when she told him (or her) why she was supporting McCain... and she asked me what I thought... here was a portion of my response...

notice that this person NEVER ACTUALLY DISCUSSED any of the issues... just slung mud and launched into a bunch of personal attacks.

as for [his assertion that Obama's affiliation with] Wright [was inconsequential], obama's "audacity of hope" book is NAMED after a famous Wright sermon... and if you attended the church for 20 years and "didn't ever hear" any of those sermons, what the heck was the point of attending?? FOR 20 YEARS???

they attack the "theory" (a proven theory I might add) about how reducing taxes creates jobs and stimulates the economy, but they don't defend Obama's position that taxing the "rich" (above some arbitrary [and moving] $$$ amount) and reducing taxes for everyone else creates jobs and stimulates the economy (which esteemed economists reject.) Even common sense tells us that if you increase a business's expense without being able to increase profits (or just plain income), something's gotta give -- and it's jobs first.

we can actually discount half of what BOTH candidates say... but I say, given the current economic situation, increasing taxes on anyone or businesses will NOT help the economy. I already think that taking more than 40% of some people's paychecks (our current tax & soc. sec. tax rates) is so outrageous when 40% of the population doesn't even pay taxes! so my outrage meter goes off the charts when Obama proposes to GIVE REFUNDS to people who don't even pay taxes -- and do it by taking over 50% of "rich" people's money... as if those people somehow don't work hard for their money (think doctors -- making life/death decisions!!, lawyers, business executives and many successful small business owners!)

Taxing people to assist the less fortunate in our society has been an accepted norm in our country since the institution of the progressive tax code [which is really marxist in its origin), but at the rates Obama proposes, it crosses the line to PUNISHMENT. When exactly did it become OK to punish successful people -- who studied hard, worked hard and live responsibly?? And where's the incentive to work harder and do better if to do so just means it will be taken and given to someone else?? I don't get why so many people aren't more nuts about what is clearly income and wealth redistribution. (I like this analogy http://votingformccain.blogspot.com/2008/10/difference-between-democrats.html

and this person's assertions on Obama's position on the Illinois bill is a REALLY BIG SPIN job. here's an unbiased review... the conclusion being that Obama objected to the 1st & 2nd versions of the bill which did not contain the language of the Federal bill protecting the right to abortion but still requiring assistance to born alive fetuses -- but the 3rd version did AND HE STILL OPPOSED IT.

Obama and 'Infanticide': The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois. (Judge for yourself.)

as for voter fraud & acorn -- ACORN is engaged in voter fraud -- they say "ACORN's problem is that some of its employees file fake voter registration forms in order to look good to the organization and earn bonuses" -- is he/she excusing this by saying that ACORN just HIRES STUPID PEOPLE??

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=acorn+voter+fraud&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

and using the LA Times as your "authority"??? for every assertion? just plain laughable. There is no more a biased piece of toilet paper masquerading as journalism... well, except for maybe the NY Times! how about some independent source??

and as for the condescending little rebuke to

Take a little time to read their web sites and see what both candidates are advocating as policymakers and political leaders. Make your decision based on what they really say they're going to do in office.

are they calling you "stupid" or maybe just a "sheep" because you're supporting McCain? I have found this attitude so prevalent in the left and liberal base -- that somehow we HAVEN'T looked and read and INFORMED ourselves because we haven't fallen at the feet of "the One"???? and he/she may be able to dismiss the spin of conservative journalists' written words, but you cannot dismiss Obama's OWN WORDS (the videos). yah.

and as for "what they really say they are going to do in office" -- words. just words. Me?? I look at

1. what they SAY they will do
2. a candidate's actual record of accomplishments,
3. solid meaningful experience,
4. whether a candidate has held and supported their position for more than a presidential campaign,
5. their character references

I see that as +5 in the McCain column and a big "0" in the "O" column. heh.

Thanks for passing this along anyway. I needed a chuckle this morning!!

yer cuz,

This article puts the whole socialist charge against Barak Obama in its fair and proper perspective. Are others equally guilty? We have been accepting creeping Socialism since the New Deal. Please read the whole thing. It may surprise you.

By Pat Buchanon

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen.

Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

"Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born?

In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote:

"There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the "Marxist professors" Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

Don't Judge Me...

x
x
x

click to enlarge image
x
x
x

The residents of Broward County, Florida have recently received misleading robocalls telling them that they can vote by phone on Election Day, according to a report in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on Friday. EVERYONE VOTES NOV. 4 IN PERSON UNLESS YOU ALREADY VOTED BY ABSENTEE BALLOT OR VOTED EARLY. ONE VOTE TO A CITIZEN, HOWEVER.

The report didn't provide many details, other than the fact that the voice fallaciously identified itself as Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes.

When asked whether she had heard about the calls, the supervisor's public service director said that she hadn't, and that of course voting by phone is not an option.

The call is just one of a number of dirty tricks being pulled off around the country just before record numbers of voters are expected to turn up at the polls on Election Day.

Another unknown group is distributing flyers (see the flyer after the jump) with official-looking letterhead around the area of Hampton Roads, Virgina that erroneously inform recipients that because of the crowds at the polls, the Virginia State Board of Elections is scheduling Republicans to vote on November 4th, and Democrats on the 5th. EVERYONE VOTES NOV. 4 IN PERSON UNLESS YOU ALREADY VOTED BY ABSENTEE BALLOT OR VOTED EARLY. ONE VOTE TO A CITIZEN, HOWEVER.

Democratic congressmen Jerry Nadler of New York, John Conyers of Michigan and Bobby Scott of Virginia on Thursday asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the matter and to bring criminal charges against the originators of the flyers.

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that people in the area have been receiving robocalls with the same message. This particular trick is an old one: In 2004, the New York Times reported the same message going out in the Pittsburgh area via flyers.

click to enlarge image

What She Said

A Soldier's Mom... What she says

O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?

with apologies to ms janis:

when she said, "I'd like to do a song of great social and political import" she couldn't possibly have know how prophetic those words would become...

Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends republicans,
So Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?

Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a color tv?
Dialing for dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a color tv?

Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a night on the town?
I'm counting on you, "lord", please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a night on the town?

Everybody!
Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends republicans,
So Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?

That's it.

-- lyrics by Janis Joplin

I know this would be funny if it just weren't so sad...

Not So Much Fun, huh?

h/t From My Position... On the Way

Obama and Gunowners: Not Your Friend

ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION
420 E. Locust, P.O. Box 637, Chatsworth, IL 60921
Phone: (815) 635-3198 or (815) 635-3166 Fax: (815) 635-3723
Website: www.isra.org
Dedicated to education, safety training and support of Illinois firearm owners

October 10, 2008

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama’s attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than Barack Obama.

Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners and forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let’s not forget Obama’s pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN’s international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people’s money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

By now, I’m sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called “American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA)” talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I’d like to remind you that I’m a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation’s outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him.

That’s the Barack Obama I know.

Sincerely,
(original signed)
Richard A. Pearson
Executive Director
Illinois State Rifle Association

Mr. Pearson joins Dave Kopel to discuss Obama's gun record. Obama has been paying lip service to how he supports sportsmen and gun rights, but what does his voting record actually say? Tune in to find out!

Listen to the podcast at iVoices.org.

NOW Do You Get IT??

Well, if you didn't follow the analogy here, then maybe this will help you understand Obama's tax plan:

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Things that make you go hmmm...

Just How Scary is this Stuff??

Really... from Barney Frank -- the chief architect of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco (you know, the guy whose boyfriend was an executive with Fannie May while Frank was overseeing legislation to grant these subprime loans AND testifying that "all was well" with the financial institutions and there was no need for regulation?? 18 times the Bush administration tried to get someone in the Democratic party to pay attention to the looming problem... but Democrats like Maxine Waters and Barney Frank (among others) blocked all attempts. You can't make this stuff up!

Now THIS:

NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

Cut taxes for 95% to be made up by some randomly set "upper income" person to pay for more?? What, the top 10% of wage earners paying more than 60% of the taxes isn't enough?? Just how much should these hard working people be asked to pay... and why shouldn't those people just say F* it and leave?? I would.

And when the "crisis" that Joe Biden suggests is coming, Barney... how will you defend us with your military cut backs? Who will save us then Barney?? Didn't you learn anything from the Clinton cut? Nothing? Only stupid children like Franks puts their hand on a hot burner more than once.

These Democrats are planning to turn the USA into one big friggin' welfare state -- pay for food, shelter, healthcare, and give you money for not working... a friggin' lazy man's dream!!

When Obama says, "This is not the America I know" -- I say DAMN STRAIGHT, BARRY! REAL Americans WORK for what they have... they do not stand in a welfare line with their hand out. GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

McCain for President

I find Charles Krauthammer to be one of the most balanced of the contributors at Fox News and in his columns. He's not afraid to call ANYONE out on anything. And Charles HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD today. My thoughts exactly, Charles.

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

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

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

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

READ THE WHOLE THING, PLEASE. It will be worth your while!

And read some of his other analyses:

A Question of Barack Obama's Character

Hail Mary vs. Cool Barry

"Supporting" Obama but VOTING FOR MCCAIN

Obama Says McCain's Stuff is Negative?

Unions Mislead on Health Care: They attack McCain's plan. One ad uses a bogus tax figure; another makes a false claim about coverage.

School Funding Misleads: An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.

An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.

An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

More Social Security Spin: Obama-Biden ad misrepresents the Social Security plan McCain supported. Again.

Obama tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False. (In fact, that call Obama's lie a "whopper"!)

Out of Context on Health Care: Obama ad twists McCain's words on health care "deregulation."

Call of the Wild: wildlife group's ad attacks Palin for supporting the shooting of wolves from airplanes. She does, but there's more to it than that. (They're not endangered in Alaska.)

Obama and 'Infanticide': The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois. (Judge for yourself.)

The Difference Between Democrats & Republicans

This sums it up nicely...

Father/Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard
work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

A reasoned, intelligent and balanced approach. Really. My work has been done for me... I don't agree 100% on all the positions these two young journalists put forth, but I am 95% there and 100% on board with their conclusion: WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.

Go read (and see) for yourself.

Veterans Issues

Interesting take HERE on Veterans issues vis a vis the two candidates. I have two family members that are veterans -- one of whom is a disabled OIF vet, so I follow veterans issues closely. And I mean CLOSELY.

McCain has consistently voted (his entire career) for veterans' legislation that made sense. He has sometimes voted against spending proposals for new programs because he believed that there were other BETTER programs in place that had not been amply funded and that some of the "new" programs being promoted for veterans were just pork projects being promoted for the benefit of legislators rather than for the benefit of Veterans.

And McCain is absolutely correct when he says,

"America has a moral obligation to care for those who have served our nation with honor," McCain said in response to questions to the presidential candidates from the group Disabled American Veterans.

But McCain told the group that, after "dramatic increases" over the past eight years in veterans health-care funding, money isn't always the answer.

"We should expect a matching increase in accountability and efficiency," McCain said. "Increased funding is not proof of supporting our veterans unless it is also accompanied by efforts that ensure our taxpayers' hard earned dollars are being spent wisely and in a manner that best supports and cares for our service members and veterans."

I should note that the "grades" given by IAVA to the Senators have pretty much been debunked as bogus. HERE and HERE and HERE also HERE. Be sure to read the comments and track the follow up posts at each site... an extremely interesting and engaging look at these "report cards" generally. (And in case you don't read those posts, when the top grades are ALL for the Dems and the bottom grades are ALL Republicans... and the founder of the organization is head of one campaign's veterans outreach (one guess which campaign)... yah. You pretty much get the picture.)

Dr. James D. Manning: "God Save America"

I was sent a link of a video of Dr. James David Manning, a minister with Atlah World Ministries. The video was described to me as an "in your face" look at Barack Obama. As I responded to the person who sent the link to me,

this is not so much "in your face" as angry with a lot of name-calling. Dr. Manning makes some very valid points (about O's father, mother, his family, the lack of his resume, etc.) but he's way too racist for me... the name calling seriously offends me. If he could just have left the race thing and name-calling out of it, it w/b a much more powerful indictment of O.

I disagree STRONGLY with this preacher's personal attacks on Senator Obama and his penchant for name-calling... but many people have told me at least once -- in discussing Rev. Wright -- that I don't understand preaching styles in black churches... Dr. Manning makes some VERY VALID POINTS in his strongly enunciated opposition to and denunciation of Sen. Obama, which, among others, include:

• Why doesn't Sen. Obama measurably discuss his mother in either of his books?

• Why DOES he praise the father that abandoned him physically, emotionally and financially and call his book, "Dreams OF MY FATHER".

• If he wasn't listening to Rev. Wright in all his hate-filled, anti-American sermons for 20 years, why was Obama's book "Audacity of Hope" named for one of Rev. Wright's sermons? (And if he wasn't listening, what was the point of attending??)
  

• Why aren't any of the members of Sen. Obama's family (grandmother, aunts, uncles, sister/brother-in-laws, nieces, nephews) at any of his appearances? Do they know something that we don't know?

• Why haven't we been able to see the transcripts and his work from Columbia University and Harvard Law?? After all, we would expect to see a full out resume (and for some jobs, work samples) if he were going to work for us in any other job... AND THIS IS FOR THE THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES! Why haven't we seen his work? What's Obama hiding?

• Do not tell me you are voting for Obama's "policies" if you cannot tell me what those policies entail or tell me what your candidate stands for... because you are voting based on RACE.

Although Dr. Manning makes valid points based on the issues, I actually believe Dr. Manning has a problem with Sen. Obama because Obama is white. Here's the link to the video. Warning: It contains some objectionable (disparaging) name calling (blacks and whites).

Character DOES Matter

Yes, character in the President does matter. I am not only seriously troubled by the pattern of Obama's associations -- Ayers, Wright, Rezko, ACORN -- but his enthusiastic willingness to throw his "former" associates under the bus concerns me even more!! If the associations themselves didn't bother me (which they certainly do), I see Obama's denials and underplaying his less than savory friends and mentors as "inconsequential" as a clear and undeniable indication that he has no qualms or reservations about DOING WHATEVER HE MUST and OWING WHOMEVER HE MUST to be President. Now THAT is scary.

I think Peter Wehner makes this argument well.

A Question of Character
Peter Wehner
10.14.2008
Posted on Commentary magazine’s blog Contentions

At a time when many people are saying Barack Obama’s past associations with radical figures doesn’t matter—and even that it shouldn’t matter—it’s worth considering the opposite argument.

From the ancient Greeks to the founding fathers, many of our best political minds believed character in our leaders matters. It doesn’t matter more than anything else, and character is itself a complicated thing. People can have strong character in some respects and weak character in others. People can demonstrate battlefield valor, for example, yet show cruelty to those over whom they have power. They can speak unpleasant truths when there is a high cost to doing so and betray their spouses. Individuals can demonstrate admirable loyalty to their friends and still lie to the public, or work for peace and yet violate the laws of our land.

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.

Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.

Will it be something that will manifest itself if Obama is elected President? It’s impossible to know for sure, and we can hope it wouldn’t be the case. But it might.

The concern is not that Obama will invite domestic terrorists to the White House for signing ceremonies or private lunches; rather, it is that we know enough about Obama to say that his enormous personal ambition has clouded his judgment over the years. He looks to be a man who will do disquieting things in order to climb the ladder of political success; when he was in Hyde Park, the rungs on that ladder included Mr. Ayers and the Reverend Wright. This kind of trait—soaring ambition trumping sound judgment—can manifest itself in very problematic ways, especially when you occupy the most powerful office in the world.

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

It’s true enough that the McCain campaign has never explained in a sustained, adequate way why these radical associations matter; that McCain, for reasons that are hard to fathom, has declared the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is off limits; and that the MSM is so deeply wed to Obama’s victory that they have done all they can to turn the issue of Obama’s radical associations into a problem for John McCain rather than Barack Obama. And so it’s quite possible that raising Obama’s radical associations in the last 20 days won’t be politically effective and may even be politically counterproductive, given the economic crisis we’re facing and the ham-handed way it’s been handled so far. Many Americans certainly seem to be of the mind that Obama’s associations with Ayers and Wright and all the rest don’t matter.

I get all that. But some of us believe there is a responsibility to make this case in a calm, responsible, factual way. We believe it’s important to explain why Obama’s radical associations bear on the question of his character, and why Obama’s character bears on the question of electing our next President. This issue shouldn’t, by itself, be dispositive. Nor should it be the only, or even the most important, issue in the campaign. Nor is it fair to say that Obama’s character can be understood only through the prism of his associations. But to evoke eye-rolling, dismissive reactions in response to simply raising the issue is an effort to sideline a legitimate topic.

The time-honored truth is that character matters in leaders. Sometimes people forget that lesson—and when they do, it’s appropriate to remind them. And whether the country understands it or not, and whether voters think it’s a big deal or not, integrity and associations matter.

If Barack Obama is elected President, sooner or later people will realize this applies to him as well. It’s only right to ask the relevant questions in advance of this election—and despite the ridicule being dished out by the acolytes and cheerleaders of Senator Obama, it’s not too much to ask Obama to explain his relationship over the years with people who have a disturbing history of violence, hatred for America, and corruption.

URL to article: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/37572

I will vote for John McCain because he is undeniably a man of character and conviction.

Obama Lies About McCain's Medicare Proposals

Obama's False Medicare Claim

Obama accuses McCain of proposing to cut benefits. Not true.

By Brooks Jackson, Newsweek

In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

A TV spot says McCain's plan requires "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both."

Obama said in a speech that McCain plans "cuts" that would force seniors to "pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing.

McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

The Obama campaign began the Medicare assault with a 30-second TV ad released Oct. 17, which it said would run "across the country in key states." The ad quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying McCain would pay for his health care plan with "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid," which the ad says would total $882 billion from Medicare alone, "requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both." But in fact, McCain has never proposed to cut Medicare benefits, or Medicaid benefits either. Obama's claim is based on a false reading of a single Wall Street Journal story, amplified by a one-sided, partisan analysis that piles speculation atop misinterpretation. The Journal story in turn was based on an interview with McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He said flatly in a conference call with reporters after the ad was released, "No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning."

Here's how Democrats cooked up their bogus $882 billion claim.

On Oct. 6, the Journal ran a story saying that McCain planned to pay for his health care plan "in part" through reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending, quoting Holtz-Eakin as its authority. The Journal characterizes these reductions as both "cuts" and "savings." Importantly, Holtz-Eakin did not say that any benefits would be cut, and the one direct quote from him in the article makes clear that he's talking about economies:

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6: Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn't detail where the cuts would come from. "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost," he said. Holtz-Eakin complains that the Journal story was "a terrible characterization" of McCain's intentions, but even so it clearly quoted him as saying McCain planned on "giving [Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries] the benefit package that has been promised."

Nevertheless, a Democratic-leaning group quickly twisted his quotes into a report with a headline stating that the McCain plan "requires deep benefit and eligibility cuts in Medicare and Medicaid" – the opposite of what the Journal quoted Holtz-Eakin as saying. The report was issued by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to Democratic President Bill Clinton. The report's authors are a former Clinton administration official, a former aid to Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey and a former aid to Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski.

The first sentence said – quite incorrectly – that McCain "disclosed this week that he would cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health care plan." McCain said no such thing, and neither did Holtz-Eakin. The Journal reporter cited a $1.3 trillion estimate of the amount McCain would need to produce, over 10 years, to make his health care plan "budget neutral," as he promises to do. The estimate comes not from McCain, but from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. McCain and Holtz-Eakin haven't disputed that figure, but they haven't endorsed it either. Nevertheless, the report assumes McCain would divide $1.3 trillion in "cuts" proportionately between the two programs, and comes up with this: "The McCain plan will cut $882 billion from the Medicare program, roughly 13 percent of Medicare's projected spending over a 10-year period." And with such a cut, the report concludes, Medicare spending "will not keep pace with inflation and enrollment growth—thereby requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."

"Savings" vs. "Cuts"
For the record, Holtz-Eakin said in a telephone conference call with reporters Oct. 17, after the ad was released, that any shortfall in McCain's health care plan could be covered, without cutting benefits, by such measures as reducing "Medicare fraud and abuse," employing "a new generation of treatment models" for expensive chronic diseases, speeding adoption of low-cost generic drugs, and expanding the use of information technology in medicine.

Interestingly, Obama proposes to pay for his own health care plan in part through some of the same measures, particularly expanded use of I.T. and better handling of chronic disease. Whether either candidate can achieve the huge savings they are promising is dubious at best. As regular readers of FactCheck.org are aware, we're skeptical of Obama's claim that he can achieve his promised $2,500 reduction in average health insurance premiums, for example.

But achievable or not, "savings" are what McCain is proposing. It's a rank distortion for Obama's ad to twist that into a plan for "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both," and for Obama to claim in a speech that seniors will "receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."