Obama speech police strikes again!

Barack Obama and his surrogates in Missouri have use the fact that some Democratic prosecutors are Obama supporters to threaten anyone who produces a campaign commercial that doesnt pass their truth test. That's funny since Obama just produced a Spanish language add filled with outright falsehoods. This is the second major time that the Obama team has attempted to silence critics.

Now in this response from the Governor of Missouri:

Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.


“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

Read the entire message. It is worth your time.

Democrats like root causes - view this video

>

Freddie, Fannie and the Sub-Prime Crisis-Obamonopoly

Obama needs to remind Corzine that panels are the oldest Washington stunt!

From Newsday.com:

Gov. Jon Corzine says he'll convene a special panel to assess ongoing uncertainty in the national economy and its impact on New Jersey.

The economic round-table will occur Monday.

Corzine said he'll assemble business, labor and economic representatives from throughout the state. The goal is to develop an immediate action plan.

But I thought that this was the oldest Washington stunt in the book? Apparently, Obama's buddy and economic advisor Jon Corzine didn't get the memo.

Biden - Empty your pockets to be a patriot!

Joe Biden once again opened his mouth and put his entire foot into it. From the Associated Press:

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Pay close attention to those words. He wants to "take" money from one group of people and put it into the pocket of another group of people. That sounds just like the former Soviet Union. And this would just be sad if real facts on the ground don't tell the real tale.

The real issue is that in this country, 53 percent of taxpayers do not pay any taxes at all. The top 20 percent of wage earners already pay more than 2/3 of ALL taxes. The reward for people who work hard to earn money for their families and achieve some level of success according to Biden-Obama? Give it to the government so they can redistribute it to others.

That isn't am economic plan. That is socialism pure and simple. Patriotism? I don't think so Comrade.

Obama admits to treason!

While I read the Amir Tahiri report in the New York Post yesterday, I must admit that I frankly could not believe that it was 100% true. This despite the fact that I love Tahiri's work and always read his articles. But Powerline documented the issue far better than I could:

Amir Taheri lays out Barack Obama's sorry record of double-dealing on Iraq:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.


This is shocking, although, coming from Obama, not surprising. It's not just that he has tried, in private, to achieve the exact opposite result from the one he has advocated in public. Worse, Obama has in effect tried to conduct his own foreign policy as a President-in-waiting, thereby undermining the actual foreign policy of the United States.

Okay. Maybe Tahiri, Powerline and I are wrong on what Obama meant? How about the statement from his campaign.

Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

(Powerline) Which I guess must be different from what Taheri said. Somehow.

Read the entire Powerline post here.

Pelosi Orders Wall Street Probe - here is my list of witnesses.

From Politico:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ordered a broad, swift investigation of Wall Street and will demand testimony from Bush administration officials and captains of finance, congressional officials said

Let's help out with the witness list:

1. Franklin Raines
2. Jamie Gorelick
3. Chris Dodd
4. Barack Obama
5. Joe Biden
6. Andrew Coumo
7. William Jefferson Clinton
8. Hillary Clinton
9. John Kerry
10. Jim Johnson

And here is what you should ask. For all the former Democrat appointees from the Clinton administration, ask them why they lined their pockets while creating an environment that destroyed the mortgage industry in the United States by purposely breaking down the controls for mortgage lending to non-qualified buyers. And ask the politicians on this list what thhey received for the tens of thousands of donations they received from their corrupt friends.

After you are done with that, sure, go to Wall Street. But I suspect you won't have to or want to.

Lehman and the mortgage crisis-Obama points finger...at himself.

We have all heard Barack Obama tell the world that he is a new kind of politician who "doesn't accept special interest money". That claim has always been dubious to me as fundraising statistics clearly show this to be untrue. But I figured that maybe he doesn't include unions and other organized labor donors in his definition of "special". But that apparently isn't the entire story. This morning, Barack Obama said this(from the AP):

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Monday the upheaval on Wall Street was "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression" and blamed it on policies that he said Republican rival John McCain supports.

"This country can't afford another four years of this failed philosophy," Obama said after the shock-wave announcements that financial giant Lehman Brothers was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while titan Merrill Lynch was being bought by Bank of America for about $50 billion.

So, it's greedy CEO's, John McCain and Republicans that are the problem? Maybe not as this report from the Heritage Foundation makes perfectly clear:

In what some observers are calling a reshaping of Wall Street, two of the world’s largest investment banks, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, are set to disappear. Lehman has announced it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America. For all the complicated financial instruments and relationships involved in the current financial turmoil, the underlying cause is still relatively simple: the bursting of the housing bubble.

Ok. Step one is for Mr Obama to understand that the mortgage crisis caused this problem. But what drove the mortgage crisis?

When President Bill Clinton took office, Fannie and Freddie were viewed as “key” to Clinton’s plans to expand home ownership. The Washington Post reports: “The result was a period of unrestrained growth for the companies. … The companies increasingly were seen as the engine of the housing boom.” As the companies grew, conservatives repeatedly warned that their size posed a systemic risk to the financial system. As Sarah Palin put it, thanks to the implicit federal guarantee of their debt, Fannie and Freddie had become too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.

So, this clearly had double benefits for the Democrats. It drove economic expansion and allowed politicians to say more people owned homes (whether or not they could afford them is a different story). But how did this problem keep brewing for so long?

But Fannie and Freddie pushed back hard, turning to friends on the left for protection. Former Walter Mondale and Barack Obama campaign adviser James Johnson led a fierce lobbying campaign to fight reform of Freddie and Fannie. Clinton administration OMB director Franklin Raines told investors when he was Fannie Mae CEO in 1999: “We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks.” Fannie and Freddie’s lobbying power over the left continues to be strong to this day. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three recipients of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie’s PACs and employees are all Democrats. From 1989 through today, Sen. Chris Dodd received $165,400, Barack Obama $126,349, and John Kerry $111,000. The Washington Post concludes: “Blessed with the advantages of a government agency and a private company at the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their windfall profits to co-opt the politicians who were supposed to control them.”

Barack Obama should shut up for two reasons and avoid sticking his foot into his mouth on this topic. The first reason is that he and his fellow Democrats have their hands deep in this mess. As a matter of fact, to date the one person who has had to accept government settlement terms to avoid being convicted of defrauding investors is Franklin Raines (Clinton's former White House Budget Director). The second reason Obama should refrain is that to keep talking is to show what a complete hypocrite he is on the special interest issue. It took Chris Dodd 20 years to get his share of the loot. Obama almost caught up in three. It is Obama himself whose hands are not just dirty, they are filthy. McCain for the record received less than 1/6th the amount Obama did from this quasi-government mortgage and lobbying entity.

Again, who is at fault here?

NJ Democrats Missed Filing Deadline - But don't worry.

From this article in Politicker:

Democrats not concerned they missed deadline to pick Obama electors

That was the headline. The heart of the matter is this:

The New Jersey Democratic State Committee failed to hold a meeting to formally select its electors for Barack Obama, but is still on track to meet the Division of Elections filing deadline of Sept. 12.

State law requires political parties to hold a meeting to nominate electors within seven days of its national convention. The parties then have an additional week to file electors' names with the Division of Elections.

Democratic Committee Executive Director Rob Angelo said the elector certification process, generally completed at the committee meeting, is now underway.

It is now September 13, 2008. They have officially missed the deadline. Of course, you don't have to worry about it because this is New Jersey. This is the state that if a candidate is losing and is a Democrat, they can swap another candidate in their place against all precedent and election law. All because the state is corrupt and the Supreme Court in this state is political.

I am shocked that the Democrats in the state haven't made it law that all citizens are required to vote for Barack Obama. I am sure they thought about it.

Have any doubts about the pig controversy?

From the Democratic party website 8/30/2008.

NJ Taxes - What's up with that dude?

In this humorous spoof letter in the Tri-Town News, we get an equal comedy treatment on the two candidatates.

You'd no doubt like to go first this week, so you could pole ax me with the fact that John McCain couldn't remember how many houses he has, in answer to a question by some smart-aleck reporter. Could be seven, maybe more, and he suggested that nosy reporters check with his staff.

That's the only problem with marrying a beer distributor heiress who is worth $100 million. You forget about little things, like houses.

But he doesn't hold his fire just to McCain.

I think it's funny when the pundits try to contrast McCain's houses with man-of- thepeople Barack Obama, living in hardscrabble Hyde Park in Chicago, scrimping by on $4 million a year, in a $1.5 million mansion. Poor Barack. I bet he had to split rails to buy that house. Now there's a guy who can relate to my predicament!

But the real joke in this article is the following slam on New Jersey:

I bet you folks in New Jersey - which, congratulations, just moved into the No. 1 spot in the annual Tax Foundation survey of total tax load by state - have no problem remembering how many houses you own.

What I can't figure out is why you keep electing Democrats. Every map I see shows New Jersey as blue as blue can be. Do you really think tax-raising Barack Obama is going to make things better in New Jersey? You're not buying that crock, are you, Old Pal ? At least the Republicans have the common decency to lie to you about not raising taxes. The Democrats won't even make the effort to lie! What' s up with that, dude?

Yeah. What IS up with that?

What is Obama's Free Speech Problem?

First Barack Obama reacted to a commercial sponsored by the American Issues Project who have attempted to put this commercial out there.



The Obama campaign responded by first threatening any station that would run this add and then second sending not one, but two letters to the justice department to have this group prosecuted. Interesting that I have not seen Obama have the same concern over the outright slander that moveon.org has put out there.

Then yesterday, Obama attacked National Review contributor Stanley Kurtz because he has been researching Obama's relationship with a known terrorist. His campaign went so far as to send its email list these instructions to call a local Chicago radio station to disrupt Kurtz appearance on WGN.

Even with the talking points provided, the Obama crowd didn't have much to say as they really haven't been armed with the facts. And the facts are that Obama has a relationship with a terrorist, is apparently friends with him and doesn't see anything wrong with that. I am okay with that and he should have to be judged on his personal relationships. But don't pretend they don't exist....again.

DNC Post- Ted Kennedy

Ok. I get that Teddy Kennedy has spent a lot of years in the senate representing his home state. I also respect his families concern over his brain tumor. But I have never been able to get over the fact that he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne's parents daughter and then covered it up with his connections. I believe that many parents would not have accepted his populist message when faced with him committing that tragedy upon their family.

He mentioned in his convention speech that Obama will not engage US armed forces in a war that is wrong. I am sorry on this one. JFK started Vietnam. Pure and simple. I don't believe he was wrong but most Democrats do. And they were responsible for escalating it(LBJ). They only turned against it when Nixon tried to end it.

History doesn't impact liberals like the rest of us.

Obama's Supporters Think The Soprano State's Leaders Are Doing A Great Job

Want Yet Another Reason not to vote for an Obama-nation? How about the fact that his backers think New Jersey legislators are to be commended?

N.J. eco-group backs Obama, gives lawmakers high marks
2 senators, 8 congressmen get perfect scores

A state environmental advocacy group yesterday announced its endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president and gave New Jersey's two U.S. senators and eight of its 13 congressmen perfect scores for their environmental records.

Environment New Jersey based its report card on 10 votes between January 2007 and February 2008 that involved combating global warming, promoting clean energy, protecting air and water, and opposing offshore drilling, Executive Director Dena Mottola Jaborska said at a Statehouse news conference.

So if you're interested in the kinds of things that make Obama friends, it's business-unfriendly government. And half-measures aren't enough. You have to really hate business. For example:

Erica Elliott, Garrett's [Rep. Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist.)] spokeswoman, called the congressman's poor marks "an unfair representation," and issued a list of his environmentally-oriented advocacy. It includes his introduction of a bill to expand the National Wallkill Wildlife Refuge in Sussex, and his support of getting a toxic waste site in Ringwood re-listed on the Superfund National Priorities List.

Scott, of course, scored the lowest in the state, which may be good or bad, but I certainly can't tell from the negative picture painted by this environmentalist group. After all, look at who they like:

Voting environmentally friendly 100 percent of the time were U.S. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, and Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd Dist.), Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.), Robert Andrews (D-1st Dist.), Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist.), Bill Pascrell (D-8th Dist.), Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.), Rush Holt (D-12th Dist.) and Albio Sires (D-13th Dist.).

80% or them are Democrats, of course, including some of our worst, and I have to suspect that LoBiondo and Smith are RINOs; especially when you consider who also scored low alongside Rep. Garrett: Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.), and Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-7th Dist.). You don't get a Democrat until you tie him with another Republican for a 69% score. Clearly "bipartisan":

"Being green in the Garden State is a bipartisan issue and we applaud our delegation's environmental heroes, especially the leadership from Sen. Menendez and Sen. Lautenberg," Mottola Jaborska said.

Sounds like a lot of Jaborska to me.

Houses - Forgetting how many you have or Corruption

From Politico:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

Then an Obama add mocking John McCain as out of touch. But what is the bigger crime, forgetting how many houses you bought yourself when you are worth 100 million dollars or getting the million dollar house you live in courtesy of a felon convicted of political corruption. This may be a can of worms that Obama may regret having opened.

When Obama Loses, apparently McCain cheated!

From Politco.com:

Mitchell reported that some "Obama people" were suggesting "that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared."

A McCain aide said that is not the case: "Senator McCain was in a motorcade led by the United States Secret Service and held in a green room with no broadcast feed."

Mitchell made the comment in the context of saying McCain did better, and that the Obama camp was defensive. In response to the campaign's letter, she pointed out that journalists get criticism from both sides.

"I wasn't expressing an opinion," Mitchell said. "I was reporting what they were saying."

So now the mainsteam meadia believes that if Obama stinks in a debate, the other guy cheated. One suggestion to Obama operatives. Get your candidate to take a position....any position. Skip the equivocation. He has to believe in something right. Tell us what it is. And you won't have to embarass your media toadies.

Too Tired of Obama's Weakness being Hillary's Fault

In the election cycle, the Democrats kept attributing Barack Obama's failure to secure the deal on Hillary's cynical attacks on him. I am not nor have I ever been a Hillary fan outside of general respect for her and Bill's Presidency which I respect as I respect any President of the USA. But the creepy thing is that somehow, she gets brought up as a problem for Obama and his failure to get beyond black voters, elitists and the general uninformed. What cracks me up is that Obama is getting beat up by normal folks that don't seem to get his 'holier than thou' rhetoric.

John McCain had a good week. While Obama was on vacation, McCain (who I am still not sure I could ever vote for) acted presidential. And Obama tried to play politics and have it both ways. It is a shame we can't have Lincoln/Douglas style debates between these two. The Obama camp won't have it until it is too late. And McCain wants it until Obama tanks. Either way, the one on top doesn't want to take a chance. If Obama wants real change, he should debate everywhere. Debate in the street, the hills, the mountain top and the workplace. But he won't. Because I suspect he is more formidible as a myth than as a real person. Shame.

Is this press corps prepared to ask hard questions?

See for yourself. I wonder if this group of people has any objectivity left. I doubt it.

The NY Times doesn't want you to read this.

The New York Times will publish an opinion piece from Barack Obama but will not allow the same from McCain. So in steps the New York post. Printed in its entirety from this opinion piece int he Post.


GETTING IRAQ RIGHT
HOW TO KEEP PROGRESS GOING
By JOHN McCAIN

EDITORS' NOTE: The New York Times wouldn't print this oped from the GOP candidate.

AS he took command in Iraq in January 2007, Gen. David Petraeus called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation is full of hope - but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due mainly to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Sen. Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on Jan. 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Sen. Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted. Perhaps he's unaware that the US embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress."

Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks:
* More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists.
* Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has found the will to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City - dispelling suspicions that he's merely a sectarian leader.

The surge's success hasn't changed Sen. Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale.

In a New York Times op-ed and a speech last week he offered his "plan for Iraq" (in advance of his first "fact-finding" trip to Iraq in more than three years): It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months.

In 2007, he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we'd taken his advice, the war would have been lost. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Maliki has endorsed his timetable - when the Iraqi prime minister has merely said that he'd like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of US troops at some unspecified future point.

Sen. Obama is also misleading on the readiness of the Iraqi military. Iraq's army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year - but that doesn't mean, as Sen. Obama suggests, that it'll then be ready to secure the country without a good deal of help.
The Iraqi air force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications and other complex functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent US presence, as Sen. Obama charges. We've already seen a partial withdrawal with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more can take place as the security situation improves.

As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields (such as Afghanistan) without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I've said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I've also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground - not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama has said that he'd consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say.

During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I've heard many times from our troops what Major Gen. Jeffrey Hammond (commander of Coalition forces in Baghdad) recently said: Leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq.
Sen. Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. Indeed, he's emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I'm dismayed that he never talks about winning the war - only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will - and a triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us.
As president, I won't let that happen. Instead, I'll continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Dear Barack: You're wrong about small towns

Originally written by Will Manly at thestironline.com which now appears to be defunct.

Dear Barack Obama:

I grew to like you over the last year.

I've always thought of you as dangerously naive at best. Eloquent, gifted, genuine, yes. But dangerously naive at best.I couldn't vote for you -- but not because of your funny name or your lunatic pastor.

I couldn't vote for you because you say we should raise taxes (even on the rich, who I'm convinced already pay too much), and because you say we should abandon Iraq (which I'm convinced would be surrendering a war we must win), and because you don't respect the Second Amendment (which I'm convinced should disqualify any politician from any office).

Still, I've liked your message of unity and your ability to inspire. And, since your rise I've hunted, quite frantically, for young conservative leaders with your talent. (To my relief, I found Bobby Jindal.)

And I've long said if you beat Hillary Clinton, you will have done your country a tremendous service. But anymore I'm having a harder and harder time rooting for you.

First came your wife's comment about being proud of America for the first time -- conveniently, right after you started winning primaries. Then came your own words about your grandmother, who is just a "typical white person" -- a racist, or at least someone with racist tendencies. (I'm a "typical white person," I suppose, and I'm no racist. In fact, little makes me angrier than when it's insinuated I am.)

Sometimes people say things they don't really mean. But this is a pattern.

Last week we heard your comments about small-town America. Someone at a San Francisco fundraiser asked you why it's so hard for Democrats to win in rural areas. You said:"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them ... So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them ... "

Is that a minority? HEY CLETUS, GET THE GUN! (If only we had a job to go to, some time in the last 25 years ... )

Here's a thought: Maybe gun rights voters know gun control laws kill people and steal freedom.

Here's a thought: Maybe some of us have moral objections to an immigration system that forces rule-followers to wait decades for legal status, and rewards border-violators with amnesty.

Here's a thought: Maybe some Americans cling to their church because their pastor is a nice person, because they find love there, because there they have something they can believe in.

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, us simpletons in small towns find it harder to be bigoted than all o' y'all cityfolk. Maybe, in small towns, where everybody knows your name -- and how hard you work, if you pay your taxes, how well you treat your neighbors, how often you volunteer in the community, and whether or not you're a good parent -- people see the content of your character, so they don't give a hoot about the color of your skin. (But I grew up in a small town where about a third of the population is of a different race than me. What do I know?)

And here's my favorite thought of all: Maybe small-town folks are -- really -- capable of thinking. All on our own.

You're wrong about why small-town Americans don't vote for Democrats.

We don't vote for Democrats because we're self-reliant so we don't like the government trying to "solve" everything for us. And because you tell your rich friends in San Francisco that we're dumb. And because, each election, whichever one of you is running for president traipses all over the country telling us you have all the answers, that you're the one on our side, that you respect our way of life.

But each time, a little bit here and there slips out -- and by the end of the campaign, we can tell what you think about us. And we manage to learn who you really are.

And we see you're just a horse's ass.

Obama can dish it out but can't take it.

Yesterday the New Yorker published an astonishingly stupid cover depicting Obama as Osama and his wife as a jihadi with an afro topped off with a flag burning in the fireplace. The New Yorker claimed that it is was really trying to support Obama by lampooning the stereotypes that many hold in regard to the Democrat nominee-in-waiting. Their apology is that their visual hit job on Obama was really a hit job on anyone against Obama (read McCain supporters even though most of these canards were planted by Democrats from Hillary's campaign). As is often the case when ultra-liberals attempt to be funny, they overreach.



But the real joke here is the complete lack of any sense of humor by Obama. Everything seems to offend him and his supporters. Late night comics are not allowed to make jokes about him or else their audiences gasp in fear of offending any Obamacolyte (devoted Obama worhsipper) attending the show. So while Obama comments that McCain is confused(read OLD), George Bush lied about the war(read WAR CRIMINAL), General Petreous as misguided and wrong(read GEORGE BUSH TOADY WHO LIES TOO BECAUSE THE SURGE REALLY FAILED) and conservatives are clinging to their God and guns(I really don't know what his point was there), apparently it is not fair game to fight back.



Obama constantly rails about any attack directed at him as 'just that old kind of politics as usual' or 'I am for change, change from these kinds of political attacks'. Candidate Obama continues to cloak himself in linguistic teflon with the ready and willing media and Hollywood crowd covering his back. But sooner or later, he is going to be exposed for the what he really is deep down. And here's hoping that he isn't the stiff we have seen so far.



I once said that I thought he passed the beer test. From the way he has been acting, I was wrong. Lighten up Senator.

A Society of Whiners!

Former Senator Phil Gramm sparked a major controversy this past week by saying that we have become a nation of whiners. Now, of course from a political standpoint, this was a completely stupid thing to say. McCain did the expected two-step backwards and threw Gramm under the bus. Obama responded with his typical snide and condescending "we don't need another Dr Phil" comment that sounded less funny every time it has been played. But the real question is whether or not Gramm is right.

The Media

The media outlets in this country live to whine. The New York Times front page is less often filled with real news than it is with whiny pseudo-news opinion pieces. For example, with all of the constant drumbeat over warrant less wiretapping for terrorism, no one has yet to find a single person to come forward to declare that they were unfairly targeted. It's like listening to my children complain because one or the other is "looking at me". In addition, the television media has created so many cable shows that propagate constant bleating like a sheep on steroids. Need proof? Watch Keith Olbermann just once.

The Political Class

All whiners. There are no statesmen left in politics. What remains is a pack of political hacks bought and paid for by union and industry money. The only ones who go against the grain are the outright kooks (see Kucinich and Paul) who are so marginalized that they will never advance politically. Too many of the elected class serve to feed the media whining about the topic of the day. Chuck Schumer of New York has made a career of the Sunday Morning Whine. You see, it is much easier to get in front of a camera and blame someone else that it is to do something about it. Need proof? Every knows that the oil situation is a problem. Democrats refuse to act as they refused to act 10 years ago. So now, they will go home for the summer having done nothing. But you will find them in front of the camera every day moaning about gas prices.

New Jersey's leaders

I used a small 'l' because I really don't consider there to be a single leading figure in the state's political classes. There is far too many political positions in the state and the bureaucracy is downright silly. The entire state is completely unhappy and the leaders don't care. Why? Because between state workers unions and paying off inner city poor, they remain in power. They whine about worker benefits, rebates for people who don't pay taxes, free health care, national politics, global warming and drilling offshore. But they never whine about the leadership in Trenton that is driving families and business out of the state at a rate unheard of anywhere but Michigan.

Bloggers

Of course bloggers whine. We exist because we feel that we have little of no influence on the political process as taxpayers and voters. If you are of the working class in this society, you have no say. Why? There is no lobbyist organization advocating for you. So we blog. It is the one opportunity to have your voice heard beyond your circle of friend (where you really don't want to advocate anyway). Thank God we are in this country where blogging is robust and our freedom of speech is protected. Been to any good Chinese blogs lately?

Me

Hellooooo? This post is one big WHINE!

Lies and Taxes - Liberals lie and we pay!

This morning I read an excellent blog entry on Powerline that discussed "who pays the taxes". If you have never read Powerline, it is an excellent blog and the one most famous for taking down Dan Rather and his bogus hit job on President Bush during the last presidential election cycle. The net of theis post today is this:

1991
Top 1%
Reported 13% of the income
Paid 24.6% of the taxes
Top 5%
Reported 26.8% of the income
Paid 43.4% of the taxes
Bottom 50%
Reported 15.1% of the income
Paid 5.5% of the taxes

2007(from the Wall Street Journal)
Top 1%
Paid > 40% of the taxes
Top 50%
Paid 97% of the taxes
Bottom 50%
Paid 3% of the taxes

The first point here is that the media constantly talks about Bush giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. It seems to me that we have a far greater problem with Corzine and Obama giving people's hard earned money to individuals who are not holding up their end of society's joint burden. Liberals lie-We pay!

And for your information, the median taxpayer last year earned $31,000. So, it you make this number or above (this represents most of the working class of New Jersey) you are paying 97% of the taxes.

So the next time you hear John Corzine or Barack Obama tell you that you are not paying your fair share, remember these numbers. It's easy to blame the other guy and say he should pay. It is much harder to stand up and say "what's fair is fair for all of us".

Read the Powerline post here.

McCain and Obama-'nuff said!

What is wrong with the water at Trinity Church in Chicago?

Fox news reports the newest strange goings on in Chicago at Obama's church:

Another Chicago minister is causing headaches for Barack Obama after he told the Democratic candidate’s church congregation Sunday that Hillary Clinton felt entitled to the presidency because she’s white.

The scary part is that this priest, Father Michael Pflegar sounded more like Rev Jeremiah Wright than any priest I have ever heard or known as a member of the Catholic church. Known as "Chicago's Renegade Priest", it is interesting that his wikipedia entry has been updated to reflect that Obama is unhappy:

On May 29, 2008, Pfleger was rebuked by presidential candidate Barack Obama for comments he delivered at a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ. Pfleger had mocked Hillary Clinton, Obama's opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, saying, "I really believe that she just always thought, this is mine... Then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama' and she said, 'Oh, damn. Where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show.'" In response, Obama said he was "deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric". Pfleger later apologized in a statement released by Saint Sabina: "I regret the words I chose Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."

Maybe the real scandal is that while Obama is willing to throw the white guy in his church under the bus, he has a problem when the person who says similar things like Reverend Wright is his pastor for 30 years. Hmmmm.

Read the Fox news article here.