Election 2008 is over. Obama has won. Now all we can do is wait to see what he will do for (or to) America and its citizens.
Many say that this is a historic time - and it is in a sense. It is only historic in the sense that he is the first black President that we've ever had. That's where it stops. He is no god, nothing really remarkable. His qualifications and accomplishments are actually quite unremarkable - unless being a "community organizer" is all it takes to be the leader of the Free World. It sounds like an extremely lackluster qualification to me. Even one who incites a riot can be considered to be a "community organizer". The term has no meaning. Be that as it may, we now have a black president-elect - regardless of how or why he received so many votes. But should it be a historic moment?
If we were truly color-blind as Dr. Martin Luther King wished, and didn't judge people by the color of their skin, he would be "just" another president-elect. This should not be anything "historic" because he is just another man. His skin color should not enter into it. Why so much emphasis on it? It doesn't make sense.
This Republican does as Dr. King wished. I judge people by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. I have seen little in the content of Obama's character that gives me the warm fuzzies. I have trouble trusting him. However, we have no choice at this time but to give him a chance. Admit it or not, he will be the President of The United States of America. If this is your country, he will be your President - the leader of our Country.
I personally have little faith in his ability, but I am willing to give him a chance. As I said above, we have no choice at this time. If he fails us, we have telephones to contact Washington with. We have Email. We have Congressmen. We have mouths. We need to use them. We have the power. Washington gets their power from us, not the other way around. The only power they have, is what we allow them to have.
.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Release The Tape!
The L.A. Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. They claim that it would reveal their source. My question is, if they had to promise not to release it, why was it given to the big boy newspaper to begin with? What's the point? Yes they did print an article about it in April 2008, but they only print the parts of it they want to print. Why not print a complete transcript of the tape?
I personally think that Obama said some things that could jeopardize his campaign, and support his radical associations with the likes of Ayers - who was reportedly at the same event.
It was said by Alan Colmes tonight, that McCain gave several hundred thousand dollars to that group that Khalidi headed up. (It was a wimpy attempt to take the spotlight off of Obama.) If so, show us the tape so we can see what McCain is associated with.
No - if this tape was harmful to McCain in any way, the Times would release it.
I have an idea. Let the Secret Service see it. They are charged with our Executives' safety. They need to know what they are dealing with so they can do their jobs more efficiently.
.
I personally think that Obama said some things that could jeopardize his campaign, and support his radical associations with the likes of Ayers - who was reportedly at the same event.
It was said by Alan Colmes tonight, that McCain gave several hundred thousand dollars to that group that Khalidi headed up. (It was a wimpy attempt to take the spotlight off of Obama.) If so, show us the tape so we can see what McCain is associated with.
No - if this tape was harmful to McCain in any way, the Times would release it.
I have an idea. Let the Secret Service see it. They are charged with our Executives' safety. They need to know what they are dealing with so they can do their jobs more efficiently.
.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Change
One thing people need to keep in mind about "change". It's kind of like luck. It comes in two flavors:
Yes, we will get change soon. There is no doubt of that. Don't be disappointed if it isn't the flavor you like.
.
Good
and
and
Bad
Yes, we will get change soon. There is no doubt of that. Don't be disappointed if it isn't the flavor you like.
********************************
A few days ago, Obama said he was going to go and be with his "critically ill" grandmother in Hawaii. Why did he wait 3 days before going to see her - when she's critically ill? I don't understand. I don't slight him a bit for going to be with her, but why wait 3 days? ********************************
.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Racism Hypocricy
During this campaign, the Democrat [sic] Party has spared no opportunity to accuse those who differ with Obama's policies as being racist. They play the "race card" quite often. I get really tired of it. I have heard that someone (media? campaign worker? Don't recall.) said if a white man voted for the white man in stead of the black man, he was being racist. Does that also apply to the black man who votes for the black man instead of the white man? Is he racist? Of course not. Neither is the white man who votes for the white man instead of the black man.
Childishness like this from Obama's campaign and others in the Democrat [sic] Party is uncalled for. Call me a racist if you like, but I will not vote for someone whose policies I disagree with so much. I judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Childishness like this from Obama's campaign and others in the Democrat [sic] Party is uncalled for. Call me a racist if you like, but I will not vote for someone whose policies I disagree with so much. I judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Oh....my.....GOD!
This is nuts. What are they up to?
October 20, 2008 7:35 AM
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday
guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested
by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he
will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly
unpopular, decisions.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the
second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months
before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The
world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator
president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing
here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have
an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this
guy."
A "generated" crisis? What is this crisis they are planning to generate? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this smacks of one. Read Biden's words carefully. Who will generate this crisis?
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might
originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle
East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the
kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially
to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
What is this all about? Ask yourself this question and think about it - seriously. What are they up to? Biden is absolutely certain that something is going to happen if Obama is elected. No doubt of it. Is it because the world knows that Obama is a greenhorn? Is it because the "Obama is a Muslim" crowd is right, and he is planning to let terrorists freely enter our country and have their way with us? I personally don't buy into that theory, but I can understand how some might. (And yes, I do expect that we will be more vulnerable with Obama and a Democrat controlled Congress in power.)
The text I boldfaced above suggests to me that Biden has no confidence in Obama (should he be elected), and he expects him to do the wrong thing - yet wants us to support the Democrat Party in spite of what happens. He is preparing us for Obama's complete failure if he's elected. Biden seems to suggest that Obama's lack of experience and lack of fortitude will bring terrorists down on us - maybe worse. He knows that Obama can't do the job.
Osama and his nutcase ilk know that Obama is inexperienced, and they can attack our country and know that Obama will not do anything about it. He will be much easier to get past than McCain and Palin. I have always contended that this is why Hamas, Iran, and our other enemies have endorsed him. Think about it. Why would our enemies put their support behind a given candidate? To make nice with us? Our enemies? I think not.
Where did the campaign donations come from last month - for Obama? Over 150,000,000? In one month? Of that, over 3 million is unaccounted for. Something is rotten here.
"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute,
yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued.
"Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I
believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular
as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
As I read this, if elected they will stab a lot of voters in the back. He is trying to prepare you for some very unpopular decisions. They know they will get resistance. IMO, he is trying to soften us for a really good backstabbing.
Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of
particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan
"bristling with nuclear weapons."
OMG...! Obama is still planning on going into Pakistan - just as he said he would do. Could it be?
Too many things make too little sense. There are too many things that just don't sound right with the Obama/Biden ticket. I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. method of thinking - Occam's razor, if you will. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Keep it simple. Think about it in that context. And, think what would the reaction be if McCain and/or Palin would say this stuff? Imagine the uproar!
Strangely, Biden doesn't mention McCain/Palin at any time during this ominous warning. We can only take from that, that the danger won't be present if McCain/Palin are elected. They won't be so easy to push around by our enemies.
Semper Paratus!
.
October 20, 2008 7:35 AM
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday
guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested
by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he
will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly
unpopular, decisions.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the
second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months
before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The
world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator
president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing
here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have
an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this
guy."
A "generated" crisis? What is this crisis they are planning to generate? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this smacks of one. Read Biden's words carefully. Who will generate this crisis?
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might
originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle
East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the
kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially
to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
What is this all about? Ask yourself this question and think about it - seriously. What are they up to? Biden is absolutely certain that something is going to happen if Obama is elected. No doubt of it. Is it because the world knows that Obama is a greenhorn? Is it because the "Obama is a Muslim" crowd is right, and he is planning to let terrorists freely enter our country and have their way with us? I personally don't buy into that theory, but I can understand how some might. (And yes, I do expect that we will be more vulnerable with Obama and a Democrat controlled Congress in power.)
The text I boldfaced above suggests to me that Biden has no confidence in Obama (should he be elected), and he expects him to do the wrong thing - yet wants us to support the Democrat Party in spite of what happens. He is preparing us for Obama's complete failure if he's elected. Biden seems to suggest that Obama's lack of experience and lack of fortitude will bring terrorists down on us - maybe worse. He knows that Obama can't do the job.
Osama and his nutcase ilk know that Obama is inexperienced, and they can attack our country and know that Obama will not do anything about it. He will be much easier to get past than McCain and Palin. I have always contended that this is why Hamas, Iran, and our other enemies have endorsed him. Think about it. Why would our enemies put their support behind a given candidate? To make nice with us? Our enemies? I think not.
Where did the campaign donations come from last month - for Obama? Over 150,000,000? In one month? Of that, over 3 million is unaccounted for. Something is rotten here.
"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute,
yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued.
"Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I
believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular
as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
As I read this, if elected they will stab a lot of voters in the back. He is trying to prepare you for some very unpopular decisions. They know they will get resistance. IMO, he is trying to soften us for a really good backstabbing.
Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of
particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan
"bristling with nuclear weapons."
OMG...! Obama is still planning on going into Pakistan - just as he said he would do. Could it be?
Too many things make too little sense. There are too many things that just don't sound right with the Obama/Biden ticket. I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. method of thinking - Occam's razor, if you will. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Keep it simple. Think about it in that context. And, think what would the reaction be if McCain and/or Palin would say this stuff? Imagine the uproar!
Strangely, Biden doesn't mention McCain/Palin at any time during this ominous warning. We can only take from that, that the danger won't be present if McCain/Palin are elected. They won't be so easy to push around by our enemies.
Semper Paratus!
.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"Dewey Defeats Truman!"
Can it happen again? Can we elect someone who is supposedly trailing in the polls? You bet we can! We can if we don't give up, thinking the polls are the way it's going to be. I don't give polls that much credit - especially the ones the media pushes. It ain't over 'til it's over.
We need to keep in mind that Obama was endorsed by our enemies - terrorist organizations and the leaders of countries that don't much like us. He has long-standing relationships with our "enemies". Ayers is our enemy. Reverend Wright is too, as is ACORN. Why does he have such interest in being positive in the eyes of our enemies? That sends me a vivid message.
He wants to spread the wealth around (but not his own wealth). If you make over $250,000, he will take some of it and spread it around. Why would anybody want to be successful if all they had to look forward to was someone taking their money away from them? Will he donate a chunk of his wealth to the cause? Somehow, I really don't think that would happen. (McCain said he doesn't want to take Obama's wealth and spread it around - or anybody else's.) Obama reported $4.2 million in income in 2007 according to the New York Times. When will he step up and make the first donation? (In 2006, it was even $1 million - four times his $250k "rich" criteria.) Spread some of that wealth my way, Barack Hussein Obama!
Obama says we can be energy independent in 10 years. He says that we only have 3% of the world's oil supply, yet use 25% of it. He won't allow drilling where the oil is. He won't allow nuclear power plants to be built. Something doesn't add up with those numbers considering his "10 years" goal. If his numbers were correct, we can never be energy independent. 25 - 3 = 22. We would still have to ge 22% of our oil from those we depend on, even if we used all of our 3%.
It used to be said that the ideal President would be a moderate, one who isn't at either extreme. Doesn't it stand to reason that one who will buck both parties might fit that criteria?
Let's let Dewey Defeat Truman again. With ACORN registering Mickey Mouse to vote - and so many other fraudulent registrations - we must get out and vote. With Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid at the helm, our Country will be in serious trouble. Let's keep Checks and Balances in place as our forefathers intended.
Obama's Rotten ACORN
.
We need to keep in mind that Obama was endorsed by our enemies - terrorist organizations and the leaders of countries that don't much like us. He has long-standing relationships with our "enemies". Ayers is our enemy. Reverend Wright is too, as is ACORN. Why does he have such interest in being positive in the eyes of our enemies? That sends me a vivid message.
He wants to spread the wealth around (but not his own wealth). If you make over $250,000, he will take some of it and spread it around. Why would anybody want to be successful if all they had to look forward to was someone taking their money away from them? Will he donate a chunk of his wealth to the cause? Somehow, I really don't think that would happen. (McCain said he doesn't want to take Obama's wealth and spread it around - or anybody else's.) Obama reported $4.2 million in income in 2007 according to the New York Times. When will he step up and make the first donation? (In 2006, it was even $1 million - four times his $250k "rich" criteria.) Spread some of that wealth my way, Barack Hussein Obama!
Obama says we can be energy independent in 10 years. He says that we only have 3% of the world's oil supply, yet use 25% of it. He won't allow drilling where the oil is. He won't allow nuclear power plants to be built. Something doesn't add up with those numbers considering his "10 years" goal. If his numbers were correct, we can never be energy independent. 25 - 3 = 22. We would still have to ge 22% of our oil from those we depend on, even if we used all of our 3%.
It used to be said that the ideal President would be a moderate, one who isn't at either extreme. Doesn't it stand to reason that one who will buck both parties might fit that criteria?
Let's let Dewey Defeat Truman again. With ACORN registering Mickey Mouse to vote - and so many other fraudulent registrations - we must get out and vote. With Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid at the helm, our Country will be in serious trouble. Let's keep Checks and Balances in place as our forefathers intended.
Obama's Rotten ACORN
.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Bailout Bill, Section 124
Summarizing a section of the bailout bill, cut-n-pasted from the government's PDF:
"Section 124. Hope for Homeowners Amendments.
Strengthens the Hope for Homeowners program to increase eligibility and improve the tools available to prevent foreclosures."
The brilliant idea to "increase eligibility" is exactly what caused all this - and Congress did it. Now they are doing it again. How can a problem be helped by doing the same thing that caused it?
For those who don't think McCain or the Republicans tried to do anything about getting oversight...
In 2003, John McCain was a co-sponsor of an oversight bill for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that was introduced by Chuck Hagel.
*************************
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs apparently dropped the ball. Guess who was the chairman at the time? Chris Dodd. Where have we heard of him before? And, did you notice? The sponsor and co-sponsors were all Republicans. The bill's summary is as follows (emphasis mine):
"Section 124. Hope for Homeowners Amendments.
Strengthens the Hope for Homeowners program to increase eligibility and improve the tools available to prevent foreclosures."
The brilliant idea to "increase eligibility" is exactly what caused all this - and Congress did it. Now they are doing it again. How can a problem be helped by doing the same thing that caused it?
For those who don't think McCain or the Republicans tried to do anything about getting oversight...
In 2003, John McCain was a co-sponsor of an oversight bill for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that was introduced by Chuck Hagel.
***************************
Overview
| Sponsor: | Cosponsors [as of 2006-07-09] | |||||||||||||||
| Bill Text: | Summary | Full Text | |||||||||||||||
| Status: |
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. |
| Apr 1, 2004: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. |
******************
7/31/2003--Introduced.Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003 - Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to establish in the Department of the Treasury the Office of Federal Enterprise Supervision. Transfers to the Director of such Office supervisory and regulatory authority over specified government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Prohibits merger or consolidation of such Office or its functions.
Requires: (1) the Director to ensure that the enterprises operate in a financially safe manner and remain adequately capitalized; and (2) that each enterprise have prior approval of the Director before implementing a new program.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Director, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; and (7) reporting.
Sets forth certain retained authorities of the Secretary.
Abolishes the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Sets forth related transfer of personnel and facility and property provisions.
*************************
Methinks there is something rotten in Denmark, and it's not the McCain or the Republicans. Research it yourself if you like. Go to official Congressional records, not the blogs or MSNBC.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Economic Crisis
Do you know what caused it? This video will show you the history of it, and who is to blame. You can't correct anything until you know the root cause. Let's correct this and keep it from happening again.
Watch the Video Here
.
Watch the Video Here
.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Election Madness, etc.
For a long time, I was not overly excited about our elections. I had thought that I would go to the polls while holding my nose. Things changed very quickly when Sarah Palin came on scene. The Democrat Party got a good dose of fear and panic. The media joined them.
I always thought McCain was too liberal for my tastes, but Obama is much more so. While many things bother me about McCain, there is so much more that scares me about Obama. In my opinion, an Obama nation would be an abomination.
None of our candidates have any interest in taking control of our borders. Far too many illegals come across undetected or ignored. Truck loads of Mexicans cross our borders through tunnels and through remote parts of our border states. Have you ever wondered how many wacko extremists come in those trucks? If it's so easy for us to turn a blind eye to people in trucks, what's to keep them from transporting certain "things" in those trucks instead - "things" that can do us harm by themselves or can be assebled into bigger, more catastrophic "things"? Somebody better start paying attention. We need to control our borders. It is imperative. Chances are, we will be hit again some day. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. That 's the complacency mindset that caused us to be hit before. Why make it easy for them?
There are a lot of things that bother me about Obama. There are many unanswered quetions out there. We don't know who he is. His past and loyalties are very cloudy at best. Associating with the miscreants and terrorists he has is of major concern, especially considering his reluctance to distance himself from them. Still, why did he keep alliances with them?
The one thing that bothers me most about Obama is that our enemies (and those that don't really like us) have all endorsed him. That, my friends, is where the rubber meets the road. That is the key to who I am going to vote for. If those who want to see us harmed want a given candidate as our leader, that is cause for great concern. I will not vote for anybody that our enemies want in office - particularly in this case. A newcomer with a cloudy past, an associate of and friend to the likes of Ayers and Wright, plus our enemies endorsing him for President of The United States is more than enough for me to vote against him.
I applaud McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. That is when the Democrat Party and media started to really blow their fuses. It's not enough that she is a renegade like McCain, but she's a .....*gasp*......woman! A smart, successful woman - someone the Democrats would love to have on their side. Unfortunately for them, she is a Republican.
In their frenzy, they are doing their best to dig up anything they can on Palin. They sent an army of "investigators" to the tiny, insignificant town of Wasilla to do so. (That's that tiny town she was mayor of.) They dig into her husband, they use Palin's daughter as a pawn in their attempts. They attack her values when she makes the choice to not kill her son with Downs Syndrome. And yet, they are ignoring or trivializing all the serious questions we have about Obama? No bias there.
I know who I will vote for. I know "who" he is. I don't like everything about who he is, but I know what to expect with him. Nobody seems to know who Obama is - except our enemies. They know him well enough to endorse him. Think about that. Our enemies know Obama well enough to endorse him. Me? I took an oath many years ago to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...", and I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama and still honor that oath. That oath did not have a time limit on it.
I don't particularly like renegades, but I do agree with Obama. We need change. Maybe getting two renegades in office is the change we need. I'm game.
I know where the rubber meets the road. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------
The financial crisis we are facing is another concern. It was caused by people buying things they can't afford. There have always been "special deals" and incentives to encourage people to buy cars and houses they wouldn't otherwise purchase. Low- and zero-interest rates are not uncommon. However, when the government demands that lending institutions make money available to people who have little or no means to repay those loans - that's asking for trouble, and exactly what caused the big boys to fail. Those damn Republicans! No, both sides caused this. The Democrats prevented oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush wanted oversight in 2003, and McCain warned of this in 2005. Bush's oversight bill was shot down on party lines. Republicans voted for oversight and Democrats voted for none. This is the result. Oh, did I mention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed more money to the campaigns of Chris Dodd, John Kerry, and Obama than any other candidate? They are all Democrat senators. And two were/are candidates for our highest office. I wonder if that's why the Democrats shot down oversight? More questions. Why isn't the media digging into it like they are Palin's life?
What seems foolish to me is that the government caused this by bending to people who couldn't afford houses, allowing them to get them when they couldn't afford it. Now the government thinks it is the one to fix it? In his address about the matter, Bush even said the bail out funds can be used to help people buy homes? Hellooooooo!!!! This is exactly what caused it in the first place!!!
This is what happens when the government tries to run a business. They did it to social security, and now they are going to do it to our financial sector? I don't think so. They won't cure anything. The only way lenders or any business can act responsibly is if they are allowed to fail. They were irresponsible in their lending practices because the government told them to, and they were not afraid of failure. They knew the government would save them.
I always thought McCain was too liberal for my tastes, but Obama is much more so. While many things bother me about McCain, there is so much more that scares me about Obama. In my opinion, an Obama nation would be an abomination.
None of our candidates have any interest in taking control of our borders. Far too many illegals come across undetected or ignored. Truck loads of Mexicans cross our borders through tunnels and through remote parts of our border states. Have you ever wondered how many wacko extremists come in those trucks? If it's so easy for us to turn a blind eye to people in trucks, what's to keep them from transporting certain "things" in those trucks instead - "things" that can do us harm by themselves or can be assebled into bigger, more catastrophic "things"? Somebody better start paying attention. We need to control our borders. It is imperative. Chances are, we will be hit again some day. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. That 's the complacency mindset that caused us to be hit before. Why make it easy for them?
There are a lot of things that bother me about Obama. There are many unanswered quetions out there. We don't know who he is. His past and loyalties are very cloudy at best. Associating with the miscreants and terrorists he has is of major concern, especially considering his reluctance to distance himself from them. Still, why did he keep alliances with them?
The one thing that bothers me most about Obama is that our enemies (and those that don't really like us) have all endorsed him. That, my friends, is where the rubber meets the road. That is the key to who I am going to vote for. If those who want to see us harmed want a given candidate as our leader, that is cause for great concern. I will not vote for anybody that our enemies want in office - particularly in this case. A newcomer with a cloudy past, an associate of and friend to the likes of Ayers and Wright, plus our enemies endorsing him for President of The United States is more than enough for me to vote against him.
I applaud McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. That is when the Democrat Party and media started to really blow their fuses. It's not enough that she is a renegade like McCain, but she's a .....*gasp*.
In their frenzy, they are doing their best to dig up anything they can on Palin. They sent an army of "investigators" to the tiny, insignificant town of Wasilla to do so. (That's that tiny town she was mayor of.) They dig into her husband, they use Palin's daughter as a pawn in their attempts. They attack her values when she makes the choice to not kill her son with Downs Syndrome. And yet, they are ignoring or trivializing all the serious questions we have about Obama? No bias there.
I know who I will vote for. I know "who" he is. I don't like everything about who he is, but I know what to expect with him. Nobody seems to know who Obama is - except our enemies. They know him well enough to endorse him. Think about that. Our enemies know Obama well enough to endorse him. Me? I took an oath many years ago to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...", and I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama and still honor that oath. That oath did not have a time limit on it.
I don't particularly like renegades, but I do agree with Obama. We need change. Maybe getting two renegades in office is the change we need. I'm game.
I know where the rubber meets the road. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------
The financial crisis we are facing is another concern. It was caused by people buying things they can't afford. There have always been "special deals" and incentives to encourage people to buy cars and houses they wouldn't otherwise purchase. Low- and zero-interest rates are not uncommon. However, when the government demands that lending institutions make money available to people who have little or no means to repay those loans - that's asking for trouble, and exactly what caused the big boys to fail. Those damn Republicans! No, both sides caused this. The Democrats prevented oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush wanted oversight in 2003, and McCain warned of this in 2005. Bush's oversight bill was shot down on party lines. Republicans voted for oversight and Democrats voted for none. This is the result. Oh, did I mention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed more money to the campaigns of Chris Dodd, John Kerry, and Obama than any other candidate? They are all Democrat senators. And two were/are candidates for our highest office. I wonder if that's why the Democrats shot down oversight? More questions. Why isn't the media digging into it like they are Palin's life?
What seems foolish to me is that the government caused this by bending to people who couldn't afford houses, allowing them to get them when they couldn't afford it. Now the government thinks it is the one to fix it? In his address about the matter, Bush even said the bail out funds can be used to help people buy homes? Hellooooooo!!!! This is exactly what caused it in the first place!!!
This is what happens when the government tries to run a business. They did it to social security, and now they are going to do it to our financial sector? I don't think so. They won't cure anything. The only way lenders or any business can act responsibly is if they are allowed to fail. They were irresponsible in their lending practices because the government told them to, and they were not afraid of failure. They knew the government would save them.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wearisome Convention
Tonight the "Obama show" is on. After seeing parts of the Democrat convention on TV in recent days, I'm not looking forward to much difference in coming days. I am growing weary of hearing about it, as I did the OJ fiasco. It may be different if there was some substance and truth to hear. Unfortunately, there isn't. I wonder if there will be any in the next convention "party". I don't have much optimism about it.
I grow weary of the word "change". Nobody likes change. It's human nature. I think we (as Americans - if I may be so bold as to speak for the general public) would like some change, though. Unfortunately, it's not the change the Obama campaign is drooling over. We'd like change on the border - to take control of it. Neither candidate wants to do that. We would like some change on oil dependency - to become more self-reliant and not be held hostage by countries that have no fondness for us. Neither candidate wants that either. We would like some change in our industry - to bring more of it and those jobs back home to the US. They don't want that either.
Change comes in two flavors - good and bad. The bad part is that the change they speak of is only a change from a Republican to a Democrat president, as well as changing the Congress into a steamroller of Democrats that cannot be slowed or stopped by Republicans. Checks and Balances down the drain. It would not be good for either party to have an unstoppable presence in our government.
The party of "unification" is doing nothing to unite our Country. Bill Clinton's speech last night came off as inciting a riot, constantly blasting the opposition to the Democrat Party. His demeanor and tactics were scary. How can any "coming together" possibly happen while one side is being constantly attacked with so much venom? The only conclusion I can come to is that "unity" to them means submitting to the liberal/Democrat way. They want to unite all of us - into the Democrat Party. What else can I derive from it?
There was a comment made during the Democrat convention last night that they are the working man's friend, a pro-union party. Unfortunately, that claim is not supported well by the bill that has passed the House that will strip the "secret" part of the secret ballot in union elections. Pelosi manages to prevent many bills from being considered. Why not this one? Imagine the consequences of a non-secret ballot in any election. It's not a pretty picture. And yet, unions fully support these people. Why? Do they like shooting their own foot off? Or have unions become too political, forsaking their membership? Get ready, labor union members. You are in deep doo-doo. It's coming.
The "Yes We Can!" people say that a lot, unless it comes to clean energy and energy independence. Then it's "No, we can't!" Build nuclear power plants? No we can't. Drill for oil domestically? No we can't. Use wind power? No we can't. (Now they say that wind generators kill bats by blowing their lungs up.) Just what can we do, o' "Yes We Can" people? You don't really want us to use any energy, do you?
Too many things don't look right with this election. Neither candidate wants to do the right thing and protect our Country - their primary function. I am very disappointed in both of our political parties. In case you were wondering, I deliberately use the term "Democrat" when speaking of the Party. I will not put the "ic" on the end. I see no evidence of democratic principles in their intentions or beliefs. (I am seeing less and less of it in the Republican Party as well.) In my opinion, the party is only Democrat, and not democratic. I'm not speaking of individuals that are registered Democrats or Republicans, but the "parties" and their leadership.
I grow weary of the word "change". Nobody likes change. It's human nature. I think we (as Americans - if I may be so bold as to speak for the general public) would like some change, though. Unfortunately, it's not the change the Obama campaign is drooling over. We'd like change on the border - to take control of it. Neither candidate wants to do that. We would like some change on oil dependency - to become more self-reliant and not be held hostage by countries that have no fondness for us. Neither candidate wants that either. We would like some change in our industry - to bring more of it and those jobs back home to the US. They don't want that either.
Change comes in two flavors - good and bad. The bad part is that the change they speak of is only a change from a Republican to a Democrat president, as well as changing the Congress into a steamroller of Democrats that cannot be slowed or stopped by Republicans. Checks and Balances down the drain. It would not be good for either party to have an unstoppable presence in our government.
The party of "unification" is doing nothing to unite our Country. Bill Clinton's speech last night came off as inciting a riot, constantly blasting the opposition to the Democrat Party. His demeanor and tactics were scary. How can any "coming together" possibly happen while one side is being constantly attacked with so much venom? The only conclusion I can come to is that "unity" to them means submitting to the liberal/Democrat way. They want to unite all of us - into the Democrat Party. What else can I derive from it?
There was a comment made during the Democrat convention last night that they are the working man's friend, a pro-union party. Unfortunately, that claim is not supported well by the bill that has passed the House that will strip the "secret" part of the secret ballot in union elections. Pelosi manages to prevent many bills from being considered. Why not this one? Imagine the consequences of a non-secret ballot in any election. It's not a pretty picture. And yet, unions fully support these people. Why? Do they like shooting their own foot off? Or have unions become too political, forsaking their membership? Get ready, labor union members. You are in deep doo-doo. It's coming.
The "Yes We Can!" people say that a lot, unless it comes to clean energy and energy independence. Then it's "No, we can't!" Build nuclear power plants? No we can't. Drill for oil domestically? No we can't. Use wind power? No we can't. (Now they say that wind generators kill bats by blowing their lungs up.) Just what can we do, o' "Yes We Can" people? You don't really want us to use any energy, do you?
Too many things don't look right with this election. Neither candidate wants to do the right thing and protect our Country - their primary function. I am very disappointed in both of our political parties. In case you were wondering, I deliberately use the term "Democrat" when speaking of the Party. I will not put the "ic" on the end. I see no evidence of democratic principles in their intentions or beliefs. (I am seeing less and less of it in the Republican Party as well.) In my opinion, the party is only Democrat, and not democratic. I'm not speaking of individuals that are registered Democrats or Republicans, but the "parties" and their leadership.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Obama's "White House"?
You may have heard of the button that showed up at the recent Texas Republican Convention. One of the many vendors there apparently had a dozen buttons he was trying to test the market with for this particular item. This is one of two companies from Florida owned by the same guy, operating out of the same building. They sell political buttons, T-shirts, caps, etc., with sayings for each party. One company is geared for Republicans and one for Democrats. This particular button, there were only 12 there. Only 4 were sold. It's not like they were in mass production of them, but feeling the market out.
It seems that this particular button has taken a lot of heat (and the Republicans it's supposed to appeal to), because a lot of people think "racism" before "humor". It is obvious that the saying is intended to be humorous if you take the time to consider the kind of things the companies offer. I do not believe that there is malicious or racial intent.
IMO, people need to lighten up a bit. This was a good excuse for the Democrats to scream "Republican racists!" all over again. They pretend to be offended by this, even though they are guilty of as much racism as they accuse Republicans of. They accuse Republicans of being the party of hate and intolerance while demonstrating the same hate and intolerance they accuse Republicans of. It's not a politics thing. It's a people thing. (Not to mention that the Republicans didn't do anything. It was a private VENDOR from FLORIDA!) One side has the same percentage of bigots and racists that the other side does.
People shouldn't take themselves so seriously. If we could learn to laugh at ourselves, we would not be so distressed all the time over such petty crap. As a result, we'd be on the road to exterminating racism from our lives. We have all said things that could be construed as being racist or bigotry. We have all told or laughed at jokes that someone could take offense to. So what? It's humor, people. Maybe not your brand, but it is humor.
I'm glad I work around Mexicans who can tell a Mexican joke as well as a white boy joke. I'm glad I work around some Democrats who can tell a Clinton joke as well as a Bush joke. I'm glad they take no offense when I do the same. This is the true road to unity and equality. As a bonus, we are all less distressed because nobody makes themselves distressed over pettiness such as this.
The button?
BTW, the image of this button has been faked. It's a "PhotoShop" job, and this is the exact same image that is all over the blogosphere. It was done with Nikon's software that is packaged with the D40, the camera the blank button was shot with.
Let us all see humor where humor is intended, even if you don't like that brand of humor. It would be a much more tolerant country.
.
It seems that this particular button has taken a lot of heat (and the Republicans it's supposed to appeal to), because a lot of people think "racism" before "humor". It is obvious that the saying is intended to be humorous if you take the time to consider the kind of things the companies offer. I do not believe that there is malicious or racial intent.
IMO, people need to lighten up a bit. This was a good excuse for the Democrats to scream "Republican racists!" all over again. They pretend to be offended by this, even though they are guilty of as much racism as they accuse Republicans of. They accuse Republicans of being the party of hate and intolerance while demonstrating the same hate and intolerance they accuse Republicans of. It's not a politics thing. It's a people thing. (Not to mention that the Republicans didn't do anything. It was a private VENDOR from FLORIDA!) One side has the same percentage of bigots and racists that the other side does.
People shouldn't take themselves so seriously. If we could learn to laugh at ourselves, we would not be so distressed all the time over such petty crap. As a result, we'd be on the road to exterminating racism from our lives. We have all said things that could be construed as being racist or bigotry. We have all told or laughed at jokes that someone could take offense to. So what? It's humor, people. Maybe not your brand, but it is humor.
I'm glad I work around Mexicans who can tell a Mexican joke as well as a white boy joke. I'm glad I work around some Democrats who can tell a Clinton joke as well as a Bush joke. I'm glad they take no offense when I do the same. This is the true road to unity and equality. As a bonus, we are all less distressed because nobody makes themselves distressed over pettiness such as this.
The button?
BTW, the image of this button has been faked. It's a "PhotoShop" job, and this is the exact same image that is all over the blogosphere. It was done with Nikon's software that is packaged with the D40, the camera the blank button was shot with.Let us all see humor where humor is intended, even if you don't like that brand of humor. It would be a much more tolerant country.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
