More Secrecy from the Obama camp. The power went out during Barack Obama’s family’s Hawaiian vacation but that had to be kept a secret too. According to an AP article (see link below) the Obama camp: “...initially refused to release a timeline of events, such as when power was lost and restored. They have declined to discuss specific preparations for the president-elect's 12-day visit, citing security concerns.”
Security concerns...really? It’s a pretty sure bet that the NEIGHBORS know what time the lights went out and came back on. In fact, the same article even mentions the neighbors when Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said “Power to the compound went out around 7 p.m. Friday and was restored just before 6 a.m. Saturday, about the time as that of the neighbors”.
I even saw a news report on TV where a reporter failed to get an answer from the Obama camp as to when the power went out and came back on. The reporter then went to a neighbor and got the answer. Looks like the Obama camp forgot to tell the neighbor that it was a “state secret”.
In another article (see second link below) Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann said three generators had been installed earlier for Mr. Obama's rented compound. He said a fourth generator which Governor Linda Lingle had sent for Mr. Obama was turned away, but the power company later set up a bigger one in the neighborhood in case it was needed.
Turned away? Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle happens to be a REPUBLICAN. There’s some reaching across the aisle for you. One human reaches out and offers help to another human just to be helpful and their offer is rejected. If she was a Democrat would the generator have been rejected? The polite thing to do, whether the generator was needed or not, would be to graciously accept the gift and then return it with a “thank you” once the power was back on.
For a guy who promised “transparency” in Washington he sure keeps a lot of secrets. For a guy who’s modeled his Presidency after Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy he sure acts a lot like Richard M. Nixon.
http://news.aol.com/article/power-outage-hits-oahu-as-obama-visits/287851
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/27/national/main4687493.shtml
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Obama (Shrouded in Secrecy)
President Elect Obama campaigned on Hope, Change and Openness. So far there has been nothing but Secrecy, his birth certificate is now in question since the one being displayed on the Internet is obviously a Fake. His and/or his new staff members dealings with the Illinois Governor and there are questions surrounding how he paid for Harvard. Lastly, so far, there is also some who are questioning what name he used on the registration form when he attended Columbia University.
Since Obama has refused to allow the state of Hawaii to release his birth certificate, it seems that he has something to hide. There are currently several lawsuits heading toward the Supreme Court to force Obama to prove his citizenship. If that fails, and he does not have to prove where he was born and sometime History reveals that he really wan not a citizen then his presidency would be known as illegitimate and he managed to be the biggest fraud in modern time.
Recently Obama’s campaign release a report spear headed by now Vice President Elect Biden that there is really no connection to the Illinois Governor concerning the sale of the vacated Senate Seat left open by Obama. The liberal Democrats may believe it, but I certainly don’t. Allowing the Obama campaign to investigate itself, so much for Justice.
I am sure some of you believe that I may be one of only a handful who believe that Obama is probably the greatest of imposter of all time. Well…follow the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJc6uczdhE0&feature=related
Some people are not that easily fooled.
Since Obama has refused to allow the state of Hawaii to release his birth certificate, it seems that he has something to hide. There are currently several lawsuits heading toward the Supreme Court to force Obama to prove his citizenship. If that fails, and he does not have to prove where he was born and sometime History reveals that he really wan not a citizen then his presidency would be known as illegitimate and he managed to be the biggest fraud in modern time.
Recently Obama’s campaign release a report spear headed by now Vice President Elect Biden that there is really no connection to the Illinois Governor concerning the sale of the vacated Senate Seat left open by Obama. The liberal Democrats may believe it, but I certainly don’t. Allowing the Obama campaign to investigate itself, so much for Justice.
I am sure some of you believe that I may be one of only a handful who believe that Obama is probably the greatest of imposter of all time. Well…follow the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJc6uczdhE0&feature=related
Some people are not that easily fooled.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Greed in America
It never ceases to amaze me how greedy Americans have become. The cliché, “Money is the Root of all Evil’, is more obvious now than at any time in American History.
If it wasn’t for Greedy CEOs of such firms like Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, etc… and the list goes on America would not be facing the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. This is the result of many factors that made it just to tempting to resist grabbing the brass ring when the brass ring was practically handed to these CEOs.
How…you ask. Well, when a CEO makes more money by being fired for poor performance than by a yearly salary plus bonuses and stock options there seems little incentive to maintain a high level of integrity and to move the corporation to greater profits. At my level, if I don’t perform up to standards I would be escorted by security to the door, my final paycheck would be mailed to me and I would have to make an appointment to pick up my personal items. When a CEO and/or Senior staff Vice Presidents are Fired, they get hefty paychecks to ease their pain and embarrassment.
The two biggest examples of how Greed has taken over America are 1) the Governor of Illinois where he was caught trying to sell off a Senate Seat to the highest bidder, 2)are the labor unions, specifically the U.A.W. who have single-handedly bankrupt the three major Auto Makers.
I am having a hard time understanding the thought process behind the Union Members thinking that by being steadfast and not willing to re-negotiate the contract with GM. It seems to me that these members only have two choices, 1) re-negotiate and keep on working or 2)allow GM to completely shut down and be out of a job for possible a very long time. Perhaps someone can explain this to me. Oh….now I know -- GREED.
This Greed, unfortunately is costing all working Americans because it is their and my TAX Dollars that the Unions Members want, regardless of the consequences to US the TAX Payers. I am angry and resentful and YOU as TAX Payers should be also.
GREED…SELF CENTEREDNESS…and SELFISHNESS is why America is headed for the Second Great Depression.
If it wasn’t for Greedy CEOs of such firms like Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, etc… and the list goes on America would not be facing the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. This is the result of many factors that made it just to tempting to resist grabbing the brass ring when the brass ring was practically handed to these CEOs.
How…you ask. Well, when a CEO makes more money by being fired for poor performance than by a yearly salary plus bonuses and stock options there seems little incentive to maintain a high level of integrity and to move the corporation to greater profits. At my level, if I don’t perform up to standards I would be escorted by security to the door, my final paycheck would be mailed to me and I would have to make an appointment to pick up my personal items. When a CEO and/or Senior staff Vice Presidents are Fired, they get hefty paychecks to ease their pain and embarrassment.
The two biggest examples of how Greed has taken over America are 1) the Governor of Illinois where he was caught trying to sell off a Senate Seat to the highest bidder, 2)are the labor unions, specifically the U.A.W. who have single-handedly bankrupt the three major Auto Makers.
I am having a hard time understanding the thought process behind the Union Members thinking that by being steadfast and not willing to re-negotiate the contract with GM. It seems to me that these members only have two choices, 1) re-negotiate and keep on working or 2)allow GM to completely shut down and be out of a job for possible a very long time. Perhaps someone can explain this to me. Oh….now I know -- GREED.
This Greed, unfortunately is costing all working Americans because it is their and my TAX Dollars that the Unions Members want, regardless of the consequences to US the TAX Payers. I am angry and resentful and YOU as TAX Payers should be also.
GREED…SELF CENTEREDNESS…and SELFISHNESS is why America is headed for the Second Great Depression.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
OBAMA (First Black President?)
Most Americans would probably agree that President Elect Obama is the First Black President forgetting the fact that he is also Half White. Some historians would argue that there has been several prominent people in American History to proclaim to be the first Black President. However, that is not what this article is about.
It is about an event in History, which is probably not taught in school anymore, that planted the seed of freedom and after 143 years of slow and painful growth most Americans have finally put the hatred and bigotry of there Parents and/or Grandparents aside and voted in a Black President.
Although Obama, like most African Americans ,believe that his rise to the presidency was due to Martin Luther King, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The truth is that he would have never even been a candidate had it not been for the three most important people in his life.
His Mother, who gave him life, his Grandmother, who raised him and Abraham Lincoln who abolished Slavery in 1865 after a very bloody Civil War that ended with the deaths of 600,00 plus soldiers combined. What is interesting about these three individuals is that all three are White.
It is about an event in History, which is probably not taught in school anymore, that planted the seed of freedom and after 143 years of slow and painful growth most Americans have finally put the hatred and bigotry of there Parents and/or Grandparents aside and voted in a Black President.
Although Obama, like most African Americans ,believe that his rise to the presidency was due to Martin Luther King, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The truth is that he would have never even been a candidate had it not been for the three most important people in his life.
His Mother, who gave him life, his Grandmother, who raised him and Abraham Lincoln who abolished Slavery in 1865 after a very bloody Civil War that ended with the deaths of 600,00 plus soldiers combined. What is interesting about these three individuals is that all three are White.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Obama's "Retro" Administration
Where’s the change? According to this article (Obama Transition to Power (CNN)) more than half of Obama’s appointees thus far were in the Clinton administration.
We're not saying they’re not qualified to do the job but are they the ONLY people qualified to do the job? Where's the change if Obama’s comprising his administration mostly of old Washington insiders? Where’s the NEW Washington we were promised? They’re the same Clintonista’s that ran the country over eight years ago but, like most of us, they’re older, grayer and heavier now.
We were told we wouldn’t get four-more-years of Bush but four-more-years of Clinton was never mentioned.
This was probably part of the backroom deal that got Hillary to back down during the convention rather than go “scorched earth” and win the nomination. Couple that with Hillary possibly being part of the administration and Bill may have found a way to get his third term he lamented about in 2000. He said at the time that if he could run for a third term he would.
But, all-in-all THAT’S not change. It’s more of the same just “retro” same.
We're not saying they’re not qualified to do the job but are they the ONLY people qualified to do the job? Where's the change if Obama’s comprising his administration mostly of old Washington insiders? Where’s the NEW Washington we were promised? They’re the same Clintonista’s that ran the country over eight years ago but, like most of us, they’re older, grayer and heavier now.
We were told we wouldn’t get four-more-years of Bush but four-more-years of Clinton was never mentioned.
This was probably part of the backroom deal that got Hillary to back down during the convention rather than go “scorched earth” and win the nomination. Couple that with Hillary possibly being part of the administration and Bill may have found a way to get his third term he lamented about in 2000. He said at the time that if he could run for a third term he would.
But, all-in-all THAT’S not change. It’s more of the same just “retro” same.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Obamanomics*
Yesterday on my way to lunch at Denny's, I passed one of the homeless guys in THAT area, with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.'
Once in the Denny's my waiter had on a 'Obama 08' tee shirt.When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth.
I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful. As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.
*We received this in an email and felt it worthy to pass along as it appears to be a clear example of Obamanomics.
Once in the Denny's my waiter had on a 'Obama 08' tee shirt.When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth.
I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful. As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.
*We received this in an email and felt it worthy to pass along as it appears to be a clear example of Obamanomics.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Auto Bailout
How about this?
Instead of the Government GIVING our money to the American Auto Industry how about if they give our money to US to buy American made cars?
The American Auto makers are about 3-million cars short of what they thought they’d sell this year. Divide that by the $25B our Government is thinking of giving to the auto industry and it comes out to about $8,333 per car. How about letting Americans buy American cars with American tax dollars to help out American auto makers?
Put the $25B into an account. For each American that buys a new American made car the Government pays the first $8,333 of the price of the vehicle. This way, Americans can afford to buy new cars, the American Auto makers sell their unsold inventory while also getting the money they need to do business.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Instead of the Government GIVING our money to the American Auto Industry how about if they give our money to US to buy American made cars?
The American Auto makers are about 3-million cars short of what they thought they’d sell this year. Divide that by the $25B our Government is thinking of giving to the auto industry and it comes out to about $8,333 per car. How about letting Americans buy American cars with American tax dollars to help out American auto makers?
Put the $25B into an account. For each American that buys a new American made car the Government pays the first $8,333 of the price of the vehicle. This way, Americans can afford to buy new cars, the American Auto makers sell their unsold inventory while also getting the money they need to do business.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Is Racism Over?
A caller on the radio station stated “an Obama victory proves racism in America is over and affirmative action is obsolete”. Hmmm, interesting statement. I had to look up the numbers to see if the numbers support his argument.
According to the exit polls Obama got 43% of the White vote. That’s not a majority but keep in mind that more White folks typically vote Republican than Democrat regardless of the race of the candidates so how does this number compare to previous elections?
It seems that White voters voting Democrat is pretty consistent regardless of race. If the caller’s statement is correct then racism has been over for quite a long time. One interesting thing about these numbers though is that, except for Bill’s 73% of the Hispanic vote in 1996, Obama won every non-white category by at least 5 percentage points over his predecessors. Bill may have beaten Obama among Hispanics by 6 but Obama beat Bill among Asians by 18.
So, what does all this mean? It looks like White voters vote more along party lines and ideology than color barriers. Thus, contrary to popular belief in the media racism has been over for a long time. It looks like White voters wouldn’t have made the difference in either an Obama victory or defeat. It was the non-white voters that turned the tide on this election. Fascinating.
Sources for the data:
CNN Exit Poll
Roper Center on Elections
According to the exit polls Obama got 43% of the White vote. That’s not a majority but keep in mind that more White folks typically vote Republican than Democrat regardless of the race of the candidates so how does this number compare to previous elections?
It seems that White voters voting Democrat is pretty consistent regardless of race. If the caller’s statement is correct then racism has been over for quite a long time. One interesting thing about these numbers though is that, except for Bill’s 73% of the Hispanic vote in 1996, Obama won every non-white category by at least 5 percentage points over his predecessors. Bill may have beaten Obama among Hispanics by 6 but Obama beat Bill among Asians by 18.So, what does all this mean? It looks like White voters vote more along party lines and ideology than color barriers. Thus, contrary to popular belief in the media racism has been over for a long time. It looks like White voters wouldn’t have made the difference in either an Obama victory or defeat. It was the non-white voters that turned the tide on this election. Fascinating.
Sources for the data:
CNN Exit Poll
Roper Center on Elections
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Obama Wins...America Loses
I can't believe Obama actually won. I never thought the masses were gullible enough to succumb to his blatant pandering and flip-flopping. They're as gullible as a drunken co-ed with low self-esteem after last call. They'll fall for anything. Amazing.
I guess it's time to quit my job, sign up for free healthcare and collect my checks from the rich elites who want to throw their hard-earned money away.
I guess it's time to quit my job, sign up for free healthcare and collect my checks from the rich elites who want to throw their hard-earned money away.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Obama Presidency (History Repeats)
The Great Depression started in 1929 when my Father was 4-years old. When I asked my Father if he remembered anything about the Depression, he told me that he remembers it like it just happened yesterday. He went on to say that during the Depression, because money was in very short supply, most people dug up their lawns and turned them into gardens. They grew as much of their own food as they could.
Also, every penny that any member of the house earned was turned over to his parents, so they could buy what they could not grow. My Father remembers the Depression as clearly as I remember when Jimmy Carter was President.
During the Carter Years there was double digit inflation, double digit mortgage rates, an oil embargo, which caused long lines at the gas pump, a hostage crises at the embassy in Tehran, Iran, and a huge tax burden on the American people, such as myself, which cost me my job, where I quickly joined the long lines at the unemployment office.
We as Americans are suppose to learn from History so as to not make the same mistakes again. However, here in America we have re-written most of the History Books so that the generations following my generation have no idea what it was really like in either the Depression era or the Carter Years; therefore, now in 2008, you, the American people are about to Repeat the two worst times in American History, by electing Senator Obama to be President.
It is not only proper and fitting, but my obligation to give you, the younger generation Americans, a preview of what to expect from the time Senator Obama is officially declared the winner of the Nov. 4, 2008 general election as the next President of the United States
There will be chaos in the streets from every major city from New York to Los Angeles, from Seattle to Miami in jubilation. Stores will be broken into, cars burned and possibly citizens injured or killed. On Nov. 5th, 2008 the Stock Market will tumble nearly a 1000 points and will continue to slide until the end of the year. Chaos in the inner cities will continue as the number of hate crimes increases.
After Obama is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2008 Wall Street will be spiraling down putting the U.S. into a deep recession or the beginnings of another Depression. Corporations will begin laying off personnel in anticipation of the Tax Hike that both the Congress and the Senate are poised to enact as soon as both houses are in session. Since there are not enough Republicans in either house to stop or even delay the Tax Hike, it will easily pass and be signed by President Obama.
By the end of President Obama’s first 30-days in office half of the current Generals and other high ranking members of the military will either retire or be forced out by President Obama as he moves to start withdrawing troops from Iraq and moving them into Afghanistan. Because of this move there will be an increase in violence in Iraq as Al Sardra attempts to take power by using his now dormant army to attach members of the Iraqi Government.
By the end of President Obama‘s first 60-days in office Puttin will send his army back into Georgia and begin a possible march toward the Ukraine and eventually threatten to invade Poland to prevent these countries from entering NATO. Iran will have launched a pre-emptive strike into Israel and Israel will retailiate while President Obama sends a Representative to the U.N. to get the Security Council to approve a resolution for the U.S. to back up its long standing ally, Israel.
By the end or President Obama’s first 6-months in office there will be another attack either on American soil and several thousand citizens will be killed or at some other American installation somewhere in the world. Again President Obama will make some attempt to find out who is responsible and then fail to act. Showing once again that America has become weak in the eyes of the world.
By the end of President Obama’s first year in office, unemployment will be at its highest since the Depression, inflation will once again be in double digits and the Democratic Congress along with the Democratic Senate will impose an even higher tax on all working Americans. This will cause a sharpe rise in violence and other crimes.
By the middle of year #2 North Korea and Iran have developed the Nuclear bomb. North Korea will move its 1.2 million troops to the DMZ and is poised to invade South Korea, no longer fearing that the U.S. will step in to stop them. In the Middle East Iran will use its Nuclear threat to invade Iraq now that all of the U.S. troops have been removed and are now in Afghanistan, which now appears to be the new VietNam, only because the Taliban have been embolden by what they perceived as a very weak U.S. President.
Could all of this actually happen, we at America’s Voice sincerely hope not, but, then again they said that the Stock Market would never crash, yet it did and the Great Depression almost destroyed the U.S. economy. We were also told that America had learned its lesson from so long ago, yet Wall Street is showing signs of crashing once again.
Is it possible that Senator Obama is another Herbert Hoover? From my perspective History is beginning to Repeat…….
Also, every penny that any member of the house earned was turned over to his parents, so they could buy what they could not grow. My Father remembers the Depression as clearly as I remember when Jimmy Carter was President.
During the Carter Years there was double digit inflation, double digit mortgage rates, an oil embargo, which caused long lines at the gas pump, a hostage crises at the embassy in Tehran, Iran, and a huge tax burden on the American people, such as myself, which cost me my job, where I quickly joined the long lines at the unemployment office.
We as Americans are suppose to learn from History so as to not make the same mistakes again. However, here in America we have re-written most of the History Books so that the generations following my generation have no idea what it was really like in either the Depression era or the Carter Years; therefore, now in 2008, you, the American people are about to Repeat the two worst times in American History, by electing Senator Obama to be President.
It is not only proper and fitting, but my obligation to give you, the younger generation Americans, a preview of what to expect from the time Senator Obama is officially declared the winner of the Nov. 4, 2008 general election as the next President of the United States
There will be chaos in the streets from every major city from New York to Los Angeles, from Seattle to Miami in jubilation. Stores will be broken into, cars burned and possibly citizens injured or killed. On Nov. 5th, 2008 the Stock Market will tumble nearly a 1000 points and will continue to slide until the end of the year. Chaos in the inner cities will continue as the number of hate crimes increases.
After Obama is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2008 Wall Street will be spiraling down putting the U.S. into a deep recession or the beginnings of another Depression. Corporations will begin laying off personnel in anticipation of the Tax Hike that both the Congress and the Senate are poised to enact as soon as both houses are in session. Since there are not enough Republicans in either house to stop or even delay the Tax Hike, it will easily pass and be signed by President Obama.
By the end of President Obama’s first 30-days in office half of the current Generals and other high ranking members of the military will either retire or be forced out by President Obama as he moves to start withdrawing troops from Iraq and moving them into Afghanistan. Because of this move there will be an increase in violence in Iraq as Al Sardra attempts to take power by using his now dormant army to attach members of the Iraqi Government.
By the end of President Obama‘s first 60-days in office Puttin will send his army back into Georgia and begin a possible march toward the Ukraine and eventually threatten to invade Poland to prevent these countries from entering NATO. Iran will have launched a pre-emptive strike into Israel and Israel will retailiate while President Obama sends a Representative to the U.N. to get the Security Council to approve a resolution for the U.S. to back up its long standing ally, Israel.
By the end or President Obama’s first 6-months in office there will be another attack either on American soil and several thousand citizens will be killed or at some other American installation somewhere in the world. Again President Obama will make some attempt to find out who is responsible and then fail to act. Showing once again that America has become weak in the eyes of the world.
By the end of President Obama’s first year in office, unemployment will be at its highest since the Depression, inflation will once again be in double digits and the Democratic Congress along with the Democratic Senate will impose an even higher tax on all working Americans. This will cause a sharpe rise in violence and other crimes.
By the middle of year #2 North Korea and Iran have developed the Nuclear bomb. North Korea will move its 1.2 million troops to the DMZ and is poised to invade South Korea, no longer fearing that the U.S. will step in to stop them. In the Middle East Iran will use its Nuclear threat to invade Iraq now that all of the U.S. troops have been removed and are now in Afghanistan, which now appears to be the new VietNam, only because the Taliban have been embolden by what they perceived as a very weak U.S. President.
Could all of this actually happen, we at America’s Voice sincerely hope not, but, then again they said that the Stock Market would never crash, yet it did and the Great Depression almost destroyed the U.S. economy. We were also told that America had learned its lesson from so long ago, yet Wall Street is showing signs of crashing once again.
Is it possible that Senator Obama is another Herbert Hoover? From my perspective History is beginning to Repeat…….
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Trick or Taxes
Let’s boil the Obama tax plan down to trick-or-treating.
Let’s take 100 kids.
Since 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes then 40 children will stay home. We’ll call them the “poor”.
The other 60 all go out trick-or-treating.
After they all return we’ll line them all up by who brought back the most candy.
Then, we’ll line up the 40 who didn’t trick-or-treat right next to them.
Since we’re going to impose a tax on the top 5% of Americans then the 5 best trick-or-treaters will now share their candy with the other 95 children. We’ll call these top-5 candy gatherers the “rich”.
First, the other 55 who went trick-or-treating (who we’ll call the middle class) will each give 1 piece of candy to each of the 40 children who didn’t go trick-or-treating.
Second, the top-5 candy gatherers (rich) will give 2 pieces of candy to each of the other 55 (middle class) who went trick-or-treating.
Lastly, the top-5 candy gatherers (rich) will give 2 pieces of candy to each of the other 40 who didn’t go trick-or-treating (poor).
Does this seem fair? Is it fair for children to receive candy who didn’t earn it? Is it fair for those hard-working children to have to share their candy with those who did nothing?
Do you think the top-5 trick-or-treaters will go trick-or-treating next year since they’ll get candy whether they do or not?
If they do will they make sure they’re not in the top-5?
Let’s take 100 kids.
Since 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes then 40 children will stay home. We’ll call them the “poor”.
The other 60 all go out trick-or-treating.
After they all return we’ll line them all up by who brought back the most candy.
Then, we’ll line up the 40 who didn’t trick-or-treat right next to them.
Since we’re going to impose a tax on the top 5% of Americans then the 5 best trick-or-treaters will now share their candy with the other 95 children. We’ll call these top-5 candy gatherers the “rich”.
First, the other 55 who went trick-or-treating (who we’ll call the middle class) will each give 1 piece of candy to each of the 40 children who didn’t go trick-or-treating.
Second, the top-5 candy gatherers (rich) will give 2 pieces of candy to each of the other 55 (middle class) who went trick-or-treating.
Lastly, the top-5 candy gatherers (rich) will give 2 pieces of candy to each of the other 40 who didn’t go trick-or-treating (poor).
Does this seem fair? Is it fair for children to receive candy who didn’t earn it? Is it fair for those hard-working children to have to share their candy with those who did nothing?
Do you think the top-5 trick-or-treaters will go trick-or-treating next year since they’ll get candy whether they do or not?
If they do will they make sure they’re not in the top-5?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Joe the Plumber
Joe the Plumber asked Barack Obama "I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” Ever since then the crucifixion of Joe the Plumber has begun.
His Divorce papers have been read on the radio, it’s been claimed that he’s not even a plumber, and he’s been accused of being a McCain campaign “plant” even though Obama was wandering through HIS neighborhood. Many times the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign of politics of distraction. Isn’t that what the Democrats and their puppet news outlets are doing now?
Joe the Plumber and his life aren’t even relevant. What IS relevant is the question he asked Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s revealing answer. Obama stated, "If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that for $250,000 up… you'd go from 36% to 39%, which is where it was under Bill Clinton." He went on to explain “it’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody”.
“Spread the wealth around”? Take from the rich and give to the poor? Who is he; Robin Obamahood now? How is it fair to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who haven’t? Isn’t this SOCIALISM?
After Obama wins I think I’ll retire. Why not? With all those rich people making $250,000 or more sending me checks every month who wouldn’t?
His Divorce papers have been read on the radio, it’s been claimed that he’s not even a plumber, and he’s been accused of being a McCain campaign “plant” even though Obama was wandering through HIS neighborhood. Many times the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign of politics of distraction. Isn’t that what the Democrats and their puppet news outlets are doing now?
Joe the Plumber and his life aren’t even relevant. What IS relevant is the question he asked Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s revealing answer. Obama stated, "If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that for $250,000 up… you'd go from 36% to 39%, which is where it was under Bill Clinton." He went on to explain “it’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody”.
“Spread the wealth around”? Take from the rich and give to the poor? Who is he; Robin Obamahood now? How is it fair to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who haven’t? Isn’t this SOCIALISM?
After Obama wins I think I’ll retire. Why not? With all those rich people making $250,000 or more sending me checks every month who wouldn’t?
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Last Debate
If you're looking at substance John McCain eeked out a narrow victory. But, it wasn't what he needed.
Barack Obama was on the defensive most of the night but that was probably the game plan. He was just trying to not make a mistake. In Football that's called a "prevent defense". When you have the lead you just hang on and try not to give up the big play the puts your opponent back in the game.
John McCain's problem is he doesn't know how to elaborate clearly. He had several opportunities but he missed them all. He misses the "key" words that stick in peoples minds. When discussing William Ayers he was right in saying the association didn't matter but what he should've added was "it's not the association that matters but the coverup of this association and others". The word "coverup" would've stood out. Everyone knows that both Richard Nixon's and Bill Clinton's scandal's were more about the "coverup" than the actual offense.
When talking about Partial Birth Abortion he should've looked at Obama and asked "do you even know what Partial Birth Abortion is? Do you understand that when the babies head begins to come out that they drill a hole in its head, stick a tube in and suck out its brain? Are you saying that that is OK?" THAT, would've had an impact.
When talking about taxes he should've explained that corporations don't really pay taxes. They pass that expense on to consumers as the cost of doing business. He also should've included in his talk about lowering corporate taxes that it'd help keep American jobs in America and reduce outsourcing because corporations will be able to afford to hire Americans. "Outsourcing" is a big concern with Americans these days.
To rebut Obama's middle-class tax cut he should've asked "what good is a lower tax rate on NO income?". Taxing the rich and giving to the poor will only increase prices because the business owners will hire less people, lay off more people, add the tax increase into their costs and increase the prices of their goods and services. Thus, those who still have a job will end up spending their "tax breaks" to pay for the business owners tax increases. You can either trickle down income or trickle up taxes. He also should've mentioned that 40% of Obama's 95% don't pay any taxes at all anyway. How are you going to give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes?
McCain is losing because he fails to say the right thing. Obama is winning because he fails to say the wrong thing.
Unfortunately neither party nominated their best candidate just the easiest to nominate.
Barack Obama was on the defensive most of the night but that was probably the game plan. He was just trying to not make a mistake. In Football that's called a "prevent defense". When you have the lead you just hang on and try not to give up the big play the puts your opponent back in the game.
John McCain's problem is he doesn't know how to elaborate clearly. He had several opportunities but he missed them all. He misses the "key" words that stick in peoples minds. When discussing William Ayers he was right in saying the association didn't matter but what he should've added was "it's not the association that matters but the coverup of this association and others". The word "coverup" would've stood out. Everyone knows that both Richard Nixon's and Bill Clinton's scandal's were more about the "coverup" than the actual offense.
When talking about Partial Birth Abortion he should've looked at Obama and asked "do you even know what Partial Birth Abortion is? Do you understand that when the babies head begins to come out that they drill a hole in its head, stick a tube in and suck out its brain? Are you saying that that is OK?" THAT, would've had an impact.
When talking about taxes he should've explained that corporations don't really pay taxes. They pass that expense on to consumers as the cost of doing business. He also should've included in his talk about lowering corporate taxes that it'd help keep American jobs in America and reduce outsourcing because corporations will be able to afford to hire Americans. "Outsourcing" is a big concern with Americans these days.
To rebut Obama's middle-class tax cut he should've asked "what good is a lower tax rate on NO income?". Taxing the rich and giving to the poor will only increase prices because the business owners will hire less people, lay off more people, add the tax increase into their costs and increase the prices of their goods and services. Thus, those who still have a job will end up spending their "tax breaks" to pay for the business owners tax increases. You can either trickle down income or trickle up taxes. He also should've mentioned that 40% of Obama's 95% don't pay any taxes at all anyway. How are you going to give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes?
McCain is losing because he fails to say the right thing. Obama is winning because he fails to say the wrong thing.
Unfortunately neither party nominated their best candidate just the easiest to nominate.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Homeless Veterans
There are many news reports that state 1 in 4 homeless people across the United States are Veterans. That is an alarming number. USAToday, Fox News, ABC News and many others have written articles about this phenomenon. But remember, statistics can tell whatever story you want them to tell.
This is not intended to belittle the claim because this is an important issue. Even ONE homeless person in the greatest country to ever grace this planet is ONE too many. But, their claim is a little misleading. While it’s true that 1 in 4 homeless people are veterans it’s not the whole story.
The 2005 census estimates there are 24.5 million veterans in the U.S. That'd make about 1 in every 12 citizens a veteran (8.3% of the general population). Thus, if homeless people were proportionate to the general population then 1 in 12 would be veterans. Based on these numbers it seems veterans are 3 times more likely to be homeless than non-veterans.
But wait, there's more. For one thing don't forget that the overwhelming number of military personnel (and therefore veterans) is male. According to 2004 census numbers 15% of the military are women and 85% are male. Some more numbers from PBS, suggest that it's not as bad as it sounds. About 66% of all homeless people are Men. While male veterans make up 34% of the general population (this would imply males are about 80% of all veterans which is consistent with the 2004 census numbers) they make up 40% of the male homeless population. Thus, homeless men are only about 18% more likely to be veterans. That's vastly different than "3 times more likely".
Homelessness in America is an important problem that must be addressed. But, there are many different reasons for people being homeless. Many people imply our Veterans are homeless because they’re suffering from “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder”. This implies weakness that these Veterans couldn’t handle being in a war. This is obviously not true as male Veterans are only 18% more likely to be homeless than non-veterans and that could be attributed to a lack of proper transitioning from soldier back to citizen. Our young men are trained to be soldiers but are never trained to return back to an everyday citizen. Focusing on the “real” problems of homelessness like substance abuse, mental illness, and a faulty healthcare system would be more productive in solving this very important issue.
This is not intended to belittle the claim because this is an important issue. Even ONE homeless person in the greatest country to ever grace this planet is ONE too many. But, their claim is a little misleading. While it’s true that 1 in 4 homeless people are veterans it’s not the whole story.
The 2005 census estimates there are 24.5 million veterans in the U.S. That'd make about 1 in every 12 citizens a veteran (8.3% of the general population). Thus, if homeless people were proportionate to the general population then 1 in 12 would be veterans. Based on these numbers it seems veterans are 3 times more likely to be homeless than non-veterans.
But wait, there's more. For one thing don't forget that the overwhelming number of military personnel (and therefore veterans) is male. According to 2004 census numbers 15% of the military are women and 85% are male. Some more numbers from PBS, suggest that it's not as bad as it sounds. About 66% of all homeless people are Men. While male veterans make up 34% of the general population (this would imply males are about 80% of all veterans which is consistent with the 2004 census numbers) they make up 40% of the male homeless population. Thus, homeless men are only about 18% more likely to be veterans. That's vastly different than "3 times more likely".
Homelessness in America is an important problem that must be addressed. But, there are many different reasons for people being homeless. Many people imply our Veterans are homeless because they’re suffering from “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder”. This implies weakness that these Veterans couldn’t handle being in a war. This is obviously not true as male Veterans are only 18% more likely to be homeless than non-veterans and that could be attributed to a lack of proper transitioning from soldier back to citizen. Our young men are trained to be soldiers but are never trained to return back to an everyday citizen. Focusing on the “real” problems of homelessness like substance abuse, mental illness, and a faulty healthcare system would be more productive in solving this very important issue.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Eliminate Healthcare
No, not really. But, small businesses and large businesses need to get out of the Healthcare business and do what they do best…their business.
Far too long American businesses have dabbled in the Healthcare industry. Each business that provides Healthcare for its employees tweaks what it will pay for and won’t pay for to its best advantage. They teeter-totter between keeping their own costs low and providing an enticing benefit to attract quality employees.
Sadly, when the employee leaves the company they no longer have Healthcare. They’re at the mercy of their next employer determining whether they have a “pre-existing” condition that might not be covered. The American people need their own Healthcare that frees them from their employer. Many people stay in jobs they don't like just for the Healthcare benefits. It's time this antiquated system ended.
What we need is a healthy balance between Capitalism and Universal Healthcare. Healthcare should not be “free” but it also should not be cost prohibitive. People should get the care they need when they need it at a fair and reasonable price. There's plenty of money already being spent by employees and employers to cover the costs of a new system. We don't need "new" taxes for this. What we need is to correctly funnel the money already being spent into a new and improved system for the American people.
By taking Healthcare out of the hands of the employers this frees up the employers to focus on their business. Without the overhead of determining and maintaining a Healthcare benefit for their employees they’ll save money, create jobs and grow their business.
Far too long American businesses have dabbled in the Healthcare industry. Each business that provides Healthcare for its employees tweaks what it will pay for and won’t pay for to its best advantage. They teeter-totter between keeping their own costs low and providing an enticing benefit to attract quality employees.
Sadly, when the employee leaves the company they no longer have Healthcare. They’re at the mercy of their next employer determining whether they have a “pre-existing” condition that might not be covered. The American people need their own Healthcare that frees them from their employer. Many people stay in jobs they don't like just for the Healthcare benefits. It's time this antiquated system ended.
What we need is a healthy balance between Capitalism and Universal Healthcare. Healthcare should not be “free” but it also should not be cost prohibitive. People should get the care they need when they need it at a fair and reasonable price. There's plenty of money already being spent by employees and employers to cover the costs of a new system. We don't need "new" taxes for this. What we need is to correctly funnel the money already being spent into a new and improved system for the American people.
By taking Healthcare out of the hands of the employers this frees up the employers to focus on their business. Without the overhead of determining and maintaining a Healthcare benefit for their employees they’ll save money, create jobs and grow their business.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
TAXES (Who really Pays)
This should come as no surprise to anyone, but generally the middle income earners pay the majority of the Federal/State Income taxes. To illustrate where the IRS gets most of its revenue, I will use a simple Bell Curve. Take a piece of paper and with a pencil or pen simply draw the shape of a BELL.
On the left side of the Bell, just outside of the line write “10%”. On the right side of the Bell, just outside the line write “10%”. Inside the Bell diagram write “80%”. The left side of the Bell shows that 10% of the people in the U.S. do not pay any Fed/State taxes because they are either not working or are getting a very small income. The right side of the Bell shows that 10% of working American are what Senator Obama would call Wealthy Americans. The remaining 80%, those inside the Bell are Middle Income wage earners of varying degrees of income. As you can see Middle Income wage earners is where the Democrats go to for more money in the form of a TAX Increase.
For this election Senator Obama/Biden are claiming that they will reduce the Taxes for those who reside inside the Bell and only increase Taxes for those who reside on the right side of the Bell, which by the way include all of America’s huge corporations. This sounds great, but, there are consequences to any Tax Hike of any kind. Lets take a closer look:
I will start by stating a few basic truths about the RICH:
1. The Rich did not get Rich by paying huge sums of money to the Government.
2. Corporations like profits and will NOT see their profits lowered by increased Taxes. Corporations will pass the increase onto the consumers, that means you and me, Middle Americans.
3. The incentive to become Rich is diminished knowing that once you reach the $250,000 or greater mark, the Government will swoop down and take it away as planned by the Senator for Change, Obama
If Senator Obama/Biden win the Presidency the Wealthy Americans will see a Tax Increase and everyone else will get a Tax decrease. Lets follow the money. I will use Corporation “A” as an example, but this also applies to every Small Business Owner in America that qualifies for the Tax Increase.
Corporation A is made up of Employees, Middle Income Americans, and those Americans who have bought Stock in the Company, usually the Wealthier Americans. The revenue from the sale of stock is used by the Corporation for Research and Development, Buying other Companies, etc….
The people who own this stock in Corporation A expect to earn a profit from their investment and the Corporation will do anything it can to provide that profit. So, if Corporation A now has to pay more Taxes, the corporation has to get the money from somewhere and still provide a profit to the shareholders.
Corporation A has several solutions:
1. Lay off Employees and ship the jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper and where there is a more favorable Tax structure. Enjoy that TAX Break while you can, because you may be outsourced to pay for it.
2. Raise the cost of the product that is being sold to the consumer. Maybe this will work since Middle Americans will have that big reduction in their Taxes. At least for those who still have their Jobs.
On the left side of the Bell, just outside of the line write “10%”. On the right side of the Bell, just outside the line write “10%”. Inside the Bell diagram write “80%”. The left side of the Bell shows that 10% of the people in the U.S. do not pay any Fed/State taxes because they are either not working or are getting a very small income. The right side of the Bell shows that 10% of working American are what Senator Obama would call Wealthy Americans. The remaining 80%, those inside the Bell are Middle Income wage earners of varying degrees of income. As you can see Middle Income wage earners is where the Democrats go to for more money in the form of a TAX Increase.
For this election Senator Obama/Biden are claiming that they will reduce the Taxes for those who reside inside the Bell and only increase Taxes for those who reside on the right side of the Bell, which by the way include all of America’s huge corporations. This sounds great, but, there are consequences to any Tax Hike of any kind. Lets take a closer look:
I will start by stating a few basic truths about the RICH:
1. The Rich did not get Rich by paying huge sums of money to the Government.
2. Corporations like profits and will NOT see their profits lowered by increased Taxes. Corporations will pass the increase onto the consumers, that means you and me, Middle Americans.
3. The incentive to become Rich is diminished knowing that once you reach the $250,000 or greater mark, the Government will swoop down and take it away as planned by the Senator for Change, Obama
If Senator Obama/Biden win the Presidency the Wealthy Americans will see a Tax Increase and everyone else will get a Tax decrease. Lets follow the money. I will use Corporation “A” as an example, but this also applies to every Small Business Owner in America that qualifies for the Tax Increase.
Corporation A is made up of Employees, Middle Income Americans, and those Americans who have bought Stock in the Company, usually the Wealthier Americans. The revenue from the sale of stock is used by the Corporation for Research and Development, Buying other Companies, etc….
The people who own this stock in Corporation A expect to earn a profit from their investment and the Corporation will do anything it can to provide that profit. So, if Corporation A now has to pay more Taxes, the corporation has to get the money from somewhere and still provide a profit to the shareholders.
Corporation A has several solutions:
1. Lay off Employees and ship the jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper and where there is a more favorable Tax structure. Enjoy that TAX Break while you can, because you may be outsourced to pay for it.
2. Raise the cost of the product that is being sold to the consumer. Maybe this will work since Middle Americans will have that big reduction in their Taxes. At least for those who still have their Jobs.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
O.J. Guilty...duh.
A jury found O.J. Simpson guilty. What a shocker. O.J. Simpson would be found guilty of anything he’s charged with in America. There’s no way he could get a fair trial.
There are so many people in this country who have considered O.J. Simpson guilty of murdering his ex-wife 13 years ago that they’d use any excuse to put him in jail. In professional sports it’s referred to as a “make-up” call. If charged, O.J. would even be convicted of being the second-shooter in the Kennedy Assassination.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. Without getting into the details of his recent court case O.J. is mainly guilty of one thing...being an idiot. He should’ve known that he’d never get a truly fair trial in America and should’ve been extra careful to not do something stupid.
Where O.J. failed was in being stupid enough to do something that would get himself arrested. He should’ve remained above reproach. O.J. would be found guilty of J-walking, driving 56 in a 55, and eating more than he could eat at an all-you-can-eat Salad Bar. Thus, O.J. is guilty of being an idiot. He may spend the next 15 years in prison for being “stupid in public”.
There are so many people in this country who have considered O.J. Simpson guilty of murdering his ex-wife 13 years ago that they’d use any excuse to put him in jail. In professional sports it’s referred to as a “make-up” call. If charged, O.J. would even be convicted of being the second-shooter in the Kennedy Assassination.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. Without getting into the details of his recent court case O.J. is mainly guilty of one thing...being an idiot. He should’ve known that he’d never get a truly fair trial in America and should’ve been extra careful to not do something stupid.
Where O.J. failed was in being stupid enough to do something that would get himself arrested. He should’ve remained above reproach. O.J. would be found guilty of J-walking, driving 56 in a 55, and eating more than he could eat at an all-you-can-eat Salad Bar. Thus, O.J. is guilty of being an idiot. He may spend the next 15 years in prison for being “stupid in public”.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Mortgage Crisis Blame Game
Nancy “will Bush Bash for cash” Pelosi claims its Bush’s failed policies that have lead to this financial mortgage crisis we find ourselves in today. Is it the “failed policies” or greed that led to this crisis?
Thanks to these “failed policies” we’re American Homeowner’s today. We failed to qualify for a home twice during the Clinton administration. We bought our first house in 2002. We sold that house and bought our current house in 2006. We’re one of those “no money down” borrowers that are being bashed in the news. The news seems to not realize that not ALL “no money down” homebuyers messed up.
For BOTH houses our lender pre-qualified us for $50,000 more house than we were shopping for. It was nice to have that flexibility but it would’ve been irresponsible to spend that money. Our priority was a house our family could live in and our ability to make our monthly mortgage payment. Combined we’ve now been homebuyers for 6 years and we’ve never missed a payment because we didn’t get greedy and “overbuy” a house we couldn’t afford.
It’s not the “policies” that have failed. It’s human nature that has failed. Greed on both the lender and the borrowers’ side has lead to this crisis. Both Congress and the President should’ve paid attention to what was going on and either warned us or put a stop to it. But, ultimately it was the lenders dangling the giant carrot and the borrowers biting off more than they could chew that lead us to where we are today.
Polls are mixed as to whose blame it is. Regardless of whether the industry is “regulated” or “de-regulated” it ultimately comes down to two things. The lenders authorized the loans and the borrowers signed on the bottom line.
Thanks to these “failed policies” we’re American Homeowner’s today. We failed to qualify for a home twice during the Clinton administration. We bought our first house in 2002. We sold that house and bought our current house in 2006. We’re one of those “no money down” borrowers that are being bashed in the news. The news seems to not realize that not ALL “no money down” homebuyers messed up.
For BOTH houses our lender pre-qualified us for $50,000 more house than we were shopping for. It was nice to have that flexibility but it would’ve been irresponsible to spend that money. Our priority was a house our family could live in and our ability to make our monthly mortgage payment. Combined we’ve now been homebuyers for 6 years and we’ve never missed a payment because we didn’t get greedy and “overbuy” a house we couldn’t afford.
It’s not the “policies” that have failed. It’s human nature that has failed. Greed on both the lender and the borrowers’ side has lead to this crisis. Both Congress and the President should’ve paid attention to what was going on and either warned us or put a stop to it. But, ultimately it was the lenders dangling the giant carrot and the borrowers biting off more than they could chew that lead us to where we are today.
Polls are mixed as to whose blame it is. Regardless of whether the industry is “regulated” or “de-regulated” it ultimately comes down to two things. The lenders authorized the loans and the borrowers signed on the bottom line.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
EXPERIENCE (Is it Important?)
There has been a lot of TV and Internet advertisements from both presidential candidates about their competency to be President based on their experience. Senator McCain has been in the Senate for over 25 years while Senator Obama has been in the Senate for about 3 years and two of those he has spent running for President.
Is Experience really that important? Well to put this question into perspective lets up look at this in a much lower level. When a working class person, such as myself, begins looking for a job, the first thing on the potential Employer’s list of requirements is how much and what kind of Experience do you bring to the table. Most of the job openings that I have looked at require at least 5 to 7 years of Experience. That Experience must also be geared toward the type of work that will be performed. A college professor with 20 years of Experience teaching Family Law does not qualify him to be a Criminal Defense Lawyer.
A college student who just graduated with an MBA does not qualify that person to be a CEO of a major corporation. Anyone who is at the top or who is on their way to the top of any company had to start at the bottom first.
So…why are many Americans so willing to put a Junior Senator from Illinois with zero experience into the White House. Senator Obama has never run a business, never governed a city, big or small, never had to work with unions and never had to work with both parties to come to a compromise on a piece of legislation. Only Mayors and Governors have to do it all. Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has done all of this and much more. She is more qualified to be President than the Presidential candidates themselves.
Again, is Experience Important? Every job that I have applied for requires it. Every hiring manager that I have every talked to questioned me about my experience. Every board of directors for every corporation in America demands it before hiring a CEO and every American who holds stock for any corporation in America would be appalled if they found out that the board members had zero Experience in running a corporation.
Okay, America, here is the choice everyone who votes must make. Vote for the candidate with the Experience to run America or vote for the candidate of Change, Senator Obama with no Experience.
The way I see it, if Senator Obama becomes the next President and your job is lost, when you are talking to a hiring manager and that person asks you about your Experience in that particular field and you say that you don’t have any, tell that manager that you should be hired anyway because after all, you did vote for Senator Obama and he had no Experience either.
Is Experience really that important? Well to put this question into perspective lets up look at this in a much lower level. When a working class person, such as myself, begins looking for a job, the first thing on the potential Employer’s list of requirements is how much and what kind of Experience do you bring to the table. Most of the job openings that I have looked at require at least 5 to 7 years of Experience. That Experience must also be geared toward the type of work that will be performed. A college professor with 20 years of Experience teaching Family Law does not qualify him to be a Criminal Defense Lawyer.
A college student who just graduated with an MBA does not qualify that person to be a CEO of a major corporation. Anyone who is at the top or who is on their way to the top of any company had to start at the bottom first.
So…why are many Americans so willing to put a Junior Senator from Illinois with zero experience into the White House. Senator Obama has never run a business, never governed a city, big or small, never had to work with unions and never had to work with both parties to come to a compromise on a piece of legislation. Only Mayors and Governors have to do it all. Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has done all of this and much more. She is more qualified to be President than the Presidential candidates themselves.
Again, is Experience Important? Every job that I have applied for requires it. Every hiring manager that I have every talked to questioned me about my experience. Every board of directors for every corporation in America demands it before hiring a CEO and every American who holds stock for any corporation in America would be appalled if they found out that the board members had zero Experience in running a corporation.
Okay, America, here is the choice everyone who votes must make. Vote for the candidate with the Experience to run America or vote for the candidate of Change, Senator Obama with no Experience.
The way I see it, if Senator Obama becomes the next President and your job is lost, when you are talking to a hiring manager and that person asks you about your Experience in that particular field and you say that you don’t have any, tell that manager that you should be hired anyway because after all, you did vote for Senator Obama and he had no Experience either.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Biden Doesn't Know What's in his Own Plan
Democrats and the mainstream media have accused Sarah Palin of not know what the “Bush Doctrine” is. Are they now going to attack Joe Biden for not knowing what’s in the Obama-Biden energy plan?
Today in Ohio, when asked about clean coal technology plants in America, Joe Biden responded with "No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there (China). Make them clean. We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama.
Hmmm, Joe Biden doesn’t seem to know what’s in the Obama-Biden energy plan. According to the Obama-Biden energy plan they support "clean coal" technology and want to support financially five coal plants that use carbon capture and sequestration technology.
So, if they want to support five coal plants but they won’t be in America where will they be? More outsourcing? Is the Obama-Biden plan going to ship more jobs out of America or does Joe Biden just not know what he’s talking about?
Today in Ohio, when asked about clean coal technology plants in America, Joe Biden responded with "No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there (China). Make them clean. We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama.
Hmmm, Joe Biden doesn’t seem to know what’s in the Obama-Biden energy plan. According to the Obama-Biden energy plan they support "clean coal" technology and want to support financially five coal plants that use carbon capture and sequestration technology.
So, if they want to support five coal plants but they won’t be in America where will they be? More outsourcing? Is the Obama-Biden plan going to ship more jobs out of America or does Joe Biden just not know what he’s talking about?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Wall of America
There has been much talk and many proposals on how to handle the illegal immigrant situation. Senator McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy came together in a joint effort and proposed an immigration reform bill that would lead to the amnesty and eventual citizenship of approximately 12-million illegal immigrants, which was eventually defeated in the Senate.
Illegal immigration is a very sensitive subject where 80% of the American People wanted some sort of immigration reform, which included the closing and securing of the border. After much hesitance by the Bush Administration the solution was to build a fence along the border. The cost of such a fence is of course, enormous, and the fence itself, is of course a joke. Any U.S. marine could get over the fence within a few seconds. This is a shoddy attempt, at best, to appease the American People at Taxpayers expense.
We at America’s Voice are not against immigration, but we are opposed to illegal immigration. Although the fence is a good idea, we at America’s Voice believe it should be on a grander scale. We believe that the fence should be replaced by the “Wall of America”.
The “Wall of America” would be on the scale of the ‘Great Wall of China’. This wall would essentially be a super highway consisting of 4 to 6 lanes across, 50-feet high and about 30-feet deep. The walls on both sides would consists of re-enforced concrete about 5 to 8-feet thick. There would be guard towers every half mile on the Mexico side containing the latest in surveillance technology. These towers would also be large enough to allow the border patrol to station an officer in the tower. These towers would be accessible via steps or an elevator from inside the wall in an open space between the walls below the highway.
This open space under the highway would be 3-stories deep where the ground floor would also be a highway specifically for the border patrol and/or possible troop movements along the entire stretch of highway above. The other two lower stories could house the control rooms that monitor the cameras and any other listening devices to prevent tunneling or explosions of any sort.
On the American side there would be on and off ramps at various locations, especially where there is current border crossings. These locations would have the usual GAS, FOOD, and LODGING available, like any other U.S highway.
The "Wall of America" would be built completely on the American side of the border by anyone who would be willing to work on the project for a fair wage and benefits. Each border state would be responsible for building their section of the wall, which would be funded by both the state and the U.S. Government via tax dollars.
If we can fund a war, wouldn’t the money be better spent putting thousands of people and ex-military solders to work to build a monument that could easily become the 9th wonder of the world leaving behind a testament to the determination and engineering genius of Americans from the 21st century?
Once completed each border state could put a toll on the part of the highway that runs through their state to recoup the money spent in building it. Since this would be a modern marvel it could also be billed as a tourists attraction that would allow tourists from around the world to travel the 720 miles of highway stopping along the way at the Hotels that would surly be built.
The “Wall of America” would provide the security along our border that the American People want, provide thousands of jobs and eventually become a tourist attraction, thus providing even more jobs because of increased tourism and more importantly give our politicians time to come up with a very real and comprehensive Immigration reform policy.
Illegal immigration is a very sensitive subject where 80% of the American People wanted some sort of immigration reform, which included the closing and securing of the border. After much hesitance by the Bush Administration the solution was to build a fence along the border. The cost of such a fence is of course, enormous, and the fence itself, is of course a joke. Any U.S. marine could get over the fence within a few seconds. This is a shoddy attempt, at best, to appease the American People at Taxpayers expense.
We at America’s Voice are not against immigration, but we are opposed to illegal immigration. Although the fence is a good idea, we at America’s Voice believe it should be on a grander scale. We believe that the fence should be replaced by the “Wall of America”.
The “Wall of America” would be on the scale of the ‘Great Wall of China’. This wall would essentially be a super highway consisting of 4 to 6 lanes across, 50-feet high and about 30-feet deep. The walls on both sides would consists of re-enforced concrete about 5 to 8-feet thick. There would be guard towers every half mile on the Mexico side containing the latest in surveillance technology. These towers would also be large enough to allow the border patrol to station an officer in the tower. These towers would be accessible via steps or an elevator from inside the wall in an open space between the walls below the highway.
This open space under the highway would be 3-stories deep where the ground floor would also be a highway specifically for the border patrol and/or possible troop movements along the entire stretch of highway above. The other two lower stories could house the control rooms that monitor the cameras and any other listening devices to prevent tunneling or explosions of any sort.
On the American side there would be on and off ramps at various locations, especially where there is current border crossings. These locations would have the usual GAS, FOOD, and LODGING available, like any other U.S highway.
The "Wall of America" would be built completely on the American side of the border by anyone who would be willing to work on the project for a fair wage and benefits. Each border state would be responsible for building their section of the wall, which would be funded by both the state and the U.S. Government via tax dollars.
If we can fund a war, wouldn’t the money be better spent putting thousands of people and ex-military solders to work to build a monument that could easily become the 9th wonder of the world leaving behind a testament to the determination and engineering genius of Americans from the 21st century?
Once completed each border state could put a toll on the part of the highway that runs through their state to recoup the money spent in building it. Since this would be a modern marvel it could also be billed as a tourists attraction that would allow tourists from around the world to travel the 720 miles of highway stopping along the way at the Hotels that would surly be built.
The “Wall of America” would provide the security along our border that the American People want, provide thousands of jobs and eventually become a tourist attraction, thus providing even more jobs because of increased tourism and more importantly give our politicians time to come up with a very real and comprehensive Immigration reform policy.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Joe Biden’s Patriotic Taxes
Joe Biden says it’s patriotic to pay higher taxes. On ABC’s Good Morning America when asked about Obama’s plan to tax the wealthy he said "It's time (for the well-off) to be patriotic." Thus, if citizens don’t pay MORE taxes they’re not patriotic. I’m willing to be less Patriotic if he’d like to be more Patriotic and pay my taxes for me. Wouldn't it be MORE Patriotic for the Congress and Senate to reduce wasteful spending so us Patriots don't HAVE to pay more taxes?
The idea of taxing the wealthy sounds great. It’s the whole Robin Hood (or Obama Hood in this case) idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The Robin Hood story is a good one but it’s just that…a story. We happen to live in the REAL world. In the REAL world the wealthy don’t really pay taxes.
In our REAL world we have Trickle Down economics. Ronald Reagan was right. Everything trickles down from the wealthy to the middle class and on down to the poor. Like it or not, agree with it or not the fact is that the good trickles down and the bad trickles down as well.
If taxes are raised on the wealthy they’ll raise the prices of goods and services the rest of us use. They’ll wrap the new taxes into the cost of doing business and pass that cost on to the rest of us (a.k.a. trickle down). The wealthy own businesses and hire employees. They’ll raise prices and/or reduce staff. While it’s true we non-wealthy citizens will pay fewer taxes we’ll pay more for goods and services. The end result is the non-wealthy will foot the bill and have less money to take care of their family’s while Joe Biden credits the wealthy for being MORE Patriotic than the rest of us.
Link to story at kcstar.com
The idea of taxing the wealthy sounds great. It’s the whole Robin Hood (or Obama Hood in this case) idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The Robin Hood story is a good one but it’s just that…a story. We happen to live in the REAL world. In the REAL world the wealthy don’t really pay taxes.
In our REAL world we have Trickle Down economics. Ronald Reagan was right. Everything trickles down from the wealthy to the middle class and on down to the poor. Like it or not, agree with it or not the fact is that the good trickles down and the bad trickles down as well.
If taxes are raised on the wealthy they’ll raise the prices of goods and services the rest of us use. They’ll wrap the new taxes into the cost of doing business and pass that cost on to the rest of us (a.k.a. trickle down). The wealthy own businesses and hire employees. They’ll raise prices and/or reduce staff. While it’s true we non-wealthy citizens will pay fewer taxes we’ll pay more for goods and services. The end result is the non-wealthy will foot the bill and have less money to take care of their family’s while Joe Biden credits the wealthy for being MORE Patriotic than the rest of us.
Link to story at kcstar.com
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Audacity of Bad Judgment
At the Republican Convention Sarah Palin ad libbed a joke in response to audience cheers from Alaska women: "You know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" she asked, pausing perfectly. "Lipstick!" Since then there have been signs at the McCain/Palin rally's along the same lines stating "Read My Lipstick" and so forth with the "lipstick" theme. Sarah Palin, as far as we know, is the only one of the four candidates that wears lipstick on a regular basis (although I have my suspicions about Biden). Thus, the word "lipstick" is hers in this Presidential Campaign.
Yesterday, after commenting on the Republicans policies (or lack thereof), Senator Barack Obama punctuated his comments with the line "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig". Granted this is a very old line used to imply that no matter how much you pretty up something it doesn't change what it is. An ugly pig is still a pig and a bad policy is still a bad policy.
Yesterday, after commenting on the Republicans policies (or lack thereof), Senator Barack Obama punctuated his comments with the line "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig". Granted this is a very old line used to imply that no matter how much you pretty up something it doesn't change what it is. An ugly pig is still a pig and a bad policy is still a bad policy.
John McCain has used a similar line in the past about wrestling with pigs. When asked about Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's criticism of him as "a blatant opportunist'' McCain replied that he doesn't want to "go down" to that level and "I think it was Bob Dole, you know, that said you don’t want to get into a wrestling match with a pig, You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” This was an analogy about sinking to a low level rather than actually calling anyone a name.
Even IF Obama didn't intend to call Sarah Palin a pig was it a good idea to exercise bad judgment and use a line that can be construed as if he was calling Sarah Palin a pig? Even IF McCain was calling Howard Dean a "pig" is it a good idea to sink to the same low level and call the most popular Governor in the United States a "pig"? Is sinking to lower levels going to get us the change we need in Washington?
Awhile back Barack Obama convinced many people that while he lacked experience he would make up for it with good judgment. I try to pick out the rare things he says that I agree with in an attempt to accept him as our President should he win in November but then he goes and does silly childish things like this. When is this "good judgment" going to kick in? It seems he also has a lack of experience with GOOD judgment as well.
Even IF Obama didn't intend to call Sarah Palin a pig was it a good idea to exercise bad judgment and use a line that can be construed as if he was calling Sarah Palin a pig? Even IF McCain was calling Howard Dean a "pig" is it a good idea to sink to the same low level and call the most popular Governor in the United States a "pig"? Is sinking to lower levels going to get us the change we need in Washington?
Awhile back Barack Obama convinced many people that while he lacked experience he would make up for it with good judgment. I try to pick out the rare things he says that I agree with in an attempt to accept him as our President should he win in November but then he goes and does silly childish things like this. When is this "good judgment" going to kick in? It seems he also has a lack of experience with GOOD judgment as well.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Dem Ticket Upside Down
The Presidential tickets seem to be upside down. Joe Biden is missing and Barack Obama is playing the Vice Presidential attack dog role by calling Sarah Palin a liar. Why is the Presidential candidate of one party calling the others Vice Presidential choice a liar? Where's Joey Biden? Attacking the other candidates is the Vice Presidential candidates role. John McCain is a little quieter recently too. It seems this election is suddenly Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin and both are acting like Vice Presidential candidates. Except only one of them truly is a Vice Presidential candidate.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/obama-accuses-maverick/
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/obama-accuses-maverick/
Friday, September 5, 2008
Party Crashers
Isn’t it funny that more protestors were arrested at the Republican convention in Minnesota than the Democrat convention in Colorado?
It was the Democrat anti-war protesters causing a ruckus in Minnesota this week and last week in Colorado it was the Democrat anti-war protesters that…hey, wait a minute. The same people were the biggest protesters at BOTH conventions.
Hmmm, so the Republicans left the Democrats alone to have their convention but the Democrats couldn’t return the favor. Which party was the mean one again?
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0446401720080905
http://cbs4denver.com/politics/saint.paul.denver.2.810733.html
It was the Democrat anti-war protesters causing a ruckus in Minnesota this week and last week in Colorado it was the Democrat anti-war protesters that…hey, wait a minute. The same people were the biggest protesters at BOTH conventions.
Hmmm, so the Republicans left the Democrats alone to have their convention but the Democrats couldn’t return the favor. Which party was the mean one again?
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0446401720080905
http://cbs4denver.com/politics/saint.paul.denver.2.810733.html
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Palin Power
Wow, a lot is being made of a speech writer helping write Sarah Palin’s speech last night. Is it because she’s a woman that they’re picking on her? The men don’t write 100% of their own speeches either. Could ANY speech writer do all the research necessary to include all her personal items and accomplishments WITHOUT her being involved? No way.
Does anybody think that any of these politicians write their own speeches? It’s extremely rare. I think it was Chris Mathews (the news guy) who was a speech writer for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Even Jerry Lewis helped JFK with his speeches during JFK’s presidential run. JFK would send him speeches and ask Jerry Lewis to make them more entertaining.
Sarah Palin's speech was obviously exceptionally written, genuinely honest and superbly delivered or they’d have more to pick on than just WHO wrote it.
Does anybody think that any of these politicians write their own speeches? It’s extremely rare. I think it was Chris Mathews (the news guy) who was a speech writer for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Even Jerry Lewis helped JFK with his speeches during JFK’s presidential run. JFK would send him speeches and ask Jerry Lewis to make them more entertaining.
Sarah Palin's speech was obviously exceptionally written, genuinely honest and superbly delivered or they’d have more to pick on than just WHO wrote it.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Ironic Democrat Contradictions
Isn’t it ironic that the Democratic Party is the one upset most about Sarah Palin’s 17-year old daughter being pregnant (she’ll be 18 in October)? Isn’t this the party that promotes Women and Women’s rights the most? Over 55% of the Democratic Party is Women. This is the party that supports a Woman’s right to choose. This is the party that says Women CAN juggle work and family successfully. This is the party that says Women don’t have to be married to raise a family. This is the party that demands equal pay for Women. Would these pro-choice Democrats prefer that she had an abortion a few months ago or wait a couple of more months to jam a tube in its head during birth and suck its brains out? Militant Pro-choicers do tend to forget that LIFE is one of the choices.
Are they saying that Sarah Palin is a bad parent because she couldn’t manage to control a teenage girl 100% of the time? Even parents who are home all the time become pre-mature grandparents. Are they aware there’s are over 750,000 pregnant teenagers in America right now? Are they ALL the product of bad parenting? Are these teenagers not responsible at all for their own actions? With parents, schools, and even TV shows promoting safe sex is it really safe to assume there’s even one pregnant teenage girl who had absolutely no idea pregnancy was possible?
To insinuate she’s a bad parent because of her daughter’s personal actions is irresponsible. I’m sure when Ted Bundy got into the University of Washington his friends and family congratulated his parents for doing such a good job of raising this intelligent well-behaved young man. At what point did THEY become bad parents? Teenagers are going to be teenagers. All a parent can do is teach them what they can. If a teenager chooses to ignore the warnings then that’s not the parents fault. That’s where personal responsibility comes into play.
Are they saying that Sarah Palin is a bad parent because she couldn’t manage to control a teenage girl 100% of the time? Even parents who are home all the time become pre-mature grandparents. Are they aware there’s are over 750,000 pregnant teenagers in America right now? Are they ALL the product of bad parenting? Are these teenagers not responsible at all for their own actions? With parents, schools, and even TV shows promoting safe sex is it really safe to assume there’s even one pregnant teenage girl who had absolutely no idea pregnancy was possible?
To insinuate she’s a bad parent because of her daughter’s personal actions is irresponsible. I’m sure when Ted Bundy got into the University of Washington his friends and family congratulated his parents for doing such a good job of raising this intelligent well-behaved young man. At what point did THEY become bad parents? Teenagers are going to be teenagers. All a parent can do is teach them what they can. If a teenager chooses to ignore the warnings then that’s not the parents fault. That’s where personal responsibility comes into play.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Senator Joe Biden (The Man who wants to be King)
Senator Barack Obama has now officially named Senator Biden as his running mate as Vice President. Normally the Vice President is quickly forgotten shortly after the Convention and then re-emerges for the one and only debate with the Vice President of the opposing party. Usually, the Presidential Candidate is the main focus, as it should be, until one is elected.
The presidential candidate should be strong enough to stand on their own and are typically present and/or former Governors. Ronald Regan was a two term Governor of California, Bill Clinton was a former Governor of Arkansas and so on. These men had the experience in dealing with both dominate parties to get a bill to pass, they learned how to deal with the various branches of their respective state’s government and what it takes to put a budget together and get it passed. Senator Obama is a junior Senator from Illinois who has never been in a position that provided him with any experience on how to govern a state much less than an entire nation. To add to his short resume, Mr.Obama knows nothing about Foreign Affairs, hence,, in comes Senator Joe Biden with his thirty plus years in the Senate and most recently as chairman of the very powerful “Foreign Relation Committee”.
So, the real question is: why would Mr. Biden give up his chairmanship to be Vice President?? To answer this one only has to look at the man himself. He has run several times for president, most recently here in 2008, but was rejected by the voters very early in the Primaries. Senator Biden is now 65 years old, which would make him 69 in 2012 and 73 in 2016. Basically, this year was his last shot for the number one position. As the major duty of the Vice President is to take over as President if something should happen to the residing President Senator Biden is vastly more qualified to be President than Senator Obama. Mr. Biden is old enough to be Mr. Obama’s father and is a very ambitious man who wants to be KING. Mr Biden would not give up his powerful chair seat on the ’Foreign Relations Committee’ unless there is something in it for him.
The Democrats have realized that Senator Obama does not have the skill set to be President and have therefore chosen Mr. Biden to be a Co-President. For the Man who wants to be KING, this is as close as Senator Biden will ever get to the Presidency.
This is the first election since I was old enough to vote that I believe that the selection of the Vice President is very important and may have a huge impact on determining which party will win the White House. Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have chosen poorly. Senator Obama should have chosen a current or former Governor around his own age, like Senator Bayh.
Senator McCain needs to choose a current or former Governor who has a great understanding of economics and is much younger than he is, like Mr. Mitt Romney
As for the Man who wants to be KING, Senator Biden will certainly overshadow Senator Obama all the way through to November.
The presidential candidate should be strong enough to stand on their own and are typically present and/or former Governors. Ronald Regan was a two term Governor of California, Bill Clinton was a former Governor of Arkansas and so on. These men had the experience in dealing with both dominate parties to get a bill to pass, they learned how to deal with the various branches of their respective state’s government and what it takes to put a budget together and get it passed. Senator Obama is a junior Senator from Illinois who has never been in a position that provided him with any experience on how to govern a state much less than an entire nation. To add to his short resume, Mr.Obama knows nothing about Foreign Affairs, hence,, in comes Senator Joe Biden with his thirty plus years in the Senate and most recently as chairman of the very powerful “Foreign Relation Committee”.
So, the real question is: why would Mr. Biden give up his chairmanship to be Vice President?? To answer this one only has to look at the man himself. He has run several times for president, most recently here in 2008, but was rejected by the voters very early in the Primaries. Senator Biden is now 65 years old, which would make him 69 in 2012 and 73 in 2016. Basically, this year was his last shot for the number one position. As the major duty of the Vice President is to take over as President if something should happen to the residing President Senator Biden is vastly more qualified to be President than Senator Obama. Mr. Biden is old enough to be Mr. Obama’s father and is a very ambitious man who wants to be KING. Mr Biden would not give up his powerful chair seat on the ’Foreign Relations Committee’ unless there is something in it for him.
The Democrats have realized that Senator Obama does not have the skill set to be President and have therefore chosen Mr. Biden to be a Co-President. For the Man who wants to be KING, this is as close as Senator Biden will ever get to the Presidency.
This is the first election since I was old enough to vote that I believe that the selection of the Vice President is very important and may have a huge impact on determining which party will win the White House. Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have chosen poorly. Senator Obama should have chosen a current or former Governor around his own age, like Senator Bayh.
Senator McCain needs to choose a current or former Governor who has a great understanding of economics and is much younger than he is, like Mr. Mitt Romney
As for the Man who wants to be KING, Senator Biden will certainly overshadow Senator Obama all the way through to November.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Obama Biden Laden
Is Joseph Robinette Biden really the best pick for Vice President? I thought Mr. Barack Hussein Obama promised us CHANGE from typical Washington politics. Mr. Biden has been in Washington D.C. since his first election to the Senate in 1972. In 1972 John Sidney McCain III was still in a P.O.W. camp in Vietnam. Mr. McCain was elected to Congress in 1982 and after two terms was elected to the Senate in 1986. Thus, Mr. Biden has been in Washington D.C. 10 years LONGER than John McCain.
What happened to youth? Where’s this youthful energetic White House with fresh ideas we’re supposed to get? Mr. Biden is currently 65 and will turn 66 shortly after Election Day. He’s older than Hillary Clinton (60), John Edwards (55), Bill Richardson (60), Mitt Romney (61), Mike Huckabee (53) and well, just about everyone except John McCain who just turned 72.
What about health? A lot is made about John McCain’s health. Nothing has ever come of it. He’s a very healthy man especially with all he’s been through in his life. Joe Biden suffered two brain aneurysms in 1988. What other or continuing health concerns does he have that we don’t know about yet?
What about qualifications? Joe Biden is clearly more qualified to be President than Obama. Just like how Lyndon Baines Johnson was more qualified than John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If Obama is still trying to recreate the Kennedy years has he forgotten what happened to JFK?
What about perception? Did nobody notice that their names together, “Obama Biden” look eerily similar to “Osama Bin Laden”? Like it or not perception is part of the game. That’s why Obama keeps trying to make McCain look like an bumbling old man and McCain tries to make Obama look like an unqualified elitist. Perception can be more dangerous than reality.
What happened to youth? Where’s this youthful energetic White House with fresh ideas we’re supposed to get? Mr. Biden is currently 65 and will turn 66 shortly after Election Day. He’s older than Hillary Clinton (60), John Edwards (55), Bill Richardson (60), Mitt Romney (61), Mike Huckabee (53) and well, just about everyone except John McCain who just turned 72.
What about health? A lot is made about John McCain’s health. Nothing has ever come of it. He’s a very healthy man especially with all he’s been through in his life. Joe Biden suffered two brain aneurysms in 1988. What other or continuing health concerns does he have that we don’t know about yet?
What about qualifications? Joe Biden is clearly more qualified to be President than Obama. Just like how Lyndon Baines Johnson was more qualified than John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If Obama is still trying to recreate the Kennedy years has he forgotten what happened to JFK?
What about perception? Did nobody notice that their names together, “Obama Biden” look eerily similar to “Osama Bin Laden”? Like it or not perception is part of the game. That’s why Obama keeps trying to make McCain look like an bumbling old man and McCain tries to make Obama look like an unqualified elitist. Perception can be more dangerous than reality.
So, where are we? The age issue is out the window because Biden is not much younger than McCain. The Washington insider issue is out the window because Biden has been there 10 years longer than McCain. Thus, CHANGE is now out the window. If we don’t have change then what do we have left? Hope?
Monday, August 18, 2008
Brokeback at Saddleback?
It may be the beginning of the end for Barack Obama. John McCain clearly showed he’s not the old fuddy-duddy some, wishful thinking, Democrats think he is. He came across Saturday night at the Saddleback megachurch as a take charge kind of guy who answers quickly, concisely and with conviction when asked a question.
When both were asked the question of whether a baby gets “human rights” Obama’s answer was complex and complicated involving philosophy, science, medicine, ethics and the law. John McCain replied “Yes, at the moment of conception”. That’s it! Straight to the point with his answer; no regurgitating flowery pre-conceived answers. McCain’s experience and military training clearly favored him in showing he’s a man of principle and decisiveness.
The pending debates following the coronations at the conventions should truly prove interesting. John McCain has proven he can clearly hold his own when faced with the youthful and flowery talking Barack Obama. The showdown at Saddleback may have broken the back of the Obama campaign.
When both were asked the question of whether a baby gets “human rights” Obama’s answer was complex and complicated involving philosophy, science, medicine, ethics and the law. John McCain replied “Yes, at the moment of conception”. That’s it! Straight to the point with his answer; no regurgitating flowery pre-conceived answers. McCain’s experience and military training clearly favored him in showing he’s a man of principle and decisiveness.
The pending debates following the coronations at the conventions should truly prove interesting. John McCain has proven he can clearly hold his own when faced with the youthful and flowery talking Barack Obama. The showdown at Saddleback may have broken the back of the Obama campaign.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Obama's Childish Response
Below is an article found on CNN.com regarding Barack Obama's childish response to John McCains "celebrity" ad. Was a response really necessary? McCain's ad has received so much free airplay on all the talk shows that the ad has been seen by far more people that even McCain anticipated. Obama's childish tit-for-tat response just keeps McCain's ad in the limelight. Let it go! Ignore it and move on.
What's next? Some foreign leader in our global playground calls Obama a "dopey smelly dork head" and Obama responds with "I know you are but what am I?"
August 11, 2008
Obama campaign retaliates for McCain celebrity ads
Posted: 07:13 AM ET
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Barack Obama is out with a new ad that says John McCain
is Washington's biggest celebrity.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The battle over who's a celebrity continues.
Barack Obama's campaign fired back today, releasing a campaign commercial that suggests Republican presumptive
presidential nominee John McCain is a celebrity.
The ad starts by saying that "for decades, he's been
Washington's biggest celebrity. And as Washington embraced him, John McCain hugged right back."
The commercial concludes by saying that the senator from Arizona is "a Washington celebrity playing the same old Washington games."
The commercial appears to be a response to a number of ads
that the McCain campaign released over the past two weeks that suggest that Barack Obama is a celebrity and not ready for the White House.
The Obama campaign says its new ad, titled "Embrace," will run in some of the battleground states in which the McCain commercials that ridicule Obama's celebrity are currently airing.
Link to McCain's celebrity ad:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=848322d6-92fe-403e-9cc7-85b6b3ee4011
Link to Obama's celebrity response ad:
Well, when Obama's web page works again we'll add it here.Sunday, August 10, 2008
Senator Barack Obama (what do we know)
Senator Barack Obama has come upon the World stage seemingly out of no where. He is a junior Senator from Illinois who has managed to capture the hearts and minds of the younger generation . He has promised to bring CHANGE to America.
But, ‘what do we know’ about Senator Obama ?
Since Senator Obama has only spent about three years in the Senate, he has very little in the way of a voting record to rely upon to inform Americans of what he believes is the right course for America. Therefore, the only thing that can give us a glimpse of who this man is, is by who he associates with and based on their statements and/or actions, past and present can we begin to form an opinion on whether America is ready for the kind of CHANGE that Mr. Obama and the very far left want for Americans.
The first of Senator Obama’s associates is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. former senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The Reverend has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'
One of these ‘inflammatory rhetoric’ is:
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
As most Americans know by now the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. made many ‘inflammatory’ remarks. What was so surprising is that Senator Obama at first defended the Reverend, then came out and said he disagreed with the Reverend’s remarks and finally, because it was hurting his campaign, he through Reverend Wright under the bus and walked away from the Church.
The second of these associations is William Ayers, a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.. Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001,
Although this association appears to only be for a brief amount of time, it does show that Mr. Obama will accept money from anyone regardless of where it came from, just to win an election. Accepting money from a known radical like William Ayers is troubling enough and one has to wonder, how far will Mr. Obama go to become President of the United States and what will the consequences be to the American People?
Our third association is none other than Ludichrist. Without repeating what has already been written, just Goggle Ludichrist, about the association between these two men and a pattern has formed that either Senator Obama’s judgment is seriously lacking, which would make him a poor president or he is willing to do anything or say anything to be elected. This, in the long run will only hurt the American People.
There are many other examples, like the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and so on, but that would turn this article into a book.
This is not the CHANGE that America Needs or Wants.
We at America’s Voice wanted to post something about Senator McCain’s associations; however, since there is a total lack of media coverage on the McCain campaign we are unable to report on anything significant until such time the Main Stream Media stops campaigning for Senator Obama and starts acting like a news organization again.
But, ‘what do we know’ about Senator Obama ?
Since Senator Obama has only spent about three years in the Senate, he has very little in the way of a voting record to rely upon to inform Americans of what he believes is the right course for America. Therefore, the only thing that can give us a glimpse of who this man is, is by who he associates with and based on their statements and/or actions, past and present can we begin to form an opinion on whether America is ready for the kind of CHANGE that Mr. Obama and the very far left want for Americans.
The first of Senator Obama’s associates is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. former senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The Reverend has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'
One of these ‘inflammatory rhetoric’ is:
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
As most Americans know by now the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. made many ‘inflammatory’ remarks. What was so surprising is that Senator Obama at first defended the Reverend, then came out and said he disagreed with the Reverend’s remarks and finally, because it was hurting his campaign, he through Reverend Wright under the bus and walked away from the Church.
The second of these associations is William Ayers, a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.. Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001,
Although this association appears to only be for a brief amount of time, it does show that Mr. Obama will accept money from anyone regardless of where it came from, just to win an election. Accepting money from a known radical like William Ayers is troubling enough and one has to wonder, how far will Mr. Obama go to become President of the United States and what will the consequences be to the American People?
Our third association is none other than Ludichrist. Without repeating what has already been written, just Goggle Ludichrist, about the association between these two men and a pattern has formed that either Senator Obama’s judgment is seriously lacking, which would make him a poor president or he is willing to do anything or say anything to be elected. This, in the long run will only hurt the American People.
There are many other examples, like the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and so on, but that would turn this article into a book.
This is not the CHANGE that America Needs or Wants.
We at America’s Voice wanted to post something about Senator McCain’s associations; however, since there is a total lack of media coverage on the McCain campaign we are unable to report on anything significant until such time the Main Stream Media stops campaigning for Senator Obama and starts acting like a news organization again.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Too Fat to Execute?
Is this really an excuse? Why was Richard Cooey, who was sentenced to die for raping and murdering two young women in 1986, given so much food that this 5 foot 7 inch man was able to EAT his way to 267 pounds? Did prison officials not notice the Incredible Growing Man on death row?
Once again an evil and violent killer is allowed to eat better than poor children across the United States. Who is paying for this? With their taxes dollars the parents of poor starving children in the U.S. are helping to feed prisoners more food than they can afford for their own children. Why do we treat death row inmates better than we treat our own neighbors in this country?
They claim that “…if the first drug doesn't work, the execution is going to be excruciating”. Is that really our concern? Was he worried how “excruciating” the death he inflicted on those two young would be? Why should he be treated better than the way he treated those two young women? How about treating evil violent killers like, oh, I don’t know, EVIL VIOLENT KILLERS?
Maybe if his execution is EXCRUCIATING the next killer might think twice about needlessly taking a fellow citizens life.
Link to story:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/04/death.penalty.fat.ap/index.html
Once again an evil and violent killer is allowed to eat better than poor children across the United States. Who is paying for this? With their taxes dollars the parents of poor starving children in the U.S. are helping to feed prisoners more food than they can afford for their own children. Why do we treat death row inmates better than we treat our own neighbors in this country?
They claim that “…if the first drug doesn't work, the execution is going to be excruciating”. Is that really our concern? Was he worried how “excruciating” the death he inflicted on those two young would be? Why should he be treated better than the way he treated those two young women? How about treating evil violent killers like, oh, I don’t know, EVIL VIOLENT KILLERS?
Maybe if his execution is EXCRUCIATING the next killer might think twice about needlessly taking a fellow citizens life.
Link to story:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/04/death.penalty.fat.ap/index.html
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Wake Up America !!
The energy crisis that now exists has been a long time coming. This is the fault of several administrations going all the way back to the Carter years as stated by Senator Obama in a speech he gave on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The problem here is that the President does not make policy, the President merely suggest policy, and only has the authority to either sign the bill into law or veto the bill and send it back to the House and Senate.
The real fault lies with members of Congress and the Senators who have faced many forms of legislation on energy and have failed to see the future. A future where the U.S. has become so dependant on foreign oil it can only be compared to the addiction of a drug addict. That future is NOW !!!!
In this same speech Senator Obama goes on to blast Senator McCain for being “Against a 2005 energy bill that represented the largest ever investment in renewable sources of energy”. However, he also states, “That bill certainly wasn't perfect - it contained irresponsible tax breaks for oil companies that I consistently opposed, and that I will repeal as President”.
Just so I understand, in Mr. Obama’s view, Senator McCain should vote for an energy bill, which contains runaway tax breaks for the Big Oil Companies He further stated this, “But the tax credits in that bill contributed to wind power growing 45% last year, the sharpest rise in decades”.
This of course is very admirable, but the truth is Mr. Obama, the president can only propose a policy change, not make it happen. Therefore, as the cliché goes, nothing is more permanent than something temporary, meaning that I doubt any president would be able to repeal the Tax Credit portion of the 2005 energy bill. Too many Senators and House Representatives get re-elected by money coming from the Oil Companies.
The U.S. is a Representative type Government and over the past three decades or more our Representatives have let the American People DOWN!!. We have seen the last eight years where NOTHING has been accomplished. Neither by the Republicans, who where in the majority for six years and especially the Democrats for the past two years.
Both candidates have proposed plans to give the American People some relief at the gas pump.
Again from the speech by Mr. Obama, “Senator McCain wants a gas tax holiday that will save you - at most - thirty cents a day for three months. And that's only if the oil companies don't just jack up the price and pocket the savings themselves, which is exactly what they did when we tried to do the same thing in Illinois.”
Apparently this is not a Senator McCain idea. It came from Senator Obama’s home state. No wonder Mr. Obama was against the proposal, he has already tried it and it failed. Senator Obama on the other hand has a different thought, “What I can do - and what I will do - is push for a second stimulus package that will send out another round of rebate checks to the American people. What I will do as President is tax the record profits of oil companies and use the money to help struggling families pay their energy bills. I will provide a $1,000 tax cut that will go to 95% of all workers and their families in this country”.
I see two problems with this proposal: 1)the Oil Companies will simply raise the price to protect their profits, 2)there is no guarantee that the American People will put the money into a special bank account marked - FOR GAS ONLY.
Energy must come in all forms, from biofuls, wind, solar, nuclear reactors and yes, oil. President Bush has repealed his executive order banning offshore drilling. The House, lead by Speaker Pelosi refuses to even bring the offshore drilling ban up for a vote. Instead the Democrats are playing with America’s future by holding hearings on former employees of the Bush Administration and spent an entire day talking about impeachment. This is a complete waste of time and serves absolutely no purpose.
The American people need and should demand that their Senators’ and Representative do the job that they were voted in to do, Represent the People. Americans are hurting and watching their Representatives waste time grilling former White House employees over the firings of nine federal judges should not be tolerated. Over 400,000 people have recently lost their jobs, perhaps Congress should grill their former bosses, just to be sure that their layoff was legit.
The real fault lies with members of Congress and the Senators who have faced many forms of legislation on energy and have failed to see the future. A future where the U.S. has become so dependant on foreign oil it can only be compared to the addiction of a drug addict. That future is NOW !!!!
In this same speech Senator Obama goes on to blast Senator McCain for being “Against a 2005 energy bill that represented the largest ever investment in renewable sources of energy”. However, he also states, “That bill certainly wasn't perfect - it contained irresponsible tax breaks for oil companies that I consistently opposed, and that I will repeal as President”.
Just so I understand, in Mr. Obama’s view, Senator McCain should vote for an energy bill, which contains runaway tax breaks for the Big Oil Companies He further stated this, “But the tax credits in that bill contributed to wind power growing 45% last year, the sharpest rise in decades”.
This of course is very admirable, but the truth is Mr. Obama, the president can only propose a policy change, not make it happen. Therefore, as the cliché goes, nothing is more permanent than something temporary, meaning that I doubt any president would be able to repeal the Tax Credit portion of the 2005 energy bill. Too many Senators and House Representatives get re-elected by money coming from the Oil Companies.
The U.S. is a Representative type Government and over the past three decades or more our Representatives have let the American People DOWN!!. We have seen the last eight years where NOTHING has been accomplished. Neither by the Republicans, who where in the majority for six years and especially the Democrats for the past two years.
Both candidates have proposed plans to give the American People some relief at the gas pump.
Again from the speech by Mr. Obama, “Senator McCain wants a gas tax holiday that will save you - at most - thirty cents a day for three months. And that's only if the oil companies don't just jack up the price and pocket the savings themselves, which is exactly what they did when we tried to do the same thing in Illinois.”
Apparently this is not a Senator McCain idea. It came from Senator Obama’s home state. No wonder Mr. Obama was against the proposal, he has already tried it and it failed. Senator Obama on the other hand has a different thought, “What I can do - and what I will do - is push for a second stimulus package that will send out another round of rebate checks to the American people. What I will do as President is tax the record profits of oil companies and use the money to help struggling families pay their energy bills. I will provide a $1,000 tax cut that will go to 95% of all workers and their families in this country”.
I see two problems with this proposal: 1)the Oil Companies will simply raise the price to protect their profits, 2)there is no guarantee that the American People will put the money into a special bank account marked - FOR GAS ONLY.
Energy must come in all forms, from biofuls, wind, solar, nuclear reactors and yes, oil. President Bush has repealed his executive order banning offshore drilling. The House, lead by Speaker Pelosi refuses to even bring the offshore drilling ban up for a vote. Instead the Democrats are playing with America’s future by holding hearings on former employees of the Bush Administration and spent an entire day talking about impeachment. This is a complete waste of time and serves absolutely no purpose.
The American people need and should demand that their Senators’ and Representative do the job that they were voted in to do, Represent the People. Americans are hurting and watching their Representatives waste time grilling former White House employees over the firings of nine federal judges should not be tolerated. Over 400,000 people have recently lost their jobs, perhaps Congress should grill their former bosses, just to be sure that their layoff was legit.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Obama's very own SS?
Obama’s very own KGB, Republican Guard, SS? This is a scary thought. I'm a tad hesitant to make reference to Hitler's SS troops until I have more clarification on what Obama means by his term “Civilian National Security Force”.
In a recent speech in Colorado Obama said "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Really? Just as well-funded as the Military’s $439B budget? Where’s this money going to come from? What will be the scope of this new National Security Force? What are they going to do that the CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland security can’t do? Do we really need yet another national law enforcement agency?
Benito Mussolini created the OVRA (Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism) in the aftermath of an assassination attempt on his life. The OVRA’s job was to support the state while keeping power in his own hands and preventing rivals from emerging. It’d be nice to get some clarification as to what Obama's intentions are for this new “Security Force”.
His quote is mysteriously missing from the official transcript of the speech but can be found at the YouTube link below showing the actual speech. There are two related links to the quote below as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvyblUy4
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69601
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/07/obama-calls-for-national-police-force.html
In a recent speech in Colorado Obama said "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Really? Just as well-funded as the Military’s $439B budget? Where’s this money going to come from? What will be the scope of this new National Security Force? What are they going to do that the CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland security can’t do? Do we really need yet another national law enforcement agency?
Benito Mussolini created the OVRA (Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism) in the aftermath of an assassination attempt on his life. The OVRA’s job was to support the state while keeping power in his own hands and preventing rivals from emerging. It’d be nice to get some clarification as to what Obama's intentions are for this new “Security Force”.
His quote is mysteriously missing from the official transcript of the speech but can be found at the YouTube link below showing the actual speech. There are two related links to the quote below as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvyblUy4
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69601
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/07/obama-calls-for-national-police-force.html
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Pelosi needs a good Drilling (Satire)
Nancy Pelosi says to “just say NO” to drilling. Former President Bill Clinton replied “maybe a good drilling will make her a little less tense”.
Nancy Pelosi stands by her stance to not hold a vote on offshore drilling stating “this is a Democracy and I have the right to suppress any vote that may conclude with a different outcome than the one I want”. She added “it’s my party and I’ll oppress it if I want to”.
Conservative Republicans feel offshore drilling is necessary to not only stabilize our economy but a necessary first step towards independence from foreign oil. “First, we step away from foreign oil” explained Congressman B.P. Valero “then with oil prices dropping and our economy growing we can afford to focus on future technologies to break our oil addiction forever”.
Nancy Pelosi responded by claiming “the Republicans are just fact-slinging truth-mongers spewing out simple common sense solutions to complex problems”. To that Congressman B.P. Valero replied “uh, yes”.
Nancy Pelosi stands by her stance to not hold a vote on offshore drilling stating “this is a Democracy and I have the right to suppress any vote that may conclude with a different outcome than the one I want”. She added “it’s my party and I’ll oppress it if I want to”.
Conservative Republicans feel offshore drilling is necessary to not only stabilize our economy but a necessary first step towards independence from foreign oil. “First, we step away from foreign oil” explained Congressman B.P. Valero “then with oil prices dropping and our economy growing we can afford to focus on future technologies to break our oil addiction forever”.
Nancy Pelosi responded by claiming “the Republicans are just fact-slinging truth-mongers spewing out simple common sense solutions to complex problems”. To that Congressman B.P. Valero replied “uh, yes”.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)