Tag Archives: 2008 Election

Obama’s 2012 Campaign, See 2008 Campaign

President Obama tells a gathering in Cartagena, Colombia what he knows his audience wants to hear . . .

In his most specific pledge yet to U.S. Hispanics, President Barack Obama said Saturday he would seek to tackle immigration policy in the first year of a second term. But he cautioned that he would need an amenable Congress to succeed.

“This is something I care deeply about,” he told Univision. “It’s personal to me.”

Could swear I’d heard this before. Four years ago. It serves as a measure of how Obama has delivered on his campaign promises. Especially since he is campaigning like he is running for the first time. Even though his party controlled the House, Senate, and White House for his first two years of this, his first term.

What’s sad is that we have a president of the United States who believes he can not win re-election unless he divides the country into as many segments as possible and directing them all against the other half of the country. Coming from the President of the United States, it’s disgraceful.

Maybe voting for the same guy again and expecting a different result is not a good strategy?

Link: Obama pledges immigration reform early in 2nd term

Zimmerman Charged | Post-Racial Administration

Florida Prosecutor Angela Corey arrested George Zimmerman, described by the NY Times as a White-Hispanic, charging him with second degree murder.

This incident was over six weeks ago, February 26, 2012. It’s relevant to what prosecutor Angela Corey said today. The joke of the day . . .

“We do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition. We prosecute based on the facts on any given case as well as the laws of the state of Florida.”

It is shameful how the media, known to create campaign themes for the President, started from day 30 (not day 1), with doctored reporting, fraudulent reporting, about the racial aspect of this case that did not exists until they introduced it.

Without knowing whether Trevon Martin’s death was murder or self-defense, like some published tapes, eyewitness accounts and the police reports suggest, President Obama’s entry in the case leaves no presumption of due process, innocent until proven guilty, or even to warn about stirring up tension, racial tension, because Trevon Martin is black. The absence of anything presidential in this matter, to urge calm and respect for the laws, was the go-ahead for the race industry and the rhyming reverends, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Controversy hit fever pitch after Barack Obama, when asked for comment on the case took the unprecedented step of commenting on the still ongoing investigation stating “If I had a son, he’d look like Trevon”.

Eric Holder’s “people,” the New Black Panthers,  issued a bounty for Zimmerman’s capture for them to administer justice. There are Wanted Dead or Alive posters out there. Not surprisingly, Attorney General Eric Holder doesn’t have a problem with private citizens soliciting kidnapping and who knows what else? Under Obama, it isn’t the D.O.J. It’s the D.O. Black J.

Where the New Black Panthers are concerned, Holder’s record is dropping charges on them for voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 election. This, after they were already found guilty by default. So there is no expectation that the Justice Department under Obama will do anything about their threats this time. Justice under Obama is not blind.

With the big racial controversy successfully up and running, other irresponsible Democrats pile on to the racial angle. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) plants her face in front of a camera and says the shooting was a hate crime.

After all this, if you are wondering why President Obama has not come out to call for calm, something to ease the racial tensions spawned by the false media accounts, it is because things are going just fine. For his re-election. He’ll kill it if he were to come out and act like a President should act. There’s nothing ‘post-racial’ about this guy.

Now that the trial process is underway, at least we will see who the legal victim is. Martin or Zimmerman?

Colorado Proposition 103 Gets A Shellacking

Big news in Colorado. The 2008 election made Colorado a Blue state for the first time in 15 years, Obama 54% McCain 45%, buoyed by the support of the state’s growing Hispanic population, a key demographic to victory in 2012. So you would be surprised to see that 63.5% of the voters rejected Proposition 103 Tuesday.

Prop 103 was a $2.9 billion tax increase in sales and income taxes to be used for schools. I think this marks the first time that the ‘it’s for the children’ excuse has not worked. The people of Colorado feel they are paying enough taxes already and expect the state to do the job with what they have.  A notion contrary to liberal dogma.

“We need to do this for our kids,” said Heath, D-Boulder. “Our kids can’t wait.”

“This is a victory for all Colorado taxpayers,” said Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs. “We can’t help children by bankrupting their parents.”

It looks like ‘it’s the economy stupid’ is paramount in the minds of the people of Colorado and spells trouble in 2012 for an administration that only wants to raise taxes more.

A Time For Choosing

Since we were never given the choice in the last presidential election, the next election will be the time to choose. The 2008 election culminated in eight years of bashing Bush, and Bush not responding once. Americans were offered only hope and change. And who is against hope, and who is against change that makes things better? ‘Better’ being the operative word.

Obama never said, elect me and I’m going to nationalize health care and interfere with free-market economics by declaring some industries and businesses as ‘too big to fail,’ and borrow and spend trillions of dollars, not to stimulate the economy, but to ‘save’ union jobs in the public sector and the auto industry. He never said elect me and I’ll make it the responsibility of government to increase labor union membership.

Did we elect a President to put America on the fast track to Socialism? Do you think he would have beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries if he ran on what he is doing to this country today?

But now there is a choice. And it is no better illustrated than in Florida’s new law to drug-test welfare recipients and certain state employees in order to enforce a drug-free workplace. Progressives argue that Gov. Scott was trying to save money on the backs of the poor.

I don’t think it’s a matter of fiscal conservatism. Whether conservative or liberal, broke is broke. Just because someone is using drugs is no justification for spending more than we have. And it’s not that Scott, or Republicans, don’t care about poor people. They care about people who are on drugs and getting public monies.

The disintegration of the family among many poor people is a good reason to make bad choices. And it is welfare programs that tend to replace the father, or mother, and create this welfare class that is evermore dependent on the government. What Gov. Scott is doing is a move in the right direction. A move in the direction of teaching people some personal responsibility. Get off the drugs and you can continue to receive help.

This bill brings out the differences between the political Left and Right. One endeavors to fix the problem by attempting to fix the person. In this case, to provide an incentive to kick the habit and become self-sufficient again. The other seems content to be the giver of money, with no reason or motivation to quit a bad habit, which also tends to garner a strong voting block of welfare recipients.  In this context, it is Republican policies that try to heal and raise the poor by making them independent, if not just less dependent on government. It’s the old, “Give a man a fish and he won’t starve for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he won’t starve for his entire life” thing. It is Democratic policies that tend to keep the poor right where they are, dependent on the government for their livelihood, meager as it might be. The uneducated will easily identify with the person who gives them what they want instead of the one that wants them to earn what they want on their own. It’s about trying to teach people how to get off of welfare instead of trying to find out how we can find money to subsidize destructive behavior. Healing the person or family is better, more compassionate, than keeping them where they are. The bill isn’t about hating poor people.

Let’s look at the results of a landmark Democratic program. Nearly half of the country is getting some sort of government assistance. Does it look like the war on poverty (that began 50 years ago) has worked? There are drug rehabilitation programs out there, some at no cost. Individual responsibility means taking advantage of it and choosing to use what would be their drug money toward their own rehabilitation. How else does one teach personal responsibility if they have to do nothing on their own to make a change? They can get their welfare, if they choose to get off drugs first.

Democratic programs do nothing to reduce the number of poor people. What they have done is grow government and make poor people more dependent on government, and on the Democrat party. That is the result, whether intended or not.

There will always be people at the bottom of the ladder. The bottom of the ladder for U.S. citizens is half-way up the ladder compared to other countries. Democrat’s policies tend to make that ladder horizontal, destroying the notion of the individual.

Similarly, you will hear Democrats complain about the so-called income gap. They think it is evil that some people can make and accumulate wealth while some don’t.  I wouldn’t be so concerned about a gap between the rich and poor. I’d be concerned to make sure that the poor have every chance, the same chance, to get rich on their own.

Republicans have a HUGE up-hill battle to get people to understand that their policies are geared toward people helping themselves instead of relying on the government as their caretaker. Encouraging personal responsibility is so easily demagogued as Republicans hating the poor. And Democrats never miss the opportunity to do just that.

The immoral aspect of the Democratic social vision is that they put their faith in the government instead of the individual, which conditions poor people to look to them for sustenance. The fact that it builds strong voting blocks is no coincidence.

I’d like to see no minimum wage and no capital gains taxes. Since that has never been the case in my lifetime, one can only wonder how much better off ‘the poor’ would be. Again, it highlights the difference between the competing philosophies. Big government and control of economic conditions, or less government involvement and allowing free-market economic principles to work.

You don’t have to look far to see the difference. The free-market capitalism camp made us the greatest country in the world in under 200 years. The rest of the world is in the other camp and has nothing but shared misery to show for it.

Rush, Others Get Punked

As any comedian or philosopher will tell you, what makes comedy and/or satire funny is there has to be a shred of believability, not to be confused with truth, in it.

So on Friday’s show, Rush commented on an article from Michael Ledeen, a respected writer, that gave an excerpt to what was alleged to be the highly sought after thesis that candidate Obama wrote while at Columbia University. Before his show ended, Rush also held out the possibility that the story may not be true. Doing some due diligence, he said this . . .

A researcher has been scouring the Internet and can’t find any sources for the quote. “The blog that Ledeen cites doesn’t have supporting info,” supposedly. The source post that was from August, says it’s going to be in an upcoming report from Joe Klein, but the researcher can’t find anything that has come out since, and nothing in Klein’s blog. There have been no matches found on the Internet for any of the info or quotes other than the source posting. So I now say that the blog from which this came has no sourcing data other than Joe Klein upcoming report and Joe Klein hasn’t written his upcoming report. So we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate.

Ledeen’s source was from a post in the Jumping in Pools blog. That, attributed the ‘quote’ to research by Joe Klien, another respected writer. Problem is, it was all made up. You have to look very carefully at a tag at the end of the post that among others is ‘satire.’

Here’s the made-up quote:

‘[T]he Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned.

“‘While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.'”

Pretty hot comment, if it were true. Until the real thesis is exposed we’ll never know. Much like the way Dan Rather claimed that his report on Bush’s National Guard service was true even though the paper itself was fabricated.

Why would that quote be believable you ask? Mostly from what we know Obama himself has said, as well as the way he is governing, and from the way his policies affect the country. His penchant for ‘economic and social justice,’ redistribution of wealth (Joe the plumber), and Chicago style politics, attacking anyone or any industry that opposes him and his policy.

This video is relevant to Obama’s driving philosophy.

Lesson here is, like anything else you read or hear from any source, whether from the internet sewer or the pristine printed and broadcast media is this.

Don’t believe anything you read on this web page unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as “doing your homework.”

related links:

Obama: My Economic Policies Are Unsustainable

In an effort to be the Harry Houdini of Washington, after voting for the very policies that he is deriding, President Obama is pulling another one over on the media and the American people.  Speaking at a town-hall  meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque, his message was clear.

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Becoming the greatest show (fraud?) on earth, our President is deriding the very policies that he ran on , proposed, voted for, and coerced Congress into passing, while accepting zero responsibility for any of  it. Ta da!

Mission accomplished. Meanwhile . . .

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Rush . . .

This is the guy who has just saddled us with $11 trillion in budget deficits for the next ten years, warning that his own policies have wrecked the US economy and that they cannot be continued.  He threw himself under the bus.  We can’t continue Obamaism.  Just barely over a hundred days into his administration, Obama has condemned his own administration, and nobody in the Drive-By Media gets this.

[t]he president of the United States, after a mere 100-plus days, has just thrown his own administration, all of his policies, under the bus, just condemned them, just ripped them to shreds. I mean he has been more forcefully critical of his own policies than he ever was of George W. Bush.

related links:

Forget Persuasion, Attack Limbaugh Instead

President Obama is not having an easy time with his nearly trillion dollar so-called stimulus plan, despite getting a jump-start from President Bush. In theory, as in rhetoric, doing something to stimulate the ‘economy’ is what is needed. But if what you propose is, in reality, not an economic stimulus but rather a seismic shift from free markets and limited government, to government control of markets and industry with ‘no exit plan’ (that sounds familiar), then I would hope that he would encounter opposition from Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between. And that includes Rush Limbaugh.

Rather than trying to persuade Republicans on Capital Hill on the efficacy of his plan, he shifts the focus to a private citizen, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. Speaking with Republicans in Washington on his first week, Obama said . . .

You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.

Echoing chief of staff Rahm Emanual’s ‘rule one,’ he stresses the urgency for action. Never mind what kind of action. Obama said . . .

We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly.

Having been brought into the discussion on Obama’s economic plan, Rush Limbaugh responds in an interview on Byron York’s blog at National Review Online.

Before I get to Rush’s response, which is below. Harken back to the campaign. Remember how the media virtually ignored and discounted Obama’s alliances with radicals like William Ayers? They characterized them as mere fleeting associations that were of no pertinent significance. The role the media played in Obama’s campaign and subsequent election is the reason people like you and I were not informed, and Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw didn’t know (or didn’t want to know) about just who he (Obama) is. ‘We don’t know a lot about him,’ said Brokaw. (Why didn’t you ask, Tom?)

In his response, Rush puts Obama’s so-called stimulus plan and motivation into proper perspective in the name of Saul Alinsky. In Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, he writes  . . .

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Ask yourself, is this not what we are seeing?

Rush’s response follows:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

“If we don’t get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can’t let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That’s how things don’t get done in this town.”

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn’t Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn’t they have to buy the new furnishings? What’s the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet’s office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That’s fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

And here’s how the Huffington Post and Think Progress lie about what Obama, and Rush, said.

related links:

What Obama's Change Is Like

From Barney Frank whining that Obama needs to start being President six weeks before his inauguration, to one campaign promise after another going by the wayside, to the CHANGE that Barack Obama will bring to Washington, here is what it looks like so far.

Overall, the people Obama is relying on to build his administration have represented unions; energy, environmental groups, insurance, and drug companies; Wal-Mart; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; and the lobbying arm of the Washington-based Center for American Progress. The center is a think tank headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and now co-chairman of Obama’s transition.

Had he told us the change he had in mind was to let lobbyists and special interests set up an administration for him, the election might have turned out differently.

What we have and what we are seeing, is what you get when you have a President-elect with no experience on the national stage other than running to be one.

link: AP IMPACT: Donors, lobbyists help Obama get ready

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) Ousted

Republican Anh 'Joseph' Cao waves as he holds his daughter Betsy Cao, 4, with his wife Kate Hieu Hoang, right, at his victory party after defeating Rep. William Jefferson, D-La. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

After losing his re-election bid in Louisiana’s 2nd district with a 50-47 percent result, indicted Democrat William (dollar bill) Jefferson did not concede his loss to the Republican challenger Anh “Joseph” Cao, the first Vietnamese-American in Congress.  Instead, he blamed the voters for not turning out.

‘I think people just ran out of gas a bit,’ he said. ‘People today flat didn’t come out in large numbers.’

Speaking to Jefferson’s bribery and racketeering charges, one Democrat voter who voted for Jefferson highlighted one of our key principles of the justice system afforded to Democrats who get into trouble with the law.

‘People are innocent until proven guilty,’ said Faye Leggins, 54, an educator and Democrat who moved back to the city six months ago.

The voters of Louisiana let Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) off the hook by doing what she should have done years ago. Of course, if Jefferson were a Republican, we wouldn’t be talking about this 552 days after an indictment.

link: Louisiana voters oust indicted Rep. Jefferson

aSide Order

Stop Obama, Pelosi in Georgia

The 2008 Election isn’t quite over. A few senate seats are still out there. Al Franken is trying very hard, and succeeding, to steal his election win in Minnesota over Norm Coleman. And the Georgia runoff election is another one. I think Republicans have already lost a filibuster proof senate, even if Saxby Chambliss and Norm Coleman end up winning their seats because of the several RINOs in the Senate already. Nevertheless, here is what is at stake and what we can expect in the next four years. This ad is being run in Georgia. December 2 is the runoff election date.

Want to help? You can by going to the National Republican Trust PAC to help get this ad out in Georgia.

United Nations Lowers To The Occasion

Why is it no surprise that the IAEA, the supposed nuclear watchdog of the United Nations (aka Useless Nations) is taking the side of two countries China and Russia, over the United States, its allies, and most of Europe, when it comes to providing nuclear technology to Syria before an IAEA investigation into Syria’s nuclear arms ambitions is complete?

The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief clashed with some Western nations on Monday over their bid to block aid for a planned Syrian nuclear power plant, saying U.S. intelligence pointing to secret Syrian atomic work was unproven.

Diplomats at a 35-nation meeting of International Atomic Energy Agency governors said Washington, major European Union nations and other Western allies favored shelving the project while Syria was under IAEA investigation over the U.S. reports.

New testicle eating champion crowned

And for the ‘you gotta be kidding’ category, try this.

Yes it's what you think they are. And yes they're biting them. And, yes again, they're from New Zealand.