Posts

The Obama Infomercial

/3 Comments/in , , /by

The recent #Obama Infomercial was polished, poignant and compelling. It is everything you would expect from what may be considered the most hip media campaign in history. However, the abundance of style could not cover up the lack of substance. Obama has repeatedly made promises and accusations that have gone largely unchecked until now.

Obama is not telling the truth says Calvin Woodward of AP.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

CBS, in an article titled Reality Check, points out a series of Obama inconsistencies. Take for example Obama’s plan to spend savings from the war in Iraq.

Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it’s for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.

Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he’s promised to do “line by line,” he still doesn’t pay for his list. If he’s elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with – thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he’s facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

Larry of My Take has a great article on my favorite topic (the old MSM double-standard) pointing out the “too little, too late” fact checking of the MSM.

Will wonders never cease? One of the main complaints I have had with this election cycle is how the mainstream media has given Barack Obama a pass when it comes to questioning his facts and what he plans to do if he wins this election. They have refused to question him on his past relationships with William Ayers or ACORN and tried to sweep it under the carpet when he made his “spread the wealth” statement to Joe the plumber. It appears that for the time being, at least, they have decided to call him out on some of his facts.

It seems the media is hoping to finally do their job in a way that will not damage Obama too much but give them enough credibility to claim they actually did their job. The nation is the biggest loser here.

ACORN Registers Mickey Mouse

/2 Comments/in /by

Right Voices has a great article dealing with ongoing fraud allegations against ACORN. But lest you think that only conservative bloggers are accusing ACORN of fraud, CNN did a pices that reviewed 2100 applications. Result?

2100 applications rejected because of fraud!

The Wall Street Journal points out that ACORN was able to increase voter registration in Indianapolis to 105% of eligible voters. The article said,

Acorn — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — has been around since 1970 and boasts 350,000 members. We’ve written about them for years, but Acorn is now getting more attention as John McCain’s campaign makes an issue of the fraud reports and Acorn’s ties
to Mr. Obama. It’s about time someone exposed this shady outfit that uses government dollars to lobby for larger government.

Stating The Obvious

/in , /by

Perhaps the most popluar daytime gabfest for #women is The View.  The LA Times has just realized that they have been talking about #politics. And sometimes they fight.

Well, DUH!

Here’s Your Sign.

How Observant Of The LA Times: “These days, even ‘The View’ is getting political” | Right Voices.

The Right To Vote

/1 Comment/in , , /by

My last post sparked quite bit of discussion on an oblique topic; does a Right to vote exist? The email traffic was also filled with statements that essentially said, “I don’t want any more Conservatives to vote,” and “I don’t want any more Liberals to vote.”

Is there a Right to vote? To fully answer such a question requires the definition of almost every term in the debate. Is their a legal right to vote? While not enumerated as such in the Constitution, I believe the answer is yes. Is there a philosophical right to vote? Again, I think yes. This is a much deeper discussion involving the legal, social and philosophical background of the founding of America as well as the French Revolution. In this tiny space I merely offer my opinion that a right to vote exists in the fabric of the American soul.

The best dissent came from my friend and fellow blogger Eric at Self-Composed. We met through StumbleUpon, the social blogging network, and quickly enjoyed exchanging information and personal insights. Besides, Eric lives in Hawaii which has vaulted him to epic status in my pantheon of blogger friends.

He has has touched a nerve where I confess I do not have a simple answer. His post, Voting Is Not A Right, is a must read in my opinion. What about the lazy, uninformed, uneducated, nearly senseless voters of our day? Often, these voters are labeled the Undecided. Here is a particularly pithy section:

“Voting is serious business and it should be left to serious people who are already invested and engaged. If someone needs to be bribed, cajoled, begged, or pleaded with before they’ll get off their dead ass and go register, they shouldn’t be involved in the political process. If someone needs to track them down and stick a registration form in their face and give them a pep talk, they shouldn’t be voting.”

As always, there are bigger issues in our country than the candidates for the two major parties and Eric has raised one. Questions of vision and what we want out country to be like abound. While the election is, in some sense, about which candidate can best deliver those things, Eric is correct in pointing out that voters should be educated and informed.

Laziness in Democracy eventually leads to tyranny.

Democrats Kill Bailout

/2 Comments/in , , /by

The bailout was killed by House Democrats. Yes, Democrats. Losing by a margin of 228-205, the measure only needed 12 members to change their minds.

95 Democrats voted against the bill.

Quit blaming John McCain for failure to keep your majority, in the majority.

Take a look at these articles –

Bill Dyer at Townhall – Elections have Consequences

Hugh Hewitt – Duplicity and Cynicism

Michelle – The Crap Sandwich

Hot Air – Bailout Bill Fails After Pelosi Speech

How did they decide on $700B?

/in , /by

How did the Treasury Department arrive at a figure of $700 billion for the bailout? Surely it was based on careful analysis and a detailed methodology.

Nope. They guessed. They just pulled a number out of thin air. They made it up.

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

This just gives me a fuzzy feeling about politicians in Washington. Perhaps somebody should peel them like a kiwi.

Read the Forbes article – Bad News For The Bailout and take a look at the LA Times also.

Michele Malkin has a series on the subprime lending crisis you should look at.

Who's Leading Now?

/in , , /by

Leaders lead. It may not be apparent when the water is calm and the breezes are gentle. Life is good and any pretender can clamor up the hill and proclaim their virtue.

When the sky darkens and the wind bites at our backs though, actors tumble down the hill. They hesitate. They overt-think. They circle the wagons in uncertainty.

A politician can declare that he is a leader. His political party can declare that he’s a leader. And hundreds of thousands of acolytes around the world can swoon devotedly at his feet, and he can rack up all the trappings of leadership. But none of that in fact makes him into a leader if he actually isn’t one.

Crises reveal, make, and define leaders. When the crisis is over, it’s easy to recognize in hindsight who the leader was, even if there was some doubt as to that during the crisis itself. Looking back, we can recognize a leader because he’s the one who the other potential actors and decision-makers actually followed.

#McCain‘s leadership – “Shut down the campaign. I’m headed to Washington. The country comes first.”

#Obama‘s leadership – “If anybody needs me I’ll be getting ready for the debate.’

Bill Dyer’s article – In the Current Financial Crisis, only McCain is Indispensible is one to read as well as this one by Hugh Hewitt.

Michelle Malkin weighs is with her thoughts and more thoughts.

TD had a brief but pithy article:

John McCain put his campaign on hold today, and called on Barack Obama to join him in Washington, DC in a bi-partisan effort to address the country’s economic crisis. McCain also proposed re-scheduling Friday’s debate and suspending campaign commercials.

Barack Obama responded by a) attempting to take credit for McCain’s idea, b) attempting to take credit for McCain’s economic proposals, c) accusing McCain of playing political tricks, d) refusing to cancel Friday’s debate, and e) essentially telling America: I’m going to keep campaigning and I’m not going to Washington to address the financial crisis. Call me if you need me!

The Democrats Did It

/3 Comments/in , , , , , /by

After days of moaning and blaming, perhaps a few facts should be inserted into the discussion about the current financial melt-down.

Barack Obama blames John McCain and Republicans for the mess. Why? According to Obama, Conservatives have been advocating de-regulation and free market controls and this de-regulation produced the current fiasco. Sounds great to liberals. Must be true.

However, a tiny bit of knowledge regarding economics and the free market concept are helpful. De-regulation did not cause this problem. New regulations caused it; new regulations from the Democrats.
Rewind to the 1995 Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton believed that everyone has a right to own a home. Everyone should own a house whether they can afford it or not. It was in the Constitution; or at least it should be. Banks were hesitant to follow the President’s lead however. They knew that there were certain geographic and demographic areas that foreclosure was a near certainty.

Mr. Banker, do you think it is too risky to loan money to people with a history of non-payment? Are you worried about default and foreclosure on loans to unstable people with unstable incomes?  Enter Fannie and Freddie. They will cover the risk. When the loans fail (and they did by the thousands), someone else will take the loss. So, give them the loan.

To the average consumer this is great news. To the poorest in our country it is better news. It no longer takes a good work history and 10% cash down to buy a house. You just need a smile and a signature and you can finance 105%, buy the house of your dreams, and make payments when it is convenient. Trillions of federally insured dollars, that never should have been there in the first place, flowed into the credit markets.  Understandably, home builders loved this plan. So did the Finance industry. All markets were booming. Politicians, especially friends of Obama, cashed in on the deals.

But everyone ignored some core principles of the free market. They forgot that risk requires compensation. Financial activities with risk fail, sometimes frequently, and require a high rate of potential return to cover the losses. Bill Clinton and Fannie Mae tried to remove the risk. But they couldn’t. They could only shift it to someone else; Fannie and Freddie. They forgot (if they ever knew) how money is actually made and how goods and services are exchanged.

Which brings us to the big, bad, predatory bankers and their outrageous practice of loaning money to people that could never afford it. This is exactly the change Bill Clinton and the Democrats were pushing. The created and changed laws so that people that could not afford a house could buy a house. Barney Frank is STILL trying to make this happen. The mortgage lenders were fulfilling the wishes of the White House. To vilify them now is to distort history.

This is not how the free-market works. It is not de-regulation it is changing regulations to produce a desired outcome with political pressure. Just the opposite of what McCain has advocated and exactly what Obama has supported. In 2005 when Conservatives tried to deal with the mess before it got out of control, McCain supported action and Obama opposed it.

Politicians are now crying that we must provide a $700 billion dollar bail-out, which is not nearly enough by the way. And who will be paying this enormous tab? You and me. People that have worked hard, paid our bills, scrimped, saved and managed our money wisely are absorbing the risk and paying the bills.

And who created this fiasco?
The Democrats did it.

Obama Flip-Flop

/in , , , , /by

Give Matt Lauer at ‘Thumbs Up’ on this one. He catches Obama in a clear double-standard and Obama ducks for cover.

Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout — saying he opposed it one day then announce he supported it the next day.

But, as Lauer pointed out, scarcely three minutes after McCain said he opposed the AIG bailout last week, “in an interview with Meredith Vieira, Joe Biden, your running mate was asked the exact same question, ‘should the federal government bailout AIG?’ And he said, ‘No, the federal government should not bailout AIG.'” (As we noted at the time.) “And I think that in that situation,” Obama said, “I think Joe should have waited as well.”

“But it’s the kind of thing that drives people crazy about politics,” Lauer said. “It sounds like you were trying to score some political points against John McCain using his words, when your own running mate had used very similar words.” (emphasis mine)

Thanks to Jake Trapper for finding this at Political Punch.

"Why I (A Black Man) Can't Vote For Obama"

/146 Comments/in , , , /by

Huntley Brown – is a fabulous concert pianist, a man of God and is a black man.  Here is his reasoning for not voting for Obama. My brother-in-law asked me to post this and I thought you might like it.

Why I Can’t Vote For Obama

A  few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it’s worth repeating..

First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why  I will not be voting for him.

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.

I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can’t dictate the terms He does because  He is the leader. I can’t vote black because I am black, I have to vote Christian because that’s who I am. Christian first, black second.  Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won’t be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.

We need to follow Martin Luther King’s words, “Don’t judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I don’t know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.

His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as t he most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.

Lets take a look at the practice he wanted to continue. Read more