Post Election

Welcome to the Obama Nation!

How Obama Got Elected

____________________________________________

My Pre Election Writings on Obama

Click here to skip my opinions and go to specific research on Obama

Obama's Troublesome Ties to Terrorists - or, just Google "Odinga and Obama" or "Obama and Bill Ayers" for all the reason you need to NOT vote for him

How the Democrats' and Obama's CURRENT Economic Advisors factored into the Mortgage Crisis No, they didn't CAUSE it - no politician or "should-have-been" government babysitter / savior did....what caused the crisis is our citizens' own adolescent-like addiction to consumer credit. But you probably haven't heard - unless you are a talk radio listener - that Obama is the number two recipient of contributions from mortgage enabler "Fannie Mac" - or how McCain fought (three years ago) to enact legislation to head off the crisis before it happened.

It's Embarrassing

I know this whole page gets kinda long, but I'm not shallow enough to do the "bumper sticker" thing on important issues. If you don't have the attention span for all of this; please just use the links above and the first  "two cents' worth" paragraph below as a minimum dose sometime before election day. What's more: please ask yourself what it means that the things on this page are not reported or investigated by the traditional media outlets, even though it is all easily verifyable information (don't take my word for any of this, start Googling it for yourself).  Thank you for visiting.

My Two Cents' Worth...I don't know how Barrack Hussein Obama managed to get this far. The only explanation I can conjure is Clinton fatigue. That, or worse, that Americans really have become so politically ignorant about how free countries become welfare state distasters that a guy like this can promise his way into the Oval Office by espousing the weak, "gimmie-security," dependant, socialist welfare state agenda. I personally think Americans have the POTENTIAL ability to break that historical cycle, because we are all descended from pioneers and, as such, are rugged individualists who - by and large - don't want hand outs ... and who see people who are the successful among us as inspirations and signs of hope (not to mention the source of all jobs for others), rather than as people to be demonized and adolescently jealous of. I hope I am right on all this - at least to some degree or another. Yes, I wish we had a conservative politician who could articulate this properly. Republicans are still - in 2008 - somehow unable to do so. If Obama wins it will be a serious blow to my faith in the wisdom of this country. It will be proof that we have lost our way, and squandered the original, brilliant intent of our Founders - who valued individual freedom - not government solutions. They knew to look to themselves for  solutions, and wanted government out of our lives as much as possible. Back to Obama: Here's a guy with 143 days national experience (and ZERO accomplishment or legislation to show for it, mind you); a past and illicit associations that would keep him from getting hired as a postal worker; a willingness to pass the buck on the terrorism threat to the next generation by pulling out troops before the job is done (if the Bush strategy there is so flawed, then why has there been no other attack since 9/11 and why is it that The Surge has worked in Iraq?); a socialist agenda right out of the Communist Manifesto of higher taxes that "spread the wealth around" (as brilliantly called out by Joe the Plumber); economic advisors who were part pf the problem in the housing crisis (one of whom "golden parachuted" out with over 90 million dollars); the most liberal voting record in Congress; who has said only that we need to "air up our tires regularly" as his sole sage solution to the gas crunch, energy independence, and environmental protection; who doesn't beleive that you have the 2nd ammendment right to defend your own family; who has said that Iran is a small nation that poses no real threat; who sees fit to vote "present" (as opposed to being able to decisively vote "yea" or nay") on most key issues where he voted at all; but who found the motivation to vote four times against protecting abortion victims who survived the horrific process (even Kerry and Clinton were horrified by the process); who says NOTHING of substance in speeches but does so articulately (as long as there's a teleprompter). He gets away with all this because the media has not subjected him to any scrutiny on these issues. You can hear it all on talk radio though. And before you dismiss that idea as a biased medium (as if the non reporting I just mentioned isn't somehow) then be sure to verify anything you hear there with simple Google searches. If you can do that, then the info cannot be dismissed as a "vast right wing conspiracy."  

And now for my dollar's worth (If what follows is too much to take in - understandably so - you can scroll through and pick out the white type, as that encapsulates the main point of each paragraph)

I have often heard from some very sweet ladies that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar - and I'd like to be able to heed their sage advice - but I have also heard it said by people like Federalist Paper author Thomas Paine that

"Those who dare not offend cannot be honest." 

We need a lot of honesty when we are talking about our next president - even if such honesty is politically incorrect. This is especially true when our country is facing the kinds of challenges that stem from leading the world in the war on terrorism; and when we are facing hard choices about where we are going next as a country. Obama has come along just at the crossroads where our country has to decide if we are still strong enough to practice capitalism, freedom, and the free market; or whether we will continue down the ruinous, age-old path taken by the failed democracies, fools, and welfare states that have GONE before us.

We are so far down the welfare state path that the time for gentle tactful guidance may well be past. Of course, the republicans have since Reagan been incompetetent at articulating and practicing what they say is their philosophy of Constitutional conservatism...so maybe the public cannot be fully at fault for failing to value what makes a country free and how to keep it that way. I think that at this point the only thing that has a chance of reawakening us to our original greatness and freedom is some gut-level, Patton and Churchill-esque honesty.

The last two close presidential elections show that we are divided almost 50/50 on these two historically competitve ideologies, and we need leaders (even more importantly - public education) who can keep us on the right track. Any political scientist - regardless of their bias - will tell you that free societies like ours usually last about 200 years. Please do the math - we ratified our Constitution in 1788.

Forgive me if the prospect of our decline has me riled as we near November. I don't want to sound like just another political animal, but I do get passionate when we catapult someone to the international spotlight who has an easily documented track record of trying to lead - or, more accurately, has merely talked about what he'd like to do if we will just give him a chance to lead - the greatest country in the world down the same path to ruin that has wrecked every other society that has ever tried freedom. Specifically, I'm talking about the way a free nation's prosperity tends to lead foolishly to disasterous complacency.

This happens because it's human nature for free people, who no longer have to worry about jack-booted gestapo kicking in their front door, tend to become apathetic about what is happening in the Capitol. They come to care more about who Madonna is dating than the politics that have been for years, just distant rumblings. But those rumblings actually will inevitably lead back to oppression when we stop paying attention. Why? Because...

power can in fact corrupt...and the people who seek it go to the Capitol and take as much of it as they can FROM YOU if you don't watch them. The path for getting us to that point leads straight through the welfare state where government entitlement programs come to be expected as rights. Those entitlements are a form of control over you - not "gifts" from compassionate politicians. Please remember that government produces nothing on its own. Anything it "gives" has to be taken from someone in the form of taxation. Do these expected entitlements sound familiar to you, as we talk about universal Hillary Care, or the "right to education" or the "right" to own a home? Know this: when you look to the government for these things, you only empower people who want ever more control over more aspects of your life. That's not paranoia, it's historically and empirically proveable.

Alexander Tyler spelled this out better than I could...No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic. If you do some homework, there are several other such examples of failed free societies to choose from...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

The Mortgage Crisis: A Very Real Example of Ruinous Government Welfare

The roots of this crisis are in the fact that people are addicted to credit. They don't ask "how much does it cost?" They ask instead "how much down and what's the monthly payment?" They then consider whether they can squeak by making that monthly payment...which is no measure of whether or not they can actually "afford" the house. ARMs and balloon payments just make for initially low payments that encouraged people to take the loans they couldn't really afford. Plus, people now consider home ownership to be their right, rather than something to be worked and saved up for. And Clinton and other welfare-pedaling democrats bent backwards to show their compassion by saying "of course you do, you poor, dear "little guy; you have that right. You shouldn't be denied by that rich, good-ol-boy banking system just because you have some bad credit - or because your income doesn't justify the house you want." In short, the dems undercut the formerly-in-place loan-approval process and created institutions that would "provide for" these poor folks who should have been in something they could actually afford.

Dave Ramsey articulates all of this the best. Click his link (right) to have this and other financial concepts explained clearly.

How compassionate do the results of Fannie Mac look now?

Yes, of couse, we're now talking about socialism. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac housing welfare programs (hereafter refered to as "Fannie Mac" for the sake of my fingers - don't you love how gender-balanced their two names are? They sound like sweet old relatives, don't they? I love PC) are now threatening to break our economy.

I had included a brief mention of the mortgage crisis and Obama's complicity in it (he's the #2 contribution recipient from the Fannie Mac slush fund) as a part of my original Obama article but recent news have compelled me to feature the facts about it more prominently. I am doing so because I believe that Obama's documented relationship to this one issue says a lot of what I would like to point out about Obama's true colors (easy Jesse - not a racist slur) and the way the mainstream media treats him. If you read nothing else, these next few paragraphs should serve as a stand-alone example that's easy to verify and impossible to refute. After all, Obama's closest advisory staff and the comments he has made about his faith in them are public record, no matter how many obscure links you wish to throw against the facts.

In fact, just so no one can claim this article is itself a link that's trying to lead anyone's opinion, I am not even going to try and assert that Obama's economic advisory team - from whom he has already said he takes counsel on issues pertaining to housing policy and the current mortgage crisis - are the main people responsible for the crisis in the first place. No, I won't say that here. Instead I'm just going to ask you to Google the names Franklin Delano Raines (Nature vs. Nurture?: The "original" FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the father of the modern welfare state) and Jim Johnson. These two golden-parachuted CEO's (you thought they could only thrive in republican circles, didn't you?) made millions off of running Fannie Mac into the ground and helping to cause our current economic crisis...and yet are still today Obama's economic and housing policy advisors.

Next I'm going to ask you to look up in public, official, Congressional records the statement John McCain sent to our President (three years ago) warning of the impending mortgage crisis and entreating for reform. Please remember this when you consider who has a track record of leadership on the issue, and who is even now leading the reform effort by putting his personal ambitions for the Presidency on hold in order to go back to Washington and do his senatorial job to fix it. Maybe they'll listen to you this time, senator. I'll give you the text here of McCain's calls for Fannie Mac reform three years ago just in case finding it on your own is too much too ask of you, but I again encourage you to verify it for yourself - lest I be accused of "taking sides" for wanting the truth to be known about the roots of this crisis...roots that lie in incestuous relationships between democratic politicians and "private" industry (see "fascism" in a dictionary near you).

Fascism! (I knew the F-bomb would get your attention)

While we are talking about this...for those of you who have never looked it up before marching in a demonstration, and who think of the word "fascist" as a conservative adjective, know that the proper definition of the word is "when government takes control over privately-owned industry." No, that 's not communism...not yet. Communism happens when the aforementioned privately owned industry is seized outright and "nationalized." Yes, that's right...it is kind of like Hillary and Obama's nationalized health care plans. All of this shows "fascism" to be the opposite of what you get in a conservative, free market. Knowing that puts Mussolini and the misnomer term "nazi-conservative" in their proper perspective too, doesn't it? Don't you just love dictionaries? I do!

Why am I not being "fair" and picking on republican politicians too, regarding the mortgage crisis? Folks, most republicans have had no backbone in stopping this particular democrat party idea (Fannie Mac) and all the associated corruption. I fault the republicans for that and for trying too hard to convince the Barb Streisdands of the world that they really aren't the "meanies" they are reputed to be. And they have other "big government" track records that bother me too. Feel better now? Are you more PC-comfy? See, I can be balanced, in that...

I don't care much for politicians period, although they are a necessary evil. Remember that what I have consistently said we need is a free market...and that isn't produced by any politician....it's produced and driven by you and me. The less government in that picture the better.

What About Republicans and Fannie Mac? Folks, let's pretend for a moment that it matters more to be fair and politically balanced in this discussion on the mortgage crisis than it does to fix the problem. If we pretend that then I will still point out to you that the dems LOVE to initiate huge investigations...so why isn't Pelosi leading that charge this time? if Pelosi and her dems could pin this crisis on a republican, they would be doing it...especially since many of you are already sold on the idea that corporate CEO golden parachutes and million dollar bonuses are "fat cat republican" problems. Y'all are, by the way, the same people who never look at fat cat "limousine liberals" in the democratic party and ask someone like Kerry to count how many 25,000 sq. foot houses he owns. Did you know that there are more dems than repubs in Congress who are millionares? I'm not saying that's a bad thing...just something you never hear. Look it up. C'est vrai.

The dems who lead both houses are not calling for investigations into republicans on the mortgage crisis, because those investigations would lead straight to Obama and other democrats and their welfare policies and their own Fannie Mac campaign contributions that were given in return for "regulatory lenience" towards Fannie Mac.

After you have looked this stuff up for yourself, please come back here and pick up here where you left off. Then please ask yourself at that point why these facts aren't all over the media? They are....they just aren't on CNN, MSNBC, The View, a Michael Moore cut-and-paste docu-drama, or any other democrat party marketing outlet. To hear these things, you have to be willing to listen to those sources that the people in the mainstream media tell you are "meanies" and "mere entertainers" on talk radio. Did I lose you just then? That's not very open-minded of you. Just remember that I have already said you should verify this stuff (easily) on your own. If it can be verified and it's only being said on talk radio, then it may just make you wonder a bit why the traditional media outlets are trying so hard to convince you that fair-minded people are too sophisticated to listen to talk radio. Hmmmm...

Never reported in the democratic party support group known as the network media is that, Obama, Clinton, and a whole list of democrats are campaign contribution beneficiaries of Fannie Mac. Obama, in fact, is the second biggest beneficiary of campaign contributions from Fannie Mac. That's DC business as usual and not "change" at all.

Let's Get Away from the Mortgage Crisis now and Return to Obama in General

I think that even the democratic party must be feeling "buyer's remorse" over their choice at this point. Every day, Obama and Biden both are clearly falling apart, as they move away from teleprompters more and more and are facing the glaring light of deeper analysis and criticism. Obama, particularly, is ill-equipped to handle this. His lack of experience make this inevitable, I suppose. He himself is so self-conscious about it that he 1). avoids comparing himself to McCain and sounds as if he is running against Sarah Palin (who as #2 on the repub ticket is understandably less experienced than the #1 on the dem ticket should be) and 2). his choice of Biden as running mate is a clear admission of his own weakness....in that he feels the need to balance himself out with a #2 who has far more experience than he does himself. Just today I saw an Obama paid for ad on my Yahoo email account that says: "Who will win? Obama or Sarah Palin. Guys, I am not making this stuff up.

While we're on Biden, let me also say that (because he is perhaps the ultimate Washington insider / career politician) he is a bizarre choice as running mate after all Obama's talk about change. The whole campaign is all so inconsistent and messy that I am at a loss to explain how Obama got as far as he has. Probably it is just Clinton fatigue that got him here (a sad statement on the divisive crisis of the democratic party), but that is another article.

Obama seems to wither under the weight of criticism in ways that I have not seen since high school. He seems to have a (Bill) Clinton-esque need "to be liked" by everyone and feels entitled to get "a pass" from criticism by virtue of his professed claim as the Annointed One. He clearly has a messiah (I use that with a little "m") complex, and perhaps suffers from childhood "abandonment issues." It would be sad to watch if his policies and statements and writings weren't such dire and dangerous ideas for our country. Hopefully, sometime before November, Obama's disciples will see all this as clearly as have those of us who take the time to research the candidates when they try to play the Pied Piper game Obama has.

It also matters what the party platform of a candidate is. I don't like the idea of "straight ticket" voting, and there were once a couple of democrats (Lieberman and Miller, specifically) who - as individuals - could have drawn my vote if 1). their party hadn't run them out of town on a rail because they weren't 'Pelosi flaky enough' and 2). voting for them as individuals didn't give their party a stronger representation for the socialist agenda.    

How to Evaluate a Candidate

and a brief tangent on the conservative vs. liberal mindset

It doesn't matter at all how good a candidate sounds when (s)he speaks. And it doesn't even matter what (s)he says. A politician will say anything to get elected. They will take polls to find out what you want to hear and then pay persuasive, top notch speech writers to help them say that stuff if it'll buy your vote. That's why it bothers me that so many voters decide based on the rhetoric; and how in every election so many people still have undecided opinions on candidates as they hold out for the "final debates." It's as if they think the candidates are going to come down from the mountain at the eleventh hour, holding some stone tablets, and utter some prophetic, as-yet-unspoken revelation on their inspired vision for this country.

What we should demand is not a messianic government, but one that will stay out of our way so we can work to better our own lives. The fact that we increasingly look instead to government programs is the reason we have the second highest tax rate in the world and a now declining economy. There's not some "corporatre greed" or other such boogy man (is is 'bogey' man? I never know), victim-centric explanation. Prosperity engines (businesses) will go elsewhere when they are plundered. That's the cause of out-sourcing, and it's not the greedy, exploitive motivator that protectionist unions and liberals would have you believe. It's simple economics. 

Personally I wish Bill Gates would have told Clinton that he was going to take Microsoft just a few miles away to Vancouver when he was told that his company was "too powerful and successful" and needed to be broken up in order to be "fair." His making that move out of our economy would have illustrated my point nicely, as one Bill Gates has done more to eradicate poverty, suffering, and homelessness than all the social and government workers combined and reproduced exponentially ever will. That's capitalism, and Obama doesn't believe in it. He says so. He wrote a book that talks foolishly about "trickle up" economics! Huh? Where was this guy when they taught econ in economics 101? But then, this from the same guy whose best solution for the gas price crunch is a muti-million dollar campaign to get people to air up their tires. Wow, people! Please come out of your trance before November, for the love of Mike!

Government is not the messiah; or a solution to your problems. We do have to have some government around, but it should be minimalist about how much power it wants over your life. That's what's really meant by the term 'conservative,' by the way - which means that conservatism is more about personal freedom than is modern 'liberalism,' despite the carictatures out there where conservatives are just people who wana tell you what you can't do in your bedroom. The only people who don't want little government the way our Founders intended are people who are too afraid to take responsibility for their lives on their own and who vote for "Santa Claus" candidates (liberals and democrats....but I repeat myself) who will 'help them' as the little guy. Grow up, you victims! You live in America, where your work can get you anything you need if you will go for it. Even our poorest people live far better than most of the world...and that's because of our conservative, capitalist foundations ... foundations that the democracy / welfare movement tries to tear down every day. That's why you hear some people say that 'we are a republic that was never intended to be a democracy.' I know you seldom hear explained what that actually means though; so click here if you'd like to.

What does matter is what politicians have done in other positions of responsibility

That's one reason Obama's messianic rise is so distressing....because so many people have allowed it to happen despite the fact that he has no record to speak of. Nobody knows what he would do, really, because he has yet to do anything already. He would be a total question mark if not for his writings and speeches...and those are at best inconsistent and at worst openly socialistic (read on for specifics spelled out at the bottom of this page).

Racism? Please, people...

Please let me take a minute to address those of you who say that a vote against Obama is racially-motivated. The Obama camp is already trying to sow the seeds to be able to say if he loses (as I believe he will) that his loss can only be the result of "racism." In this, he is showing himself to be no better than a more polished and slick Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton-esque race-baiter who is more than happy to use guilt to buy votes if he can get away with it. I can hear it already, the cries after his defeat...the victim-complex-driven laments of "well we're still not there yet are we?" I can hear the race-baiters in this country telling us that we are still mired in our predudices so much that we can't "just give this nice black guy a chance." When that happens, please just remember when they call us racist that 95% of white people will not have voted for John McCain, but 95% of black people will have voted for Obama. I know you can't say that out loud in our PC culture, but you know it's true.

I won't even go into the way such people can't even define "racism" vs. the more accurate term "bigot." But guys, if you could put another (6%) black candidate on the ballot who wasn't the least experienced, most communist-influenced person in politics, then I would be inspired too by that candidate's legacy back to MLK's powerful Dream. This guy, however, is not what MLK had in mind, and it embarrasses me 1). that someone like him can get this far in our pop culture system, and 2). that we are still hung up on what color or what gender a person is at all. I wouldn't care if he were a green, three-foot-tall female in a wheelchair if he had the issues straight and could maintain what our Founders had in mind when they created the freest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen.

The Democrats Don't Believe in America, and Neither Does Obama

The democratic party is already the party of "blame America first" so it's not hard to imagine the rhetoric they will belch forth when Obama loses...rhetoric meant to point out - as they so often try to do - why we are not the freest and best country in the world. Is it any wonder then, why they fail to inspire, as leaders are supposed to? Think about how they treat the War on Terror if you don't know what I mean, Obama included. Any bad news for our troops is good news for Obama's democrats. That's the way the whole party has set themselves up...by being in-house critics who do the enemy's propoganda for them because Bush is their enemy just as he is the Taliban's. For Obama's democrats, the politics do not stop at the water's edge the way they used to for democrats gone by. We didn't even have this kind of partisan-in-front-of-our-enemies nonsense (some would say treason) during Vietnam. Not from elected officials anyway. But the modern democrat party thinks every war is Vietnam and they are jumping on that bandwagon again, perhaps out of some throwback to that time...perhaps the Obama / Pelosi / Dean brand of democrat in power today nostalgiacally remembers the sit ins they held in those days and wants them back. Whatever the motivation, it's not the kind of leadership we need in this time of threat, and it's a total disgrace. That's what Obama's offering up as commander-in-chief. Everybody say "yikes" on the count of three. Ready? I'm not, my teeth are too gritted to say anything when I think of that prospect.

When Obama loses, that will be a big part of why....because he has chosen a party that seeks to convince average Americans who know better that we are arrogant to believe that our Founders and our Constitution are the best thing that's yet happened to the world in terms of nation and freedom and prosperity building. The dems are a party that has embraced the ideals that are espoused by parties in other countries who upapologetically call themselves socialist. The only reason that the dems can't do that here is because most Americans outside of LA and New York wouldn't have it. They know that our greatness is real and that it comes from individuals with drive and vision...individuals who are willing and able to provide for their own families without government hand outs...who are nearly all descended from pioneers - not from government welfare programs. That too is why the dems don't like the Electoral College that kept Gore from getting elected, because without it they could ignore the states where hard-working Americans thrive, and focus their policies instead on San Francisco and Boston voters where there are bigger voting blocks.

The dems believe that you vote in blocks, by the way. They don't believe in individuals thinking for themselves, and neither does Obama. Thats why they talk in terms of "the black vote," the "female vote," the "hispanic vote." You know this already, don't you? I'm sorry to point out the obvious but - as Dave Ramsey (sort of) says - common sense is in need or marketing these days.   

Style vs. Substance

I don't care how good he looks on the cover of Rolling Stone. Obama's flame burned bright in the beginning, like a pine cone thrown into a campfire....it burns very sparkly, but only has enough substance for about five seconds - and putting out little or no actual heat. But now, Mr. O and Biden are already experincing a rude awakening as they begin to actually face heavyweight opposition in the election proper. That's a big contrast from what they are used to: things like "softball" interviews from a (sym)pathetic media, which ensure that Obama never gets asked hard questions about the obvious concerns I chronicle below. Plus he's only faced, thus far, lightweight, unelectable carictatures like Hillary. It should be fun to watch him continue to wither under the new pressures he's been getting at speeches around the country as he now campaigns in the major leagues. Already he sounds sophomoric, and his 143 days of experience are showing to be woefully insufficient to prepare him.

I guess it makes sense for him to have his own self-styled presidential logo, too. I mean, between the messiah complex and the way he makes a point of refusing to wear an American flag pin, calling it a "divisive symbol" in much of the world, then it's understandable when you put it all together into context. That kind of "blame America first" sentiment is the kind of dribble you would expect from a Michael Moore-on, not a presidential candidate. I mean, okay, anyone has the right to an opinion in our free country but don't spew that stuff and then ask to be the CEO, 'kay?

Obama and Guns

Bad again, is Obama's stance on weapons ownership. No matter what he says about being in favor of gun ownership, his background says otherwise. I would say his record does, but he doesn't really have a record. All we have to go on is what he has said and written during his "blame America first" world tour. If you are one of those people who thinks that gun ownership rights are 1). no big deal or that 2). gun owners are nothing but rednecks with "long live The South" flags on their trucks...I give you the following common sense assertions in white type (warning the next paragraph contains realistic but explicit descriptions that the naive will find distasteful to have spelled out for them):

A gun is all that stands between you and your family when a perp comes down your hall at 2am looking for who knows what. With a gun, even your grandmother can defend herself from a big mean guy. That's a good thing....if you need me to say so. Outlaw guns and only aforementioned mean guys will be armed....and they will know it. You see, criminals don't care about the gun laws that say they aren't allowed to have a gun. What effect do you think that will have on crime? Forget your opinions, the statistics and a few moments of common sense show already what happens when you disarm the law abiding folks, and it ain't happy news (unless you're a lawless animal).

Don't buy that? Then please do the following experiment: put a "This is a Gun Free House" sign in your front yard. You won't, will you? Because you know that doing so woiuld be an invitation to the perps who - like dogs and hyenas - prey on the defenseless first. By contrast, every community with "pro gun" laws has lower crime statistics. Never heard those stats? I know, and I'm sorry you've been shielded from the facts.....but they are out there. For starters, Google "Kennesaw gun laws" and go from there. The first year of a Swiss-inspired law they enacted saw the home invasion rate drop 27%. The law?: That every home owner must be armed. I point out that the law was Swiss-inspired because the Swiss are an armed-to-the-teeth society, which is why they have had the luxury of peace and neutrality even when Hitler was next door to them. They are too strong to be preyed upon. Don't take my word for this. Research it - but don't take NBC's either, okay?

If you are one of those naive people who are relying on being able to call 9/11 when you have three seconds to do something about an intruder in your doorway; or you are wiling to merely rely on the "hope" that an intruder is "just there to rob you because he's needy" instead of rape and kill your wife in front of you, know this: there are plenty of us who are not willing to let that state of affairs stand....no matter what the laws become if enough people are assinine enough to give us this Obama character for a president. I know all that's harsh to hear. It's hard for me to "say out loud" too, but I do so to make the point clearly about how 'bothered' I am about Obama's inexplicable goal of disarming law abiding Americans. For more on this....go to http://www.gunbanobama.com/ and to my own gun pages.  

Obama on Taxes:

Conservatives are people who have the radical idea that your hard work is for the support of your family, and that it shouldn't be plundered from you by politicians so they can buy votes from lazier people. Where do you think Obama stands on this idea? Stats follow below as you scroll down...

Let's get specific here though, for one second: Obama claims that he is the one who will cut taxes on the middle class, rather than on those evil businesses (and richer-than-you people) that provide everyone's jobs. John McCain also will cut taxes, but where they count. Obama's plan basically amounts to about $1,000 per year per household in tax cuts, while McCain's plan does more than that by taking a bigger tax burden off the engines of the economy, the producers who hire people in the first place. (the exact figures are below, cent for cent). Granted, it takes more understanding of how the economy works than most Obama disciples possess to understand why that's better in the long run...but we should not as Americans be fooled by "quick fixes." As the old (paraphrased here) saying goes: "better to provide a livlihood to a fisherman than to give him a single meal of fish." That's a key difference between dems and repubs: that the repubs possess a better understanding, and appreciation of, business as a prosperity engine that "trickles down" it's benefits to all of society. The dems are only successful in portraying this phenomenon as repubs being "the party of the rich meanies" because the average Joe hasn't had economics 101. The average Joe who votes dem would rather be "handed a fish" in the form of entitlements, welfare, etc. and the dems have long been the party that's more than willing to buy their vote with that dependence. We're supposed to be better than that as Americans.

2008 will go down in history as The Year Journalism Died

If you have never believed the fact that the media are biased, you cannot deny it any longer, after watching the way the messiah Obama gets covered by the netwoks, CNN, and most print media. Most of these outlets may as well put the word "democrat" in their title and describe themselves as democratic marketing functionaries. This has long been true, and it is the main reason that they are losing the ratings war big time to talk radio and the blogosphere, as more people seek to get a little balance. No one is objective. But that's not the goal...being fair and politically correct is not what's important in leadership or in public practice. What matters is what is right and what works. Let the victims whine about what's no fair or what's offensive. I don't come from that. Where I work, blunt honesty, effectiveness, and personal and team potential are practically a religion - and the same is true of any successful venture. I'm not objective, and I don't pretend that talk radio is - nor do they. But you have to go to talk radio or you will not hear thousands of facts per year on important issues.

I will also point out that it is possible to be fair in your treatment and coverage while voicing your opinion, and you will not be likely to stay on the air if you don't - as is evidenced by every liberal talk show that's ever been tried (that wasn't supported by tax money). They die because they are recognizably propaganda outlets and are not taken seriously. That and they can't stand the glaring light of callers because logic is not on their side. Those are the reasons that conservative talk radio hosts stay around forever and why they dominate the market - not because of any "corporate greed or conspiracy." Listen for yourself, if you don't believe me. Most of you who unquestioningly believe what you have heard about talk radio hosts around the water cooler at work could not name a specific point that those "hate-mongers" have angered you with....nor could you identify their voice if you heard it....because you haven't listened for yourself. You can hear for yourself with my talk radio link. Even the ones I disagree with are all there. It's a bi-partisan link, if that make you feel any more politically correct and fair.

The traditional media outlets have long made little or no attempt to be balanced, and have increasingly come unhinged. Now they are openly and undeniably in the tank for the democratic party. Now that this has happened, propaganda is the only possible result, and the traditional media seem to have stopped trying to hide behind the myth of professionalism they had tried to claim for decades.

Perhaps this has happened because the democratic party itself has finally been completely taken over by their kook left fringe, as evidenced by the ascent of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, among many others. I believe that this takeover of the party gave confidence to the media and all other kook sympathizers to come out of the closet that just barely contained them anyway. Don't know what I mean? 35% of democratic voters, for example, believe that 9/11 was an inside job that Bush knew about; and  many of them blame Bush and conservatives somehow for Katrina too.

That's what I mean by democrat kookiness. That, and their carictature-esque, demonized view of capitalism itself and big oil specifically....the very things that give prosperity to everyone but that the kooks do everything they can to hinder. That is why you are paying what you are at the pump today, and why the economy is reeling. I know that the kook fringe liberals in power now want you to believe that it is because of fat cats in cowboy hats with big cee-gars who are price-gouging you to finance their Kerry/Edwards/Gore-sized houses and private jets; and their Hummers - as if they are the only ones who beneifit when oil companies do well.

But did you know that over 70% of people with investments have oil in their portfolio? That means that little old retired widow ladies in Minnesota want to see oil do well too...especially if they want to heat their homes this winter. And Nancy, did you somehow fail to realize that the cost of everything (food, housing, etc) goes up when oil does? Why? Because oil is how we transport ALL goods and most services. That's why we aren't supposed to be relying on Saudi sheiks for it. They do not have our best interests at heart, folks....but Nancy and her kooks are doing everything they can to keep us dependent on such folks when they ACTIVELY block all efforts to increase domestic production....all so they can cater to their kook environmentalist fringe voters who hate oil and capitalism itself.

No, Drill Now won't save us from the shieks tomorrow or next year. It should have happened ten years or more ago...but leadership means looking ahead beyond next year.

Ever wonder where all the communist / socialist demonstators went? They didn't just uninvent themselves....they reinvented themselves. I have been an outdoor enthusiast my whole life. I love nature and have gone way out of my way all my life to be in the middle of it. On that basis I am a fully qualified environmentalist in every sense of the word. It makes sense to me to recycle things that can be, etc. But just as I can be a Christian - or the member of a religion - without buying into every crackpot, cultist idea that comes along; so too I can be an environmentalist while still being a resonable, thinking capitalist...and without swallowing every "sky is falling," bring-America-down-a-notch hoax like global warming that the UN puts out...hoaxes that - like the cult leader's ideas - are taken in at face value by the faithful without critical analysis.

You did know that the global warming myth started in the UN and not with scientists, didn't you? And that the UN has a proven track record of being anti-American? Well, you would if you didn't limit yourself to CNN and The View. I mean...well, don't get me started on the global warming hysteria. Click my link for the things you have never heard about that in the traditional media.

As for the media, they clearly are encouraged by the Pelosi successes and feel less need to hide their bias or masquerade as anything but party machines any longer. How else do you explain the way Obama and other democrats never asked by interviewers - or challenged in reporting, for example - about the specific and documented things that follow on this page....but Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is fair game in the same media?

I'll leave you with that, and give you some supporting evidence, below...see you on Election Day!

Just the Facts and the Vital Statistics

Read on...these are not my words, but please feel free to Google each and every point for independant verification of their veracity. 

Click the cartoon (left) for the whole story of how Obama goes even further than Clinton and Kerry were willing to, when he repeatedly stood up IN FAVOR OF infanticide (that's the killing of babies who were supposed to be aborted but survived).

Below is an excerpt from www.boortz.com 

Obama's Troublesome Ties to the Middle East

  I received this from a friend. I admit that I have not researched it for myself, but the writer gives you the key words that you can use to do so on line..and it is all very consistent with other information I have come accross. For my part, I wish more people would research his brother for themselves, and how much Obama supported his efforts before his campaign made that a liability. Makes you wonder why the traditional (unbiased) media isn't mentioning any of this.
***********************************************************
This election has me very worried.  So many things to consider.  About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than.  I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.  I must say this drives my husband crazy.  But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.  About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama".  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight.  We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life.  

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip.  Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.  My question - Where did he get the money for this trip?  Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.  When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.  It is at this time he  wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.  Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?  It's not cheap! to say the least.  Where did he get money for tuition?  Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.  Why Chicago?  Why not New York? He was already living in New York.


By "chance"  he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year.  Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association".  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.  Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School?   Where did he get the money for Law School?  More student loans?  After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.   But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?   They represented "Rezar" which Rezko's firm.  Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money"  for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).  With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property?  On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President.  Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss.  She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.  Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran!  Do we see a pattern here?  Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.  This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".  

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan?  They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama.  Where is that money coming from?  The poor and middle class in this country?  Or could it be from the Middle East?  


And the final bit of news.  On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos.  Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith".  When questioned, "he make a mistake".  Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line.  If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?


A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"

Obama: An Islamic "sleeper?" For the record, I don't necessarily buy into this possibility, but it's plausible enough to post here.

Editorial: "The Audacity of Rhetoric" about Sen. Obama's ties

Obama's Warped Views on Patriotism and Our Flag

My Hillary Page

My Senator McCain Page

My Politics Page 

My Taxes Page

My Quotes Archive 

Click on My Candidate for who I wish were on the ballot

!   Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness.  For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative.  He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc.  He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything.  He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.     Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler     The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit.  No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.   He has no real identity.  He is half-white, which he rejects.  The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya   Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.