The Republican Thread

[Controlled Chaos]

Still should be kept in the Dem thread.

It's comical how many times this has to be said.

 

NSS care to revise your last statement from earlier in the year?? Because I just checked the The Democrat thread and for the most part it's only the Dems posting in there. I mean I never even read that thread...there's nothing I want to see in there, but check this thread and I don't think you can get through one page with out seeing the same kind of posts this thread was supposed to exclude. Dems just can't help themselves...they just can't. It was proven in the GOP thread and it's proven in this thread. To the moderators credit, they have stepped in from time to time to say keep the stuff out of this thread...but it's like a full time job. It's like putting a kid in front of a candy bowl and saying...please don't touch....they just can't help themselves.

 

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ May 20, 2008 -> 10:54 AM)

IMO, I think it's pretty simple really...

There is a GOP forum and a DEM forum...leave em as just that.

 

The GOP forum is for the guys on the right.....It will have biased GOP articles and all the DEM bashing one can hope for. If you don't like it...don't come in here. If there is something posted in here that irks you soo much...then start a new thread in the main forum and discuss it.

 

The DEM forum is the same way. If you want to post in there, Bush is the devil, that's your right and I'm not gonna come in there and try to convince you he's not. If you had made a whole list of reasons why and I didn't agree with it or thought it was filled with lies....then I would start a thread in the main forum and those that wanted to be part of the discussion would.

 

The problem I see is Dems can't handle a differing opinion. If it's different from theirs then it's absolutely wrong and they can't let it go. They have to make a post and convince you why it's wrong. That's just how I see it...and the posts in this thread, from the first page to the last, kinda back that up

 

QUOTE ((NorthSideSox72 @ May 20, 2008 -> 12:41 PM)

I think you are on the same track as I am, up until that last graf. Then you had to put "Dems" where "Strong party backers from either party" would have been more accurate.

 

[lostfan]

It's comical how many times this has to be said.

 

NSS care to revise your last statement from earlier in the year?? Because I just checked the The Democrat thread and for the most part it's only the Dems posting in there. I mean I never even read that thread...there's nothing I want to see in there, but check this thread and I don't think you can get through one page with out seeing the same kind of posts this thread was supposed to exclude. Dems just can't help themselves...they just can't. It was proven in the GOP thread and it's proven in this thread. To the moderators credit, they have stepped in from time to time to say keep the stuff out of this thread...but it's like a full time job. It's like putting a kid in front of a candy bowl and saying...please don't touch....they just can't help themselves.

Well, without sitting and looking at a list I would guess the liberals outnumber the conservatives in the Filibuster by about 3 to 1 and the # of actual posts is an even bigger margin. Conservatives do post in the Dem thread but there's just not that many of them to begin with. Cross-posting to a certain amount is ok if it isn't ridiculously partisan, and the Dems do it more, but it's more because of quanitity than anything. If we just said "well if you identify this way, you can't post in the other thread at all" it would stifle discussion. And there's been some really good discussions in this thread actually.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's comical how many times this has to be said.

 

NSS care to revise your last statement from earlier in the year?? Because I just checked the The Democrat thread and for the most part it's only the Dems posting in there. I mean I never even read that thread...there's nothing I want to see in there, but check this thread and I don't think you can get through one page with out seeing the same kind of posts this thread was supposed to exclude. Dems just can't help themselves...they just can't. It was proven in the GOP thread and it's proven in this thread. To the moderators credit, they have stepped in from time to time to say keep the stuff out of this thread...but it's like a full time job. It's like putting a kid in front of a candy bowl and saying...please don't touch....they just can't help themselves.

What's to revise? I stand by that statement.

 

As for these specific threads, I agree there has been a lot more cross-pollenation here than in the Dem thread. I think LF is right, the Dem-GOP ratio among regular posters is heavily Dem, probably 2-to-1 or so. That may be the issue.

 

Here is a question going forward... do we want to more strictly keep that out?

 

[Controlled Chaos]

What's to revise? I stand by that statement.

 

As for these specific threads, I agree there has been a lot more cross-pollenation here than in the Dem thread. I think LF is right, the Dem-GOP ratio among regular posters is heavily Dem, probably 2-to-1 or so. That may be the issue.

 

Here is a question going forward... do we want to more strictly keep that out?

I can care less really. Just find it amusing. The only posts in the Dem thread from non dems are usually ones where the poster agrees on something.

[lostfan]

I can care less really. Just find it amusing. The only posts in the Dem thread from non dems are usually ones where the poster agrees on something.

No, not really. Usually just drive-by postings to take a shot at something someone posted

[Steve9347]

All because I didn't think green was necessary.

[Controlled Chaos]

All because I didn't think green was necessary.

Not really....this could have been posted in the early pages of this thread...because some people just couldn't hold back.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Cross-posting to a certain amount is ok if it isn't ridiculously partisan, and the Dems do it more, but it's more because of quanitity than anything.

 

 

No, thats just what liberals always do, irrelevant of the outlet or medium. I've grown accustomed to it. I dont think I've actually opened the Dem thread more than a handful of times, and to my knowledge have never posted in there. I've respected that they have a thread to say what they want. it is pretty funny that posts do come in here from the "other side" when certain GOP here make claims or statements (granted, sometimes those statements are ridiculous though)

[NorthSideSox72]

No, thats just what liberals always do, irrelevant of the outlet or medium. I've grown accustomed to it. I dont think I've actually opened the Dem thread more than a handful of times, and to my knowledge have never posted in there. I've respected that they have a thread to say what they want. it is pretty funny that posts do come in here from the "other side" when certain GOP here make claims or statements (granted, sometimes those statements are ridiculous though)

If your brush was any wider, you couldn't fit it in the door.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Obama's campaign built on lies

By Richard Baehr

 

There have been many lies by Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign that he has tried to mask by shifting his recollections over time. These include the extent of his relationship with Bill Ayers, what he heard Reverend Wright say during his near 20 year membership in Trinity Church, and his relationship with the vote fraud enterprise, otherwise known as ACORN. Barack Obama has made history and then "remade" it -- and he has done so numerous times.

 

 

But two lies in particular have been especially consequential: Obama's pledge not to run for President in 2008, and his commitment to participate in federal financing for his general election campaign, with its consequent spending limits. The news this past Sunday that Obama raised $150 million for his campaign in September shows the significance of the second lie.

 

 

The First Big Lie: Running For the Presidency

 

 

When Obama was elected a US Senator in 2004 he pledged to the voters of Illinois that he would not run for President in 2008. This is what Obama said on that subject in 2004:

 

 

"Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years."

 

Obama gave a similar response to a question from a reporter that he dismissed as "silly": "Guys, I'm a state senator. I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office, it just doesn't make sense."

 

 

This lie has not been given much currency in the media. There have been plenty of other politicians who have promised not to run for higher office and then decided otherwise. The same holds true for some elected officials who pledged to observe a term limit on their years in Congress or the Senate, but later decided "the people still needed them".

 

 

Barack Obama, since he first ran for office in 1996, has followed a pattern: he always looked-up for the next elected job to seek. One colleague from his Illinois State Senate days in Illinois said he saw "the positions he held as stepping stones to other things"

 

 

After election to the State Senate in 1996, Obama ran (and lost) a race for Congress in 2000 against incumbent Bobby Rush. In 2002, Obama began his run for the open US Senate seat in Illinois to be contested in 2004. In 2006, he began his run for President. In fact, for more than half of the time since he has held public office, Obama has been AWOL from the job to which he has been elected, instead campaigning for higher office. There must have been a "calling" which he heard. Or perhaps it is merely unbridled personal ambition.

 

 

It should have been no surprise when Obama broke his pledge to the voters of Illinois and ran for President. If Obama is elected, it will be a new experience for him to actually have to do the job for which he was elected, with no higher office available, at least in the temporal realm. Of course, he could begin his re-election campaign ( and the fundraising for it), on Inauguration Day. It is hard to imagine, after all, that there may be a day soon with no Obama ads on TV or radio.

 

 

One safe bet is that the same media which has been enthralled with Obama's candidacy will cover for him and serve as free public relations agents during his Presidency. When problems arise, the media will continue to blame George Bush for having created "intractable problems." With a Democrat-controlled Congress with big majorities in both the Senate and House backstopping a Democratic President, this excuse may wear thin with voters.

 

 

The Second Big Lie: Accepting Federal Funding For the General Election

 

 

The more consequential lie of the 2008 Obama campaign, and the one that may determine the outcome of the election, was Obama's promise to accept federal funds for the general election if his opponent did. It was a given that John McCain, the co-author of campaign finance reform legislation with liberal Democrat Russ Feingold, was going to observe the federal spending limit of $84 million that accompanied the funds. Obama, on the other hand, never had any intention of limiting his spending to that amount.

 

 

The contest for the Democratic nomination showed Obama's fundraising prowess; in several months he raised more than $50 million in that month alone. In September, Obama raised more than $150 million, a stunning amount, bringing his total fundraising for the year to $605 million. Obama has raised almost twice as much money in September as McCain received for his entire general election campaign.

 

 

Since federal financing of Presidential elections began in 1976, no candidate had ever opted out of the system before Barack Obama. Obama's excuse for doing so was, to put it gently, pretty lame. In reality, the rationale he provided for his action, was a lie. Obama argued that he feared an infusion of special interest group money paying for attack ads against him. Hence, Obama needed to be armed for battle, and $84 million in federal campaign money for the general election, was not enough.

 

 

This was hogwash. Ads by independent groups and so-called 527s this cycle have heavily favored Democrats, just as they did in 2004. Obama was advantaged on that front. Obama opted out because he knew it would pay off -- that he could raise much more than $84 million, and that he then could bury McCain by ratios of 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 in spending on ads and organizers down the stretch. That is exactly what is now occurring and a major reason why Obama has opened up leads in the key battleground states.

 

 

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media have been unconcerned about Obama's backtracking and dishonesty on his pledge to participate in federal financing of the general election campaign. For a day or two, some journalists and pundits made it sound like Obama had let them down. But shortly thereafter, the move was viewed as smart, strategic, and necessary -- the obvious thing to do when winning is everything. And of course, the coverage of this campaign by the national media (including late night "comedians") has shown that they believe Obama's winning is everything. Why should the media expect Obama to behave any differently than they have in their own reporting? They have delivered the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising for Obama with puff piece reporting on his campaign, and far less favorable coverage of the McCain campaign.

 

For the McCain Palin team, it really must seem like they are facing a campaign with all the money in the world. For all practical purposes, they are. And if you think Barack Obama would have had it any other way, then you don't understand Barack Obama. Do you think when Obama met with his advisors to discuss how to sell his breaking a pledge to participate in federal financing of the general election, that anyone said: "But Senator, you would be breaking your word"?

 

Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

The Increasingly Erratic, Super-Gaffetastic Joe Biden

Michelle Malkin

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

 

If the prospect of Joe Biden sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency doesn't give you palpitations, you are not paying attention.

 

Hysterical Sarah Palin-bashers on the unhinged left and elitist right have dominated campaign press coverage and pop culture. They've ridiculed her family, her appearance and her speech patterns. They've derided her character, her parenting skills, her readiness and her intellect.

 

Meanwhile, the increasingly erratic, super-gaffetastic Joe Biden gets a pass. What does the guy have to do to earn the relentless scrutiny and merciless mockery he deserves? Answer: wear high heels, shoot caribou and change the "D" next to his name to an "R."

 

Team Obama is hammering John McCain as "erratic" in the closing days of the election campaign. There are now 615,000 Google hits and counting using the search terms "erratic McCain." Last week, The New York Times devoted an entire article to the Obama-Biden line of attack, titled "In Friendly Region, Biden Cites McCain as Erratic."

 

Who's erratic? Throughout the primary and general election cycles, Biden has lurched from attacking Obama as not ready for prime time ("The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." -- September 2007) to ready to lead ("Barack Obama is ready. This is his time." -- August 2008) and back again.

 

This week, Biden warned America that an Obama victory would invite a dangerous global showdown between tyrants and the naif Obama. "Mark my words," Biden said Sunday at a Democratic fundraiser. "It will not be six months [after the inauguration] before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy." In a follow-up appearance, he told supporters to brace for the worst and "gird your loins."

 

Out of Biden's mouth, this is called candor. Out of anyone else's mouth, it would be "fear-mongering," "negative campaigning" and a "distraction."

 

Tooting his own horn while vandalizing his running mate's, Biden bragged: "I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know." Yeah. Colleagues like that guy who had a mere 143 days of Senate experience before launching his presidential bid and choosing you to shore up his meager credibility, Joe.

 

In fact, Biden has spent the entire campaign questioning his running mate's judgment. Last month, he mused out loud: "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. … She is easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." Biden assailed the campaign's position on clean coal, openly criticized the campaign's idiotic ad attacking McCain for not using e-mail and warned the pro-gun control Obama that "if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."

 

Dan Quayle will have "POTATOE" etched on his gravestone. But how many times have late-night comedians and cable shows replayed the video of senior statesman and six-term Sen. Biden's own spelling mishap last week while attacking McCain's economic plan?

 

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the No. 1 job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S."

 

No, Joe. "D'-O-H" is a three-letter word.

 

Nightly news shows still haven't tired of replaying Palin's infamous interview with Katie Couric. But how many times have they replayed Biden's botched interview with Couric last month -- in which he cluelessly claimed: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

 

Er, here's what really happened: Roosevelt wasn't president when the market crashed in 1929. As for appearing on TV, it was still in its infant stages and wasn't available to the general public until at least 10 years later.

 

During the lone VP debate earlier this month, the increasingly erratic, super-gaffetastic Biden demonstrated more historical ignorance that Palin would never be allowed to get away with: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history," he said. "He has the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive -- he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."

 

Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. You would think someone who has served 36 years in government -- the same someone who is quick to remind others of his high IQ and longtime Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship -- would know better.

 

Biden's erratic and gaffetastic behavior is the least of America's worries. He's worse than a blunderbuss. He's an incurable narcissist with chronic diarrhea of the mouth. He's a phony and a pretender who fashions himself a foreign policy expert, constitutional scholar and worldly wise man. He's a man who can't control his impulses.

 

And he could be a heartbeat away.

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Palin-says-"You Betcha" skit.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

[lostfan]

When Obama was elected a US Senator in 2004 he pledged to the voters of Illinois that he would not run for President in 2008.

Who hasn't said something like this? Everyone gives some kind of "categorical denial" when they are asked before they're ready to announce it, almost to the point where it's pointless to even ask. Even Hillary did it when it was pretty much a no-brainer that she'd be running. Maybe it's just me but I don't think it's a big deal for somebody to lie about whether they want to run for president.

[Controlled Chaos]

To The Undecided Voter

Neal Boortz

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

 

This is long; very long. Hey, I’m a pretty entertaining writer … so give it a go. If you’re an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don’t have all the facts here … but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you’ve ever made.

 

This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters faces. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It’s just that the average American doesn’t spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.

 

Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don’t think 2008 is going to be the first time.

 

I’ve noted that some other “pundits” out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I’ll make no attempt here to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I’m just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I’m just pulling the handle.

 

The Race Factor

 

Are many black voters going to vote for Barack Obama primarily because of race? Of course, many will. Surveys and polling have shown that the figure may reach 20%. I think it’s well more than that. Is race a sound reason to cast a vote? Probably not. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I cannot fault a black American for voting for Obama. It may turn out to be a negative vote insofar as their dreams and goals are concerned. It may not work out all that well for their children, especially if they’re ambitions and talented. But I don’t think many of us can absolutely say that we wouldn’t be casting the same vote were we in their shoes.

 

If you are a white American there is no way in the world you can look at this election through the same eyes as a third or fourth generation black American citizen. Several months ago a caller to my show suggested that Barack Obama’s ascendency in the presidential sweepstakes was Black America’s biggest accomplishment. I disagreed. Though I can’t remember the exact words, I said that, in a general sense, the shining moment for Black America may have been the show of patience and restraint shown by black men when they returned from putting their lives on the line in World War II and in Korea to a country with segregated schools, colored waiting rooms, whites only water fountains, beatings, lynchings, water hoses, police dogs and systematic discrimination pretty much every where they looked. The restraint showed by black Americans during the civil rights struggles of the 50’s and 60’s, though not universal, was something to behold.

 

Now .. try, though you won’t succeed, to put yourself into the mind of a black American. How can you experience or understand the legacy of segregation, violence and second-class citizenry your ancestors went through and not take pride in a black American on the verge of winning the presidency? How many black American voters do you think are uttering to themselves: “If my grandfather had only lived to see this.” It takes a great deal of maturity and a clear understanding of the possible future consequences for someone to put their racial pride aside and swim against the tide on this one. So, there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election. As I said, It’s understandable.

 

And Then There’s the Race Card

 

This really isn’t really a reason to vote for or against Barack Obama, but you do need to know what the next four years are going to be like with an Obama presidency.

 

During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let’s see if we can remember a few:

 

• Using the word “skinny” to refer to Obama is racist.

 

• “Community organizer” is a racist term.

 

• Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist … that would be because Raines is black.

 

• All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black.

 

• Referring to Obama as “eloquent” is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent.

 

• For goodness’ sake, don’t say that Obama is “clean.”

 

• This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a “socialist” is also racist because “socialist” is just another code word for black.

 

And so it goes. We’ve also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don’t vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he’s black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you’re a racist. Simple as that.

 

Now let’s consider the next four years under President Obama. He is certainly going to introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming “racist!” By the end of Obama’s first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another. So, what else is new?

 

The Republicans

 

One thing for sure … the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It’s just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion’s share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt’s Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans – in 1994 – recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then … this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.

 

As a matter of fact, it’s not just the Department of Education; it’s our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London … all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.

 

The Republicans don’t deserve power in Washington just as you don’t deserve a boil in the center of your forehead. There are worse things, however. Complete Democrat control or, in the case of your forehead, a nice big melanoma. Pretty much the same things, actually.

 

It’s not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us.

 

Obama’s Friends

 

By “Obama’s Friends” we mean the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko and other assorted miscreants. I could spend a lot of time here detailing the crimes of Obama’s friends --- and make no mistake, they were his friends. At this point I don’t think that any votes are going to be changed one way or another by detailing the corruption of Rezko, the America-hating of Wright or the unrepentant terrorism of Ayers. Suffice it to say that Obama was close to all of these people … and these were associations born of mutual interests and philosophies. If you think that it is fair to judge the character of a person by observing the people they surround themselves with, then the judgment of Barack Obama would be a harsh one.

 

Obama’s varied storylines regarding his relationship with Ayers have, to say the least, been interesting. The list is incomplete, but thus far we have:

 

• He was just a guy who lived in my neighborhood.

 

• I was only eight years old when he was throwing bombs.

 

• I didn’t know about his history when we started working together

 

• I thought he had been rehabilitated.

 

Yeah … I guess it’s OK if you form a close relationship with a bomb-throwing terrorist, as long as he threw the bombs when you were a kid. Works for me. Work for you? In a similar vein, It must be your pastor rails against America, as long as you aren’t in church on those particular days. Or maybe we should say as long as nobody remembers actually seeing you in church on those days.

 

One interesting point: If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn’t qualify for a security clearance. Pretty pathetic. If Barack Obama becomes president, he would not even qualify to be his own bodyguard.

 

Obama’s Tax Policies

 

You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By “legitimate functions” I’m referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, for instance.

 

Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a “legitimate” function of government, but let’s save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government’s taxing authority than many of us do.

 

Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don’t have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.

 

Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether you are going to be a customer of government or not. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy an even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.

 

Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of “fairness.” In other words, Obama didn’t wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous “fairness” in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who actually need it.

 

Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let’s see. I know I’ve heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1975 in a writing called “Critique of the Gotha Program.” This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering Obama’s self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn’t read that? Maybe that’s because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He’s eloquent, isn’t he? And he has a good narrative.

 

As I’ve indicated, I’ve been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream “communism” every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you … right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they’ll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn’t it?

 

Does this reflect your philosophy?

 

Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his “spread the wealth around” tax policy.

 

Let’s talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I’m going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can’t get those beats back. They’re gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left … and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats – your life – being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don’t need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.

 

Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don’t want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don’t “need” it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the wealth they need by themselves … or, as Obama puts it, “spread around.”

 

What is Obama going to do? How does he determine “need?” What data does he use to determine “fairness?” Maybe he’ll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic “need” level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person’s wealth they really don’t “need,” it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be “fair,” wouldn’t it? Come on, it’s not exactly like you worked for that money.

 

Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called “the less fortunate.” This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn’t that the world you want to live in?

 

There’s a quote that’s been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy’s name was Tytler. Let’s not argue spelling right now … let’s just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

 

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Think about this, my friends. Isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing right now? In fact, hasn’t this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he’s only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn’t take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don’t need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else’s money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

 

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That’s change you can believe in.

 

Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs

 

Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that’s a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don’t pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please … just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn’t pay taxes?

 

Here’s the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don’t pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama’s plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It’s convoluted, to say the least, but that’s out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he’s going to cut taxes for don’t pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That’s nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn’t subtracted from the Trust Fund … where does it come from? Obama’s people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they’ll just go out there and get the money from those “rich people.”

 

OK … so there we are. It’s tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama’s taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as “people making over $250,000 a year.” That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a years was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail “families,” not “people” earning over 250 grand. If you’re single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you’re talking to. We’ll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.

 

There’s your first lie.

 

So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America’s small business owners.

 

The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh … and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America’s small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One’s tax increases.

 

If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business … and if you vote for Obama … then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack’s tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You’re an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you’ll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!

 

In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama’s tax increases on America’s small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don’t pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It’s a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America’s small businesses don’t make $250,000 a year, and thus won’t be affected by Obama’s tax increases.

 

That’s the second lie. A lie of omission.

 

Obama’s statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that “95% of all small businesses” line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.

 

The trick here is that the vast majority of America’s small businesses are just that … small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80’s that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.

 

When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.

 

The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled “Socking It to Small Businesses.” The WSJ reports that Obama is right “that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years.” There’s more to the story though: “.. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama’s tax increase.” The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.

 

The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama’s tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.

 

Again … it is not the percentage of businesses who will have to pay the increased taxes; it’s the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won’t make it for you; so Obama’s “95% of all small businesses don’t make $250,000” line will probably rule the day.

 

Come on folks. These are your jobs we’re talking about here. It’s time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they’re trying to fool you doesn’t mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that’s change you can believe in, right?

 

Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.

 

Now since we’re talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah’s “Employee Free Choice Act.” Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words “free choice” to Obama’s plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words “fun sex” to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama’s plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.

 

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time … and it’s all behind Obama’s candidacy.

 

To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote “no” on the secret ballot if that’s how they truly feel.

 

How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let’s go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:

 

[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]

 

Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla

Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero

7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos

Colonia Centro

Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200

Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.

 

As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.

 

We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.

 

We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.

 

Signed:

 

George Miller

Bernard Sanders

Lane Evans

Marcy Kaptur

William J. Coyne

Bob Filner

Martin Olav Sabo

Joe Baca

Dennis J. Kucinich

Fortney Pete Stark

James P. McGovern

Barney Frank

Zoe Lofgren

Calvin M. Dooley

Barbara Lee

Lloyd Doggett

 

So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good … because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.

 

That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that’s simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed … and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law … the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and “urge” them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: “Mrs. Johnson, wouldn’t you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?” Now put yourself in the worker’s place!

 

Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying “You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don’t you?” And you’re going to tell him no?

 

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don’t see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It’s payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides … the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.

 

But – we’re saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: “ … we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.” So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?

 

Well … um … maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.

 

I’m afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .

 

On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here’s Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was “absolutely necessary,” to introducing a bill eliminating those “absolutely necessary” secret ballots? Control of congress; that’s what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats … and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you’re seeing here? You’re seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn’t matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say “frog” you had better jump.

 

Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they’re going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.

 

When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place – and he most certainly will – jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.

 

Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?

 

The Supreme Court

 

This is getting to be a bit long. We’re over 6,200 words here. So let’s end this message to the undecided voter with a few words about the Supreme Court.

 

It is quite possible that Barack Obama will get to make one, maybe two Supreme Court appointments before he’s through in Washington. It is also possible that he will have a filibuster-proof Senate to help him ram those choices through.

 

I’m a lawyer, and I’ve always had this strange idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should base its decisions on the supreme law of our land, our Constitution. Many people think differently these days. A recent and rather shocking survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what’s “fair.” Egad! On the other hand, the strong majority of McCain voters believe that the Supremes should look to our Constitution as the final authority.

 

Let’s just make this short and sweet, because I know you want to get out of here. If Barack Obama gets those two nominations, and if the Democrat Senate rubber-stamps them, then we are going to have a Supreme Court making decisions based on their liberal definition of “fairness” with some consideration to foreign court decisions tossed in. This is perhaps Obama’s greatest opportunity to do permanent damage to our Republic; permanent and irreparable damage. It’s one thing when Barack Obama talks about wealth seizure and redistribution in terms of “fairness.” It’s quite another when that talk is legitimized by a Supreme Court decision.

 

So, dear undecided voters … as Og Mandino (a great American) once said: “Use wisely your power of choice.” There’s a lot hanging in the balance.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Who hasn't said something like this? Everyone gives some kind of "categorical denial" when they are asked before they're ready to announce it, almost to the point where it's pointless to even ask. Even Hillary did it when it was pretty much a no-brainer that she'd be running. Maybe it's just me but I don't think it's a big deal for somebody to lie about whether they want to run for president.

I don't know really...not too many people are asked to hold the highest office in the land without having any experience to do so. I don't think his categorical denial was due to him being asked before he was ready to announce it. I think it was because he had no business being asked that question in the first place and he knew it. But once the masses fell in love with his ability to read a teleprompter in 2004, the campaign was on.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't know really...not too many people are asked to hold the highest office in the land without having any experience to do so. I don't think his categorical denial was due to him being asked before he was ready to announce it. I think it was because he had no business being asked that question in the first place and he knew it. But once the masses fell in love with his ability to read a teleprompter in 2004, the campaign was on.

1. Unless they are an incumbent, no candidate for the Presidency has fully complete experience to hold the office.

 

2. Experience is certainly a key factor to consider - no doubt about it. But if you feel that Obama is inexperienced, then you really have to see Palin as the same or even lower in experience level. She's the VP so its not quite as important, but its still important, given how much McCain says he will lean on her.

 

3. To say that Obama, or Palin or Biden or McCain, has NO experience, is just not true. Obama has been a US Senator for 4 years, and was a 2 term state senator before that. Palin has been a Governor, though only for a couple years. They both lack experience, but are not entirely without it.

 

4. Open question - what is the "right" experience to have, to be qualified? Certainly, John McCain, or as a Dem example Bill Richardson, have a lot more political leadership experience than Obama does. But since no one is experienced at being President, how much importance do those experiences have? How much is Senatorial experience, or governorship, really akin to the job they are running for?

 

[Controlled Chaos]

1. Unless they are an incumbent, no candidate for the Presidency has fully complete experience to hold the office.

 

2. Experience is certainly a key factor to consider - no doubt about it. But if you feel that Obama is inexperienced, then you really have to see Palin as the same or even lower in experience level. She's the VP so its not quite as important, but its still important, given how much McCain says he will lean on her.

 

3. To say that Obama, or Palin or Biden or McCain, has NO experience, is just not true. Obama has been a US Senator for 4 years, and was a 2 term state senator before that. Palin has been a Governor, though only for a couple years. They both lack experience, but are not entirely without it.

 

4. Open question - what is the "right" experience to have, to be qualified? Certainly, John McCain, or as a Dem example Bill Richardson, have a lot more political leadership experience than Obama does. But since no one is experienced at being President, how much importance do those experiences have? How much is Senatorial experience, or governorship, really akin to the job they are running for?

 

He was asked in 2004 when he was elected. That was my point in responding to lostfan, he was asked about running for President right after he was elected to the US Senate and the reason he said unequivocally no, wasn't because he wasn't ready to announce his candidacy, it was because even he felt it was a ludicrous suggestion so early in his career.

 

As for what experience you need? I'm not sure. I agree with your first point that no candidate has the full experience to hold that office. I do think McCain qualifies as much as a person can. He's been led. He has led. He has made tough decisions in the toughest of times and he has spent his life serving this country. Now you may not agree with his policies and that's to each their own and that will ultimately determine a persons vote, but I would think everyone can agree that the credentials are most certainly there with him.

 

I agree Palin is inexperienced, but I wouldn't say the same or even lower than Obama. Obama's main experience is in running for office. She has been a governor for 2 years. I know many just want to totally disregard that, but she has made executive decisions. She has fought against corruption and stood up to her own party.

 

[lostfan]

There's really no correlation between what somebody was before running for office and that person's actual performance when in office. For every example of a "good" president with a certain background there is a mediocre/bad one too. "Executive experience" is overrated IMO and not even a criteria I look at.

 

Reagan was a governor and made a good president. Carter was a governor and made a bad one.

 

Warren G. Harding was a legislator and made one of the worst presidents in history. JFK was a legislator and was one of the best.

 

Eisenhower was a general and made a pretty good president. Andrew Jackson was a pretty meh one.

 

Truman was a VP who took over when his president died and did decent (despite views of him at the time), Andrew Johnson was also a VP and ended up being pretty s***ty (despite views of him at the time). Bush 41 was a decent VP turned President... Richard Nixon not so much.

Edited October 22, 2008 by lostfan

[BigSqwert]

Yikes. Just a thought but probably not a good idea to post a 30K word essay in a message board. Chances of anyone reading it are slim to none.

[Controlled Chaos]

Yikes. Just a thought but probably not a good idea to post a 30K word essay in a message board. Chances of anyone reading it are slim to none.

I agree it's pretty dam long, but those who see the title and want to read it...will.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I agree it's pretty dam long, but those who see the title and want to read it...will.

 

 

I read it over my lunch break. Very interesting too if you are willing to devote 20-30 minutes of your time. I'm not sorry I did and I am glad you posted it. Even saved the link to forward to a couple of my friends later on.

[Controlled Chaos]

Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?

By P.J. Gladnick

Created 2008-10-08 16:15

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times [1], MSNBC [2], and the New York Times [3], among others.

 

So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?

 

Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog [4]:

 

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform [5] as unconstitutional.

 

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

 

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization [6] had archived the page.

 

 

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':

"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

 

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

 

 

You can find the above quote from the scubbed New Party web page at this Internet Archive Organization link [7]. More confirmation of Obama's membership in the New Party can be found at an article [8] in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

 

The Democratic Socialist Party of America also reported on Obama's New Party membership in its July/August 1996 edition [9]:

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

 

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

 

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

 

 

Kudos to Politically Drunk On Power for digging up this information about Obama's membership in the socialist New Party. The question now is if the MSM will deem his party membership important enough to report on. They sure didn't hesitate to report on Todd Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party.

 

UPDATE: Yet more proof of Obama's close involvement in the socialist New Party from NewsBusters' Hermano who provided this link [10] to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of American September-October 1995 New Ground 42 edition:

 

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

 

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

 

 

So Obama signed a contract with the New Party? Verrrry interesting.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I got sucked into going to one of their rallies with a friend a few years back, under the guise that it was a labor rally, and that she didn't want to drive into Chicago. Let's just say I almost got her kicked out of the place... Jan Shakowsky was the main speaker that night.

[Controlled Chaos]

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read

"Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

 

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I

laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the

coincidence.

 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him

that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He

stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to

redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless

guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

 

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5 and told him to thank the

server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless

guy was grateful.

 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I

realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn,

but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn

even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

 

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in

concept than in practical application.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read

"Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

 

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I

laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the

coincidence.

 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him

that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He

stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to

redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless

guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

 

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5 and told him to thank the

server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless

guy was grateful.

 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I

realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn,

but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn

even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

 

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in

concept than in practical application.

 

Amazing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cknolls]

We noted here and elsewhere the astonishing degree of fraud that has fueled Barack Obama's record fundraising. The ultimate instance of Obama-fraud was achieved by a reader of The Corner:

 

So I went to the Obama website this afternoon and clicked on the "Donate" button.

 

I used my real MasterCard number (but was not asked for the 3 digit security code).

 

Used the following information and it was accepted...

 

First name: Fake

Last Name: Donor

Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point

City: Fraudulent

State: AL

Zip / Post: 33333

Email Address: [email protected]

Phone Number: 2125551212

Employer: Mainstream Media

Occupation: Being in the Tank

 

And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!

 

I then went to the McCain site and used the exact same information (and WAS asked for the 3 digit security code for my MasterCard). There, my contribution was rejected with the following message: "Your transaction was not approved for the following reason(s): Invalid data", and then: "We have found errors in the information that you have submitted. Please review the information below and try again."

 

 

 

Is this how he raises record amounts?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------