About Me

Name: John - History...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Definitions and History

There is no question that ACORN needs to be investigated. However, what needs to be presented to the American People is the connection between Obama and the redical left-wing group ACORN. Obama taught them on how to organize, was aware of the intimidation it used to get banks to lend to poor families, and represented them in the Court system. This is the same organization that was guilty of voter fraud. I am not sure about most of you, but I don't want a President that has been associated with this type of organization. However, the mainstream media will not bring this to the attention of the American People. It is amazing to me that the media is no longer interested in the truth but only in who wins the "White House".  There can be no argument that NBC (Nothing But Communism) is a far left media outlet.  It is also clear that ABC (Always Broadcasting Communism), CNN (Communist News Network) and CBS (Communism Broadcasting Station) are following suit. Just look at the condesending way "Charlie" Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin (looking over his glasses - a classic sign of disrespect). If he would have done that same interview, in his same condesending manner, with Obama or Biden, he would have been fired and crucified in the media.  It astounds me that liberals will not admit this. It is clear and the evidence overwhelming but yet liberals refuse to acknowledge it. I assume that by not admitting it, they believe that it is not ture.  Reasonable people, which is most of America, I believe, see through this and know these mainstream media outlets have a vested interest in getting Obama elected President. This is the reason that ACORN, and Obama's connection to that organization, will not ever be brought to light by these outlets.  It is sad really. This election has certianly shown that fair reporting, emotionless reporting, and ethical journalism has died in this country.
 
Now, the term "fascism" is defined as a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.  Does this sound like Obama? It should by the words he uses as well as his proposals for this country. He will use very soft sounding words but the meaning is the same. Universal health care is an extreme form of social regimentation. The use of prosecutors, or the so-called Truth Police, is the suppression of opposing view points. This is so anti-American that it is scary. The freedom of speech is one of the basic freedoms guaranteed to us in the First Amendment to the Constitution. If the republicans tried to suppress political speech of a liberal, the liberals would be screaming about violations of the rights of its followers. But when the liberals do the same thing, it is accepted as trying to stop lies from being told.....like that is a reason given the filth and lies perpetrated by the liberals. Political speech is one area where even the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to limit. But the liberals do it without fear. This is forcible suppression of the opposition. For Obama, the state is everything. The people should exists for the state and not that the state should exist for the people. Obama wants to control health care, taxes, entitlements, and how much the "rich" can keep of their own money. At the same time, he wants to give to the "poor" from the spoils that he takes from the "rich". He is modern day Robin Hood (that is not a good thing really).  Obama wants a facist society in many respects but a socialist society in others.
 
The main difference between facism and socialism is that in socialism the government will often times control the means of production and the distribution of goods. Under facism, the state will allow businesses to control the means of production and the distribution of goods but under severe strict governmental control. However, Obama does want to control the means of distribution of one thing in the country - wealth. He wants to control how much money the government gets in revenues and how much he will give to the poor for entitlements. This is anti-American and shows that Obama is not for a capitalistic America.
 
Obama does not have a very good record of backing the foundations on which this country was founded. High taxes is not what was intended. People should be able to keep their wealth and pass it along to their children. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the ability of those that do not have is there to work and get part of that wealth. My grandparents came to this country in the early 1900s. They did not have anything and did not speak English. However, they learned how to speak English and they were glad to do that since they came to this country and English is the language. Now, my father did grow up speaking Italian in the home but was told by his parents that he would speak English outside the home. My grandparents in no way expected that the people of American would change to learn Italian. This should still hold true today but sadly it does not. If people believe that Obama will lower taxes has no knowledge of the past democratic presidents that have made that same promise; and yes, even some republican presidents.
 
Obama, being aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN, is guilty of sanctioning such tactics by not coming out agaisnt them at the time. He was aware that ACRON was putting tremendous pressue on banks to loan to low income families. This is not just wrong - it is dangerous. Obama should have exposed those performing these acts and condeming those actions. Instead, he continued to support ACORN and its operations. Shameful! His dealings with ACORN should be brought up in the debates and he should have to explain why he did not come out and condemn such actions or at least disassociate himself from the organization knowing of these, more than likely, illegal acts. 
 
Now, banks have certain standards or conditions that it looks for in a potential debtor but they had tremendous pressue placed upon them to disregard those conditions or standards and give loans to those that could not afford it or would normally be denied a loan.  It is not a constitutional right that all Americans own a home. Banks have these standards to prevent the exact crisis in which we find ourselves. Obama should come out and admit his part in the situation that we find ourselves. However, he has never been his own man. He was always done the bidding of those that could propell him to higher office and power.
 
It is important to know the definitions of the various policital philosophies of the world. Socialism, facism, communism and captialism are the most prevelent. Once you know these definitions, listen to Obama carefully and make an informed decision as to where he falls in the political spectrum. If liberals can do this without emotion and bias, which I seriously doubt can be done, they will see that he does not like capitalism but is straddling the fence between socialism and facism.  I am sure the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves since it appears that an anti-American person will be elected President.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi should Resign but at least She gave us an Education

I was surprised and insulted by Speaker Pelosi's speech just before the vote yesterday. When it was announced that the Speaker's speech may have been a part of the reason the bill failed, the democrats, specifically Rep. Frank, came out and blamed the republicans. Rep. Frank should have been talking to the republicans in an "uncharacteristically nice" way through this entire crisis. The democrats needed this bill to pass because they control congress. Pelosi's speech was repleat with disdain for the President and the republicans. I think it was Obama that said that "words matter". I am sure that the democrats on Capital Hill have forgotten that even though it came from a member of their own party who wants to become President. Rep. Frank should be begging the republicans to vote for the bill and do whatever he can to get their agreement because he was one of the ranking members of congress that would not allow more oversight of Frannie and Freddie back in 2004-2005.
 
Rep. Frank said "give me the names of the 12 republicans [who did not vote for the bill becasue of Pelosi's remarks] and I will go and talk uncharacteristically nicely to them." He also asked how could someone hurt the country over what was said by Pelosi. Words matter and that is that. There is no question that Pelosi is a very weak House Speaker. The Congress has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in history. And then on the very eve of the vote on one of the most important bills for the American People, she delivers a very partisan speech when she was trying to get the votes of members of the party for which she is bashing. This is a perfect example of a politician speaking out of both sides of her mouth. She should be ashamed of herself and should resign given her awful record and the approval rating. It is clear that new leadership is needed in order for the American People to get relief. Clearly, Speaker Pelosi is more interested in politics than the plight of the American People.  This is also clear when she told 16 freshman democrats that they could vote against the bill because their races for re-election were tight. Why would she do this if she thought the bill was necessary? The answer is that she does not really care about the American People, she cares about keeping majority status in the House and her position as Speaker. This also demonstrates that she wanted bipartisan support so that many of her democratic colleagues could vote against the bill so as to keep their seats. Another member of the House was on NPR, I believe, and was saying how they wanted the republican vote to pass the bill but at the same time use that vote agaisnt them in the House races.  This is disgraceful and Speaker Pelosi allowing this is a justifiable reason for her to resign.
 
Rep. Frank should also resign his position on the finance committee. Coming out and blaming the republicans when 95 democrats voted against the bill is beneath contempt. However, the scary part is that liberals will agree with him. Democrats only needed 12 more votes but 12 of Frank's own finance committee members voted against the bill. What about the 16 freshman House members that were told they could vote against it? The democrats did not need the repulican vote to pass the bill. This is what is not told to the American People in the mainstream media but should be recognized by the people anyway. If anyone of us tried these tactics in our jobs, we would be fired on the spot.
 
However, the American People have been given an education in the last week on how corrupt the system is and how much elected officials only care about keeping their seats in Congress and lining their own pockets. This past week teaches all of us how our government works and how it can breakdown. We are taught that the people we elect have our best interest at heart. This is clearly not the case and it takes time for us to know learn this honest fact. Does anyone ever wonder how it is that these politicans become so rich in Congress when they only make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year? How is it that they become millionaires only making that kind of money? It could be they were millionaires before the were elelected. However, it is more likely that they receive money from lobbyist and from compaines like Freddie and Frannie.
 
It is clear that most people were against this bill. This is the reason that Speaker Pelosi told the freshman House members they could vote against it because if it passed, they could still go back and tell the people they stood up for them even agasint their own party. Cannot even liberals see through that? Or do the democrats in Washington truly believe that the liberals will see it and ignore it or just not see it at all? They are right to think as such because liberals will not see the corruption in their own party or will ignore it for political gain. It is sad really. I do believe that some republicans do the same thing. Pelosi should come out and tell the American People that those democrats that voted agains the bill were wrong to do so. She cannot do this because she knows that this bill was very unpopular with the people and because she told many of those democrats to go ahead and vote against the bill. What arrogence she has along with Rep. Frank and many other ranking democrats.
 
Speaker Pelosi should resign as speaker. She is not one to cross the isle for the good of the country. She was under the impression that passage of the bill was a given and she got up there to make a speech, assuming it would pass, so the democrats could take all the credit and at the same time saving seats for her party. It was a very good plan until it went very wrong and we are now seeing how she is not a leader and cannot get people to come together for the good of all. She violated the principles of her party and that is to do what is best for the "little guy".
 
For all that went wrong yesterday, Pelosi shoud resign as Speaker of the House....but at least she gave the people an education on how the process works and how it is corrupted. She burst many young people's views that those in Washington actually have their interest at heart and really care for the people they represent.  Pelosi could not have given the young people of this country a better lesson at a time when the lesson learned early in life that the elected officals have the people's interest at heart should have been affirmed by the actions of those in Congress. 
Tags: economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Economy and Today's Vote

For the past week, all that we have been hearing is how a bailout bill was a necessity. As we have seen today, at least for the moment, the bill failed to pass in the House of Representatives. Rep. Frank has already come out and blamed the republicans for this failure. It is ironic that Rep. Frank and Dodd should say such comments.
 
Take a look at the hearings for Frannie and Freddie back in 2004. The republicans we calling for more regulation of these institutions. These institutions are not covered under the Security Acts of 1933 and 1934.  These acts were passed so as to give transparency to the public of public companies.  Public companies, under these acts, are required to disclose much information - as well as it should be. The republicans were calling for more regulations but it did not happen. Many of the republicans at that time were warning of this type of situation based upon the report in front of the committee in 2004. It was Rep. Frank that said there was no problem at Freddie and Frannie. I wonder just how much these democrates were taking in lobbying money to indicate there was no problem with these institutions? Why is it that liberals will work so hard to avoid responsibility? Why can't they just come out and say that they helped cause this problem? I don't understand. Allowing Rep. Frank to be on the committee right now is like allowing the criminal to announce his own sentence. It just does not make sense.
 
Also, I listened to our House Speaker give her 1 minute talk, which took 5 minutes, on the bill this morning. I was stunned to hear her bash Bush and his economic policies in the manner she did. I am sure the words she used did not help getting this bill passed. She has been a lame duck speaker since she took over. She should take the blame for this bill not passing. Over 90 democrats voted against this bill. However, as soon as the bill failed, Rep. Frank was out blaming the republicans. Does he and House Speaker forget that the democrats control both houses of congress? They could vote this bill through without any republican help. However, the democrats have been calling for bipartisanship for this bill. The question is why now since the democrates rarely call for this. The answer is simple but no one will admit it. The answer is that if the bailout fails the democrats want to be able to say it was both demorcrats and republicans that failed to properly address the issue. They have the numbers to pass it on their own and if it is that important, why cannot the speaker get her own party to vote for the bill. Over 90 democrats voted against the bill with 66 republicans voting for it. They only need 9 more votes.
 
I saw where the vote is not offically closed but there is "behind-the-door" negotiating going on. The democratic leadership should be on members of their own party to change their votes and not trying to get 9 more republicans to change their vote. This is because they don't want to take the blame if the bailout does not work. I find it difficult why it is that people just will not see this. It is clear why it is that the democrats did not pass it on their own.
 
In any event, I thought the House Speaker's comments hurt the passage of the bill. Her words were said with blame behind them and with disdain for bipartisanship. She has been in control of the House for 2 years and nothing has been done. Congress has the lowest approval rating of any congress in history under her leadership and she blames Bush. Bush does not force Congress to institute his policies or approve his budget. They can vote not to pass the budget put forward by the President. Congress has much power but it seems like, for whatever reason, the people and members of Congress blame the president for everything. Where is the accountability for the votes that the members of Congress cast?
 
I do not want to pay more taxes but this is what is going to happen and we must resign outselves to it. I want to know how much the members of Congress have received in monetary compensation from lobbyist from Freddie and Frannie. It is my understanding that Obama has taken much as well as other leading democrats such as Mrs. Clinton. She has been loudly silent since this crisis has begun.
 
It is times like this that we all need to know our history. The politicians expect us to forget the past and they are right to do so since most of us do forget the past. We all don't have the time to watch C-SPAN all day either. This is where the media needs to be fair and tell us what took place in the past - like the hearings for more regulations of Freddie and Frannie back in 2004 which the democrats refused to do. Like I have said, know your history for it will be revealing. It is the only way to the real truth and not just spin on the truth that constantly comes out of Washington from both parties.
Tags: economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialism - Obama Revealed

I have recently began reading "Socialism - A Very Short Introduction" by Michael Newman.   With some of the ideas of socialism revealed, I could not help but think that the liberals and Obama are socialists but will not call themselves as such.
 
The fundamental characterists of socialism, as outlined on pages 2 - 4 of the book are as follows:
 
1. There is a commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society. Socialists may not agree on the extent that inequality can be eradicated, but no socialist would defend the current inequalities of wealth and power. Socialists maintain that  the privileges and opportunities are derived from the hereditary ownership of capital and wealth. Socialists also maintain that there is a cycle of deprivation that limits the opportunties and influence at the other end.
 
2.  Socialists believe that there is a possiblity of constructing an alternative egalitarian system based upon the values of solidarity and cooperation.
 
3.  Socialists have a optimitic view of human beings and their ability to cooperate with one another. Socialists have rejected views that have stressed the individual self-interest and competition as the sole motiviating factor of human behavior.  Socialists have regarded this perspective as the product of a particular kind of society, rather than a fact about human beings.
 
4.  Most socialists are convinced that it is possible to make significant changes in the world through conscious human agency.
 
An egalitarian society was tried. A classless society was tried. It is called communism and it has failed.  People want to be free and to flurish based upon their own successes.  A liberal society will do some of that, but will certainly narrow signficiantly the gap between the classes. Inequality in society will never be fully eradicated because those that invent and provide for the good of society through their own hard work will want greater reward and those that fit into that catagory should have it.
 
A society will not flurish if based upon people's ability for solidarity and cooperation.  People have a hard time cooperating with each other. The reason for this is that there is a limited number of goods and resources in this world and we all need them. Thomas Hobbs, the philosopher, states that man's natural state is a state of war. I agree with this. This is because people crave power and power over the limited resources that are present. Money is power and those that have the money have much power.  A reliance on the cooperation of human beings is misplaced. This has been shown thoughout history. 
 
This also brings to mind the statement that Obama would sit down with the Iranian President. What good will that do? Look at the history of the Middle East. Obama is not the chosen one to get into a dissucsion with the Iranian president and change his mind. History has shown that that will not happen. The Iranian president is doing as Hitler did with Prime Minister Chamberlain in the 1930s.  A great book on this time is called "On Borrowed Time" by Leonard Mosley.  If Obama believes that he has the skills to go into talks with Iran and actually expects them to agree with his terms, he is not only wrong but recklessly so.  It will not happen.  History has shown that number 4 above is wrong and dangerous to believe as true.
 
Listen to Obama carefully. His words are hollow and have no substance. If you ponder his words, you will see that he fits very well into the category of socialism.  There is no question about this. The United States has shown that capitalism works and it was the foundation on which this country was founded.  It should remain so and will not remain so under Obama. Look at his tax plan and his spending proposals, as well as his voting record on increasing taxes and soical entitlements. It is the most liberal voting record in the Senate. It is not just voting against Bush. He said this because it is popular. It is the most liberal because that is what he is - liberal. Obama is liberal to the point of being a socialist and we should all be very afraid of where he wants to take this country under the socialist proposals he has made.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

See Underneath

I watched the debate last evening. I am not here to say who won and who lost. I am going to vote McCain so no need for me to go into why I will vote for him.
 
I have heard Obama speak and I keep asking myself - "Why will  people vote for him when if you look undernearth the words there is nothing of substance?" Also, I keep asking myself - "Cannot people tell that Obama is a socialist and leans toward communism?" If you listen closely, you will hear how Obama wants to take from the "rich" and give to the poor. Senator Biden said just a week or so ago - "We will TAKE from the rich and spread the money around......" or something to that affect. This is socialism in its basic form. Cannot people see that? Listen for terms like "universal" "my program will include ALL people" "only the top 5 percent will get their taxes increased" "lower taxes on the middle class and the poor". These all signal socialism....bringing the rich down by taking and bringing the poor up by giving. This will decrease the gap between the rich and poor but this, in the extreme, leads to communism. Under the Obama plan, it is just socialism.
 
Obama does not believe in the capitalistic foundation of this country. He wants more taxes so that he can fund all his social programs.  Again, look at the money he wants for social programs - this is soicalism. Look at how he wants government to be involved in all aspects of our lives...even having the government pick our doctors. Again, this is socialism.  Once you get underneath the words, you see that his basic philosophy, like most liberals, is socialism. The far left borders on communism. I fear for the future of our country under Obama who really is a socialist and who really does not like his country. I often ask myself - "Why does Obama and his wife hate the very country that has allowed him to ascend to the U.S. Senate?" He says he loves this country. I don't believe that he does. I believes that he loves this country under his policies and subject to his control. That is the country he loves - not the country as it was founded or has come to be.
 
Be careful of the change Obama wants to make for undernearth all the words there is no substance - but only the basis of socialism.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »