About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

300,000? 250,000? 200,000? 150,000? 120,000? 97,000?

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Monday, November 03, 2008 10:31:47 AM
The election is tomorrow and as I was walking into work I ran into a co-worker. As he opened the door to the office, he looked at me and said "you know tomorrow is going to be a sad day for the country." I answered him that "I know but I have been preparing myself." What he meant is that he believes that Obama will win the election as do I. However, the thing that bothers me is that no matter what Obama says that will hurt this country, he is still loved by so many.
 
Over the course of his campaign, he tax increases for the rich has gone from $300,000 down to $120,000. Obama said first that he would only raise taxes on those that make $300,000 or more. During the course of his campaign the number was reduced to $250,000. In his informercial, Obama reduced the number down to $200,000. His running mate then reduced the number down to $150,000. Then Governor Richardson from New Mexico reduced it even further to $120,000. If you look at what Obama said to Hilary Clinton in the primary, he believes that the top earners are those that make more than $97,000. There is a trend here but Obama feels good in reducing the number because he knows that it won't matter. Remember, he voted to increase taxes on  individuals only making $42,000. Before you know it, he will raise taxes on everyone. I have said this before, he will win the race and when he gets in, he will realize that he can't do all that he said he would because the situation is worse than expected. Once that comes out, he will not cut anyone's taxes but will raise everyone's.
 
Also, Obama is supposed to be for energy independence. However, a president should give incentives to companies to create more energy independence and not a disincentive. His statement that companies can build more coal plants but it will bankrupt them is scary. This should not be the policy of the president. Obama believes that the government should be the largest employer in the country. This is not a good idea. He must remember that the companies that he wants to bankrupt are the ones that employ people.  There is a cause and effect in all that he will do. If he raises taxes and bankrupts more companies, then the economy will get worse or collapse. He will cause this and the only way out is for the government to take over.  That is called socialism.  Paying taxes is not patriotic and wanting to keep more of your money is not selfishness.  He will destroy this country as it was envisioned by the founding fathers. It will no longer be a beckon of light for those that want to get ahead. It will be just another socialist country where we just go through life with nothing as our goal.
 
It  also causes me confusion as to how a presidental candidate can tell the American people that he will tax them more, bankrupt businesses that employ people, have them rely on governmnet more, and tell them he will change the world without explaining what that means and the people follow blindly. This is the same thing that happened in Germany in the 1930s and it is happening here. Our fate is in our own hands and we are killing ourselves while smiling even though we know and have been told that we are going to our own death.
 
I believe that Obama will win in what will appear to be a landslide. He will win a large number of electorial votes but the actual numbers will be closer. He will throw himself a big party and he should since he will have pulled the wool over millions of people's eyes. He is not a champion for the lower class but is the leader of a movement to get the classes to clash.
 
I so wanted to believe that the American people would, in the end, see through the lies but it is not going to happen. Obama lies to us all the time and most of us believe it. I have not believed it but there is nothing I can do to make people see it.  Reason and logic has gone out the window. I heard something great the other day on Huckabee. He spoke about a high school student that got an A on a paper. She told him that she would not like it if the teacher took her A and gave some it to a person that did not do the project so that everyone got a C. This is a great example of what is going to happen. No one would be happy with that but that is the reality of what is going to take place.  The supporters of Obama are marching along like cattle to the slaughter and have lost all reason and the ability to reason.  For instance, Pelosi presides over the Congress with the lowest approval rating ever but she will preside over the House with a larger majority because despite her horrible leadership people still trust her to lead. It is beyond my logic to know how this can happen.
 
I am sad today and will be even more so in the days to come. I fear for this country and the country that my kids may have to grow up in. Obama will not take care of my kids or my parents for he does not protect the young or old alike. The only comfort I have is knowing that when Obama meets God, God will send him to Hell to be with those that believed they knew better than God.  Obama truly believes he is the second coming and will burn in the fires of Hell for all eternity. I take solice in that for there is nothing I can do about it at the present time for the collective mind of America has forgotten how to think on its own.  Logic and reason have found a place to be buried in this world and I never dreamed it would be in America.........
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's Good for the Goose........

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:08:02 AM
I have been watching some events unfold this week in the news. Particularly two stories: one of the effigy of Sarah Palin haning in West Hollywood and the other regarding the story of Obama at a dinner with the former spokesperson for the PLO. What I keep thinking is "Why is it that people accept a double standard?"
 
I saw an interview with a woman outside the home where Sarah Palin's effigy was hanging and she said that there was no problem with it because it was political speech and it was part of a Halloween display. The reporter asked her if it would be okay for Obama to be shown hanging and she said "no." The reporter then asked her why that was not a double standard and she rightfully admitted that it was a double standard.  I think she was the only honest democrat that would have admitted the double standard.  If anyone would have hung an effigy of Obama there would have been such an outcry by the MSM that it would have been taken down immediately, the person charged with a hate crime, and there would have been violence in the streets. The same result would have been for Biden. This shows that democrats are okay when these things are done to those they oppose but will not tolerate it when it is done to someone they support. Democrat is a word that in some languages means "double standard."  This is also shown by Pelosi's comment that if the democrats win a supermajority of the Senate and pick up seats in the House, then Congress will become more bipartisan. What a joke! Did she actually say that with a straight face? With Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the democrats will not care one iota what the conservatives think. They will pass any bill that they want and Obama will sign it since he does not have the guts to stand up to the party.
 
This is just like the democrats. They cry free speech when it suits their needs but will try to suppress speech when it does not suit their needs. For instance, the reporter in Florida, Ms. West, who asked some very hard questions of Biden. Do I believe that the questions were over the line? No. Do I think they were good questions? No. Do I think that with all the rhetoric going on about Obama being a socialist that Biden should have been able to answer the question? Yes. Clearly the democrats did not like the hard questions....but then again, why would they like them when they are so used to getting softball questions from the MSM. So what did the democrats do? Did they say that Ms. West was entitled to ask what she wanted to? no matter how outlandish they think it was? No! They banish the station from anymore interviews! This is a suppression of speech. Of course, it is not surprising that they cancelled anymore interviews because when anyone asks democrats hard questions they are punished.  This is the exact reason that Obama had his infomercial. I will admit that I did not watch the infomercial since the title of "infomerical" was misleading. It was Obama's time to go over again, in a setting of his own choosing and without having to answer the tough questions, the policies for which he wants to institute for this country without really explaining how he would do it or pay for it. I read some articles on it this morning and that is what is being said. There was nothing new. There was no explanation of his ties to radicals or really any substantive explaination for he implimentation for his plans. I have said many times that Obama is not his own man anymore for all the promiese he has made and who he has made them to. 
 
The other story is the one about the LA Times not allowing the American people to see the tape of Obama at a dinner with Ayers and a former spokesman for the PLO. The LA Times is stating that it is because they ran the story after giving a promise to a confidental source that they would not disclose the tape. I trust the LA Times as much as they are pro-republican. In the interest of national justice, they should disclose the tape. Does anyone think for a second that if John McCain were taped at a David Duke rally that the tape would not be all over the place despite a promise to a confidental source? Sure it would becasue the LA Times has an agenda to get Obama elected and will cover up the truth to do it. This is a theme with the MSM and the democrats. It must have some pretty damning evidence for them to not release it. I think that it shows Obama at a dinner praising a PLO member and bashing Israel. It will also show Obama praising this terrorist for his efforts to bring "peace" to the region. It will continue to show Obama's true colors as being sympathetic toward radical Islam and against Israel. 
 
I hope that tape comes out for we don't know enough about Obama and we need to if we are going to put him to the most powerful position in the world. We need to know his past associations and his true feelings about the USA and the world.  Without that information, we are just rolling the dice and that is not a way to elect a president.........
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America.....that's your feet you're shooting!

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:08:56 AM
I went to lunch the other day with a person I consider the most intelligent person I have ever met. He has lived overseas in a soclialist country and knows what socialism is like. He tells me we are heading in that direction if Obama is elected. The other thing he said to me is that Americans don't have any idea how well we have it here [with our freedoms].  I believe him when he tells me things like this since he has traveled the world.
 
I told him that the questions I can't answer is why it is that America wants to shoot itself in the foot. I don't understand how any rational thinking American can vote for Obama. Obama comes right out and tells us he will tax us more. I know that he says it will only be the top 5% but if you know your history such a statement has been historically false. He will raise the capital gains tax; he will not cap the social security tax; he will reduce the deductions for individuals (which increases the tax liability); he will not amend the AMT tax which was specifically targeted for high income individuals but has never been indexed for inflation so know it affects up to 30 million Americans; he will raise the taxes on dividends; he will bring back the death tax.  Obama tells us he will do these things but yet people are behind him. I thought that everyone would want to keep more of their money.  However, I think that what has become more imporant than keeping money is Americans want a hand out. Americans have come so far a field that we don't want to work but yet be taken care of in our life. And not just taken care of, but believe we are entitled to a nice home, nice car and all the luxuries we want. And the worst part is that is the definition of socialism. The bad part is that there will never be enough money to allow all of us to have what we want. It is just not possible unless we become a communist country and all are in poverty.
 
I don't think that the top 1% of earners should pay more than 60% of the taxes. That is the ratio now. The democrats have come out and said that the rich need to pay more in taxes. The democrats will raise the corporate taxes. They have no idea what this will do for the ultimate consumer.
 
However, the one part that scares me the most is that the democrats want to cut the miliary budget by 25% at a time when we are at war. This will also mean that programs that will more efficiently protect us will be cut. Just look at the words of Barney Frank and what he said this week. It is scarey but the Americans don't care......this is the anomaly I was speaking about to my very wise friend the other day. I think the only answer is that people want change for change sake. It is not that people want change as a means to an end but want change as an end in itself.  The American people don't care where the change will take us and this is dangerous. It is like driving in the dark without lights down a road that you have never traveled going 100 MPH. Ultimately you will crash and burn.....this is what will happen to America.  And it will happen quicker than anyone expects besides Joe Biden. He realized this when he said "Mark my words, within the first 6 months there will be an international challenge."  He also went on to tell the democrats that they will have to hang tough for it will not be apparent that Obama will have chosen the right path. This should scare the hell out of everyone that loves this country.
 
Biden has admitted that Obama is not ready and will invite trouble so as to "test" him. The democrat from Pennsylvania can call his own constituents "racist" and "redneck" and retain his seat is beyond me. This just shows that people don't care as long as there is change at the top. People should be very afraid of what they will get under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. It is as if the democrats can do no wrong and this is just like Hitler in Germany in the 1930s.  We are heading in that direction and we all know what happened to Germany as a result of Hitler gaining power.  Germans in the 1930s wanted change for change's sake and they got what they wanted from a man that told them what they wanted to hear.  They did not care to look beneath the words of Hitler or his words in his own book. We are doing the same thing and in the end we may very well lose a war against those that hate us.  But the difference will be that with Hitler the outside world defeated him but with America, this time around, we will have beaten ourself from the inside.  Obama, Reid and Pelosi hate this country and want to see it reduced in power in the eyes of the world.
 
Americans are the feet and Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are holding the gun and are aiming it at the feet of America. They will pull the trigger with our permission and even with our knowledge.  They are not even hiding the fact that they are turning this country down the path of socialism and we accept it.
 
They will shoot this country in the feet and will cripple us forever........
 
 
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race......Start Your Engines

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:15:12 PM
When I was a boy, the word "race" was never used in the context of black and white. I grew up in a small town of very few blacks. When I went to high school, I knew most of them and played sports with most of them.  I knew them as friends and very good people. I never equated them with being black and, therefore, to be shunned.  I saw them as people and am happy to say that I knew them and got to be friends with them.  Maybe growing up in small town Ohio shielded me from such bigotry in the world.  Barry, Chad, Craig, Steve, Shawn and Mark (just to name a few), it was wonderful growing up with you guys and I still carry around many good memories of times with you.
 
When I was a kid, I could look at Mark or Steve and ask - Do you want to race? Never did I get a response out of context. We all knew that when we said "race", it was to see who could run the fastest. It never, ever had to do with the color of someone's skin.  What happened to those days? I believe they are gone. I think the reason that they are gone may surprise you.
 
I believe that the reason the days of "race" being about a foot race are gone is because the black leaders make it an issue. Now, do I believe there are those that are racist? - yes. Do I believe that most Americans are racist? - Absolutely not. In looking at the campaigns, McCain has said absolutely nothing about race. Sarah Palin has said absolutely nothing about race. The only person to bring up race is Obama himself. However, when he does not bring it up, his campaign does. Amercians are good people and they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but to be called a racist just becasue one does not like Obama is beneath comtempt.
 
Boy, how I long for the days where two kids of any color can say to each other - "Do you want to race?" or "I will race you." without there being anything negative attached to it.  It is up to the black leaders to make this happen but I don't see that happening anytime soon.  Trying to convice the people in this country that most of the whites are racist is there full time job and they are getting rich doing it.  The "race" card is making many black leaders a lot of money so, fear not, the race issue will remain.  So - on your mark......... get set........... GO!.........
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Foreshadowing is in the Air....

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:00:29 AM
When the question of Israel has come to the forefront, Democrats scream that Obama is behind Israel.  We have heard over and over that Obama will maintain the connectin with Israel and will not leave them to their own devices.  I think very few fully understand the necessity of maintaining our alliance with Israel especially in the face of an Iranian President that wants to wipe them off the map and is acquiring the weapons to do just that.  It is in this exact type of situation that the UN is not worth the time, effort, and money to be a member.  With China and Russia as Iran's allies, the hope of tough sanctions to actually get Iran to change its ways is not forthcoming.  If Israel believes that the United States will not come to its defense, then it will take unilateral action against Iran as well as others. I don't blame them in this thinking. Israel must do whatever it takes to preserve its existence in a part of the world where it is surrounded by those that want to see Israel dissappear and the Jews exterminated.  If one believes that Israel is not fighting for its very existence, then one is most ignornant.
Now we have Jesse Jackson coming out and saying the following in the event Obama is elected:
 
The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.
 
Jesse Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

First, this begs the question that if the United States stops putting Israel's interest first in the Middle East, whose interest will be put first? Ours, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or all the muslim countries?  It is a scary proposition to say that Israel's interest will not be put first. This, by definition, means that someone else's interest will be put first. If it is anyone of the Muslim countries, then Obama will be putting the interest of countries that sponsor terrorist who kill Americans or support a culture of killing those that don't believe in the Muslim faith above that of Israel.  This should scare everyone for our very survival will be placed next in line to that of Israels.  And the worst part is that we would have elected a president that would assist in our demise.  Cannot the normal person see this? If not, then we are all in trouble. A place I believe that we are today.
 
Second, Jackson says that he isn't an Obama confidant or advisor but just a supporter.  But he has been his neighbor and a member of the family. If this does not place Jackson as a confidant or advisor I don't know what does. It just goes to support my belief that one cannot trust the words of Jesse Jackson for I believe him to be racist and dangerous. Jackson's son is a close friend of Obama and his daughter went to school with Obama's wife.  This places Jackson very close to Obama. However, in the normal liberal fashion, such an assocaition does not matter. I am sure Jackson's statement that he is not a confidant or advisor will allowed many in Israel to sleep better at night. Further, Jackson stated that he helped Obama start his career and were always there to help him move ahead.  Obama makes so many promises to those that help him along the way that such persons will exercise a great deal of influence over him. Obama is no longer his own man but has sold his soul to those that help him get "ahead" and those that have helped him gain the white house.  All of these people will exercise a great deal of influence over him and if they can't, which they will, his wife surely will do that.
 
Third, I am sure if you ask Jesse Jackson if he loves American he will say that he does. However, this too is a lie. He hates this country for things that happened well over 140 years ago.  He also stated the following about Iraq: "we have lost in Iraq."  The last time I checked, the war was still on-going. Also, the last time I checked, the surge was working and the Iraqi government is taking over more responsibility for security in the country. This does not appear to me that the war is lost.  This clearly demonstrates that Jesse Jackson does not know what he is talking about but will say anything that supports his agenda despite whether truthful or not. Despicable for a reverend who is supposed to be truthful and righteous. God help us if Obama is elected!
 
Fourth, Jackson stated that the people of the U.S. "have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."  Has not Obama been part of this Congress for 4 years now. What has Obama done while in Congress? Easy one word answer - nothing. Be very careful about what people mean when they say we need "radical change."  What this means is changing the very foundation of this country. More government, more government interference with our lives, and a change in the capitalist structure; in otherwords, facism and socialism. 
 
Lastly, Jackson stated that "Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims. Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."  This statement scares me very much. Why would anyone repair relations with a world that wants you dead. Radical Muslims (of which the Iranian President is one and one which Obama wants to sit down with) want the people of the United States that don't believe as they do dead. They want all people that don't believe as they do either converted or dead.  There are only two options for Muslims.....convert to Islam or be killed.  How is Obama to do this unless he himself is one? There are questions regarding Obama's faith not just from his background but from his statement in August about "when people questions my Muslim faith."  This was no mere slip of the tougue because it was said with such ease.  How does Obama know how Muslims feel, Mr. Jackson? The problem with people like Jackson is that they make these bold statements with no substance or evidence behind them.  The real sad part is that liberals don't care but will believe anything if it will advance their own agenda.
 
If you look at the whole of Jesse Jackson's statements, it is a foreshadowing of what is to come if Obama gets elected. If what Jackson says comes true, the people of the United States and of the world should be afraid of Obama as president.  Why would we want to take a chance on a person that has no experience and ideas that will destroy this country and turn it into a fascist state. This can and will happen becasue the liberals want this and the liberals will control Congress.  With a liberal Obama as president and the liberal controlled Congress, this country will die a quick and painful death and all the people will scratch their heads and wonder how in the world did all this happen.  Well, if you care enough to see it, the writing is and has been on the wall. It has been foreshadowed by Jesse Jackson, Obama and other liberal leaders.  When it happens, we cannot say that we were not warned.......
 
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If you Aim Your Gun at a Man......

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:10:06 PM
My Dad use to tell us kids when we were young a lesson he learned in the U.S. Army in the early 60s.  He had a sergent that use to tell him "Never aim your piece at a man unless you mean to kill him." This is a valuable lesson in that if you threaten a certain action, you must be prepared to actually take that action.  I don't believe that any of the politicians in this country have learned that lesson.
 
We hear so many campaign promises.  However, if someone actually kept track, and there maybe such a person, then I believe the promises kept are rare.  In most cases, if we as people who provide services do not keep our word to our customers, then we would be fired or the customer will not return. Why is this any different with the politicians?  It should not be any different. Politicans get elected based upon what they say they will do for the American people.  But when it comes to actually doing the things they said they would do, it rarely gets done. If I hired someone to build an addition onto my house, and I was told it would cost so much and by the time it got done it cost twice as much, I would be very upset and looking for ways to not have to pay. I was told it would cost so much and that is what I would expect the job to cost. Even if before the job was finished I knew that the contractor was not doing a good job or was running well over budget, I would fire them for not doing a good job or not keeping the job within the cost which is why the contractor was hired in the first place.
 
If we look at the promises from both candidates for president, I think that we can say that neither one will keep all their promises; which is a given anymore in a presidental election. However, when you take a look at the one whose broken promises will hurt the Amercian people and turn this nation into something never intended, then Obama is the one that will drive this country into the ground. Not only will he break his promises but he will do exactly what he said he would not do. He says that he will only raise taxes on the top wage or income earners. This is a lie; he will raise taxes on most, if not all, of us. He says he will protect small businesses but his spending policies, which will require higher taxes to fund, will drive small business out of business. This will hurt the economy more.
 
For instance, Obama has stated that he wants to halt foreclosures. Think about this for a minute. We are in the middle of a financial crisis with the credit market tightening. When someone fails to pay their mortgage, the bank does not have income from that loan. The way for the bank to get back some of that loan is to foreclose on that property and sell it. Halting foreclosures prevents banks from getting back something on a bad loan. This is a very bad idea in the mist of a credit crisis and the financial crisis.  Obama is very bad for this country. Also, read the dissertation of Obama's wife. It becomes clear that she is an angry black woman who words ring true when you read that. When she stated that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country", she was telling the truth for once.  It is clear by her dissertation that she was never proud of her country until her statement.  By reading her dissertation, it becomes clear that she hateed her country until she got to be one step away from the White House.  Think about how much she will hate this country if her husband fails to win the White House. She is as dangerous as he is and we are in trouble if he wins the white house.
 
Lastly, McCain said this week that he will kick Obama's you-know-what in the debate. Now that he has threatened it, he better have the goods to delivery it. If he does not kick Obama's butt, like he said he would do, then he has lost this election. If he was/is not sure he could/can do it, then he should not have threatened it.  McCain better pull the trigger during the debate since he has now aimed his piece at Obama.....
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hypocrites

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:52:43 AM
The term "hypocrite" is defined as "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings."  This is the word that came to my mind as I was watching a segment on Fox News' Hannity and Combs.
 
During the 2000 and 2004 elections, the democrates attacked Bush's character to be president. The democrates stated that it was important for the people of America to know the character of the president as it relates to his or her likability and judgment. Now, this was something that I agreed with back in 2000 and 2004.  The character of the President in very important not only from a world view standpoint but from a judgment standpoint.
 
Now, here we have the republicans attacking Obama based upon his associations with some not so good folks.....okay, let's just face it, people who hate America and want to see it destroyed as it exists today. I heard Lanny Davis say to us last night on Hannity and Combs that it was not appropriate to attack Obama since it takes focus away from the issues. Mr. Davis stated that Americans want a candidate that will talk about the issues. How quickly democrates forget the past.
 
When I heard this, the first word that popped into my mind was "hyporcite." This describes the democrates very well most of the time. When it suits them they will personally attack anyone - including their own mother if it will advance them politically. They will associate with anyone as long as it will advance them politically. This is why past associations should be an issue because democrats will always put their personal goals above the interest of the American People.
 
I have said before that Obama hates his country as it exists today. The only way he will love his country is when he is running it and he is instituting his own agena - which is not really his own since he will always do what is politically advantageous. He has made so many promises that he is no longer his own man. He is a puppet from those on the far left. He is nothing more than a mouth piece for the far left liberals.
 
Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. This cannot be argued. He will drive this country into the ground because underneath he holds such comtempt for the USA. He will destroy it slowly and will slowly turn this country into a socialist state where the people exit for the good of the state and not that the state exists for the good of the people - such a view is Fascism. That is Obama's worldview, it is a scary one, and we should all be afraid........
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin and the Great Debate

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Saturday, October 04, 2008 4:44:03 PM
As with most of the country, I watched the debate on Thursday really to see if Sarah Palin was as bad as the mainstream media made her out to be or whether she would be the Sarah Palin of the Republican Convention.  I have to say that I was fairly nervous wondering how she would do. I was concerned that if she did not do well, that McCain's chances would be almost insurmoutable. I was very glad to see that Sarah Palin did a very good job during the debate. 
 
As many may know, Frank Luntz gets a group together that is equally split between people leaning republican and democrat. They watch the debate and rate second by second how the candidates are doing. On the O'Reilly factor last night, Mr. Luntz stated that there was only one time that the group reacted negatively towards Sarah Palin. Mr. Luntz indicated that during the rest of the debate she did not have any negative responses. Oddly enough, the only time she received negative results was during her opening comments. I must also say that Mr. Biden did very well also. He did not do anything that would embarass him or Obama. I was certinly hoping for such a time. Substantively, Biden did much better. It is clear that he has the experience of being a politican for 35 years. However, it was refreshing that we had a candidate that spoke to the normal everyday American.
 
I don't want a politician taht has been in Washington for 35 years like Biden or McCain. I don't want a politician that has only been in Washington for 4 years and spent two of those years running for president. It seems like once an elected official gets to Washington they change for the worse. I think it has to do with the money they get from lobbyist as well as other "legal" bribes. I like having an outsider on the ticket. She spoke to me during that debate and that is one reason that I believe she won the debate.
 
People want someone they can identify with and right now that is Sarah Palin.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gwen Ifill - Where's the Ethics

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:34:29 PM
I have heard much debate about whether Gwen Ifill should moderate the debate tonight between the VP candidates. I suppose she is a well respected journalist. However, the question should not be whether she is well respected but whether she can be impartial.  As most know at this point, she is writing a book that is clearly pro-Obama. Should that, in and of itself, cause her to step down as moderator of this debate? I don't think so. Do I think that she will be fair to both sides? Yes, in fact I do believe she will be fair. Should she be moderator of tonight's debate? No, she should not be because she is in a no win situation.
 
If she comes across as being too soft on Governor Palin then critics will argue that she did so becasue she was trying so hard not to look biased. If she comes across as being too hard on Governor Palin, then critics will argue that it was just her bias and her financial stake in having Obama elected.  She is in a Catch 22 - no doubt about that. Being in such a situation should be enouch for her step down. She should do this on her own admitting that her situation is hopeless. Please notice that I did not mention how she behaves towards Sen. Biden. There is no need to do that since she is pro-democrat and will treat him fairly anyway.
 
What bothers me is that she does not step down of her own accord. If that is not bad enough, there really is nothing, besides not going, that the McCain Campaign can do (other than letting the people know of the situation). In the legal arena, there are ethical rules that prevent just this type of situation. The ethical rules are written to the extent that if there is even "an appearance of impropriety" then there is a conflict and the lawyer should not represent the client or be involved in the case.  There is no question here that there is more than an appearance of impropriety. There is a direct relationship between Ms. Ifell's book selling and the amount of money she will get and Obama getting elected. If Obama is not elected, it is more than likely the case that she will not get the revenues she would get if he is elected. In that case, there is a bias and a conflict of interest. A judge in her situation would never be allowed to sit in judgment of the case. A judge would have to recuse him/herself from the case or a party could file a motion with a higher court to get the judge to step down. It should be the same here. Ms. Ifill should have stepped down for her own good and the good of the debate.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Definitions and History

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:51:19 PM
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

Socialism - Obama Revealed

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Monday, September 29, 2008 11:43:56 AM
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

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:20:41 PM
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 »