About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

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

Associations and Ramifications

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:38:58 PM
I was listening to the radio today and the subject of Obama's assocations with ACORN and Bill Ayers came up. It is amazing to me that the democrats believe that such assocations should not be an issue. However, what if John McCain had been friends with Charlie Manson but has since said that Charlie's actions were horrible and he should die in prison. Would the democrats leave that assocation alone? If you say yes, then you have your head stuck in the sand.
 
I live in the State of Ohio and am very upset with the Ohio Supreme Court in its ruling to allow registration and voting on the same day. I believe that ACRON is actively engaging in voter fraud on behalf of Obama in the State of Ohio. The one thing I noticed that is missing is Obama coming out and condemning these actions on part of an organizaiton that he used to be close to. It is not going to happen and that speaks volumes.
 
I also think the association with Bill Ayers is an issue that needs to be addressed by Obama. Now, he will say that he was just a guy in the neighborhood or someone that he had some board meetings with. Well, we know now that Bill Ayers gave the power to Obama to distribute millions of dollars to schools to indoctrinate the students to radical ideas.  Does this sound familiar? Like the schools in Iraq and Iran or other Muslim countries that indoctrinate their children to hate American and other democracies around the world. It should and if you don't believe that it does, then you have your head in the sand.  Also, look at what Hitler did with the Hitler Youth. This is the same type of thing and Obama was involved and he needs to explain his involvment. This will clearly demonstrate his far left ideaology that will drive the economy down even more which will cause more people to become dependent upon the government - which is exacly what Obama wants because he is a Facist/socialist.
 
Now, as I was driving home from work, I was listening to the news and I heard a democratic congresswoman talking about the financial crisis. She said that there is enough blame to go around to both democrates and republicans and this was not the time to "finger point."  This is so disingenuous for a democrat to say. The democrats are the worst when it comes to finger pointing. The democrats do it all the time and the only time they don't is when the problem was caused by them. In that instance, the democrates will always say that it is not important to know the reason why there is a crisis only that the solution be found. Democrates will also say something to the affect that it was both parties to blame but you never, ever hear them say it was themselves or their party that was to blame. This is the reason that Pelosi needed bipartisan support for the bailout plan despite having a majority in the House. If it does not work, then there will be blame to go around.  Democrates did not want to take the risk to vote for the bailout and it not work - typical.  In the real world, if one is questioned about their assocations, a flippant response will not work. It should be the same on the national stage. The MSM will not bring up these issues becasue Obama has no defense to them.
 
The ramifications of these associations should be staggering but they are not. It is hard for me to understand that. However, I am beginning to believe that the liberals care so much about their agenda that they don't care about morals, values, honesty, and truth. The sad part is that the American people seems to agree with this mind set and it is scary. Human beings are rational and are able to reason in a logical manner. Obama does not do this when he outlines his plans. Obama is telling lies to the American people but he does not have to worry about them calling him out on it becasue most follow blindly.  For instance, when Obama says that he will not raise taxes. This is a lie to the American people. He must say this because coming out and saying that he will raise taxes will destroy his chances for the presidency. If he lies to the people and gets elected, then he can change or brake his promises and nothing will happen to him. He will then have time to explain the change and know that the majority of people will accept any explanation he gives. It is stunning to me that this tactic works. 
 
After the stock market crash in 1929, sometime in early to mid 1930, Hoover did something that began the greatest depression in our history. Can you guess what he did?  He raised taxes. When you do this, the government is taking more of the people's money. The more the government takes the less the people have to spend. The less that people have to spend the slower the economic growth because companies can't sell their products or put cash into greater innovations. This causes businesses to close - especially small businesses and that will happen with Obama. Obama will put this country into a recession or depression with his first tax increase which, and mark my words, will come within six months of his taking office. It does not matter if it is on individuals or businesses or an increase in the death tax. He will raise some taxes to get more revenue becasuse of his spending policies. However, the increased revenue will not be enough and he will continue to raise taxes and may even tax the gains/dividends in our retirement funds in the current period even though we cannot touch that money until we are 65 years old.  This is socialism - it is that simple.
 
Time will show Obama to be a liar on his campaign promises but they will be forgotten because the MSM will not report on it.  It will not be like when President Bush stated his famous line - "Read my lips...no new taxes." When Bush raised taxes he was crucified by the MSM and with good reason. He broke a promise to the American People for which helped get him elected. However, this will not happen to Obama. Obama knows that he can say anyting to anyone to get their vote knowing that he does not have to follow through because his broken promises will be forgotten.  If you think otherwise, you have you head someplace other than the sand.......
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and Luther - Is There a Connection?

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:49:23 PM
I recently read the following quote from a book I just started on Martin Luther call The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick F. O'Hare, LL.D.:
 
"To his followers the name and memory of Luther are objects of religious veneration. They have for the last four centuries surrounded him with such an aura of flattery and pedantry that he is looked upon as one of the glories of Germany, nay, the foremost figure in their Hall of Immortals. By dine of minatory iteration, his admirers have been brought to believe that 'he is the precious gift of God to the nation.'To call into question the powers of the Refromer or deny the divine mission of the Reformation was ever considered balsphemous and unpatriotic.  The opponents of Luther, on the contrary, stoutly maintain that his greatness was taken on trust and that the writers alluded to in the preceding paragraph [Mathesius and Kostlin] have invariably, with a fatuous blindness mistaken for patriotism, fed and nourished the German mind, not on the real Luther, but on a Luther glossed over and toned down with respectful admiration and conjured under the influence of partisan-colored traditions intended to prevent him from being catalogued in his proper page in the world's history."  See p. 2-3.
 
O'Hare also points out that Luther's attempted reformation ended in deformation.  O'Hare claims that Luther was not a reformer but a revolutionist.  "A true reformer restores society to its primitive purity; the revolutionist violently upsets the constitution of society, putting something else in its place." See p. 8.
 
Those that believe Luther was a great reformer learned this but from one source with the inherited prejudices that prevented those being taught from examining the facts and finding the truth.  O'Hare's point is that the Luther of fiction and the Luther of fact are very different. Luther, as we have been taught, was a true reformer and that he began the Protestant Reformation and we owe him everything for it. However, history has shown, and Rev. Guilday points out in the preface of the book, that the "Protestant Rebellion marked no new stage in human progress; it did not close the eyes of a dying medieval Church; it marked no new dawn of the modern era; it did not contribute to the elevation of the laity and to the advancement of woman; it did not fashion a separation of secular from ecclesiastical power; it gave no extraordinary impulse to literature or science; it did not establish liberty of conscience. In a word, it had nothing in its principles or methods which was to ennoble our modern civilization." Preface, pp. x-xi.
 
When I read these passages, I could not help thinking of Obama. We know so very little about this man. However, what we do know is given to us by the MSM which has such a biased opinion that it is hard to distinguish between truth and fiction. When you hear Obama speak, it is so very difficult to distinguish between fact and ficition because he is a very good speaker and can use words to make things sound good.  Based upon the definition above, Obama is not a reformer; he is not one to come in and change America back to the primitive purity of America in the past.  Obama is a revolutionist who wants to replace the very idea of capitalism and freedom upon which the country was founded with his own fascist/socialist world view.  However, all we hear from him, and the MSM, is how he is going to change Washington and restore America's good name. 
 
Obama's name to his follows seems to be much like the second coming of the Messiah.  His followers, the MSM, and the far left have surrounded him with such wonderful words of adoration that most believe he will do what he says; they follow blindly for they do not look for the truth.  For those that question him, his words, and his assocations, they are called unpatriotic and much, much worse.  The followers of Obama take his greatness on trust despite his record. Astounding to say the least. Even in the face of 94 times voting to increase taxes or voting agasint reducing taxes, those that follow Obama believe he will actually cut the taxes for 95% of Americans. Even though he is the most liberal U.S. Senator and has taken the second most money from Freddie Mac, they still think that he will not raise taxes. For the 1 trillion dollars in new federal spending that he wants has proposed, they still think he will not raise taxes.  For all the times his has insulted our troops, his followers believe he will keep our military stong, keep America safe, and will be an effective leader and commander-in-chief.  Obama and his followers gloss over his past associations and his voting record and just surround him with respectful admiration under the influence of partisan-colored traditions and politics.
 
When all is said and done, if Obama gets elected, history will be able to write, as Rev. Guilday did about Luther, that Obama's term as president did not mark a new stage in America's growth and respect in the world; it did not close the door on larger government and more spending; it marked no dawn of a new era; it marked no new stage in the world's or American's progress; it did not contribute to the elevation of respect for America around the world; it gave no impulse to growing the economy or innovation; and it did not establish liberty of conscience.  In a word, it had nothing, under the rhetoric of eloquent words, of substance or of principle which was to ennoble America.
 
Much like Luther, history will show that the Obama of fact and the Obama of fiction to be in conflict. In fact, if you look closely to the words of Obama, his voting record, and his past associations, it becomes clear, that the Obama of fiction is already in conflict with the Obama of fact.
 
 
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Great Snore Debate and the Trojan Horse

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:00:42 AM

Wow. That is about all I can say about the debate tonight. If this did not give the most credible evidence that the MSM is in the Obama camp, then I don't know what other evidence there is to be had.  It was an absolute bore of a debate. Tom Brokaw should go out and bury his head in the sand. He was absolutely horrible tonight.

I wanted to see something different than the first debate. However, the democrats, including Tom Brokaw, knew that this format favored McCain. Tom Brokaw was the one that screened the questions and he did a very poor job. He posed questions to the candidates that were well within Obama's comfort zone. This was done on purpose and with ill intent towards McCain. Tom Brokaw needs to go the way of Dan Rather.

We heard nothing but the same thing that we have been hearing for several weeks now. We heard about the economy and taxes, we heard about foreign policy and the war in Iraq. However, we did not hear anything new until the last two questions. The first one was regarding the actions of the candidates if Iran attacked Israel and if the candidates would come to its defense or wait for UN Security Counsel approval. The last one was "what don't you know and how are you going to learn it"? It became clear that Obama was not going to answer the questions. He did this all night. If you go back and look at this debate, how often did Obama look back to George Bush? Sadly, this has been winning with the ignorant voters of this country.

When the Israeli question was asked, McCain came right out and stated that he would not wait for a UN resolution but would defend Israel. He went on to explain his answer fully. However, when Obama came up, he talked about not letting Iran get a nuclear weapon in the first place. He talked about how he was going to pressure Iran with sanctions....yeah, like China and Russia would allow that. Does he forget that Russia and China have Security Council veto power? The best thing we could do is get out of the UN. He never answered the question and it was painfully obvious that he was not going to answer it. The last question was one that did not belong in the debate at all. It was a silly question and one that just allowed Obama to go back to his roots and spew his same old stuff. Again, look under his words for underneath there is nothing of substance. McCain gave the best answer of the night on the last question. It was good. He said he does not know what is coming down the road for America but it was important to have someone with experience leading when the unexpected happens.

Also, if you listened closely, you should have seen that Obama wants to spend so much of our money overseas. Obama is the one that keeps telling us how we are spending ten billion dollars a month in Iraq. But if you listened to his answers about genocide and about Georgia, you heard it again. He spoke about how we could institute a no fly zone and how it would not cost us very much. He said that we had to give more than moral support to Georgia but we had to give them financial support.  With the 700 billion dollar bailout bill, the one trillion dollars of new government entitlement programs he wants to pay for, the billions to be spent on universal health care, where in the world is he going to get the money for these things? Obama will raise our taxes to the highest level since Jimmy Carter. He will stagnate the growth of the economy and especially small business. Obama will take more of our money and will begin to tax our pension funds even before we retire.

My worst fear has been realized. I am actually afraid for our country. It is astounding to me that Americans cannot see that Obama is a Fascist and a Muslim (It should be noted that I don't believe that all Muslims are bad or that the religion itself is bad for religion, in itself, is neither good nor evil. In fact, the majority of Muslims are good people. But, when I speak about Muslims in this context, I speak of the terrorists and those that hate American for which I beleive Obama is one since he hates this country as it exists today). Obama believes that the people and their assets belong to the state and for the good of the state.  American stands for the proposition that the states is there for the good of the people. He will begin to take more personal property and will begin to institute a socialist economy.  My fear is real and it will be realized.

Just think of the situation. America will have a democratic president and Congress will be controlled by democrats. Congress will give to Obama whatever he wants. Not even the members of his own party will stand up to him like McCain has done with the republican presidents.  They will raise our taxes without a thought. Obama will give the military over the UN and to be used by the UN for whatever purpose it wants. This will cause a mass exodus from the military which is what Obama wants.

I am sure that most of the people know the story of the Trojan Horse. This is where Sparta placed its soldiers in the large Horse outside the walls of Troy.  With the rest of the army out of sight, the people of Troy brought the horse inside the walls. When this was done, the soldiers inside the horse came out and conquered Troy.  The reason that the Spartans left the Trojan Horse is because the Spartans were not going to beat Troy on the field of battle and could not get inside the walls of the city.  It is clear from Iraq that the terrorists cannot beat the United States Military on the field of battle. Therefore, they have to beat us from within and they are doing it. There is no better way to break the U.S. economy than with high oil prices and high gas prices. The largest oil producing countries are Muslim and hate America. With the economy crashing, there are no worries, with the ignorance of the American people, that they could get a Muslim elected president despite 9/11. It is happening before our eyes but we are too ignorant to notice because of the MSM and the big money spenders on Obama.  Obama will change this country as we know it...always for the worse.

The other statement that I can't stand is Obama saying that Bush took his eyes off the target - Bin Laden. Obama believes that the war on terrorism should have started with the hunt for Bin Laden and ended with his being killed. Bin Laden is such a small player in the overall war on terror. Obama does not know one of the basic rules of war....if you have the enemy neutralized, then that is as good as them being dead (case in point, Grant's seige of Vicksburg in June-July 1863). Bin Laden has not been able to attack this country in 7 years.  He has come out with some taped statements but as an effective organizer he is dead...he has been neutralized.  There is no need to keep going after him for Bin Laden as a threat is no more. However, there were terrorist cells in Iraq that wanted American citizens dead and were willing to die trying to kill us. They too have effectively been destroyed.

Obama will bring our soldiers home in defeat and with shame. All those brave men and women that have died for us will have died in vain.  There are many U.S. soldiers that are still fighting the Vietnam War because of the brutality of the war as well as how they were treated when they got home. I wanted to throw-up when Obama got up and told the person who asked the Israeli question that he "honored his service." Obama hates the U.S. military and the Americans are going to put this person in charge of them. If anyone knows any kind of military history, it is that an Army, a corps, a division, a brigade, a regiment, a company, a platoon, a squad, and the individual soldier always fights better when they have confidence in their commander. Read about the men in Patton's Third Army in WWII or read about the Union Soldiers when McClellan was commander and then Burnside took over in November of 1862 just before Fredericksburg, or read about how the Confederate soldier fought against overwhelming odds under General Lee - Chancellorsville for instance.  If the men do not have a commander they have confidence in, then the fighting ability will be lost. This will happen with Obama because he hates our military....remember he said that our military was killing innocent civilians and air-raiding villages.  These are not statements that a commander-in-chief says about an Army that he loves and respects.

It is a sad day for America for I believe McCain lost the election tonight.  My fears will be realized on November 4 but I feel the effects of those fears in my stomach right now.  We should all be very afraid of where this country will be in the next couple years......very afraid indeed........

Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will The Real Obama Please Stand? No? Not Gonna Happen

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 4:57:39 PM
As a kid I remember watching a TV show where a contestant was allowed to ask questions and then had to pick the real person. I feel like I am watching this all over again with Obama.
 
I think we all know about his "My Muslim Faith" comment and campaigning in the 57 states comment (which by the way, I have heard but not yet varified that there are 57 Muslim states - if in fact true, it would be very interesting). We know that he will make statements to people in San Francisco about the people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky as "clinging to their guns and religion." He will then say something totally different to the people of those states and something different to the people of inner cities. It appears that Obama will say anything to the audience even if it contradicts something he said to another group.
 
If you listen closely to what Obama has to say, and I recommend to all to do that even if you can't stand him, becasue then when you really think about what he said, it is clear that he has said nothing new. The democrats are all for the little guy; to help the inner city kids and create more jobs.  However, the problem with his new spending programs is where is he going to get the money he needs to fund these programs. The answer is obvious - raise taxes. Just mark my words, he will raise taxes and blame it on the republicans becasue of the bailout, which he voted for. He will blame them because of "de-regulation" of the banks. However, it was under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno that the banks were pressured into making many of these bad loans. It was the democrates that opposed the more regulation to Freddie and Frannie in 2005 - especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (not to mention Frank's relationship with an executive of Freddie in the 90s).
 
Once the government raises taxes, this puts less money in the bank account of businesses, small businesses especially. And if the small business does not have money in the bank, it cannot pay its employees. And if they can't pay their employees, then the people cannot spend money on goods so the whole economy suffers. This is economics 101 and maybe Obama needs to take a refresher course.
 
Based upon the comments from Obama, I am not sure which one is the real one but I would ask that the real Obama please stand.... However, I have a feeling that the real one will not stand up......ever.
Tags: Politics  
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

Bailout and How to Fix America

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Monday, October 06, 2008 11:18:11 AM
Now that the Dow Jones is down over 550 points, I think we have our answer to how the bailout would affect the market. I was never one to believe that the markets would rebound becasue of the bailout bill passing. This is just more evidence to demonstrate that Wall Street manipulated Congress in bailing them out. It was about bailing them out and not about stablizing the markets. Wall Street has the power to plunge the market and it is doing that despite the bailout. People are afraid of losing their money so they pull their money out of the market and keep it in cash. This I can understand since I am doing that as well.  This crisis is not just in the United States but in many other countries around the world. If you keep up with the news, many countries in Europe are also helping their banking system and infusing cash into their economies.
 
It was clear from the beginning that the bailout was not going to work. Now we have to look forward to higher taxes because of the bailout and haivng our retirement lose value because of it as well. The price tag on the bailout was just too high for most normal folks to back it. Congress needs to listen to the people and the people did not want this bill. However, Wall Street manipulated the people as well as Congress by the 777 point drop last Monday. With the market losing that much, the Street knew that people would panic and that they would demand that something be done. When people panic, things only get worse and that is what happned to us. People are still panicing and it is getting worse. People are pulling their money from the market. When there is a supply much greater than demand, the prices of the supply will go lower. Since peoplse and companies are selling their stock, the supply is great but the demand for buyers is low. But since the market makers must buy, then they lower the price. This is what happens during a sell-off.
 
I am not sure what to do about the crisis other than to let the markets do what they are supposed to do. If banks and companies go under, then there is the bankruptcy system to utilize. We should not leave the taxpayer with the burden of bailing out those that got themselves and the rest of us into trouble. Those responsible should be expose and if, possbile, prosecuted.  As to how to change Washington, here is a part of what needs to be done.
 
Frist, please know that my ideas will never be adopted since most, if not all, politicians in Washington line their pockets with these monies.
 
What needs to happen is that there needs to be a law passed that those in the Congress, cannot receive compensation, during their term(s) in office, other than their salary. This does not mean that they cannot invest their money and make more. It just means that while in Congress, the only compensation they receive is their salary. They would not be allows to take gifts or other items from anyone. They would not be allowed to take money from any lobbyist or other organizations. This would also be true after they are no longer in Congress for it may appear that they just delayed getting the money. The politicians would not be able to make money talking to anyone. Members would be allowed to give speeches but not be paid for them. This would terminate at the end of their time in Congress.
 
Also, PACs need to be abolished. People can give money to a condidate for elelction or re-elelction. However, this amount would be limited for individuals as well as businesses. The campaigns would have to list every donor and the amount given. No minor would be able to give to any candidate. Now, if there are funds left over, then the candidate would give back the money left over to the donors in a pro-rata fashion. No more PACs! No more giving to family members to "consult" with their PAC. It is just too tempting for those that have power for they believe they are above the law. 
 
I would also suggest term limits for members of Congress. For this there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. The President of the United States is limited to two terms. Why can't the senate members be limited to 3 terms (18 years) and House members be limited to 9 terms (18 years). This would do away with the politicians that have been in Washington for 35 years and all they are good for is lining their own pockets.  Now, some must be wondering if one could be a senator for three terms and then go to the House for 9 terms or vice versa. Nope, that would not be allowed. You get 18 years total in both Houses of Congress. If a member is in mid-term when the 18th year comes up, then the state would get to elect a new member and the old member does not get to finish the full term.
 
Somewhere along the line, Washington became the corrupt capital of the world. Our politicians have shown that they cannot police themselves so the people must do it and the above are three ways in which the people can do it. The members of Congress need to keep the welfare of the people in mind, and not just worry about getting a president elelcted or getting their pockets lined with cash.
 
It is a pipe dream for absolute power corrupts absolutely! That defines Washington in one sentence.  Sad really..........
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bailout?....No... 700 Billion Dollar Insurance Policy?....Yes

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Saturday, October 04, 2008 10:51:54 PM
About the only thing we hear about these days is the bailout bill and the election. Is there anything else going on besides those two things? No, not really. So, in that vain, I wanted to write about the bailout bill.
 
It was amazing to see the bill fail in the House this past Monday. As we all know, when the bill did not pass the House, the Dow Jones dropped 777 points. This scared a lot of people and it should have. But the question that has not been asked is "Who did all the selling?" Wall Street wanted this bill passed since the bill would allow the government to buy bad assets from it. When the bill failed to pass, stock prices dropped quickly. Who did alll this selling?....it was wall street. Many average Americans don't understand how the market works.
 
We all know that we can buy stocks of public companies. We can go out to a broker, open an account and buy stocks. We can own stocks of companies individually or through a mutual fund. By owning shares in a mutual fund, we own shares of the common stock held in that fund. When the stock prices of those stocks in the fund go lower, then the value of the mutual fund shares also go lower. Who determines when to sell the shares of the underlying common stocks in a mutual fund....the fund trustees.  And where do all these fund trustees work?.....that right, for the big brokerage firms of Wall Street. Now, it is also legal for these brokerage firms to hold common stock in their own name. This means that Merrill Lynch could own stock in GE in the name of the Merrill Lynch. These brokerage firms own a lot of the shares of common stock of many different companies. If the brokers want the stock price to decline, all it has to do is begin selling off its shares. With the number of shares they own, they can, what is called, "move the market". In otherwords, they can affect the price of the stock as well as the market as a whole. So, these big brokerage firms own shares in their own names and in the names of the mutual funds that they oversee. This gives them much power to move the market and manipulate the Dow Jones as well as the price of the stock.
 
This is what happened on Monday when the bill failed to pass the House. These brokers sent a clear message to Congress - you better pass this legislation bailing us out or we will drive this country into a financial depression. This message was received by Congress because the next day many of the leading members of Congress came out and told us that something would be passed in the next few days. Becasue of those statements, the Dow gained back almost half of the losses. Again, the message was that as long as Congress was going to bailout those that are able to move markets, they would buy back the stock and increase the price and, consequently, increase the Dow Jones.  Wall Street manipulated the government into passing the bill.
 
Now, I also believe that the democrats did not want the bill to be passed on Monday for two reasons: First, Obama was getting a big boost because of the financial mess despite the democrates being in bed with Freddie and Frannie; and second, the democrates wanted the public a little bit more panic-stricken since the public was not supporting the bill. The public became more panic-stricken after the market went down 777 points - so that worked. Also, Obama got another boost because of it. Ms. Pelosi hates the president so much that she brought a vote to the House floor not knowing if the bill would pass. Is she that inept? No, I don't think so. She wants Obama to win the presidency so badly that she would sacrifice the good of the country to do it. Her job is not in jeopardy; she will still have health insurance; she will still have her government pension, etc.....
 
The problem with the bailout is that Obama will not have the room to implement all his social programs or his tax cuts. Obama will not cut his social programs but will scrap his tax cuts. He will never say this until after the election. He wants almost one trillion dollars in new spending when the government is going to spend 700 Billion Dollars on this bailout package. There is no money for Obama to impliment his tax cuts. This will be his excuse to raise taxes and to break his promise regarding tax cuts. It is a clever plan and one in which he will most assuredly blame President Bush.  Also, the failure of the House vote allowed the U.S Senate to take up the vote first and make it look like Obama was doing something for the his country.
 
This was not a bailout bill....it was a 700 billion dollar insurance policy designed to make sure that Obama was elected in November. And the sad part is, it will work and we all will be worse off for it.  God help us all in the next four years.........
Tags: Politics  
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

Mainstream Media - The Liberal Propaganda Machine

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:45:30 AM
A very good philosopher once said - "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. This is true, first of all, because if we act on poorly supported beliefs we are very likely to harm others as well as ourselves.  But also, and more fundamentally, by habitaully accpeting beliefs not supported by evidence, we make ourselves and other people credulous, so that we and they will more easily be seduced by falsehood in the future."
 
However, the one thing that must be noted about this quote is that one must have evidence that is clear, complete and unbiased. If a person makes a judgment on incomplete evidence, unclear evidence and biased evidence, then the judgment, by definition, is flawed.  This is the very reason that for those that present the evidence, there needs to be impartiality and completeness. If those that present the evidence are biased or only present the evidence they wish, then the judgments that people based uon that information are flawed. This is the very reason that there needs to be ethics and ethical standards in the media.
 
For some reason, the mainstream media will only present a biased and jaded view of the evidence. The mainstream media, for some reason, has a liberal bias. If anyone believes that the mainstream media is ethical or fair, they are wrong because the evidence is overwhelming. In otherwords, the judgments of those people are flawed because the evidence clearly demonstrates the bias of the mainstream media. The mainstream media is guilty of violating the quote above because they control the flow of information. The mainstream media knows that the information that they disseminate will form the basis for many of the people's views on how to vote. This is a hugh responsibility and one that used to be taken quite seriously in the news media. However, that is no longer the case. Ethical journalism is a contradiction of terms and can now be placed in the oxymoron category. The mainstream media is so far to the left that it does not even try to hide it anymore. The reason for this is that people don't want to recognize this fact. People don't want to do the work to find out if what is being told to them is true. Most people don't have time to do so. People want information fed to them and the mainstream media knows this. 
 
The Nazis used their huge propaganda machine to futher their agenda. The United States has that same propaganda machine going on right at this moment. Propaganda is defined as 1) the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person, and 2) ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.  The mainstream media is nothing but a propagandist machine for the liberals. There can be no question that the mainstream media only disseminates "ideas, facts, or allegations" to futher the liberal cause or to damage the conservative cause. The mainstream media does not report on Obama's affiliation with ACORN. This is because it would not further the liberal cause.
 
To clearly see that the mainstream media is proagandist, just ask this question and be honest about the answer - "What would the media be reporting if a conservative was affiliated with an organization that that was radically right wing?" If you answer that it would be digging and digging into it and reporting on it over and over, then you have just defined a propaganda machine. If McCain was associated with such an organization, he would be crucified in the mainstream media. This is how we know that the media has a bias and is propagandist. This can be asked for any issue that comes to light. It should be asked and those that don't know the answer or believe that the mainstream media would treat the conservative or McCain the same as a liberal or Obama, then those people are either misinformed or are blind to the truth. The truth is the truth but we have such a spin machine going on in our country it is hard to know the truth. For example, look at the condesending way "Charlie" Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin. If you ask "Would Charlie Gibson have acted the same way with Joe Biden?" and you answer yes, then you are blind to the truth. Charlie Gibson has a clear lean to the left so he would not have acted in the same way to Joe Biden.
 
In the legal system, the way that evidence is presented is by question and answer. There is a direct examination of a witness and then the cross-examination of a witness. Upon direct examination, the lawyer asking the question cannot ask leading questions (with certain exceptions). However, the tool of cross-examination is best used to "bring out" the truth. Here is an example of the difference between a direct question and a leading question (leading questions are specifically allowed upon cross-examination):  Direct question - "When did you first seek medical treatment for the pain?" The answer can be something like "shortly after the accident". But what does that mean? That could be a day, an hour or two-weeks. Upon cross-examination the question would be something like this: "You did not seek medical treatment for 15 days following the accident, right?" The witness is to affirm or deny the question. There is no room for spin. If the witness begins to spin the answer or not answer it directly, the lawyer can ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question or bring out the medical record and show it to the jury.
 
This is the method that should be used in the debates for both candidates. It would be nice to hear Obama answer the question - "Can you please explain your affiliation with ACORN?" He would give a wonderful answer no doubt. But then upon cross-examination the questions get much more difficult - "You represented ACORN in litigation matters, didn't you?" "You provided several hundred thousand of dollars to this organization, right?" "You know, don't you, that this organization has been found guilty of voter fraud in several states?" "You actaully taught them how to put pressure on banks to give more loans to minorities and the poor, did you not?" If Obama then trys to spin the answers, you can ask an authority figure to instruct him to answer the questions or bring out documents that show the truth. If he wants to explain away the answers, then upon re-direct he can do that. However, no politician would be agreeable to this type of questioning because it is too direct.
 
America has lost is ability to be direct. No one wants to answer any question honestly that they believe will hurt themselves or their cause. This is the problem with the mainstream media. They need to ask the hard questions and when the politicians don't answer the question but give a long, convoluted answer, the person asking the question needs to ask it again and again until it is answered. This is not done so the truth is really never revealed. And when the truth is not revealed, then it is "wrong" for anyone to based their beliefs on it since it is insufficient. When people do place their beliefs on half-truths and spin, then they will keep dong it and thereby make themselves and others more easily seduced by falsehood in the future. This is what has happened to the mainstream media.  The mainstream media is blind to the truth because they will only spread the information that will further its cause (the liberal cause). This is called propaganda and it is much like the propaganda machine used by Hitler in the 1930s.  It is wrong and it is unethical and they should be called to answer tough questions themselves. However, this will never happen since the mainstream media is being protected by those powerful liberals in Washington.
 
It is sad really - to think that the American people will never fully get the truth because the mainstream media will not and does not want us to have it because it may not further their own agenda. Without the truth, we are all making fundamentally unsound decisions and liberals know it but will not change the system. The mainstream media causes us to be blind because they are blind to the fact that it it wrong to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence. But it knows that if the full truth were revealed, it would not futher their interests - again just another piece of evidence that the mainstream media is a liberal propaganda machine.
Tags: Politics  
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

Pelosi should Resign but at least She gave us an Education

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:31:55 AM
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

Posted by John - History Buff and Philosophy Buff on Monday, September 29, 2008 4:39:59 PM
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

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
« Previous123Next »