Folks:
I have posted about Day Two of Sen. McCain’s town hall event today on JohnMcCain.com:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=81ffd3f8-a0bf-4de3-8599-02f165c2ab48
Check it out, and if you are inclined to link, we sure would appreciate it.
Patrick Hynes
Note: If you'd like to get excellent updates re: The McCain Campaign from Patrick Hynes, you can do so by e-mailing him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
Can McCain Win the Black Vote? The short answer is that he can't win a majority of the Black vote -- in any state -- but we can do a lot better than Republicans have in the past. In the past generation, Republican presidential candidates have won only about 10% of the Black vote.
What if McCain can win 20%-plus of the Black vote in battleground states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan? Then he would win the electoral votes in all of them. It's that important.
There's some evidence that McCain will do better in Black communities than any Republican since Richard Nixon in 1960 (who won 32% of the Black vote in his race against John F. Kennedy). Frankly, McCain has more in common with most Black who vote than either Caucasian Hillary Clinton or mixed-race Barack Obama.
McCain says he will campaign in all 50 states (although he probably won't campaign much in states like Rhode Island and Vermont). He definitely should campaign (some, not constantly) in cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and even Cleveland, which John Kerry famously visited 41 times in 2004.
In Philadelphia, McCain should bring in Rudy Giuliani and other Italian-Americans to campaign in the "Cheese Steak Area," South Philly. In the Black areas of North Philly, McCain should campaign with Lynn Swann, an NFL Hall-of-Famer and Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2006. McCain also needs to involve Black veterans (tens of thousands in the Philly area) and Black ministers who hold traditional Christian views. Frankly, the Democrats have nothing to offer middle-class Black citizens.
McCain needs to hit Obama hard on issues like education, where Obama has no real plan to improve the awful Philly schools. Because of the terrible murder and robbery statistics in Philly and Pittsburgh, McCain needs to come up with tough plans for reducing crime.
In short, McCain shouldn't concede 90% of the Pennsylvania Black vote to Obama. He needs to hammer home how Democratic leadership has failed the people of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Black Pennsylvanians -- like their white counterparts -- should be willing to consider --and vote for -- an authentic American hero, which they have in John McCain.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Samuel Adams Confronts Hillary, Barack
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, please "go home from us in peace." We're tired of you and your vision of the a once-free people's dependence on government.
You can't have a free society when government moves in to pick you up every time you fall. No how, no way. When individuals make bad choices, such as buying a house they can't afford, they must endure the consequences of poor decisions. In contrast, people who make good decisions should be rewarded -- as they are now.
Those views are something Hillary and Barack seem not to understand.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, please "go home from us in peace." We're tired of you and your vision of the a once-free people's dependence on government.
You can't have a free society when government moves in to pick you up every time you fall. No how, no way. When individuals make bad choices, such as buying a house they can't afford, they must endure the consequences of poor decisions. In contrast, people who make good decisions should be rewarded -- as they are now.
Those views are something Hillary and Barack seem not to understand.
Why Conservatives MUST Back McCain
All onliners who want to know how to help John McCain should go to an important resource: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com/. On that site, Kathy Morrison has many suggestions on how you can help build you own small (or large!) coalitions for Senator McCain. I'll review some of her points here on Monday. Hope you all had a great weekend!
NOTE: For those of you interested in the Republican Veepstakes, take a look at Sunday's piece by super-columnist Jack Kelly. He likes both Chris Cox, former congressman and current head of the SEC, and Mitt Romney. You can find Jack's column at: http://post-gazette.com/forum. Scroll down to his name. (My guess is that Romney will get the nod, partly because of his electoral strength in his home state of Michigan.)
I'm reprinting below a guest editorial by Larry Perrault of Texas. You can find this column -- and many other fine ones -- at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com.
Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end.
With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain.
Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain.
I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principles.The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained.
What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion.
Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility.
America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces.
And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of.
For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall.
Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now. For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability.
Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse.
John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance.
Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years.
God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation.
But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine.
For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot.
Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
NOTE: For those of you interested in the Republican Veepstakes, take a look at Sunday's piece by super-columnist Jack Kelly. He likes both Chris Cox, former congressman and current head of the SEC, and Mitt Romney. You can find Jack's column at: http://post-gazette.com/forum. Scroll down to his name. (My guess is that Romney will get the nod, partly because of his electoral strength in his home state of Michigan.)
I'm reprinting below a guest editorial by Larry Perrault of Texas. You can find this column -- and many other fine ones -- at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com.
Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end.
With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain.
Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain.
I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principles.The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained.
What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion.
Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility.
America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces.
And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of.
For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall.
Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now. For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability.
Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse.
John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance.
Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years.
God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation.
But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine.
For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot.
Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
John McCain and YOU
A photo surfaces of President Bill Clinton with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at the White House in 1998 at a breakfast meeting with religious leaders hours before the Starr report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal was made public.Later today (Saturday, March 29), I'll be posting my comments for the weekend. I'll be pointing out what you can do to help ensure the election of John McCain. As someone who's active online, you can do a great deal. I hope you'll return to this site -- and, if you wish, leave your comments on what you're doing to assist John McCain. I invite you to read some of the columns I've alrady done (scroll down).
One thing you've not been hearing much about is the big lead Hillary Clinton has established in Pennsylvania polls. If Mrs. Clinton can get 60% or more of the vote in the primary, she could throw the Democratic race into chaos, because she would have clearly exposed Obama's weakness in state Democrats must win on November 2, 2008.
Thanks for visiting!
One thing you've not been hearing much about is the big lead Hillary Clinton has established in Pennsylvania polls. If Mrs. Clinton can get 60% or more of the vote in the primary, she could throw the Democratic race into chaos, because she would have clearly exposed Obama's weakness in state Democrats must win on November 2, 2008.
Thanks for visiting!
Note: One of my friends in the Black Conservatives Group (Yahoo) recently said that McCain should not be launching his campaign (at McCain Field) in Mississippi because of the state's said history during the Civil Rights Movement. Also, he said that Rev. Wright had become "a dead issue." I begged to differ, as follows, on both points:
John McCain is kicking off a tour based on HIS autobiography, not on the history of the Civil Rights movement. He is kicking it off at a field (McCain Field) named after a member of his family -- both his grandfather and his father were Navy admirals. McCain is focusing on his own distinguished military career, which contrasts with Barack and Hillary, whose families have no such careers.
On Rev. Wright: this is an issue that Obama hopes will go away but it won't. In addition to having no military career, Obama has almost no legislative career either. He's been a U.S. Senator for only three years, but half that time he's spent campaigning for President and has missed most of the votes in DC.
People are interested in Rev. Wright's anti-white, anti-American, pro-terrorist comments because they're trying to figure out where Obama stands in relation to his friend, "uncle," and "spiritual advisor."
Where does Obama stand on the issues Wright has raised? How much influence on Obama's views (and on his wife's dislike of America) has Wright had? Wright, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama need to step up to the plate and tell the truth about what they believe and why they believe it.
In Obama's book Dreams From My Father he relies too much on racial stereotypes -- and he bases his views on very limited experience. He probably would not have won the Kansas Primary if his statements about that state (as loaded with white racists) had come out. (He based his opinions mainly on pictures of his grandparents and mother in Kansas.) Mostly white states that vote for a mixed-race candidate (Obama) are not exactly behaving in a racist fashion.
He even tells us how white farm boys smelled in Kansas ("stank like pigs") when he had rarely been within a thousand miles of such people.
Voters want to know exactly WHO Barack Obama is: what does he believe? what has he really accomplished (not much)? Why do he characterize himself as "post-racial" when he has felt comfortable for 20 years in an all-Black church that emphasizes nationalism rather than unity?
I realize he and Michelle don't want to answer any of those questions. But in that case, why on earth is he running for President of what his pastor calls "the KKK of America?"
Friday, March 28, 2008
Obama and Anti-Italian Slurs
Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Wright, is running out of groups to categorize and hate . . .
This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I'll be posting about Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and his anti-Italian remarks. As you may know, Rev. Wright blames what he calls the "Romans. . . the Italians" for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Does Barack Obama disagree with those statements? Who knows?
When he talks about the America-hating, race-baiting Rev. Wright, Obama chooses his words very carefully. He says he "disagrees" with the Pastor on several things, but he never identifies where his dissent lies.Somehow, no matter how despicable Wright's remarks are, Obama still continue to see him as his "uncle" and his "spiritual advisor." Obama's refusal to disown and to repudiate this evil man calls into great question where the candidate stands on hate-speech.
When the time came for Obama to repudiate Wright and separate himself from the so-called "church," he instead turned on his Rhetoric Machine. He gave a speech about "race," a bunch of generalities that avoided any full repudiation of Jeremiah Wright.
Right now, the Obama campaign had placed a muzzle on wife Michelle, whose distaste for her country reflects the views of her long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The pastor himself appears to be in hiding, unwilling to explain or apologize for his hate-filled sermons and publications.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of Democrats (and at least one Republican, me) supporting the candidacy of a young man for the Pennsylvania House. About half the people there were Americans of Italian descent. They were aware of many of Wright's offensive statements, but apparently did not know that he had singled out Italians (Wright spoke of their "garlickey" breath) for condemnation. I didn't have the heart to tell them.
My wife is of Italian descent, as are our daughter and several grandchildren. Obama owes them -- and everyone else in America -- a full explanation, but I doubt it will be forthcoming.
Thus, the questions remain: Who exactly is Barack Obama -- and to what degree does he agree with his demagogic Pastor?
This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I'll be posting about Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and his anti-Italian remarks. As you may know, Rev. Wright blames what he calls the "Romans. . . the Italians" for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Does Barack Obama disagree with those statements? Who knows?
When he talks about the America-hating, race-baiting Rev. Wright, Obama chooses his words very carefully. He says he "disagrees" with the Pastor on several things, but he never identifies where his dissent lies.Somehow, no matter how despicable Wright's remarks are, Obama still continue to see him as his "uncle" and his "spiritual advisor." Obama's refusal to disown and to repudiate this evil man calls into great question where the candidate stands on hate-speech.
When the time came for Obama to repudiate Wright and separate himself from the so-called "church," he instead turned on his Rhetoric Machine. He gave a speech about "race," a bunch of generalities that avoided any full repudiation of Jeremiah Wright.
Right now, the Obama campaign had placed a muzzle on wife Michelle, whose distaste for her country reflects the views of her long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The pastor himself appears to be in hiding, unwilling to explain or apologize for his hate-filled sermons and publications.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of Democrats (and at least one Republican, me) supporting the candidacy of a young man for the Pennsylvania House. About half the people there were Americans of Italian descent. They were aware of many of Wright's offensive statements, but apparently did not know that he had singled out Italians (Wright spoke of their "garlickey" breath) for condemnation. I didn't have the heart to tell them.
My wife is of Italian descent, as are our daughter and several grandchildren. Obama owes them -- and everyone else in America -- a full explanation, but I doubt it will be forthcoming.
Thus, the questions remain: Who exactly is Barack Obama -- and to what degree does he agree with his demagogic Pastor?
Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians
Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 26, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.
"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."
Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ..."
Below is the link to the entire article. By the way, in 2006, according to his IRS record, Obama contributed $22,500 to Wright's church.
http://cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL2008032
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 26, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.
"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."
Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ..."
Below is the link to the entire article. By the way, in 2006, according to his IRS record, Obama contributed $22,500 to Wright's church.
http://cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL2008032
Obama Will Raise YOUR Taxes
NOTE: MY OWN COMMENTS WILL FOLLOW AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST. Be aware that Barack says "[he] believe[s] in capitalism," but his remarks indicate otherwise.
Barack Obama appears to be proposing a tax increase for all Americans who make more than $75,000 per year. Key graphs:
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
He is also proposing to raise the capital gains tax, but refuses to say by how much: http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/news/nationalnews/barack__id_hike_capital_gains_tax_103875.htm
Barack Obama thinks higher taxes are a good thing
Andrew Malcolm and Mark Silva, Los Angeles Times, Top Of The Ticket Blog
March 28, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamathetaxrais.html
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama went after the "We're not paying enough taxes to the government" vote today during a television interview in New York.
First, he said the Bush tax cuts ought to die. He likes that top marginal rate of 39%. Although the non-partisan National Journal recently declared him the most liberal of the 100 senators, Obama denied being a "wild-eyed liberal," which wasn't what the Journal called him, but it sounds good on TV where everything moves by so quickly.
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
"Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize."
"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown?'' Bartiromo asked. "Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?"
"Well, look," said Obama, "there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office.''
Obama said, "I'm going to be sworn in in January -- we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point."
He was asked about the liberal tag. "I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works,'' the senator replied. " But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America."
"Obama’s completely disingenuous dodge on whether he would raise taxes during a time of economic slowdown is belied by his vote earlier this month," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Obama’s claims to the contrary, his votes to raise taxes on people earning as little as $31,850 are straight from the Democrats’ tax-and-spend playbook."
Steve says: Barack Obama talks regularly about doing away with "tax cuts for the wealthy." Apparently, the "wealthy" include working families with incomes above $32,000. Apparently, his tax plans do not go after the truly wealthy -- multimillionaires like John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and -- of course -- Obama himself, who has made millions on his books.
In other words, people who have large fortunes will do just fine under "President" Obama, while working families will be hit hard.A significant part of the "Bush tax cuts" consists of eliminating the marriage penalty, increasing the tax credit per year, and doing away with the "death tax." There's no indication Obama wants to continue such tax reductions for working families. Basically, his "economic plan" is to pay off low-income voters at the expense of everyone else.
Barack Obama appears to be proposing a tax increase for all Americans who make more than $75,000 per year. Key graphs:
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
He is also proposing to raise the capital gains tax, but refuses to say by how much: http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/news/nationalnews/barack__id_hike_capital_gains_tax_103875.htm
Barack Obama thinks higher taxes are a good thing
Andrew Malcolm and Mark Silva, Los Angeles Times, Top Of The Ticket Blog
March 28, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamathetaxrais.html
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama went after the "We're not paying enough taxes to the government" vote today during a television interview in New York.
First, he said the Bush tax cuts ought to die. He likes that top marginal rate of 39%. Although the non-partisan National Journal recently declared him the most liberal of the 100 senators, Obama denied being a "wild-eyed liberal," which wasn't what the Journal called him, but it sounds good on TV where everything moves by so quickly.
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
"Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize."
"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown?'' Bartiromo asked. "Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?"
"Well, look," said Obama, "there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office.''
Obama said, "I'm going to be sworn in in January -- we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point."
He was asked about the liberal tag. "I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works,'' the senator replied. " But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America."
"Obama’s completely disingenuous dodge on whether he would raise taxes during a time of economic slowdown is belied by his vote earlier this month," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Obama’s claims to the contrary, his votes to raise taxes on people earning as little as $31,850 are straight from the Democrats’ tax-and-spend playbook."
Steve says: Barack Obama talks regularly about doing away with "tax cuts for the wealthy." Apparently, the "wealthy" include working families with incomes above $32,000. Apparently, his tax plans do not go after the truly wealthy -- multimillionaires like John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and -- of course -- Obama himself, who has made millions on his books.
In other words, people who have large fortunes will do just fine under "President" Obama, while working families will be hit hard.A significant part of the "Bush tax cuts" consists of eliminating the marriage penalty, increasing the tax credit per year, and doing away with the "death tax." There's no indication Obama wants to continue such tax reductions for working families. Basically, his "economic plan" is to pay off low-income voters at the expense of everyone else.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Obama's Pro-Terrorist Church
When exactly does Barack Obama get held to account for being a 20-year member of a racist, anti-American, Israel-hating church? When does he stop using the excuse that he "wasn't there that particular Sunday?" Who exactly is Barack Obama? And what precisely does he believe? Does anyone know the answer to those questions? Over the next 3 1/2 weeks Obama will be spending a lot of time in Pennsylvania, and it's time for journalists in this state to start asking the hard questions they'd use with any other presidential candidate.
Right now, Obama's wife, who's "not proud" of her country, and the pastor who apparently influenced her thinking, aren't available to the media. As for Obama, he gives a speech "about race" rather than about why he is not detaching himself from a bizarre pastor and his church. As for us, the American people, "yes we can" ask for a serious explanation of Obama's actions and beliefs.
Obama’s Pro-Hamas Church
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY,
3/25/08
Election 2008:
It’s bad enough that Barack Obama’s church took sick joy in 9/11 for "racist white America" supporting "Zionists." Now we learn it also is a mouthpiece for anti-Israeli terrorists.
Last July, Trinity United Church of Christ reprinted a Hamas manifesto written by a terrorist fugitive wanted by the FBI. It was published across two pages of the "Pastor’s Page" section of the church bulletin.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s name is copyrighted at the bottom of the pages. For those who don’t know, Wright is the anti-American, anti-Israeli bigot that Obama has consorted with for the past two decades.
In his newsletter, the preacher gives Mousa Abu Marzook a platform to justify the Palestinian terrorist group’s denial of Israel’s right to exist, while defending strikes against Israeli targets.
Marzook is identified in the church bulletin only as the "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement."
In fact, Marzook was kicked out of the U.S. several years ago after the U.S. declared him a specially designated terrorist.
The Palestinian was indicted in 2004 for conspiring to funnel millions to Hamas to carry out kidnappings, bombings and other attacks on Israel. Believed to be hiding in Syria, he remains a fugitive.
Even if Wright didn’t know Marzook was wanted by the government, Hamas has been designated a terrorist group since 1995, blacklisted by a Democrat administration.
Wright had to have known from headlines that Hamas targets innocent civilians in pizza parlors and buses for suicide bombings, eviscerating children and elderly with fireballs laced with nails and ball bearings. These are not warriors, but terrorists.
Obama, for his part, says he is shocked— shocked! — that his church would support Hamas.
"I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong piece was reprinted in the bulletin," he said in a carefully worded statement that denies only his attendance and not his prior knowledge of the bulletin.
The Democratic front-runner for president seems to think if he just claims "not present," he won’t be linked to his longtime church’s radicalism. But a history of 20 years of church attendance and close ties to Wright make that impossible.
When videos showed his pastor blaming America for 9/11 and damning it to hell, Obama insisted he did not attend service on the days those particular sermons were delivered.
Obama also pleaded ignorance about Wright last year honoring anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement award," even though the church featured Farrakhan on the cover of its magazine and held a gala in Chicago to celebrate his "greatness."
This didn’t come out of the blue. Wright and Farrakhan go way back. In the 1980s, they traveled to Libya to pay homage to terrorist leader Muammar Qaddafi.
Yet, Wright is the man Obama says has been "like an uncle" to him all these years.
It strains credulity that in all their conversations, he remains in the dark about his radical ties.
Yet now that Obama knows Wright sympathizes with terrorists, Obama continues to defend him and his church.
"This is a pillar of the community," Obama said, "and if you go there on Easter, and you sat down there in the pew, you would think this is just like any other church."
Maybe any other church in Gaza or the West Bank. But certainly not in post-9/11 America.
Who does Obama think he’s fooling? He needs to sever ties with Wright and his church, regardless of their support.
If he can’t stand up to them, how can he stand up to terrorists?
Right now, Obama's wife, who's "not proud" of her country, and the pastor who apparently influenced her thinking, aren't available to the media. As for Obama, he gives a speech "about race" rather than about why he is not detaching himself from a bizarre pastor and his church. As for us, the American people, "yes we can" ask for a serious explanation of Obama's actions and beliefs.
Obama’s Pro-Hamas Church
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY,
3/25/08
Election 2008:
It’s bad enough that Barack Obama’s church took sick joy in 9/11 for "racist white America" supporting "Zionists." Now we learn it also is a mouthpiece for anti-Israeli terrorists.
Last July, Trinity United Church of Christ reprinted a Hamas manifesto written by a terrorist fugitive wanted by the FBI. It was published across two pages of the "Pastor’s Page" section of the church bulletin.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s name is copyrighted at the bottom of the pages. For those who don’t know, Wright is the anti-American, anti-Israeli bigot that Obama has consorted with for the past two decades.
In his newsletter, the preacher gives Mousa Abu Marzook a platform to justify the Palestinian terrorist group’s denial of Israel’s right to exist, while defending strikes against Israeli targets.
Marzook is identified in the church bulletin only as the "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement."
In fact, Marzook was kicked out of the U.S. several years ago after the U.S. declared him a specially designated terrorist.
The Palestinian was indicted in 2004 for conspiring to funnel millions to Hamas to carry out kidnappings, bombings and other attacks on Israel. Believed to be hiding in Syria, he remains a fugitive.
Even if Wright didn’t know Marzook was wanted by the government, Hamas has been designated a terrorist group since 1995, blacklisted by a Democrat administration.
Wright had to have known from headlines that Hamas targets innocent civilians in pizza parlors and buses for suicide bombings, eviscerating children and elderly with fireballs laced with nails and ball bearings. These are not warriors, but terrorists.
Obama, for his part, says he is shocked— shocked! — that his church would support Hamas.
"I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong piece was reprinted in the bulletin," he said in a carefully worded statement that denies only his attendance and not his prior knowledge of the bulletin.
The Democratic front-runner for president seems to think if he just claims "not present," he won’t be linked to his longtime church’s radicalism. But a history of 20 years of church attendance and close ties to Wright make that impossible.
When videos showed his pastor blaming America for 9/11 and damning it to hell, Obama insisted he did not attend service on the days those particular sermons were delivered.
Obama also pleaded ignorance about Wright last year honoring anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement award," even though the church featured Farrakhan on the cover of its magazine and held a gala in Chicago to celebrate his "greatness."
This didn’t come out of the blue. Wright and Farrakhan go way back. In the 1980s, they traveled to Libya to pay homage to terrorist leader Muammar Qaddafi.
Yet, Wright is the man Obama says has been "like an uncle" to him all these years.
It strains credulity that in all their conversations, he remains in the dark about his radical ties.
Yet now that Obama knows Wright sympathizes with terrorists, Obama continues to defend him and his church.
"This is a pillar of the community," Obama said, "and if you go there on Easter, and you sat down there in the pew, you would think this is just like any other church."
Maybe any other church in Gaza or the West Bank. But certainly not in post-9/11 America.
Who does Obama think he’s fooling? He needs to sever ties with Wright and his church, regardless of their support.
If he can’t stand up to them, how can he stand up to terrorists?
GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
A great resource for McCain bloggers and other supporters is Kathy's site at: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com. Please visit it.
Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:
Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%
“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.
Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.
The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.
Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.
Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.
If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:
Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%
“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.
Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.
The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.
Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.
Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.
If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Obama, Clinton Flunk Economics 101
Lorin and Randy, two members of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo have responded to the “economic plans” (if they deserve that term) of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Here are their reactions, followed by mine. They explain their sophisticated points simply and compellingly.
Lorin says: Raising taxes is bad for economic growth. It reduces the capacity of individuals or companies to spend, save or invest. These activities are critical for job creation, business formation,innovation, and risk taking.
As a result, Obama has recently begun to hedge about his plan to roll back Bush's individual income tax cuts for those making over $200K, in light of the economic malaise / recession. He is now saying that hemay not insist that they be rolled back.
He has blinked.
There is nothing like an economic downturn to test the validity of ones professed public policy prescriptions.If raising taxes on the "rich" indeed was a low risk strategy with negligible negative economic repercussions, Obama would be sticking to his guns.If Obama thinks 1+1 = 3 then he should stick to that nonsensical view irrespective of the economic climate.
In fact, we know, 1 + 1 = 2. All day, every day.
The same math is true of his proposals to remove the cap on income subject to social security taxes, make companies pay income taxes at the US rate (2nd or 3rd highest among developed countries) rather than the foreign rate, roll back Bush's reduction in taxes dividends, and sympathy for fellow math wizard Charlie Rangel's proposal to raise taxes on carried interests and capital gains.
I remain supportive of Obama's quest for the nomination, but not for the Presidency.His economic and tax policies don't add up.
LJC (Lorin J. Crenshaw)
Obama has no workable method for fixing the Social Security mess, since raising SS tax will not cure the long-term shortfall. This failure is ESPECIALLY harmful if the U.S. allows all the 30 million illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits, including their older relatives (who come here under "family reunification" plans) who have never paid a penny into the system. Even the illegals who have worked in the U.S. often have contributed no taxes (wish I could have done that!) because their wages have been paid in cash.
Generally, private retirement accounts can be created at a 3-4% real growth rate, compared to 0-1% for Social Security.For blacks especially, the Social Security system is a form of theft, since any given black worker is statistically likely to die several years sooner after retirement, so he/she does not collect as much in benefits as Asians/Caucasians who typically live several years longer.
What is needed is some form of personally owned retirement account, so that if a black wage-earner dies earlier than his asian/white counterpart, the accumulated retirement fund can be passed on to his/her children, thus keeping the money in the family for education, home-buying, bill-paying or just enjoyment.The way things now work, the benefits end with death, and the money is returned to the SS pool to benefit other workers, or even worse, someone who may not deserve it at all.
I am not saying that we should scrap the SS system entirely, since some people are attached to it and feel that only government provides stability. If those people want to continue with the current system, they must have the option to do so.Randy
My response: Randy and Lorin show why this is one of the best groups (Black Conservatives) on the Internet. In one sense, national economics really is about making one plus one equal more than two in that it's about creating new wealth. It's not just about taking money from one guy's pocket and putting it another person's, which is the "economic plan" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That’s called the "zero sum" game.
In the 1960s, President John F. Kenney made a sharp cut in taxes (as Reagan did later), with all sorts of people saying it would reduce tax revenues, etc. In fact, it did just the opposite, leading to very strong growth and HIGHER tax revenues. Well, there aren't any Democrats around like Kennedy (including the one named Ted) anymore.
Hillary Clinton gives her big "economic" speech, and it means she would like to take your money to bail out people who bought houses they can't afford. Punish the people who made good decisions -- and reward the people who made bad ones. In her view and Barack's it's not one plus one but one minus one. The Moveon.org types who can't stand America just love it.
If Clinton and Obama hired Randy and Lorin as their economic advisors they might be worth voting for. But don't quit your days jobs, Randy and Lorin, because those calls won’t come.
Lorin says: Raising taxes is bad for economic growth. It reduces the capacity of individuals or companies to spend, save or invest. These activities are critical for job creation, business formation,innovation, and risk taking.
As a result, Obama has recently begun to hedge about his plan to roll back Bush's individual income tax cuts for those making over $200K, in light of the economic malaise / recession. He is now saying that hemay not insist that they be rolled back.
He has blinked.
There is nothing like an economic downturn to test the validity of ones professed public policy prescriptions.If raising taxes on the "rich" indeed was a low risk strategy with negligible negative economic repercussions, Obama would be sticking to his guns.If Obama thinks 1+1 = 3 then he should stick to that nonsensical view irrespective of the economic climate.
In fact, we know, 1 + 1 = 2. All day, every day.
The same math is true of his proposals to remove the cap on income subject to social security taxes, make companies pay income taxes at the US rate (2nd or 3rd highest among developed countries) rather than the foreign rate, roll back Bush's reduction in taxes dividends, and sympathy for fellow math wizard Charlie Rangel's proposal to raise taxes on carried interests and capital gains.
I remain supportive of Obama's quest for the nomination, but not for the Presidency.His economic and tax policies don't add up.
LJC (Lorin J. Crenshaw)
Obama has no workable method for fixing the Social Security mess, since raising SS tax will not cure the long-term shortfall. This failure is ESPECIALLY harmful if the U.S. allows all the 30 million illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits, including their older relatives (who come here under "family reunification" plans) who have never paid a penny into the system. Even the illegals who have worked in the U.S. often have contributed no taxes (wish I could have done that!) because their wages have been paid in cash.
Generally, private retirement accounts can be created at a 3-4% real growth rate, compared to 0-1% for Social Security.For blacks especially, the Social Security system is a form of theft, since any given black worker is statistically likely to die several years sooner after retirement, so he/she does not collect as much in benefits as Asians/Caucasians who typically live several years longer.
What is needed is some form of personally owned retirement account, so that if a black wage-earner dies earlier than his asian/white counterpart, the accumulated retirement fund can be passed on to his/her children, thus keeping the money in the family for education, home-buying, bill-paying or just enjoyment.The way things now work, the benefits end with death, and the money is returned to the SS pool to benefit other workers, or even worse, someone who may not deserve it at all.
I am not saying that we should scrap the SS system entirely, since some people are attached to it and feel that only government provides stability. If those people want to continue with the current system, they must have the option to do so.Randy
My response: Randy and Lorin show why this is one of the best groups (Black Conservatives) on the Internet. In one sense, national economics really is about making one plus one equal more than two in that it's about creating new wealth. It's not just about taking money from one guy's pocket and putting it another person's, which is the "economic plan" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That’s called the "zero sum" game.
In the 1960s, President John F. Kenney made a sharp cut in taxes (as Reagan did later), with all sorts of people saying it would reduce tax revenues, etc. In fact, it did just the opposite, leading to very strong growth and HIGHER tax revenues. Well, there aren't any Democrats around like Kennedy (including the one named Ted) anymore.
Hillary Clinton gives her big "economic" speech, and it means she would like to take your money to bail out people who bought houses they can't afford. Punish the people who made good decisions -- and reward the people who made bad ones. In her view and Barack's it's not one plus one but one minus one. The Moveon.org types who can't stand America just love it.
If Clinton and Obama hired Randy and Lorin as their economic advisors they might be worth voting for. But don't quit your days jobs, Randy and Lorin, because those calls won’t come.
Monday, March 24, 2008
LLOYD MARCUS: BLACK CONSERVATIVE "CONFESSES"
I will be posting a new column later today (Tuesday, about 5 p.m.) but for now I want to keep featuring Lloyd Marcus' fascinating "Confessions" (scroll down a few lines). My next column will begin with the following quote from Martin Amis' wonderful book called Money: "My theory is -- we don't really go that far into other people, even when we think we do. We hardly ever go in and bring them out. We just stand at the jaws of the cave, and strike a match, and quickly ask if anybody's there." What I've been trying recently is to "bring out" the real Barack Obama -- particularly to determine why says one thing in his books and something very different in his speeches and commercials. Who is Barack Obama? And does he even know the answer to that question?
Dear Friends: I hope you'll read Larry Perrault's fine essay titled, "Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain." A Texan, Larry has been a strong and effective supporter of Mike Huckabee, but like the vast majority of people who "like Mike," he's now behind Senator McCain. You can find his piece at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com.
Lloyd Marcus (above), then . . .
Here's a powerful autobiographical piece by an important Black conservative, Lloyd Marcus. Later today (Monday), I'll write below Lloyd's piece about how McCain must appeal to Black moderates and conservatives -- frankly, a huge group -- in his race for the presidency against Barack Obama. I met Lloyd on the Black Conservatives (Yahoo) Group. I urge everyone to join that group, whether you're a Black conservative or moderate or a supporter or that political group. I also urge people to back an allied group, The National Black Republicans Association. If John McCain can win 20% of the Black vote (rather than Republicans' usual 10%), he might carry 45 or more states in the general election.
A urine smell permeated the stairwell. In the darkness, due to smashed light bulbs, the sound of broken wine bottles underfoot echoed off the concrete walls. I was nine years old. With the elevators out of service half of the time due to vandalism, many times I was forced to take the scary trek into the shadow of death up the stairwell to our sixth floor apartment in the projects of East Baltimore.
This was a far cry from the brand spanking new building we moved into just two years earlier. I remember our excitement when my parents, three younger siblings and I moved in our apartment. It was a dream come true moving from our leaky roof ghetto into a place where everything including the appliances were new. We were one of the first in the eleven story all black residents building. While a few people kept their apartments lovely, most seemed committed to destroying the building.
All I kept hearing was that everything was the 'white man's fault'. Even at age nine, I sarcastically thought to myself, “how can we stop these evil white people from sneaking in here at night peeing in the stairwell, leaving broken wine bottles, smashing the light bulbs and attacking people?”.
My early experience living in the government project taught me that some folks simply have a ghetto mindset. I also witnessed the trap of government welfare. And why was so many around me angry and violent despite getting free housing, food and health care?
It was the late 50s when my dad was one of the first blacks to break the color barrier into the Baltimore Fire Dept. The sight of him in his crisp dress blue firefighter uniform made everyone proud, though none more than me. With dad's new job, the government raised our rent to $72. per month. I remember my dad saying, “Seventy-two dollars! They must be crazy. We're movin'!” We moved to a suburban black community. I truly believe I would not be who I am today had we stayed in the projects.
Several of my cousins stayed enslaved to the system and the bigotry of low expectations. Because true self esteem comes from personal achievement, they possessed very little. They lived angry and bitter lives consumed with serial impregnating, out of wedlock births and substance abuse. An outrageously high number died prematurely.
So when I hear politicians pandering to the so-called poor of America, it turns my stomach. I've witnessed the deterioration of the human spirit, wasted lives and suffering that happens when government becomes 'daddy'.
Lloyd Marcus
Deltona, FL 32725
http://www.lloydmarcus.net/
The following is a comment by another Black conservative, Randy, on Obama's relationship with his America-hating pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright:
Pastor Wright's mentoring and advice to Obama can have policy effects that can damage the entire country, and possibly even damage the entire world.As for the excuse that Obama is "guilty by association", there is a simple way to fix that. Obama must disassociate, fully and completely and specifically regarding any anti-American policies or statements. No evasions, no weasel words, no equivocations, no moral equivalency.Unless, of course, Obama is only running for the Presidency of the angry blacks of America.It is an issue for many people, so it must be addressed. His choice.
--Randy
Dear Friends: I hope you'll read Larry Perrault's fine essay titled, "Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain." A Texan, Larry has been a strong and effective supporter of Mike Huckabee, but like the vast majority of people who "like Mike," he's now behind Senator McCain. You can find his piece at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com.
Lloyd Marcus (above), then . . .Here's a powerful autobiographical piece by an important Black conservative, Lloyd Marcus. Later today (Monday), I'll write below Lloyd's piece about how McCain must appeal to Black moderates and conservatives -- frankly, a huge group -- in his race for the presidency against Barack Obama. I met Lloyd on the Black Conservatives (Yahoo) Group. I urge everyone to join that group, whether you're a Black conservative or moderate or a supporter or that political group. I also urge people to back an allied group, The National Black Republicans Association. If John McCain can win 20% of the Black vote (rather than Republicans' usual 10%), he might carry 45 or more states in the general election.
Confessions of a Black Conservative
A urine smell permeated the stairwell. In the darkness, due to smashed light bulbs, the sound of broken wine bottles underfoot echoed off the concrete walls. I was nine years old. With the elevators out of service half of the time due to vandalism, many times I was forced to take the scary trek into the shadow of death up the stairwell to our sixth floor apartment in the projects of East Baltimore.
This was a far cry from the brand spanking new building we moved into just two years earlier. I remember our excitement when my parents, three younger siblings and I moved in our apartment. It was a dream come true moving from our leaky roof ghetto into a place where everything including the appliances were new. We were one of the first in the eleven story all black residents building. While a few people kept their apartments lovely, most seemed committed to destroying the building.
All I kept hearing was that everything was the 'white man's fault'. Even at age nine, I sarcastically thought to myself, “how can we stop these evil white people from sneaking in here at night peeing in the stairwell, leaving broken wine bottles, smashing the light bulbs and attacking people?”.
My early experience living in the government project taught me that some folks simply have a ghetto mindset. I also witnessed the trap of government welfare. And why was so many around me angry and violent despite getting free housing, food and health care?
It was the late 50s when my dad was one of the first blacks to break the color barrier into the Baltimore Fire Dept. The sight of him in his crisp dress blue firefighter uniform made everyone proud, though none more than me. With dad's new job, the government raised our rent to $72. per month. I remember my dad saying, “Seventy-two dollars! They must be crazy. We're movin'!” We moved to a suburban black community. I truly believe I would not be who I am today had we stayed in the projects.
Several of my cousins stayed enslaved to the system and the bigotry of low expectations. Because true self esteem comes from personal achievement, they possessed very little. They lived angry and bitter lives consumed with serial impregnating, out of wedlock births and substance abuse. An outrageously high number died prematurely.
So when I hear politicians pandering to the so-called poor of America, it turns my stomach. I've witnessed the deterioration of the human spirit, wasted lives and suffering that happens when government becomes 'daddy'.
Lloyd Marcus
Deltona, FL 32725
http://www.lloydmarcus.net/
The following is a comment by another Black conservative, Randy, on Obama's relationship with his America-hating pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright:
Pastor Wright's mentoring and advice to Obama can have policy effects that can damage the entire country, and possibly even damage the entire world.As for the excuse that Obama is "guilty by association", there is a simple way to fix that. Obama must disassociate, fully and completely and specifically regarding any anti-American policies or statements. No evasions, no weasel words, no equivocations, no moral equivalency.Unless, of course, Obama is only running for the Presidency of the angry blacks of America.It is an issue for many people, so it must be addressed. His choice.
--Randy
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Hawaiian Native: Obama's Big Con
A Hawaiian native who’s a friend of mine wrote the following piece about Barack Obama. Like so many people in Hawaii, Obama was a mixed-race individual. His identification of himself as a “Black man” appears to be mainly for political purposes – frankly, to help him gain 85% to 95% of the Black vote. He grew up in a white family (the Dunhams) and attended schools that have relatively few Blacks (Punahou Prep School, Columbia, and Harvard). The best way to determine Obama’s attitudes on race is not to listen to his campaign speeches but rather to read his books, especially the first one, Dreams From My Father. I believe most people who do read the books will find that the sentiments expressed are dramatically different from his speeches and his campaign commercials. The following appeared on Sanity 102’s blog at: http://sanity102.ipenglish.com/
Hawaiian Native: Obama’s Big Con
First let’s get this straight: Obama has about as much knowledge of racism and poverty as Mitt Romney.
I live in Hawaii and Obama’s little anecdote about his racist grandmother would play anywhere but where his grandmother raised him. The 50th state is a place of mixed races. Believe me when I tell you that his White mother/grandmother would be far more likely to experience some type of racial negativity than his Black father. Hawaii’s people are mostly brown skinned and a Black person would fit in far easier than a White person.
And while it is true that Whites have a long history in Hawaii of being the more elitist race, I even question the idea that Whites experience any particular racial tension. The 2nd generation Japanese immigrants who fought and won tons of medals in American’s most decorated battalion sent their children to college to become doctors, lawyers, and teachers–and they spent the next two generation matching and exceeding Whites in wealth and power.
As Obama himself had written in his autobiography, Hawaii is a land of racial tolerance–and I am betting that Wright did more than just turn Obama on to Christianity…I believe the Black bigot taught Obama to hate and blame Whites and America.
Another reason for Obama’s “black history” not quite playing right is that the prep school Obama went to is the best school in the state with a tuition that rivals colleges. No one goes to Punahou (with the exception of a soon to be NFL football star) without the funds and the connection of the most elite and wealthiest families in the state; there is just too much competition to attend.
And ah no, there is no affirmative action in the top prep school.
Jeremiah Wright may have all kinds of reasons to be angry with America, but for the Black kid that went to an exclusive private school, attended two Ivy League colleges, owns a million dollar-plus house, has a well educated wife and beautiful children, such anger should be as foreign as his golden life is to the vast majority of White Americans who just make it from pay check to pay check.
Note: In Hawaii, the racial breakdown is as follows:
White 23%
Asian 41%
Hawaiian 10%
Two+ races 18%
Hispanic 07%
Black 02%
Note: I wrote the following comment today on Sanity 102's blog:
I've been having a good debate (and it is that) with some of the Black conservatives, most of whom (all?) support McCain but are ready to give Obama a pass on what he says about race. Since I even deny (mixed-race) Obama is "Black," there's a lot of room for disagreement. Both he and Michelle were children of privilege -- she went to Princeton and Harvard Law and made (I believe) in excess of 200K annually. Barack went briefly to a college in California and then to Columbia and Harvard Law. It's hard to pin down his net worth, but if you include the house it appears to be in excess of $5 million. Of course, it's not to his political advantage to present his life as it is and has been, because that would raise the "Black enough?" issue (mostly a phony, media spin) again. In one of my posts I called Obama "The Invisible Man," the title of a book by black author Ralph Ellison. As long as nobody knows exactly who he is, he can run as "Everyman." In Black voting areas, they already know what Obama calls the "okie doke," where a wink and a nod indicate that the post-racial message is mainly to put whites at ease. I don't believe I'm being cynical about him. He's a certain type found in all racial groups: the highly skilled con man. I had NEVER heard about the exclusive prep school -- so much for the national media, which prefers to live in a world of illusion.
Hawaiian Native: Obama’s Big Con
First let’s get this straight: Obama has about as much knowledge of racism and poverty as Mitt Romney.
I live in Hawaii and Obama’s little anecdote about his racist grandmother would play anywhere but where his grandmother raised him. The 50th state is a place of mixed races. Believe me when I tell you that his White mother/grandmother would be far more likely to experience some type of racial negativity than his Black father. Hawaii’s people are mostly brown skinned and a Black person would fit in far easier than a White person.
And while it is true that Whites have a long history in Hawaii of being the more elitist race, I even question the idea that Whites experience any particular racial tension. The 2nd generation Japanese immigrants who fought and won tons of medals in American’s most decorated battalion sent their children to college to become doctors, lawyers, and teachers–and they spent the next two generation matching and exceeding Whites in wealth and power.
As Obama himself had written in his autobiography, Hawaii is a land of racial tolerance–and I am betting that Wright did more than just turn Obama on to Christianity…I believe the Black bigot taught Obama to hate and blame Whites and America.
Another reason for Obama’s “black history” not quite playing right is that the prep school Obama went to is the best school in the state with a tuition that rivals colleges. No one goes to Punahou (with the exception of a soon to be NFL football star) without the funds and the connection of the most elite and wealthiest families in the state; there is just too much competition to attend.
And ah no, there is no affirmative action in the top prep school.
Jeremiah Wright may have all kinds of reasons to be angry with America, but for the Black kid that went to an exclusive private school, attended two Ivy League colleges, owns a million dollar-plus house, has a well educated wife and beautiful children, such anger should be as foreign as his golden life is to the vast majority of White Americans who just make it from pay check to pay check.
Note: In Hawaii, the racial breakdown is as follows:
White 23%
Asian 41%
Hawaiian 10%
Two+ races 18%
Hispanic 07%
Black 02%
Note: I wrote the following comment today on Sanity 102's blog:
I've been having a good debate (and it is that) with some of the Black conservatives, most of whom (all?) support McCain but are ready to give Obama a pass on what he says about race. Since I even deny (mixed-race) Obama is "Black," there's a lot of room for disagreement. Both he and Michelle were children of privilege -- she went to Princeton and Harvard Law and made (I believe) in excess of 200K annually. Barack went briefly to a college in California and then to Columbia and Harvard Law. It's hard to pin down his net worth, but if you include the house it appears to be in excess of $5 million. Of course, it's not to his political advantage to present his life as it is and has been, because that would raise the "Black enough?" issue (mostly a phony, media spin) again. In one of my posts I called Obama "The Invisible Man," the title of a book by black author Ralph Ellison. As long as nobody knows exactly who he is, he can run as "Everyman." In Black voting areas, they already know what Obama calls the "okie doke," where a wink and a nod indicate that the post-racial message is mainly to put whites at ease. I don't believe I'm being cynical about him. He's a certain type found in all racial groups: the highly skilled con man. I had NEVER heard about the exclusive prep school -- so much for the national media, which prefers to live in a world of illusion.
MY OBAMA PROBLEM -- AND YOURS
"I can no more disown him (Rev. Wright) than I can disown the Black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother." (Barack Obama)
Frankly, this is Barack doing the Okie doke, practicing deception. Rev. Wright is not synonymous with the Black community. His loony -- and hateful -- ideas are shared by SOME in the Black community but not even by a majority. There's no evidence the community believes that 9/11 was the fault of Americans, including the 3,000 innocent people killed. There's no evidence the community thinks the U.S. government "invented" AIDS in order to kill Black people.
Did Obama's grandmother share similar ideas? Obama never says she did. He brings her up apparently to justify his not disowning a hate-monger, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The grandmother, apparently a good human being, has almost nothing in common with Wright.
The grandparents seem to be people Obama can use to further his political ambitions. In his commercials, running now in PA, he speaks with reverence about the grandfather's service "in Patton's Army.”. In his first book (Dreams From My Father), he describes the grandpa as marching around in the mud and never seeing real combat. Which is it, Barack?
In his speech, he describes him grandmother as someone unnecessarily frightened of "big Black men" and given to making racial "stereotypes." But the book doesn't show that at all. She never even mentioned (apparently) that the man threatening her in one instance was Black. The grandfather supplies that detail. Which is it, Barack?
In his commercials Obama implies he's proud of his grandma's war service on "a bomber assembly line." But in the book he calls her "Rosie the Riveter," a demeaning term.
My frustration is that too many people hold Obama to very low standards. He's allowed to be inconsistent in what he says to us. His grandparents get criticized for holding less than enlightened views, but they get little credit for bringing up a grandson who went to Columbia and Harvard and became a U.S. Senator – and viable candidate for the presidency. Common sense tells us they must have done a lot of things right.
Is the national media going to resolve the contradictions and questions that remain about Obama? Don't be on it. They'd rather wave their pom poms in salute of a candidate who's supposed to be "post-racial," but seems to look at everything in life through a racial lens.
Frankly, this is Barack doing the Okie doke, practicing deception. Rev. Wright is not synonymous with the Black community. His loony -- and hateful -- ideas are shared by SOME in the Black community but not even by a majority. There's no evidence the community believes that 9/11 was the fault of Americans, including the 3,000 innocent people killed. There's no evidence the community thinks the U.S. government "invented" AIDS in order to kill Black people.
Did Obama's grandmother share similar ideas? Obama never says she did. He brings her up apparently to justify his not disowning a hate-monger, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The grandmother, apparently a good human being, has almost nothing in common with Wright.
The grandparents seem to be people Obama can use to further his political ambitions. In his commercials, running now in PA, he speaks with reverence about the grandfather's service "in Patton's Army.”. In his first book (Dreams From My Father), he describes the grandpa as marching around in the mud and never seeing real combat. Which is it, Barack?
In his speech, he describes him grandmother as someone unnecessarily frightened of "big Black men" and given to making racial "stereotypes." But the book doesn't show that at all. She never even mentioned (apparently) that the man threatening her in one instance was Black. The grandfather supplies that detail. Which is it, Barack?
In his commercials Obama implies he's proud of his grandma's war service on "a bomber assembly line." But in the book he calls her "Rosie the Riveter," a demeaning term.
My frustration is that too many people hold Obama to very low standards. He's allowed to be inconsistent in what he says to us. His grandparents get criticized for holding less than enlightened views, but they get little credit for bringing up a grandson who went to Columbia and Harvard and became a U.S. Senator – and viable candidate for the presidency. Common sense tells us they must have done a lot of things right.
Is the national media going to resolve the contradictions and questions that remain about Obama? Don't be on it. They'd rather wave their pom poms in salute of a candidate who's supposed to be "post-racial," but seems to look at everything in life through a racial lens.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
OBAMA THROWS GRANDMA UNDER BUS
Note: I’ve borrowed some concepts from the following article:
http://whateversowhat.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/obama-dreams-of-my-father-really/
The saddest and cruelest part [of the book Dreams of My Father] he leaves for his grandmother. In his speech, he criticizes her for “stereotypes. He also says his grandmother once told him she was afraid of black MEN she passed on the street. In his book DREAMS, Page 88, he refers to this incident, but it’s MUCH DIFFERENT [FROM[ HOW HE DESCRIBED [IT] IN HIS SPEECH!
He overhears his grandparents [talking] and walks in and asks his grandmother what’s wrong. She says “a man asked me for money yesterday, while I was waiting for the bus.”
Obama asks “that’s all?”. She says, her lips pursed with irritation, “He was very aggressive. Very Aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking [for more]. If the bus hadn’t come, I think he might have hit me over the head”
Then, Obama walks into the other room where his grandfather has gone and tells him “it’s probably a little scary for her, seeing some big man block her way….”
ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR IN OBAMA’S BOOK: HIS GRANDMOTHER NEVER SAID THE MAN WAS BLACK – OR THAT THIS WAS THE REASON SHE WAS AFRAID!!!
Obama says on Page 88 he learned the harasser was black from his Grandfather – NOT HIS GRANDMOTHER.
In his speech, Obama implied his grandmother, who consistently demonstrated her “love” for her grandson was somehow racist, a Kansas rube. However, that is not at all the implication we get from the book.
In the speech, he “uses” his grandmother to balance against Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In fact, the difference is that the grandmother is a traditional American – and something of an heroic figure. Her main offense in Obama’s mind seems to be that she’s white. Supposedly a critic of racial stereotypes, he relentlessly stereotypes his grandparents. The real "racist" turns out to be Barack Obama.
His point in the speech seems to be: “Hey, I tolerated my white racist grandparents, so why can’t I tolerate my Black racist preacher?” The problem is that the grandparents, whatever human imperfections they might have had, were NOT racist. Rev. Wright, who should know better, is. Obama is protecting himself politically at the expense of his loving grandparents, and it stinks.
I urge everyone to read both Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. They reveal a much different Obama than the one he seeks to present in his speeches.
http://whateversowhat.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/obama-dreams-of-my-father-really/
The saddest and cruelest part [of the book Dreams of My Father] he leaves for his grandmother. In his speech, he criticizes her for “stereotypes. He also says his grandmother once told him she was afraid of black MEN she passed on the street. In his book DREAMS, Page 88, he refers to this incident, but it’s MUCH DIFFERENT [FROM[ HOW HE DESCRIBED [IT] IN HIS SPEECH!
He overhears his grandparents [talking] and walks in and asks his grandmother what’s wrong. She says “a man asked me for money yesterday, while I was waiting for the bus.”
Obama asks “that’s all?”. She says, her lips pursed with irritation, “He was very aggressive. Very Aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking [for more]. If the bus hadn’t come, I think he might have hit me over the head”
Then, Obama walks into the other room where his grandfather has gone and tells him “it’s probably a little scary for her, seeing some big man block her way….”
ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR IN OBAMA’S BOOK: HIS GRANDMOTHER NEVER SAID THE MAN WAS BLACK – OR THAT THIS WAS THE REASON SHE WAS AFRAID!!!
Obama says on Page 88 he learned the harasser was black from his Grandfather – NOT HIS GRANDMOTHER.
In his speech, Obama implied his grandmother, who consistently demonstrated her “love” for her grandson was somehow racist, a Kansas rube. However, that is not at all the implication we get from the book.
In the speech, he “uses” his grandmother to balance against Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In fact, the difference is that the grandmother is a traditional American – and something of an heroic figure. Her main offense in Obama’s mind seems to be that she’s white. Supposedly a critic of racial stereotypes, he relentlessly stereotypes his grandparents. The real "racist" turns out to be Barack Obama.
His point in the speech seems to be: “Hey, I tolerated my white racist grandparents, so why can’t I tolerate my Black racist preacher?” The problem is that the grandparents, whatever human imperfections they might have had, were NOT racist. Rev. Wright, who should know better, is. Obama is protecting himself politically at the expense of his loving grandparents, and it stinks.
I urge everyone to read both Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. They reveal a much different Obama than the one he seeks to present in his speeches.
And a few more words in response to Sanity102's comments below . . .
Malia: As usual, I think you're right on target with your comments..
Okay, the first 100 pages of Dreams of My Father show Obama as a man who sees EVERYTHING through the prism of race. It's downright scary. No wonder he admires Pastor Wright.
I can't imagine the reason for the animosity toward his grandparents -- and also toward his mother, Anna Dunham. His view seems to be that the grandparents MUST be racists because they're from Kansas. Sickening.
In both books, he shows a lack of respect for his mother, who married an African Muslim and an Indonesian Muslim. If her parents were racist, which they were NOT, how does he explain Anna, the least racially intolerant person in Hawaii, a racially diverse state?
As for John McCain, I agree that the hand of God is at work. Even Democrats identify with the guy. The only people who dislike him for being a "maverick" are about a half-dozen talk show hacks. On the Pennsylvania site, I talk about the latest polls, which show McCain way ahead in this supposedly Blue state. http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Nearly half the PA Hillary voters say that if Obama gets the nomination, they will vote for McCain. Obama now looks like very much a mere mortal.
If Hillary beats him as badly in PA as I think she will, the SuperDelegates are going to get very, very nervous. I expect Hillary will cut Obama's delegate lead in half in the combined PA, KY, and IN primaries.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Nationally: McCain Building Huge Lead
Note: I put the following material up on three state pages (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey). It applies mainly to Pennsylvania, but it's also applicable to just about every other state in the union. It's very, very good news. If you want to get up-to-the-minute information from the McCain Campaign, you can do so by e-mailing Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. In politics, Patrick is as good as it gets.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/keystone-democr.html
ABC News’ Political Punch Blog: Keystone Democrats Set To Defect
By Jake Tapper
In the new Franklin & Marshall College Poll (read it HERE) some good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and some troubling news for Democrats.
Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 51% to 35% -- increasing her lead from February, when she was up 44% to 37%. She leads among young voters, wealthier voters...voters in virtually every demographic group, with the exceptions of Philly voters and non-whites.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
Grim.
Note: I'll comment later today (Friday) on the above poll results.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/keystone-democr.html
ABC News’ Political Punch Blog: Keystone Democrats Set To Defect
By Jake Tapper
In the new Franklin & Marshall College Poll (read it HERE) some good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and some troubling news for Democrats.
Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 51% to 35% -- increasing her lead from February, when she was up 44% to 37%. She leads among young voters, wealthier voters...voters in virtually every demographic group, with the exceptions of Philly voters and non-whites.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
Grim.
Note: I'll comment later today (Friday) on the above poll results.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
URGENT APPEAL TO MILITARY, VETERANS
Colonel O. P. Ditch (USAF, Ret) is making an urgent appeal to all U.S. veterans to show their support for John McCain. Here's the message Col. Ditch sent today:
From: opditch@gmail.com
To: McCainVictory2008@googlegroups.com
Sent: 3/20/2008
Subj: Help spread the word
I'm trying to get Military & Veterans to sign up at: http://Vets4McCain.com. Please help me pass the word and provide links to my site. In 2004 I was able to rally 80,000 vets to actually sign up and comment. Bumper Stickers are also available for the asking.
O. P. Ditch
Col USAF (ret).
Please visit the Vets4McCain site today.It's absolutely critical for the McCain Campaign that he get almost unanimous support from American veterans. If you're not a veteran or active duty military, ask friends and family members who are to visit the site and pledge their support to this national effort.
From: opditch@gmail.com
To: McCainVictory2008@googlegroups.com
Sent: 3/20/2008
Subj: Help spread the word
I'm trying to get Military & Veterans to sign up at: http://Vets4McCain.com. Please help me pass the word and provide links to my site. In 2004 I was able to rally 80,000 vets to actually sign up and comment. Bumper Stickers are also available for the asking.
O. P. Ditch
Col USAF (ret).
Please visit the Vets4McCain site today.It's absolutely critical for the McCain Campaign that he get almost unanimous support from American veterans. If you're not a veteran or active duty military, ask friends and family members who are to visit the site and pledge their support to this national effort.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Black Conservatives Solidly Backing McCain
This good-looking young man is Lloyd Marcus, who's now grown up to be a thoughtful spokesman for American conservatives of African descent. This weekend (Saturday) I'll be printing Lloyd's autobiographical snippet ("Confessions") about growing up in "the projects" in Baltimore -- and the influence his parents had on him. Lloyd is a frequent contributor to one of the best groups on Yahoo, the "Black Conservatives." Be sure to visit this site on Saturday/Sunday to find out more about Lloyd.
On the Black Conservatives (generally pro-McCain) Yahoo Group, there's been a vigorous debate about what the Democratic "Superdelegates" (party bosses and bigwigs) will do.
Here's what one Black conservative said: "The superdelegates will not override the will of the voters unless Obama is in jail. They will not let themselves in for a civil war byoverruling a black man who is beloved by the young by going over theheads of the electorate and naming the candidate that lost theprimaries as the nominee."
Here's the response of another Black conservative: "I beg to differ. What is the use of the superdelegates if they can't vote independently? Also, dont discount the Clinton machine; they will find a way to get the superdelegates into their pockets. Furthermore, say if obama gets the [Superdelegate] vote. It's not a big deal because there is no way he will win the general election; his base is firmly intact; however, the independent vote will swing toward Mccain.
There is absolutely no way independent voters will vote for a man who doesnt see the necessity of leaving a virulently racist church and speaking boldly against the anti-American propaganda exhibited in that church.
To take things one step further, if the superdelegates do give the nomination to Hillary, then many Black Dems. will simply stay at home believing that the black candidate was shafted by the white Dems. As a result, the independents, once again, will not vote for the Dem's. nominee because they do not like hillary. Either way, the Republicans will win the general election.
The only candidate who has the chance of securing the independent vote is Mccain. So, it's the GOp in '08.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Barack Obama: The Invisible Man
Note: Today on another site (http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com), I'll have an important piece called "Can McCain Win New Jersey?" NJ is the ninth-largest state. If McCain can win NJ and PA (the sixth largest state), he will the presidency.
Photo: Obama, Not Totally Happy to See Jesse Jackson
"Words crack and break . . . will not stay in place." (T. S. Eliot)
Here's what I wrote prior to Obama's Tuesday remarks on race: I expect the usual "deep baritone filibuster," loaded with self-serving rhetoric. Rev. Wright's anti-American statements are similar to many Obama heard -- and probably internalized -- in his years at Harvard (where Michelle also attended). He will talk about his "love" for America, but I fear the country he loves is one most of us wouldn't recognize.
He will discuss how he "profoundly disagrees" with some of Wright's comments, but he won't discuss exactly which ones or why precisely he dissents.
Also, I wrote the following yesterday to an important Black conservative, Lloyd Marcus, whom you'll hear a lot more about on this site:
I believe in his speech Obama is going to do what he called recently the "okie dokie," an exercise in deception. In his first book, he talks basically about being ashamed of his (white) mother, whom he should be portraying as the heroine of his life story. Brought up by a white mother and white grandparents, he will somehow proclaim his expertise about the "Black experience in America." In short, he'll talk out of both sides of his mouth.
The notion that Obama "had no idea" what America-hating Rev. Wright was up to is the candidate's version of "the dog ate my homework." He's a little bit like novelist Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man." We don't know him -- or know what he believes. We fear he may share many more beliefs with Wright than he lets on.
His wife Michelle, who apparently has spent her entire adult life being ashamed of her country, is a typical Princeton/Harvard graduate, convinced of her superiority to her countrymen and countrywomen. Her point seems to be: How can she be proud of a country which isn't run by people (Ivy-League graduates) like them? The general view is: "America is a terrible place, but if I ran it, the country would be a much better one."
Here's how Shelby Steele, of Stanford's Hoover Institution describes the "Obama phenomenon":
". . . Now, the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.
"No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His [Obama's] is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself."
Steele is suggesting that one reason we don't know Obama is that he doesn't know himself. Coming from faith and community traditions of Black separatism, he claims to be the man who can transcend racial polarities. He wants to become President of a country that his pastor and his fellow congregants abhor. It makes no sense.
What Shelby Steele means by "bargaining" is that Obama is making a trade with white people: in exchange for their votes and money, he'll enable them to feel good about themselves. Basically, he'll allow them to assuage their guilt over past racial sins by a single act: supporting his candidacy.
Obama is now engaged in a desperate balancing act: his long-time minister and his wife both despise their native land, America. Whether Obama disagrees with them remains uncertain.
Again, he's the Invisible Man, someone we'll never be able to pin down on his beliefs.
He will "disagree" with Rev. Wright, the man who claims the U.S. government "invented HIV" to kill Blacks, but he will not disown him, as he should. The most liberal member of the Senate, Obama claims to have a special ability -- one never demonstrated -- to reach across the aisle and bridge political divides. On every issue, Obama is a programmatic liberal.
Is he just lying to us? Or is he truly uncertain of the contrast between what he says and what he does?
Again, we don't know Barack Obama -- and we probably never will. That's the real message of Tuesday's speech.
STATEMENT BY JOHN MCCAIN ON TIBET
For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
703-650-5550
For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
703-650-5550
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on the situation in Tibet:
"The unfolding tragedy in Tibet should draw the attention of the entire world. I deplore the violent crackdown by Chinese authorities and the continuing oppression in Tibet of those merely wishing to practice their faith and preserve their culture and heritage. I have listened carefully to the Dalai Lama and am convinced he is a man of peace who reflects the hopes and aspirations of Tibetans. I urge the government of the People's Republic of China to address the root causes of unrest in Tibet by opening a genuine dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Reports of shutting down YouTube and confiscation of SIM cards are disturbing and reports of multiple deaths are far more so, especially in a year when China is preparing to host the Olympic Games. I urge the Chinese authorities to ensure peaceful protest is not met with violence, to release monks and others detained for peacefully expressing their views and to allow full outside access to Tibet."
Note: If you'd like to get up-to-the-minute releases and news from the McCain Campaign, you can do so by e-mailing Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
Monday, March 17, 2008
You Can Join Team McCain!
Tomorrow morning (Tuesday) I'll give my thoughts on what I think Barack Obama will say in his "major speech" in Philadelphia about race in America. Short form: I expect the usual "deep baritone filibuster," loaded with self-serving rhetoric. Rev. Wright's anti-American statements are similar to many Obama heard -- and probably internalized -- in his years at Harvard (where Michelle also attended). He will talk about his "love" for America, but I fear the country he loves is one most of us wouldn't recognize.
If you'd like to get up-to-minute statements from the McCain Campaign, you can do by e-mailing your own e-mail address to: phynes@calypsocom.com. Patrick Hynes is one of John McCain's most important political operatives and a very fine human being. If you have a blog or groups (or an e-mail list), please tell people how they can contact Patrick to get the latest words from the McCain effort. Thanks.
I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, every dimes of which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks.
As national polls suggest, John McCain can win the election in November, 2008. However, to ensure victory McCain is going to need a massive effort online. That's where you come in. If you have a blog, or are a member of a mail Group (Yahoo or Google), or have an email list of friends and associates, you can influence the political decisions of others.
If people know you strongly support John McCain, they're more likely to do so themselves. In short, don't hide your political allegiances! Tell others exactly where you stand.
Obviously, John McCain is a great campaigner -- in good times and in bad. But the results of the 2008 election will depend on his getting support from his millions of admirers, that is, people like you and me. McCain has devoted his entire adult life to serving his country, and we can surely devote a relative few hours of time to returning the favor -- and making John the President of the U.S. Godspeed John!
(Tomorrow, I'll have an important essay about simplifying the Republican message in ways that will make it compelling to voters. Your comments are always welcome.)
By the way, you're cordially invited to vist my other blog, one committed to discussing the political situation in my home state of Pennsylvania. Go to: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
If you'd like to get up-to-minute statements from the McCain Campaign, you can do by e-mailing your own e-mail address to: phynes@calypsocom.com. Patrick Hynes is one of John McCain's most important political operatives and a very fine human being. If you have a blog or groups (or an e-mail list), please tell people how they can contact Patrick to get the latest words from the McCain effort. Thanks.
I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, every dimes of which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks.
As national polls suggest, John McCain can win the election in November, 2008. However, to ensure victory McCain is going to need a massive effort online. That's where you come in. If you have a blog, or are a member of a mail Group (Yahoo or Google), or have an email list of friends and associates, you can influence the political decisions of others.
If people know you strongly support John McCain, they're more likely to do so themselves. In short, don't hide your political allegiances! Tell others exactly where you stand.
Obviously, John McCain is a great campaigner -- in good times and in bad. But the results of the 2008 election will depend on his getting support from his millions of admirers, that is, people like you and me. McCain has devoted his entire adult life to serving his country, and we can surely devote a relative few hours of time to returning the favor -- and making John the President of the U.S. Godspeed John!
(Tomorrow, I'll have an important essay about simplifying the Republican message in ways that will make it compelling to voters. Your comments are always welcome.)
By the way, you're cordially invited to vist my other blog, one committed to discussing the political situation in my home state of Pennsylvania. Go to: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
OBAMA: A RADICAL BLACK SEPARATIST?
I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks
"The [U.S.] government lied about INVENTING the HIV virus . . . " (Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, pastor of Trinity Church)
Is Barack Obama, a serious candidate for President of the U.S., a closet believer in radical Black separatism? I don't know the answer to that question. I have recommended recently that Obama, because of his close ties to Pastor Wright, should suspend his campaign.
Pastor Wright is scum, a man driven by deep hatred for white people. In one recent sermon, he said the following about the Clintons: "Bill [Clinton] did us [Black people] just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin' [us] dirty . . . ."
Apparently on a preacherly roll, Wright then added the following: "God damn America."
A Christian minister, Black, White, or otherwise, doesn't say such things. And a congregation that hears such verbal slime doesn't whoop and holler in approval, as the attendees (was one of them Obama?) did at Trinity Church. That group of Yahoos is the one Obama called his "faith community."
Obama has called some of Wright's statements -- somehow, he doesn't specify which ones -- "unacceptable." He seems to feel such tepid comments on his part will distance him sufficiently from the man he now calls his "former preacher." In fact, Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He's the man Obama called his "spiritual advisor" and his "sounding board," and his metaphorical "uncle." Famously, he provided the title ("The Audacity of Hope") for the book that made Obama a multi-millionaire.
If John McCain's long-time preacher -- or Hillary Clinton's -- had made such hateful statements over many years, they would no longer be serious candidates for the presidency. Wright's remarks are racist and separatist, and for Obama to pretend he was unaware of his pastor's views is totally disingenuous.
If you look closely at Obama's speaking style, you can see he's learned a great deal from Jeremiah Wright. Like the pastor, Obama can work a crowd into an emotional lather. Where Wright denounces white people, Obama does the same with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he calls his "cousin."
The notion of Wright's being a man's "uncle" and Cheney his "cousin" is a scary thought.
Michelle Obama has talked about being ashamed of her country -- until, of course, her husband started winning primaries and caucuses (often in states that are mostly populated by white people) -- and one wonders how her husband feels about America. Of course, we know how Wright feels -- he despises his native land. To what degree does Obama agree with him?
Is he really just another cynical politician looking out for "number 1?" Is he someone, totally unlike this pastor and mentor, who seeks to bring us together? Or he merely an egomaniac committed mainy to advancing himself through carefully crafted rhetoric?
Can Obama really drop out of the presidential race? "Yes, he can!" And yes, he should.
"The [U.S.] government lied about INVENTING the HIV virus . . . " (Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, pastor of Trinity Church)
Is Barack Obama, a serious candidate for President of the U.S., a closet believer in radical Black separatism? I don't know the answer to that question. I have recommended recently that Obama, because of his close ties to Pastor Wright, should suspend his campaign.
Pastor Wright is scum, a man driven by deep hatred for white people. In one recent sermon, he said the following about the Clintons: "Bill [Clinton] did us [Black people] just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin' [us] dirty . . . ."
Apparently on a preacherly roll, Wright then added the following: "God damn America."
A Christian minister, Black, White, or otherwise, doesn't say such things. And a congregation that hears such verbal slime doesn't whoop and holler in approval, as the attendees (was one of them Obama?) did at Trinity Church. That group of Yahoos is the one Obama called his "faith community."
Obama has called some of Wright's statements -- somehow, he doesn't specify which ones -- "unacceptable." He seems to feel such tepid comments on his part will distance him sufficiently from the man he now calls his "former preacher." In fact, Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He's the man Obama called his "spiritual advisor" and his "sounding board," and his metaphorical "uncle." Famously, he provided the title ("The Audacity of Hope") for the book that made Obama a multi-millionaire.
If John McCain's long-time preacher -- or Hillary Clinton's -- had made such hateful statements over many years, they would no longer be serious candidates for the presidency. Wright's remarks are racist and separatist, and for Obama to pretend he was unaware of his pastor's views is totally disingenuous.
If you look closely at Obama's speaking style, you can see he's learned a great deal from Jeremiah Wright. Like the pastor, Obama can work a crowd into an emotional lather. Where Wright denounces white people, Obama does the same with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he calls his "cousin."
The notion of Wright's being a man's "uncle" and Cheney his "cousin" is a scary thought.
Michelle Obama has talked about being ashamed of her country -- until, of course, her husband started winning primaries and caucuses (often in states that are mostly populated by white people) -- and one wonders how her husband feels about America. Of course, we know how Wright feels -- he despises his native land. To what degree does Obama agree with him?
Is he really just another cynical politician looking out for "number 1?" Is he someone, totally unlike this pastor and mentor, who seeks to bring us together? Or he merely an egomaniac committed mainy to advancing himself through carefully crafted rhetoric?
Can Obama really drop out of the presidential race? "Yes, he can!" And yes, he should.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
BLACK CONSERVATIVES DENOUNCING OBAMA
In recent days, many Black Conservatives have been criticizing Barack Obama and demanding that he come clean on where he agrees with Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- and where he disagrees. Today, on the Black Conservatives Yahoo site, a member named Randy said the following:
"There's a very simple reason why Obama's pastor is a more important issue than Clinton's infidelity or McCain's thieving wife.It is Obama himself who has called Pastor Wright 'my mentor.' That necessarily incorporates both moral and intellectual guidance. Obama has actually admitted in books and interviews that he has relied heavily on Pastor Wright's moral and intellectual advice. Even regarding the central issue of running for President, why would Pastor Wright approve unless he felt that Obama would do what is 'politically correct.' Given Pastor Wright's questionable judgement and patriotism (to put it mildly), those are issues at least worth considering seriously. It cannot be simply ignored. It will not go away, unless Obama can provide a thorough explanation."--Randy
Unlike Barack Obama's campaign, John McCain's is very much on the move. Recent polling data shows that he's ahead in two critical "Blue" states, Pennsylvania (where I live) and Michigan. He's also ahead in the nation as a whole.
Below are some of the top news articles from this week. For more news articles and press releases, go to www.JohnMcCain.com.New Hampshire Union Leader: McCain Reborn: Taking NH Nationwide
The Politico: Maverick Wants to Paint Blue States Red
Wisconsin State Journal: McCain Leads Pack to Stop Pork
Weekly Standard: Looking Presidential
Washington Times: McCain Leads In Crossover Votes
Miami Herald: McCain Brings his Campaign to Florida
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: McCain Holds Town Hall at Chick-Fil-A Headquarters
Note: I hope you'll scroll down and see the several columns I've written Barack Obama's favorite hate-monger Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.
"There's a very simple reason why Obama's pastor is a more important issue than Clinton's infidelity or McCain's thieving wife.It is Obama himself who has called Pastor Wright 'my mentor.' That necessarily incorporates both moral and intellectual guidance. Obama has actually admitted in books and interviews that he has relied heavily on Pastor Wright's moral and intellectual advice. Even regarding the central issue of running for President, why would Pastor Wright approve unless he felt that Obama would do what is 'politically correct.' Given Pastor Wright's questionable judgement and patriotism (to put it mildly), those are issues at least worth considering seriously. It cannot be simply ignored. It will not go away, unless Obama can provide a thorough explanation."--Randy
Unlike Barack Obama's campaign, John McCain's is very much on the move. Recent polling data shows that he's ahead in two critical "Blue" states, Pennsylvania (where I live) and Michigan. He's also ahead in the nation as a whole.
Below are some of the top news articles from this week. For more news articles and press releases, go to www.JohnMcCain.com.New Hampshire Union Leader: McCain Reborn: Taking NH Nationwide
The Politico: Maverick Wants to Paint Blue States Red
Wisconsin State Journal: McCain Leads Pack to Stop Pork
Weekly Standard: Looking Presidential
Washington Times: McCain Leads In Crossover Votes
Miami Herald: McCain Brings his Campaign to Florida
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: McCain Holds Town Hall at Chick-Fil-A Headquarters
Note: I hope you'll scroll down and see the several columns I've written Barack Obama's favorite hate-monger Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.
Friday, March 14, 2008
OBAMA SHOULD END HIS CAMPAIGN
If you want to know the reason for tonight's (Friday's) headline, just scroll down slowly through the columns below to read the kind of "spiritual" advice Barack Obama and his wife have been receiving from Jeremiah A. Wright.
On my blog tonight, I'm calling for Barack Obama to end his campaign. Because of the Wright situation, he is no longer a viable candidate for President. I also believe he should resign from the U.S. Senate.
For Obama to pretend, as he is tonight on FOX and CNN, that the national revulsion over Wright all came as a surprise to him is ridiculous. His Church gave Louis Farrakhan a "Lifetime Achievement Award." You will hear in response that is was Trumpet Magazine, which is no longer associated with the Church that gave it. In fact, Wright's daughter is the editor of Trumpet, a pro-Black, anti-White publication Wright started. Obama's reaction to the "Achievement" award was to ignore it.
The real issue is this: who exactly is Barack Obama? Is he just perhaps not this individual who wants to transcend race (except, of course, when he sops up 90%-plus of the Black vote in the South)? Or is he perhaps someone who looks at the world much like his "spiritual advisor," Jeremiah Wright? I have paid a lot more attention in the past few years to Obama than he deserved, but I have no idea what the correct answer is to that question.
His wife, Michelle, only became "proud" of American when it became clear her husband was (key word) a viable candidate for the Presidency. In that regard, Michelle Obama apparently learned a lot from Jeremiah Wright, who hates his native land.
Perhaps the most sickening thing on the video tapes of Wright ranting away is to look the audience, a bunch of Yahoos. When Wright blames America for 9/11, the congregants are standing, whooping, and ecstatic. Were Obama and Michelle perhaps there on that day? And did they perhaps join the applause?
That is the "church community" Obama speaks so lovingly about in his fine baritone.This is the man who would be President. He and his Pastor are disgraces to their race -- the human race.
Barack, go. Go in peace or go in anger, but just go. "Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us."
The students from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, who confronted President Clinton on the issue of abortion are some of the best young people in our area -- I live not too far from Steubenville. Bill Clinton accused them -- falsely -- of wanting to "criminalize abortion, etc."
In the period of the Great Society and after, many bad things have happened in America, particularly in the Black community. Two generations ago, the rate of abortion among Black teens was LOWER than in the white community. Now, it is much, much higher -- four times the rate with white teens. Essentially, we have a community that is "doing away with" its future. We need to love children, not discard them as if they were human garbage.
Bill Clinton probably knows this, but he doesn't care about it. For him, it's all about his wife getting elected -- period.
By the way, Barack Obama voted in the Illinois Senate for what's called "live birth abortions." His vote meant that physicians didn't have to care for children who were born alive as a result of "botched" abortions. Essentially, it was a vote for infanticide. He should be ashamed of himself, but unfortunately shame is not his strong suit.
Of course, Obama doesn't debate the pros-and-cons of such procedures. Instead, he relies on windy rhetoric ("Yes we can"). However, for infants in need of care and basically asking if they can live, his slogan is "No, you can't." So much for "universal health care."
As a society, we can't fall into the trap of saying, "Well, we respect life some of the time but not all of the time." What that leads to is what we have now, where the "Angel of Death" is a constant presence in Black communities. People like Bill Clinton aggravate that situation.
On my blog tonight, I'm calling for Barack Obama to end his campaign. Because of the Wright situation, he is no longer a viable candidate for President. I also believe he should resign from the U.S. Senate.
For Obama to pretend, as he is tonight on FOX and CNN, that the national revulsion over Wright all came as a surprise to him is ridiculous. His Church gave Louis Farrakhan a "Lifetime Achievement Award." You will hear in response that is was Trumpet Magazine, which is no longer associated with the Church that gave it. In fact, Wright's daughter is the editor of Trumpet, a pro-Black, anti-White publication Wright started. Obama's reaction to the "Achievement" award was to ignore it.
The real issue is this: who exactly is Barack Obama? Is he just perhaps not this individual who wants to transcend race (except, of course, when he sops up 90%-plus of the Black vote in the South)? Or is he perhaps someone who looks at the world much like his "spiritual advisor," Jeremiah Wright? I have paid a lot more attention in the past few years to Obama than he deserved, but I have no idea what the correct answer is to that question.
His wife, Michelle, only became "proud" of American when it became clear her husband was (key word) a viable candidate for the Presidency. In that regard, Michelle Obama apparently learned a lot from Jeremiah Wright, who hates his native land.
Perhaps the most sickening thing on the video tapes of Wright ranting away is to look the audience, a bunch of Yahoos. When Wright blames America for 9/11, the congregants are standing, whooping, and ecstatic. Were Obama and Michelle perhaps there on that day? And did they perhaps join the applause?
That is the "church community" Obama speaks so lovingly about in his fine baritone.This is the man who would be President. He and his Pastor are disgraces to their race -- the human race.
Barack, go. Go in peace or go in anger, but just go. "Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us."
Bill Clinton and the Culture of Death
The following is a column I wrote for my friends at the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo.
Steubenville, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Former president Bill Clinton made a campaign stop for Hillary in Steubenville, Ohio on Sundayand found himself greeted by more than 100 pro-life students from nearby Steubenville University. According to eye witnessesaccounts, Clinton lost his temper and lashed out at the pro-life students during the speech. Full story: http://www.lifenews.com/state2908.html
The students from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, who confronted President Clinton on the issue of abortion are some of the best young people in our area -- I live not too far from Steubenville. Bill Clinton accused them -- falsely -- of wanting to "criminalize abortion, etc."
The students in fact were making the point that a society which has a high level of abortion such as ours diminishes the overall respect for life, leading to abuse, crimes against people, and the like. It's an issue that any decent human being -- a category that doesn't include the philandering, cynical President Clinton -- must grapple with. The students have an concern that Clinton should have dealt with respectfully and thoughtfully. He didn't.
In the period of the Great Society and after, many bad things have happened in America, particularly in the Black community. Two generations ago, the rate of abortion among Black teens was LOWER than in the white community. Now, it is much, much higher -- four times the rate with white teens. Essentially, we have a community that is "doing away with" its future. We need to love children, not discard them as if they were human garbage.
Bill Clinton probably knows this, but he doesn't care about it. For him, it's all about his wife getting elected -- period.
By the way, Barack Obama voted in the Illinois Senate for what's called "live birth abortions." His vote meant that physicians didn't have to care for children who were born alive as a result of "botched" abortions. Essentially, it was a vote for infanticide. He should be ashamed of himself, but unfortunately shame is not his strong suit.
Of course, Obama doesn't debate the pros-and-cons of such procedures. Instead, he relies on windy rhetoric ("Yes we can"). However, for infants in need of care and basically asking if they can live, his slogan is "No, you can't." So much for "universal health care."
As a society, we can't fall into the trap of saying, "Well, we respect life some of the time but not all of the time." What that leads to is what we have now, where the "Angel of Death" is a constant presence in Black communities. People like Bill Clinton aggravate that situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
