"Barack Obama did bring us together -- but not in the way he wanted."
Dear Blogger or Web Hoster or other onliner committed to just saying "NoBama": Things are really heating up in the united effort to make sure the next President of the U.S. is NOT named Barack H. Obama. In the most recent Gallup Poll pitting BHO against John McCain, the latter came out ahead by four points among likely voters.
Right now in several states there's an urgent need for people who will volunteer to communicate with their fellow voters (including by e-mail and phone). Two states that are winnable with a sustained effort are Nevada (close) and Pennsylvania (the race has tightened significantly). The people now on the ground in those states (and others) truly need your help.
If you prefer to register at another site, I strong recommend http://www.realdemocratsusa.org/. I work closely with that group, which is a superb one. It is organizing groups in all 50 states to defeat Obama.
(Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia? Their turns are coming soon.)
I hope you will reprint this message on your blog (if you have one) or otherwise communicate it to your political allies, especially those in NV and PA.
People in Nevada who want to help beat Obama should contact Angelo, one of the founders of nobamanetwork and nobama mission at: angelo@nobamanetwork.com.
People west of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania who want to assist in defeating Obama should contact me (Steve Maloney) at: TalkTop65@aol.com In fact, anyone in PA who contacts me will be put in touch with people working in the General Election against the Great Pretender.
Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd disseminate this request as widely as possible -- on your blogs, Yahoo Groups, and through e-mails. It's critical that we start now -- and not wait for Labor Day.
If you're a blogger who'd like to join NoBama Mission bloggers (see the widget on the right), please send me an e-mail with your first name, your blog URL, and your state.
Also to your right you'll see a widget for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. It airs every Saturday at 5 p.m., and I'll be co-hosting through August (and perhaps longer). Anyone interested in NoBama activities will like what they hear.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Britney, Paris, Obama: Celebrity Windbags
Down deep, Obama is incredibly shallow . . . McCain's Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/Barack Obama commercial is drawing heat from the MSM and reaction from the Obama Camp. That's because, contrary to what you may have heard, it's brilliant. [Scroll down to see "A Site to Behold," about recovering former Obama Supporters.]
[The campaign has just released a new TV ad and we wanted you to be the first to watch it. Please take a minute to view the ad, "Celeb" by following this link. ]
McCain commercials have been getting much better,and they're the kind that will be talked about for years (and get lots of free airing on the clueless MSM). As in the Hillary Campaign, the MSM's response is, "How dare that person criticize Sen. Obama?"
The Obama Campaign is reacting to the McCain commercials (including the one blaming Obama and others like him for high gas prices). Of course, a good campaign wants its opponent to be in a reactive mode, because that means he's "off message." Obama's message has its own problems. Basically, it says, "I will save you," and it adds, "The government is your FRIEND." Sorry, Barack, because with "friends like that . . ," well, you know the rest.
The energy commercial and the "celebrity" commercial both have issues at their core. The "issue" is that Sen. Obama does not want to produce more domestic energy of any kind -- and that he wants to raise your electricity bills by adding taxes. That's not a winning approach in today's America.
Also, today on FOX's a.m. show, Nicole Wallace of the McCain Campaign said of BHO, "Nobody likes a fussy man [Obama]." You will hear a lot more (I hope) about the "fussy man." Nicole is a tremendous asset and a joy to watch as she plays the media like an accomplished harpist.
Gallup Poll (likely voters shows McCain ahead nationally ) and Quinnipiac {CT] polls of PA and other Battleground Sates are showing very good news for John McCain. The commercials and campaign statements portraying Obama as a celebrity/windbag and as a "fussy, self-absorbed man" are working.
http://formerobamasupporters.com/ . . . approaching 1 million visitors . . .1431 memebers . . . site up for less than 3 weeks . . ."No More Kool-Aid . . . This is not the Obama we know"
"Dr. Martin Luther King said -'I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' We believe Obama is NOT a person with good moral judgment. He lacks the character and integrity to be the president of the greatest nation on the planet."
"We are backing away from Senator Obama because he changed from the positions he ran on during the primary election. It is time to say ENOUGH. Say no to the kool-aid."
[The campaign has just released a new TV ad and we wanted you to be the first to watch it. Please take a minute to view the ad, "Celeb" by following this link. ]
McCain commercials have been getting much better,and they're the kind that will be talked about for years (and get lots of free airing on the clueless MSM). As in the Hillary Campaign, the MSM's response is, "How dare that person criticize Sen. Obama?"
The Obama Campaign is reacting to the McCain commercials (including the one blaming Obama and others like him for high gas prices). Of course, a good campaign wants its opponent to be in a reactive mode, because that means he's "off message." Obama's message has its own problems. Basically, it says, "I will save you," and it adds, "The government is your FRIEND." Sorry, Barack, because with "friends like that . . ," well, you know the rest.
The energy commercial and the "celebrity" commercial both have issues at their core. The "issue" is that Sen. Obama does not want to produce more domestic energy of any kind -- and that he wants to raise your electricity bills by adding taxes. That's not a winning approach in today's America.
Also, today on FOX's a.m. show, Nicole Wallace of the McCain Campaign said of BHO, "Nobody likes a fussy man [Obama]." You will hear a lot more (I hope) about the "fussy man." Nicole is a tremendous asset and a joy to watch as she plays the media like an accomplished harpist.
Gallup Poll (likely voters shows McCain ahead nationally ) and Quinnipiac {CT] polls of PA and other Battleground Sates are showing very good news for John McCain. The commercials and campaign statements portraying Obama as a celebrity/windbag and as a "fussy, self-absorbed man" are working.
A SITE TO BEHOLD!
http://formerobamasupporters.com/ . . . approaching 1 million visitors . . .1431 memebers . . . site up for less than 3 weeks . . ."No More Kool-Aid . . . This is not the Obama we know"
"Dr. Martin Luther King said -'I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' We believe Obama is NOT a person with good moral judgment. He lacks the character and integrity to be the president of the greatest nation on the planet."
"We are backing away from Senator Obama because he changed from the positions he ran on during the primary election. It is time to say ENOUGH. Say no to the kool-aid."
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Defeat Obama? Army of Volunteers
You'll notice that the big blogroll link to NoBama Mission Bloggers on your right is growing rapidly. There was speculation tonight (Wednesday) on FOX whether McCain (and the gneeral NoBama Movement) would have much of a presence on line. The answer to the surprise of many is: yes. And that presence begins with people like you.
Sometime on Thursday (probably before noon), my associate Kathy and I will have up a new blogroll that will allow you to sign up for NoBamaMission Bloggers Group, one that now includes approximately 115 blogs and is growing rapidly every day. Our hope is to have 300-plus blogs by Labor Day. But to reach that, we need the participation of every blogger.
You can sign up now by sending me your name (first name only if you wish), your blog's name, the URL (the one that begins either http:// or www.), and your e-mail address and state. In return, you'll get the javascript to copy and paste into your blog, as well as some very valuable information about how to increase traffic on your blog or web site. Provide the information to: TalkTop65@aol.com.
To defeat Obama will require an army of volunteers. You can be a valued member of that army.
What if you don't have a blog? Since you're online, you're already an online communicator, and there are many things you can do to ensure that the next President of the U.S. is NOT named Barack H. Obama. More to follow on Thursday.
Sometime on Thursday (probably before noon), my associate Kathy and I will have up a new blogroll that will allow you to sign up for NoBamaMission Bloggers Group, one that now includes approximately 115 blogs and is growing rapidly every day. Our hope is to have 300-plus blogs by Labor Day. But to reach that, we need the participation of every blogger.
You can sign up now by sending me your name (first name only if you wish), your blog's name, the URL (the one that begins either http:// or www.), and your e-mail address and state. In return, you'll get the javascript to copy and paste into your blog, as well as some very valuable information about how to increase traffic on your blog or web site. Provide the information to: TalkTop65@aol.com.
To defeat Obama will require an army of volunteers. You can be a valued member of that army.
What if you don't have a blog? Since you're online, you're already an online communicator, and there are many things you can do to ensure that the next President of the U.S. is NOT named Barack H. Obama. More to follow on Thursday.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Why YOU Know Obama's Dangerous
Tracy Karol is an Hispanic political activist in the Southwest. I'm proud to call her a friend . . .
By: Tracy Karol
It might be a subtle uneasy feeling…you’re not quite sure what it is about him, but you know something about Barack Obama is a bit, well, frightening. Dangerous, even.
It could be that you aren’t sure if he has socialist tendencies (witness his recent wild popularity in European countries with socialist leanings), or Muslim sympathies (he has received funds and endorsements from Muslim groups and even terrorists). The two positions are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so you don’t really know what to believe about Barack Obama.
You might think Obama is dangerous because he doesn’t seem to think before he speaks, unless it is a carefully crafted speech, of course, and those are often blatantly stolen from speeches of the past. When he does speak off the cuff, his remarks show his inexperience, like his comments about invading Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons – and again after he has oft said he wants to pull out of Iraq. Where does he stand on war? Who truly knows, since he will never admit when he is wrong.
You might think Barack Obama is dangerous because he never seems to tell the truth. He has changed positions so many times – flip-flopped, if you will – whispering to one audience what it wants to hear and another what it prefers, while the media turns a blind eye, so you truly have no idea what his policies are. In fact, he doesn’t seem to have any policies, other than “hope and change,” which are mere words that sound pretty but actually don’t mean anything.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because you have, by now, probably heard of his past associations (or not truly past; just tossed under the bus, for the time being): With Tony Rezco, the developer and criminal who helped him get his start in Chicago politics and was a close personal friend to both Barack and Michelle Obama, buying the empty lot next to their house so they could buy their home. He’s now in jail. Or with Louis Farrakhan, whom he helped organize the Million Man March, and who is known as the “black Hitler.”
And of course there is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for 20 years at his radical church, whose rants about AIDS were blatantly racist, who damned America and said our country deserved the 9/11 attacks, while Obama sat in the pews listening and later brought Wright on as an advisor to his campaign. And certainly with William Ayers, the terrorist who blew up buildings and also held fundraisers for Barack Obama. These are just a few of his associates…there are plenty more from where they come.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because he is inexperienced, he is a proven liar, he is radically to the left on the issues (witness his stance on abortion – going further than even NARAL would in voting against legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois, and his record as the most liberal Senator, a title he took away from Ted Kennedy), and if you’ve studied his tax plan you know that no matter what your income level, you will pay significantly more in taxes under his leadership than you would under John McCain’s.
Yet even with his radical plans, he is still against gay marriage, something most in the homosexual community don’t even know – so they support him, assuming he will back that cause when in fact he is only in favor of civil unions, the same as John McCain. While his healthcare plan would not only leave millions still uninsured, it would drive up taxes so high that those who most needed it would be pushed into poverty. Dangerous, indeed.
You know Barack Obama is dangerous for this country, and you know he is dangerous for you personally. There are many reasons why. He’s a study in contradictions. It’s impossible to point to just one, as it’s impossible to pin him down on any one thing. But one thing is clear: You know Obama, a dangerous man, is the wrong choice for America.
By: Tracy Karol
It might be a subtle uneasy feeling…you’re not quite sure what it is about him, but you know something about Barack Obama is a bit, well, frightening. Dangerous, even.
It could be that you aren’t sure if he has socialist tendencies (witness his recent wild popularity in European countries with socialist leanings), or Muslim sympathies (he has received funds and endorsements from Muslim groups and even terrorists). The two positions are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so you don’t really know what to believe about Barack Obama.
You might think Obama is dangerous because he doesn’t seem to think before he speaks, unless it is a carefully crafted speech, of course, and those are often blatantly stolen from speeches of the past. When he does speak off the cuff, his remarks show his inexperience, like his comments about invading Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons – and again after he has oft said he wants to pull out of Iraq. Where does he stand on war? Who truly knows, since he will never admit when he is wrong.
You might think Barack Obama is dangerous because he never seems to tell the truth. He has changed positions so many times – flip-flopped, if you will – whispering to one audience what it wants to hear and another what it prefers, while the media turns a blind eye, so you truly have no idea what his policies are. In fact, he doesn’t seem to have any policies, other than “hope and change,” which are mere words that sound pretty but actually don’t mean anything.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because you have, by now, probably heard of his past associations (or not truly past; just tossed under the bus, for the time being): With Tony Rezco, the developer and criminal who helped him get his start in Chicago politics and was a close personal friend to both Barack and Michelle Obama, buying the empty lot next to their house so they could buy their home. He’s now in jail. Or with Louis Farrakhan, whom he helped organize the Million Man March, and who is known as the “black Hitler.”
And of course there is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for 20 years at his radical church, whose rants about AIDS were blatantly racist, who damned America and said our country deserved the 9/11 attacks, while Obama sat in the pews listening and later brought Wright on as an advisor to his campaign. And certainly with William Ayers, the terrorist who blew up buildings and also held fundraisers for Barack Obama. These are just a few of his associates…there are plenty more from where they come.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because he is inexperienced, he is a proven liar, he is radically to the left on the issues (witness his stance on abortion – going further than even NARAL would in voting against legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois, and his record as the most liberal Senator, a title he took away from Ted Kennedy), and if you’ve studied his tax plan you know that no matter what your income level, you will pay significantly more in taxes under his leadership than you would under John McCain’s.
Yet even with his radical plans, he is still against gay marriage, something most in the homosexual community don’t even know – so they support him, assuming he will back that cause when in fact he is only in favor of civil unions, the same as John McCain. While his healthcare plan would not only leave millions still uninsured, it would drive up taxes so high that those who most needed it would be pushed into poverty. Dangerous, indeed.
You know Barack Obama is dangerous for this country, and you know he is dangerous for you personally. There are many reasons why. He’s a study in contradictions. It’s impossible to point to just one, as it’s impossible to pin him down on any one thing. But one thing is clear: You know Obama, a dangerous man, is the wrong choice for America.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
PA Crucial: Volunteers Needed
"That loud bang we all just heard was the beginning of the General Election."
Any residents of PA, NJ, or NY that want to offer their support to John McCain should e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Tell me where you live, and I'll put you in touch (as quickly as possible) with campaign organizers in your area.
As for those who live in the NYC/NJ area, the critical message to get across to Hillary Supporters (and they total in the millions) is that the DNC doesn't like them or respect them. They do, however, want their votes. The woman in WI was duly elected and there is no reason for the DNC to dump her. There is at least one McCain delegate who appeared in a pro-Obama commercial. I haven't heard anybody saying he should be thrown up the bus.
The McCain Campaign intends to win New York and New Jersey . . . states that went strongly for Sen. Clinton in the primaries but are being taken for granted by Barack H. Obama.
That "loud bang" we all just heard was the beginning of the General Election.
I urge all Hillary Supporters in PA NOT to vote for Jason Altmire (4th CD), Patrick Murphy (8th CD), or Tim Holden (17th CD). All of them went against their constituents and stabbed Sen. Clinton in the back. Vote instead for Melissa Hart, Tom Manion, and Toni Gilhooley, all of whom are honorable and courageous people. They need your support.As for Allyson Schwartz (13th CD), Paul Kanjorski (11th CD), and Joe Sestak (7th CD), they're all now apparently supporting Barack H. Obama. He's the same man who called Pennsylvanians "bitter" people "clinging" to guns and God. Obama has no grasp of who Pennsylvanians are -- and frankly, neither do the Congressmen I've cited. It makes no sense to vote for people who destroyed Mrs. Clinton's chances to win the nomination. If you want to know who such people are in your state, go the following: http://dncreform.com.There are much better candidates, including Marina Kats, Lou Barletta, and Craig Williams. They deserve the backing of Hillary Supporters all others seeking to bring integrity to Pennsylvania politics.
Any residents of PA, NJ, or NY that want to offer their support to John McCain should e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Tell me where you live, and I'll put you in touch (as quickly as possible) with campaign organizers in your area.
As for those who live in the NYC/NJ area, the critical message to get across to Hillary Supporters (and they total in the millions) is that the DNC doesn't like them or respect them. They do, however, want their votes. The woman in WI was duly elected and there is no reason for the DNC to dump her. There is at least one McCain delegate who appeared in a pro-Obama commercial. I haven't heard anybody saying he should be thrown up the bus.
The McCain Campaign intends to win New York and New Jersey . . . states that went strongly for Sen. Clinton in the primaries but are being taken for granted by Barack H. Obama.
That "loud bang" we all just heard was the beginning of the General Election.
I urge all Hillary Supporters in PA NOT to vote for Jason Altmire (4th CD), Patrick Murphy (8th CD), or Tim Holden (17th CD). All of them went against their constituents and stabbed Sen. Clinton in the back. Vote instead for Melissa Hart, Tom Manion, and Toni Gilhooley, all of whom are honorable and courageous people. They need your support.As for Allyson Schwartz (13th CD), Paul Kanjorski (11th CD), and Joe Sestak (7th CD), they're all now apparently supporting Barack H. Obama. He's the same man who called Pennsylvanians "bitter" people "clinging" to guns and God. Obama has no grasp of who Pennsylvanians are -- and frankly, neither do the Congressmen I've cited. It makes no sense to vote for people who destroyed Mrs. Clinton's chances to win the nomination. If you want to know who such people are in your state, go the following: http://dncreform.com.There are much better candidates, including Marina Kats, Lou Barletta, and Craig Williams. They deserve the backing of Hillary Supporters all others seeking to bring integrity to Pennsylvania politics.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Obama Plays Racial Identity Politics
I've been writing a lot about Barack Obama's "politics of racial identity." As I explained, I've approached the stage of my life where I can live dangerously and -- I believe -- speak the truth about race. The other day a fellow leader in the Mission NoBama Movement talked about the psychology of Obama's appeal, where he appeals to deep longing and nostalgia in the American people. Ronald Reagan did some similar things, although not at the level of sophistication used by Obama.
This is a campaign about character (McCain's) versus charisma (Obama's). In this campaign, NONE OF THE ISSUES TRULY MATTER.
If you want to read a brilliant analysis of what's really going on, read Shelby Steele's superb essay on Black moral leverage and white guilt as practiced by Jesse Jackson and Shelby Steele. I reprinted it recently on my: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.)
I hope everyone will think back to a commercial from many years ago, the one inviting tourists to "come to Jamaica." Actually, the key line was to "come BACK to Jamaica." In the deepest part of our being all of us want to go back to a kinder, gentler (imaginary) time, usually our childhoods. The people who most admire Obama are invariably the most childlike.
A guy in the liberal New Republic analyzed the commercial and why it might have been the most brilliant ad of all time. The whole "come back" leitmotif touched the common chord in American that things used to be "better." The idea exploited was that American was a fallen angel, that we would perhaps never be as good as we once were (except, of course, unless we went to Jamaica).
The commercial was full of happy white people and smiling Blacks.The surface message was to go take a vacation in Jamaica. The New Republic writer said the underlying message was this: "Come back to Jamaica . . . where Black people are still nice!" In that time, like our own, some inconvenient truths rarely got articulated. But the New Republic author broke the code. He told us truths that we in fact knew at some level, but that we pretended we didn't comprehend.
In Shelby Steele's great essay, he notes that John McCain is obviously a man of "character" and "principle." He then adds, "Poor guy!" Of course, the character and principle work against him in politics, where an Obama can easily become all things to all people/voters, Black and white.
Mrs. Clinton and her campaign got chopped up by the Obama buzzsaw -- and the deep psychological messages. One hopes the same doesn't happen to John McCain.
This is a campaign about character (McCain's) versus charisma (Obama's). In this campaign, NONE OF THE ISSUES TRULY MATTER.
If you want to read a brilliant analysis of what's really going on, read Shelby Steele's superb essay on Black moral leverage and white guilt as practiced by Jesse Jackson and Shelby Steele. I reprinted it recently on my: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.)
I hope everyone will think back to a commercial from many years ago, the one inviting tourists to "come to Jamaica." Actually, the key line was to "come BACK to Jamaica." In the deepest part of our being all of us want to go back to a kinder, gentler (imaginary) time, usually our childhoods. The people who most admire Obama are invariably the most childlike.
A guy in the liberal New Republic analyzed the commercial and why it might have been the most brilliant ad of all time. The whole "come back" leitmotif touched the common chord in American that things used to be "better." The idea exploited was that American was a fallen angel, that we would perhaps never be as good as we once were (except, of course, unless we went to Jamaica).
The commercial was full of happy white people and smiling Blacks.The surface message was to go take a vacation in Jamaica. The New Republic writer said the underlying message was this: "Come back to Jamaica . . . where Black people are still nice!" In that time, like our own, some inconvenient truths rarely got articulated. But the New Republic author broke the code. He told us truths that we in fact knew at some level, but that we pretended we didn't comprehend.
In Shelby Steele's great essay, he notes that John McCain is obviously a man of "character" and "principle." He then adds, "Poor guy!" Of course, the character and principle work against him in politics, where an Obama can easily become all things to all people/voters, Black and white.
Mrs. Clinton and her campaign got chopped up by the Obama buzzsaw -- and the deep psychological messages. One hopes the same doesn't happen to John McCain.
OBAMA: BLACK LEVERAGE, WHITE GUILT
Note: The blistering attack by African-American scholar Shelby Steele on Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama is reprinted in full on my following site: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. It appeared originally in The Wall Street Journal. Below: "The entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt . . . ."
Mr. [Jesse] Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.
Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.
They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.
Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.
So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.
And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.
And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.
Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly. Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.
Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?
I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.
But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.
So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)
It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.
John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.
Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.
He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
Mr. [Jesse] Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.
Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.
They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.
Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.
So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.
And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.
And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.
Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly. Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.
Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?
I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.
But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.
So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)
It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.
John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.
Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.
He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Health Care: The Wal-Mart Example
If Wal-Mart ran U.S. health care, service would be better and the cost lower. We should be so lucky . . .
[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the coolum, where you can copy and paste the code for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. I'll be on the show this Saturday (5 p.m. ET) and all throughout August. Hope you visit!]
This is Part III of my series on health care . . . and why the Democrats' plans will be a disaster. The problem with health care in America is not that we don't Democratic plans that make us all increasingly dependent on government for how and where we get medical treatment. The problem is that health care (for reasons described in the columns below) has become separated from the private enterprise system, from capitalism.
Look at it this way: In a time of economic downturn, companies like Wal-Mart and Target are reporting sharp increases in revenues, while high-end department stores are floundering. Why is that? Obviously, people are fulfilling their retail needs at discount stores. They're voting with their pocketbooks. They're choosing to be more careful with their dollars. That's a choice we have in retail stores.
Where are the health care equivalents of Wal-Mart and Target? They don't exist. When it comes to medical care, it's Saks Fifth Avenue or nothing. My brother went into a hospital three years ago with a very minor ailment -- syncope, faintness -- and when he walked out 30 hours later, the bill was $22,600. He had no insurance, so various entities paid for it, one of which was you as a taxpayer.
We have no real choices in health care. In my area (Pittsburgh/Beaver County, western PA) all the doctors charge basically the same price, and the same is true of hospitals. When it comes to choice, customers -- patients -- have very little of it.
Beyond that, patients have very little knowledge of which caregivers are good -- and which are mediocre. We have less knowledge about health care providers than we do about choices in underwear.Also, if we're covered by insurance -- or by government payouts -- we have almost no incentive to shop around.
If we need a wart removed -- or an appendix -- we go where we go.Since we're not paying for it, at least directly, the service is basically free. Why should we care how much it costs?The health plans proposed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't deal with the problem -- and it's a whopper -- that I outline.The Democrats' plans talk about cost controls, but that's all it is -- talk. Those plans are recipes to drive costs up -- and services down.
Some people are mystified by John McCain's health care proposals. Basically, they're simple. He wants to bring the private enterprise system into play. He wants people to be able to choose their own insurers and level of coverage. He also wants them to be able to choose the quality of services and even negotiate the price of the services they purchase.
It's a very good idea. It won't work out perfectly, but it will begin the process of driving health costs down, increasing choice, and -- ultimately -- improving care.
The Democrats' proposals? They'll have the opposite effect, leading to all the bad results found in universal health care programs in Canada, Britain, and similar countries.
If Obama becomes President, prepare to wait in long lines . . . and receive indifferent care. That's what happens in Canada, and it's exactly what eventually will happen here.
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the coolum, where you can copy and paste the code for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. I'll be on the show this Saturday (5 p.m. ET) and all throughout August. Hope you visit!]
This is Part III of my series on health care . . . and why the Democrats' plans will be a disaster. The problem with health care in America is not that we don't Democratic plans that make us all increasingly dependent on government for how and where we get medical treatment. The problem is that health care (for reasons described in the columns below) has become separated from the private enterprise system, from capitalism.
Look at it this way: In a time of economic downturn, companies like Wal-Mart and Target are reporting sharp increases in revenues, while high-end department stores are floundering. Why is that? Obviously, people are fulfilling their retail needs at discount stores. They're voting with their pocketbooks. They're choosing to be more careful with their dollars. That's a choice we have in retail stores.
Where are the health care equivalents of Wal-Mart and Target? They don't exist. When it comes to medical care, it's Saks Fifth Avenue or nothing. My brother went into a hospital three years ago with a very minor ailment -- syncope, faintness -- and when he walked out 30 hours later, the bill was $22,600. He had no insurance, so various entities paid for it, one of which was you as a taxpayer.
We have no real choices in health care. In my area (Pittsburgh/Beaver County, western PA) all the doctors charge basically the same price, and the same is true of hospitals. When it comes to choice, customers -- patients -- have very little of it.
Beyond that, patients have very little knowledge of which caregivers are good -- and which are mediocre. We have less knowledge about health care providers than we do about choices in underwear.Also, if we're covered by insurance -- or by government payouts -- we have almost no incentive to shop around.
If we need a wart removed -- or an appendix -- we go where we go.Since we're not paying for it, at least directly, the service is basically free. Why should we care how much it costs?The health plans proposed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't deal with the problem -- and it's a whopper -- that I outline.The Democrats' plans talk about cost controls, but that's all it is -- talk. Those plans are recipes to drive costs up -- and services down.
Some people are mystified by John McCain's health care proposals. Basically, they're simple. He wants to bring the private enterprise system into play. He wants people to be able to choose their own insurers and level of coverage. He also wants them to be able to choose the quality of services and even negotiate the price of the services they purchase.
It's a very good idea. It won't work out perfectly, but it will begin the process of driving health costs down, increasing choice, and -- ultimately -- improving care.
The Democrats' proposals? They'll have the opposite effect, leading to all the bad results found in universal health care programs in Canada, Britain, and similar countries.
If Obama becomes President, prepare to wait in long lines . . . and receive indifferent care. That's what happens in Canada, and it's exactly what eventually will happen here.
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Democrats Wounding Amrican Health Care
Right now, if you have insurance (or lots of money) the U.S. provides health care second to none. The Democrats, under Obama and his willing stooges in Congress, are poised to destroy American health care. John McCain is proposing changes that would bring our health care into the free enterprise economy -- and make a basically good system better and more cost-effective.
Scroll down to read Part 1 of this three-part series. Previously, I referred you to Dr. David Gratzer's superb book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. He described how the much-praised (over-praised) Canadian system leads to endless waits, needless deaths, and a poor quality of care. The "good news" is that it pretends to be free. The "bad news" is that it's so deficient it's not worth much..
What we don't want is a Canadian-style system. That's the one Gratzer describes as having elderly patients waiting for days on stretchers in emergency room corridors. They're lying there drenched in their own sweat and urine.Gratzer notes that the downside of American health care is that the cost has spiralled. He points to the example of Vice-President Cheney's pacemaker, which "costs more than fifty times the average annual health-care expenditure of an American in 1950."
Thus, care is in the U.S. is superb, but a lot of people can't afford it. Eventually, the government may not be able to afford it either.Two factors have led to the challenges America faces in health care. One if the fact that, in 1943, the government announced that "employer-sponsored health insurance would not be taxed." Thus, for tax reasons and as a recruitment-retention tool, most employers began offering health insurance to employees.
The burden of providing health care -- unlike every other burden (housing costs, transportation, food, etc.) -- falls to employers. Later, part of the burden would be assumed by government. A second factor affecting the health system is the advance of medical technology.
A generation ago, Dick Cheney would not have had a pacemaker, because it hadn't been invested. A generation ago, someone like Dick Cheney would have been dead.
Technology that preserves life is wonderful, but it comes at an extremely high cost.In Gratzer's words, here's what happens: "These two forces, the insurance model and technological advances, are mutually reinforcing: because insured patients don't pay directly for their own state-of-the-art care, they can't make the consumer choices that would curb the cost of this high-end treatment. As costs have increased to the point of crisis, reformers have sought to reduce them."
Gratzer thinks the reform favored by Democrats (basically, Medicare and Medicaid) have been a disaster, sharply raising costs without really improving the overall quality of care. But Dems can relax, because Gratzer believes the reform favored by most Republicans -- basically, the HMO model -- also has been a catastrophe. It brought a large, expensive -- and often ham-handed -- bureaucracy into the system.
Overall, a major problem with health care -- in our country and others -- is the illusion that it's free. In life, every good and service comes at a cost. In health care, however, the cost is hidden -- or, more accurately, paid by someone other than the user (patient).
When things appear to be free, people tend to overuse them. If tomorrow, the service station near you were to start offering a tank of gasoline for free, the line of "customers" would stretch for miles. If steak and lobster were free, I would have had them for all three meals.
Do people overuse medical services that don't directly cost them money? Yes. In fact, I do it (to a small extent) myself. There are stories of elderly people in Florida and elsewhere who look at visits to the doctor as social occasions. Some doctors encourage the overuse of their services because it puts money in their pockets.
More to Come Tomorrow . . .
Scroll down to read Part 1 of this three-part series. Previously, I referred you to Dr. David Gratzer's superb book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. He described how the much-praised (over-praised) Canadian system leads to endless waits, needless deaths, and a poor quality of care. The "good news" is that it pretends to be free. The "bad news" is that it's so deficient it's not worth much..
What we don't want is a Canadian-style system. That's the one Gratzer describes as having elderly patients waiting for days on stretchers in emergency room corridors. They're lying there drenched in their own sweat and urine.Gratzer notes that the downside of American health care is that the cost has spiralled. He points to the example of Vice-President Cheney's pacemaker, which "costs more than fifty times the average annual health-care expenditure of an American in 1950."
Thus, care is in the U.S. is superb, but a lot of people can't afford it. Eventually, the government may not be able to afford it either.Two factors have led to the challenges America faces in health care. One if the fact that, in 1943, the government announced that "employer-sponsored health insurance would not be taxed." Thus, for tax reasons and as a recruitment-retention tool, most employers began offering health insurance to employees.
The burden of providing health care -- unlike every other burden (housing costs, transportation, food, etc.) -- falls to employers. Later, part of the burden would be assumed by government. A second factor affecting the health system is the advance of medical technology.
A generation ago, Dick Cheney would not have had a pacemaker, because it hadn't been invested. A generation ago, someone like Dick Cheney would have been dead.
Technology that preserves life is wonderful, but it comes at an extremely high cost.In Gratzer's words, here's what happens: "These two forces, the insurance model and technological advances, are mutually reinforcing: because insured patients don't pay directly for their own state-of-the-art care, they can't make the consumer choices that would curb the cost of this high-end treatment. As costs have increased to the point of crisis, reformers have sought to reduce them."
Gratzer thinks the reform favored by Democrats (basically, Medicare and Medicaid) have been a disaster, sharply raising costs without really improving the overall quality of care. But Dems can relax, because Gratzer believes the reform favored by most Republicans -- basically, the HMO model -- also has been a catastrophe. It brought a large, expensive -- and often ham-handed -- bureaucracy into the system.
Overall, a major problem with health care -- in our country and others -- is the illusion that it's free. In life, every good and service comes at a cost. In health care, however, the cost is hidden -- or, more accurately, paid by someone other than the user (patient).
When things appear to be free, people tend to overuse them. If tomorrow, the service station near you were to start offering a tank of gasoline for free, the line of "customers" would stretch for miles. If steak and lobster were free, I would have had them for all three meals.
Do people overuse medical services that don't directly cost them money? Yes. In fact, I do it (to a small extent) myself. There are stories of elderly people in Florida and elsewhere who look at visits to the doctor as social occasions. Some doctors encourage the overuse of their services because it puts money in their pockets.
More to Come Tomorrow . . .
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Democrats: Health Care Disaster Looming
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” - Obama
"The smell of urine and sweat." (Dr. David Gratzer)
[Note: On my stevemaloneygop blog yesterday I reprinted Cristi Adkins' remarkable essay on "Obamamania," what it is -- and how to stop it. Later tonight -- Wednesday -- I'll reprint part II of the health care peice. Please boomark and return. Thanks.]
You may have heard from Democrats during the primaries what a great plan they have for universal health care. They generally compared US health care unfavorably with the national health plans in countries like Canada, Great Britain, and Germany. The last things they wanted you to know about were the deficiencies of a government-dominated health care systems.
The following material is from David Gratzer's book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. Gratzer is a medical doctor certified in both Canada and the US and currently works and writes in New York City. His book is a compelling read.
In it he says, "In medical school, I learned my most important lesson not in a classroom, but on the way to one. On a cold Canadian morning about a decade ago, late for a class, I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers -- waiting, moaning, begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited for up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care -- not only in Canada, but also in the United States. Thought I didn't know it then, I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."
Gratzer points out that he had grown up in Canada believing its "system was better than America's, with its uneven quality and absurdly high cost."
After he entered medical school, however, his view of Canada's universal health care began to change. He says, "The more I was exposed to the system, the more familiar I became with the shortcomings of government-run health care. I trained in emergency rooms that were chronically, chaotically, dangerously overcrowded, not only in my hometown of Winnipeg, but all across Canada. I met a middle-aged man with sleep problems who was booked for an appointment with a specialist three years later; a man with pain following a simple hernia repair who was referred to a pain clinic with a two-year wait list; a woman with breast cancer who was asked to wait four more months before starting the life-saving radiation therapy. According to the government's own statistics, some 1.2 million Canadians couldn't get a family doctor."
What would I recommend to John McCain and other GOP candidates? Please read the above material verbatim to audiences who might have been attracted to the Democrats' false promise of "free health care." In this life, alas, nothing is free. Everything comes at a cost. one that, in this case, is much too high.
Later tonight (Wednesday) I'll put up more material about health care and the terrible pitfalls of so-called "Universal Coverage." I don't mean to suggest that there aren't some serious problems with health care in America, because there are. But the difficulties exist mainly because of flawed government policies related to the tax code. Those bad policies result in a health system that exists in a nether-world between capitalism and socialism, with the result that coverage is not affordable -- or readily available -- for many people. The Democrats' proposals would make a flawed system much worse. Everything in life reflects the principles of supply and demand, iincluding health care. Disastrously, the Democrats want to increase the demand for health care (needed AND unneeded) without increasing the supply of QUALITY care. The result is going to be higher prices followed quickly by poorer service, just as happened in Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere.
"The smell of urine and sweat." (Dr. David Gratzer)
[Note: On my stevemaloneygop blog yesterday I reprinted Cristi Adkins' remarkable essay on "Obamamania," what it is -- and how to stop it. Later tonight -- Wednesday -- I'll reprint part II of the health care peice. Please boomark and return. Thanks.]
You may have heard from Democrats during the primaries what a great plan they have for universal health care. They generally compared US health care unfavorably with the national health plans in countries like Canada, Great Britain, and Germany. The last things they wanted you to know about were the deficiencies of a government-dominated health care systems.
The following material is from David Gratzer's book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. Gratzer is a medical doctor certified in both Canada and the US and currently works and writes in New York City. His book is a compelling read.
In it he says, "In medical school, I learned my most important lesson not in a classroom, but on the way to one. On a cold Canadian morning about a decade ago, late for a class, I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers -- waiting, moaning, begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited for up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care -- not only in Canada, but also in the United States. Thought I didn't know it then, I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."
Gratzer points out that he had grown up in Canada believing its "system was better than America's, with its uneven quality and absurdly high cost."
After he entered medical school, however, his view of Canada's universal health care began to change. He says, "The more I was exposed to the system, the more familiar I became with the shortcomings of government-run health care. I trained in emergency rooms that were chronically, chaotically, dangerously overcrowded, not only in my hometown of Winnipeg, but all across Canada. I met a middle-aged man with sleep problems who was booked for an appointment with a specialist three years later; a man with pain following a simple hernia repair who was referred to a pain clinic with a two-year wait list; a woman with breast cancer who was asked to wait four more months before starting the life-saving radiation therapy. According to the government's own statistics, some 1.2 million Canadians couldn't get a family doctor."
What would I recommend to John McCain and other GOP candidates? Please read the above material verbatim to audiences who might have been attracted to the Democrats' false promise of "free health care." In this life, alas, nothing is free. Everything comes at a cost. one that, in this case, is much too high.
Later tonight (Wednesday) I'll put up more material about health care and the terrible pitfalls of so-called "Universal Coverage." I don't mean to suggest that there aren't some serious problems with health care in America, because there are. But the difficulties exist mainly because of flawed government policies related to the tax code. Those bad policies result in a health system that exists in a nether-world between capitalism and socialism, with the result that coverage is not affordable -- or readily available -- for many people. The Democrats' proposals would make a flawed system much worse. Everything in life reflects the principles of supply and demand, iincluding health care. Disastrously, the Democrats want to increase the demand for health care (needed AND unneeded) without increasing the supply of QUALITY care. The result is going to be higher prices followed quickly by poorer service, just as happened in Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere.
Monday, July 21, 2008
McCain: The Real Change Candidate
Tomorrow: "The odor of sweat and urine -- the Democrats' health plan for you.
Mark your calendar! This Sunday at 5 p.m. ET, I'll be on Clintons for McCain Blog Talk Radio with hostess Cristi Adkins and Rev. Manning, a prominent Harlem preacher who's a strong opponent of the candidacy of Barack H. Obama. It should be fun.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/clintons4mccain
A friend in the NoBama effort sent me the following:
By Steve Chapman
I know, because admirers of Barack Obama tell me, that this year's election poses a choice between a candidate who represents a fresh approach to problems and one who offers a dreary continuation of the status quo. That much I understand. What I sometimes have trouble keeping straight is which candidate is which.
On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he's allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring.
That something is to facilitate greater parental choice in education.
McCain wants to expand a Washington, D.C. program that provides federally funded scholarships so poor students can attend private schools. More than 7,000 kids, he reported, have applied for these vouchers, but only 1,900 can be accommodated.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/change_he_cant_believe_in.html
Here's my response:
The real candidate of change in this election is John McCain. Within the past month, The (London) Economist had an article about charter schools in Chicago and Harlem. The students in those schools are performing very well, equalling or exceeding the performance of white students in the public schools.
The magazine described parents in Harlem, desperate to get their children into the high-performing schools, participating in a lottery system, recognizing that their children's futures were on the line.
I believe John McCain is sincerely concerned about those children and their parents. I believe Barack Obama has sold out to special interests (educational and political) who are concerned about themselves and NOT the children.
If I truly believed Barack Obama had a commitment to improving education, health care, and other problem areas, I'd probably be voting for him. I have no such belief that he has freed himself from special interests committed to the status quo.
So, I think Chapman is right on target. Barack and Michelle are not warehousing their children in schools where they're destined to fail, and they shouldn't ask other parents, black or white, to sentence their children to a life of under-performance.
Mark your calendar! This Sunday at 5 p.m. ET, I'll be on Clintons for McCain Blog Talk Radio with hostess Cristi Adkins and Rev. Manning, a prominent Harlem preacher who's a strong opponent of the candidacy of Barack H. Obama. It should be fun.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/clintons4mccain
A friend in the NoBama effort sent me the following:
By Steve Chapman
I know, because admirers of Barack Obama tell me, that this year's election poses a choice between a candidate who represents a fresh approach to problems and one who offers a dreary continuation of the status quo. That much I understand. What I sometimes have trouble keeping straight is which candidate is which.
On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he's allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring.
That something is to facilitate greater parental choice in education.
McCain wants to expand a Washington, D.C. program that provides federally funded scholarships so poor students can attend private schools. More than 7,000 kids, he reported, have applied for these vouchers, but only 1,900 can be accommodated.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/change_he_cant_believe_in.html
Here's my response:
The real candidate of change in this election is John McCain. Within the past month, The (London) Economist had an article about charter schools in Chicago and Harlem. The students in those schools are performing very well, equalling or exceeding the performance of white students in the public schools.
The magazine described parents in Harlem, desperate to get their children into the high-performing schools, participating in a lottery system, recognizing that their children's futures were on the line.
I believe John McCain is sincerely concerned about those children and their parents. I believe Barack Obama has sold out to special interests (educational and political) who are concerned about themselves and NOT the children.
If I truly believed Barack Obama had a commitment to improving education, health care, and other problem areas, I'd probably be voting for him. I have no such belief that he has freed himself from special interests committed to the status quo.
So, I think Chapman is right on target. Barack and Michelle are not warehousing their children in schools where they're destined to fail, and they shouldn't ask other parents, black or white, to sentence their children to a life of under-performance.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Noted Scholar Joins NoBamaMission Bloggers
Recently, I received a brilliant comment on one of my blog posting (scroll down to see). It was by John Maszka, an expert on international terrrorism and Mideast politics. I asked John if he's like to join NoBama Mission Bloggers, a group I head, and to my delight, he said yes. Here's some information following about John, his blog, and his important political theory of constructive sovereignty. I hope if you're a blogger committed to the concept of "NoBama" that you'll also join, which you can do by e-mailing me at: TalkTop65@aol.com.
John Maszka is an International Relations scholar. Look for his most recent book everywhere books are sold: Terrorism And The Bush Doctrine by John Maszka ISBN-13: 9781606100103 Pub. Date: May 2008 John Maszka is primarily interested in American foreign policy and its impact on global terrorism. You can find his blog at: http://blogger.com
Theories: Maszka is most notable for his theory of Constructive Sovereignty [1] An emerging theory intended to address globalization's increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms their constituency will accept.
Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state's own constituency. As each state's constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms. In this way, international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy while each state's sovereignty is maintained and respected.
John's Publications Include:
Countering International Terrorism [2]Democrats or Demagogues[3]Groupthink or Gross Incompetence [4]International Cooperation vs. Unilateralism [5]Political vs Military Solutions to Terrorism [6]Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine[7]US Unilateralism in the Global Order [8]Searching For The Min Laung
Below is John's comment that he left on one of my blogs:
In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France.
After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.
These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt.
Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today. Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well.
Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.
Over the years of America's on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan.
Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal. I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree.
The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us.
The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?
John Maszka is an International Relations scholar. Look for his most recent book everywhere books are sold: Terrorism And The Bush Doctrine by John Maszka ISBN-13: 9781606100103 Pub. Date: May 2008 John Maszka is primarily interested in American foreign policy and its impact on global terrorism. You can find his blog at: http://blogger.com
Theories: Maszka is most notable for his theory of Constructive Sovereignty [1] An emerging theory intended to address globalization's increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms their constituency will accept.
Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state's own constituency. As each state's constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms. In this way, international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy while each state's sovereignty is maintained and respected.
John's Publications Include:
Countering International Terrorism [2]Democrats or Demagogues[3]Groupthink or Gross Incompetence [4]International Cooperation vs. Unilateralism [5]Political vs Military Solutions to Terrorism [6]Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine[7]US Unilateralism in the Global Order [8]Searching For The Min Laung
Below is John's comment that he left on one of my blogs:
In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France.
After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.
These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt.
Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today. Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well.
Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.
Over the years of America's on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan.
Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal. I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree.
The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us.
The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Like $4 Gasoline? Vote Obama
John McCain doesn want you to pay $4 for gasoline or $4 for milk. Apparently everyone else does.
I admit I'm the "worm-in-the-wood." I want fundamental re-thinking to go on. What happened in 2008 is NOT a temporary glitch, something to be cured by the exit of Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, both of whom are NEVER going to leave.
And what on earth is wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Right now, Nancy and her merry men and women don't want the U.S. to produce another barrel of oil or burn another ton of coal. They don't like the gasoline you put in your car. It's nasty stuff. It leaves carbon footprints all over the place. Coal? Ugh!
Barack Obama agrees with them. Of course, these Democratic policies are now wrecking our economy. When Congress, one dominated by you-know-whats, is the problem, it's really disingenuous to blame it on George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Bush said five years ago that our cuontry was "addicted to oil." Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid heard that, but they did nothing.
If they continue to do nothing, and Obama goes along with it, all the "good, high-paying jobs" we heard about in the primary will be gone. I don't like burning coal anymore than the head of the Sierra Club, but right now our alternative is the Stone Age.
Currently, the approval rating of Congress is in the single digits. Even single digits is too high for this bunch.
Remember Iowa? All the candidates, including your favorite lady, went there and "took the pledge." They supported ethanol -- more precisely they supported huge taxpayer subsidies for ethanol, which has no economic jutification on its own. As we're all finding out, milk now costs $4 a gallon and there are food riots in various countries.
Gee, what's the connection between politicians "taking the pledge" and the fact that poor families can't buy milk? It is one of casue and effect. In exchange for votes, politicians sold out the people who now can't afford milk.
Gee, one guy didn't take the pledge and didn't go to Iowa, didn't pander, and didn't get any votes. That happened to be John McCain. He knows ethanol is a crock, although he may give it occasional lip service.
The Democrats (and several Republicans) who took the pledge did great damage to people's lives. River Daughter talked about "shared responsibility" as a Democratic goal. But one greater responsibility candidates (or leaders) have is to gell people the truth. That wasn't done in Iowa -- except through his absence, by John McCain.
He doesn't want you to pay $4 for gasoline or $4 for milk. Apparently, everyone else does.
I admit I'm the "worm-in-the-wood." I want fundamental re-thinking to go on. What happened in 2008 is NOT a temporary glitch, something to be cured by the exit of Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, both of whom are NEVER going to leave.
And what on earth is wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Right now, Nancy and her merry men and women don't want the U.S. to produce another barrel of oil or burn another ton of coal. They don't like the gasoline you put in your car. It's nasty stuff. It leaves carbon footprints all over the place. Coal? Ugh!
Barack Obama agrees with them. Of course, these Democratic policies are now wrecking our economy. When Congress, one dominated by you-know-whats, is the problem, it's really disingenuous to blame it on George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Bush said five years ago that our cuontry was "addicted to oil." Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid heard that, but they did nothing.
If they continue to do nothing, and Obama goes along with it, all the "good, high-paying jobs" we heard about in the primary will be gone. I don't like burning coal anymore than the head of the Sierra Club, but right now our alternative is the Stone Age.
Currently, the approval rating of Congress is in the single digits. Even single digits is too high for this bunch.
Remember Iowa? All the candidates, including your favorite lady, went there and "took the pledge." They supported ethanol -- more precisely they supported huge taxpayer subsidies for ethanol, which has no economic jutification on its own. As we're all finding out, milk now costs $4 a gallon and there are food riots in various countries.
Gee, what's the connection between politicians "taking the pledge" and the fact that poor families can't buy milk? It is one of casue and effect. In exchange for votes, politicians sold out the people who now can't afford milk.
Gee, one guy didn't take the pledge and didn't go to Iowa, didn't pander, and didn't get any votes. That happened to be John McCain. He knows ethanol is a crock, although he may give it occasional lip service.
The Democrats (and several Republicans) who took the pledge did great damage to people's lives. River Daughter talked about "shared responsibility" as a Democratic goal. But one greater responsibility candidates (or leaders) have is to gell people the truth. That wasn't done in Iowa -- except through his absence, by John McCain.
He doesn't want you to pay $4 for gasoline or $4 for milk. Apparently, everyone else does.
Barack Obama: America's Smiling Stalin?
The newest blogger on NobamaMission Bloggers is: http://hickeysite.blogspot.com. This is a little-known blog that is often one of the best going. Its author is Pat Hickey, of Chicago, Illinois. Pat writes a lot about the dark side of Chicago politics (hint, hint). He also writes about the classic Chicagoans, ones who spend 40 hours a week (more or less) at work, then 40 hours at the local pubs (mostly near Wrigley Field it seems). Another 40 hours are spent getting chewed out by the spouse. Pat writes about Chicago writers (many of them patrons of the aforementioned pubs), who are not cited much by the national press because they, well, "dislike Barack."
Pat Hickey is a keeper. He writes in the Jimmy Breslin tradition.
On his July 19 blog post, he has information about Obama's "National Security Force," which should serve to keep people like Hillary backers and Republicans in line. Pat is not making this stuff up. He also has a great picture of Obama (see above) dressed in something that looks like one of Joseph Stalin's own military outfits. In keeping with Irish tradition, Pat is not restrained when it comes to free speech.
The point of the spear in the battle against Obama is the following site: http://clintons4mccain.com. It has great news and greater opinion pieces. If you want to join the fight to keep Barack in his Stalin outfit -- and out of the White House -- please join Clintons for McCain. If you're a blogger, please e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com to join NoBama Mission Bloggers.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Obama's Hero: Pinnochio
Hi my friends: On Thursday I'm going to have to (key phrase) have our 21-year-old cat, Larry Bird, put down. It's the only humane thing to. Thus, my next new column will be up on Friday. Hope to see you back!
72 Obama belittles Americans claiming we can't speak European languages; he's talking merde; mierda; Scheiße
71 Obama denied he accused President Bush of starting the War for political reasons; Russert transcript proves Obama made that false claim
70 Obama claims there has been substantial job losses from NAFTA; Independent studies show its at least" job neutral"
69 Claimed in Feb 08 he got 90% of funds from donors giving $25, $50; fed filings show he got only about a third from donors below $200
68 Obama rewrites history about what specifically he had said during his October 2002 anti-war speech
67 Obama claimed in 04 that he had never supported bringing troops out of Iraq; rare video of 03 Teamsters rally shows he's lying
66 Obama lied about the softness of the Stack Market to support his false claim the War was being used to distract the public
65 To justify his move to private funds, Obama claims that McCains campaign is" fuelled" by PACs and Lobbyists; its less than 2% of McCains money
64 Obama's "Dignity" ad claims he "worked his way" thru college and law school; campaign admits only two summer jobs
63 Obama's "Dignity" ad gives him credit for reducing Welfare rolls by 80%: he's deceptive as he was opposed to Fed Welfare Reform in '96
62 In Obama's The Country I love ad, he takes credit for passing a healthcare bill he did NOT vote for
61 Claims he first ran in Chicago as an unendorsed candidate; his '96 election questionnaire proves he had several
60 Obama claims he wants a vigorous and open debate on the issues: then goes out of his way to avoid it
59 Obama omits key details about a false rumor re video of Michelle's "whitey" rant to justify breaking his public funding promise
58 Obama tries to deceive about why he voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois Senate; Chicago paper reveals the truth
57 Trying to claim patriotism Obama says his grandad signed up the day after Pearl Harbor; army records disagree
56 Claims race and party not important to how people vote as they put America first; 93% block vote disproves
55 On June 5, Obama stated that Israel must remain undivided; June 6 on CNN he reversed his position
54 To further his own agenda, Obama grossly overstates the number of potential African-American votes in MS, GA, SC
53 Promise of $2500 reduction in Healthcare premiums needs billions in Admin cost savings by 2012: not possible
52 Obama omits to mention his 3 week trip to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until it slips out trying to out-do Clinton
51 Obama claims McCain wants to wage a lengthy war in Iraq: Video proves Obama's lying
50 Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
49 Obama dishonestly used endorsements in ads to pump up his healthcare plan
48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story
46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"
44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he knew it was controversial since 86
36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
28 Obama claims never said he wouldn't wear US flag-pin; video shows he did
27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion
25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted
20 Claimed would not run for President, as he would not be qualified by 2008: confirmed 3 times to Tim Russert in one 2006 interview
19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth
17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Its 72 DOCUMENTED LIES and sunny here on Chicago' s South Side
Its 72 DOCUMENTED LIES and sunny here on Chicago' s South Side
72 Obama belittles Americans claiming we can't speak European languages; he's talking merde; mierda; Scheiße
71 Obama denied he accused President Bush of starting the War for political reasons; Russert transcript proves Obama made that false claim
70 Obama claims there has been substantial job losses from NAFTA; Independent studies show its at least" job neutral"
69 Claimed in Feb 08 he got 90% of funds from donors giving $25, $50; fed filings show he got only about a third from donors below $200
68 Obama rewrites history about what specifically he had said during his October 2002 anti-war speech
67 Obama claimed in 04 that he had never supported bringing troops out of Iraq; rare video of 03 Teamsters rally shows he's lying
66 Obama lied about the softness of the Stack Market to support his false claim the War was being used to distract the public
65 To justify his move to private funds, Obama claims that McCains campaign is" fuelled" by PACs and Lobbyists; its less than 2% of McCains money
64 Obama's "Dignity" ad claims he "worked his way" thru college and law school; campaign admits only two summer jobs
63 Obama's "Dignity" ad gives him credit for reducing Welfare rolls by 80%: he's deceptive as he was opposed to Fed Welfare Reform in '96
62 In Obama's The Country I love ad, he takes credit for passing a healthcare bill he did NOT vote for
61 Claims he first ran in Chicago as an unendorsed candidate; his '96 election questionnaire proves he had several
60 Obama claims he wants a vigorous and open debate on the issues: then goes out of his way to avoid it
59 Obama omits key details about a false rumor re video of Michelle's "whitey" rant to justify breaking his public funding promise
58 Obama tries to deceive about why he voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois Senate; Chicago paper reveals the truth
57 Trying to claim patriotism Obama says his grandad signed up the day after Pearl Harbor; army records disagree
56 Claims race and party not important to how people vote as they put America first; 93% block vote disproves
55 On June 5, Obama stated that Israel must remain undivided; June 6 on CNN he reversed his position
54 To further his own agenda, Obama grossly overstates the number of potential African-American votes in MS, GA, SC
53 Promise of $2500 reduction in Healthcare premiums needs billions in Admin cost savings by 2012: not possible
52 Obama omits to mention his 3 week trip to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until it slips out trying to out-do Clinton
51 Obama claims McCain wants to wage a lengthy war in Iraq: Video proves Obama's lying
50 Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
49 Obama dishonestly used endorsements in ads to pump up his healthcare plan
48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story
46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"
44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he knew it was controversial since 86
36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
28 Obama claims never said he wouldn't wear US flag-pin; video shows he did
27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion
25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted
20 Claimed would not run for President, as he would not be qualified by 2008: confirmed 3 times to Tim Russert in one 2006 interview
19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth
17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied
HILLARY CLINTON'S TIME OF TESTING
Dolores Bernal, a heavy-duty liberal columnist wrote an article about "How Hillary Could Still Ger the Nomination." I don't for a minute believe that will happen. Ms. Bernal's problem with Obama is that he "moving toward the center" and is not a real "progressive," whereas Hillary might be. Blah, blah, blah. I wrote the following response to a NoBama Group:
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world.
He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers.
So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama, become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world.
He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers.
So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama, become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
Boone Pickens & Bonehead Obama
In a message dated 7/10/2008 8:04:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, julia.ruhsam@yahoo.com writes:
Interesting, Steve; have you heard T. Boone Pickens' new TV commercials? They're running on the network national news shows. $700 BILLION of our U.S. money is transferred EVERY YEAR to foreign countries, the largest wealth transfer in history. We HAVE to develop our own energy resources, whether shale oil, coal gasification, wind power, hydrogen or some other alternative source.
Julia
It's interesting to see how much BETTER the Pickens ads are than either of the candidates' commercials! Pickens want to move toward natural gas -- bet he has a lot of it -- to power vehicles, and I can't disagree with him. I don't mind people getting rich if they do so in a way that benefits the country (e.g. Steve Jobs). Oil is a transitional fuel, but it's one we can't live without for the next 20-30 years (at which point I'll be safely dead).
I think Obama's panicked attack commercial on McCain -- waving around the name of "Bush" (rather than "President Bush") -- shows the uncouth man has no plan. Under President Obama, the price of gas will go to perhaps $10 a gallon and our economy will be destroyed. All those "good-paying jobs" candidate Clinton and candidate Obama talked about will have disappeared. I’m sure President Obama will figure out some way to blame “George Bush!”
Nuclear energy, which Obama and most Democrats oppose, emits NO greenhouse gases, but we can't have that. The House energy bill, supported by Pelosi, doesn't even mention coal, an important transitional fuel. Conservation of energy does not mean making fuel so expensive no one can afford it, but explain that to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats beloved to a small number of people.
I have up on my blogs the image of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. I mention that Carter's "energy plan" was for us all to wear thick sweaters and two pair of socks. Do I hear three pairs of socks, Barack?
Frankly, I'm almost serene about the strong possibility of an Obama presidency. It will be such an immediate disaster that he will be gone in four years. I hope the country will still be around. Hillary Clinton may well be his V-P, and she would go down with him. As for T. Boone Pickens, I never underestimate the man.
Interesting, Steve; have you heard T. Boone Pickens' new TV commercials? They're running on the network national news shows. $700 BILLION of our U.S. money is transferred EVERY YEAR to foreign countries, the largest wealth transfer in history. We HAVE to develop our own energy resources, whether shale oil, coal gasification, wind power, hydrogen or some other alternative source.
Julia
It's interesting to see how much BETTER the Pickens ads are than either of the candidates' commercials! Pickens want to move toward natural gas -- bet he has a lot of it -- to power vehicles, and I can't disagree with him. I don't mind people getting rich if they do so in a way that benefits the country (e.g. Steve Jobs). Oil is a transitional fuel, but it's one we can't live without for the next 20-30 years (at which point I'll be safely dead).
I think Obama's panicked attack commercial on McCain -- waving around the name of "Bush" (rather than "President Bush") -- shows the uncouth man has no plan. Under President Obama, the price of gas will go to perhaps $10 a gallon and our economy will be destroyed. All those "good-paying jobs" candidate Clinton and candidate Obama talked about will have disappeared. I’m sure President Obama will figure out some way to blame “George Bush!”
Nuclear energy, which Obama and most Democrats oppose, emits NO greenhouse gases, but we can't have that. The House energy bill, supported by Pelosi, doesn't even mention coal, an important transitional fuel. Conservation of energy does not mean making fuel so expensive no one can afford it, but explain that to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats beloved to a small number of people.
I have up on my blogs the image of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. I mention that Carter's "energy plan" was for us all to wear thick sweaters and two pair of socks. Do I hear three pairs of socks, Barack?
Frankly, I'm almost serene about the strong possibility of an Obama presidency. It will be such an immediate disaster that he will be gone in four years. I hope the country will still be around. Hillary Clinton may well be his V-P, and she would go down with him. As for T. Boone Pickens, I never underestimate the man.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
New York Captures Barack, Michelle
Barack and Michelle caught by New Yorker in a candid, unguarded moment as they do their signature "fist-bump . .
The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to the diligent Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”
Obama (shrugs incredulously): “I have no response to that.”
Remember Sen. George Allen's "Macaca Moment?" It cost him his Senate Seat in VA (he lost by 9,000 votes out of millions cast). Many of the images of Obama and Michelle are harmful to his campaign, which doesn't make me the least bit unhappy. The photos (National Anthem and many others) capture people in a way our finely crafted arguments never will. the New Yorker cover is NOT good news for Barack.
Is it fair? As JFK said, "Life is unfair."
Are we engaged in the politics of fear, as the New Yorker story suggests? It was not us who advocating invading Pakistan (an ally of sorts that has nuclear weapons); it was not us eho suggested re-invading Iraq; it was not us who said we would do "everything . . . EVERYTHING" to prevent Iran from building a nuke. If Barack is really running for GWB's third term, as the WSJ said, he's off to a great start.
Rranklin Roosevelt said we should avoid "nameless, unreasoning fear." Ours has a name (BHO) and it is not unreasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
