Monday, October 27, 2008

How John McCain will restore our economy

From John McCain's October 4th Radio Address:
[...] Pressure and crisis often have a way of revealing the best within us -- of showing what we are made of, and how much we can achieve when we are put to the test. This is true of the grave challenges we face in Washington today. Yet it should not require extreme emergencies to bring out the best in us, or to bring us together in service to the common good. We are supposed to do that even in the calmest of times. And if we worked together more often in that spirit, perhaps there would be fewer crises, close-calls, and near-disasters confronting our nation.

Our government is on the wrong track, our economy is struggling, and we got even more bad news with yesterday's unemployment report. It is a time for leadership and a plan to create jobs and get our country on the right track.

I believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. I believe in rewarding hard work and letting people keep the fruits of their labor. We will keep tax rates low. We will simplify the current tax code. We will double the child exemption from 3500 dollars to 7000 dollars. We will give every family a 5000 dollar tax credit to buy their own health insurance or keep their current plan, and we will open up the national health-care market to expand choices and improve quality. And my administration will reduce the price of food by eliminating the subsidies for ethanol and agricultural goods. These subsidies inflate the price of food, not only for Americans but for people in poverty across the world, and I intend to abolish them.

I believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans, so they can create more jobs and keep our economy growing. So we will cut business taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent, to give American businesses a new edge in competition. We will spur new investment through R&D tax credits and expensing of equipment. And we will protect the right of workers to decide for themselves, by secret ballot, whether to unionize.

As president, I will also set this country on the straightest, swiftest path to energy independence. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. In all of this, and more, we will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity -- jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.

If I am elected president, I will also act immediately with reforms to restore fairness, integrity, and financial sanity to the institutions that have failed us on Wall Street. We will apply new rules to Wall Street, to end the frenzies of speculation by people gaming the system, and to make sure that this present crisis is never repeated. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) It was hard to chose and excerpt, it's full of great things, read (or listen to) the whole thing.


A challenge to four statements that Obama repeats at almost every campaign rally

These statements really do need to be debunked. Neal Boortz has done so, and I'm reprinting them here in their entirety:


The election is now eight days way. If you've made up your mind for Obama; or if you're trying to noodle through some of the things he's been saying on the campaign trail, this should help. I've taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful ... if unchallenged ... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.

So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.

Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!

"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."

It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called "tax cuts."

So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you'll be getting from The Chosen One. I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words "tax credit" with the word "payment." That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get 'em:

  • A $500 "make work pay" payment.
  • A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
  • A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
  • A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
  • A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
  • A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
  • Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.

There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes.

It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them.

"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."

Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.

Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?

The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.

"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."

First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.

"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."

He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There's a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.

Now that wasn't too hard, was it?

Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You're going to have that on your conscience.

"Wealth Redistribution" and Obama: the Truth

This is the sort of thing that should have come out in the primaries, not 8 days before the election. Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber was just scratching the surface.

More from Neal Boortz:


Now that brings again to Obama. You've heard, haven't you, that a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview of then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama has surfaced. In that interview Obama says that it was a tragedy that during the civil rights era the Supreme Court didn't pursue "redistribution of the wealth." Here's the relevant portion of the interview if you care to hear it for yourself.

We've really made some progress here. Well, I guess that the left has really made some progress. We now have a presidential candidate who talks openly of increasing taxes not because the government needs the money, but because the people who do have the money don't actually deserve it and there are other people out there who need it more. Sorry folks, but facts is facts. Redistribution of the wealth is a basic tenant of Communism. To whatever degree you support a forced redistribution of wealth you are a Communist. Simple as that.

The warning signs have always been there. In his book Dreams from my Father Obama writes of a relationship he had in is late teens with someone named "Frank." For some reason Obama doesn't include his last name. Obama refers to Frank as "a poet" who was full of "hard-earned knowledge." He also says that Frank had "some modest notoriety once." Yeah, I'll say. Frank was Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the CPUSA. For those of you who don't like acronyms, that's Communist Party of the United States of America. Frank Marshall Davis ... some mentor, don't you think?

For all of you suburban housewives and country clubbers who think that you are just so, like, enlightened for voting for Obama, it's time for your wake up call ... though I don't know if it will help:

Barack Obama's core belief is that we belong not to ourselves, but to government. We are tools that the government is free to use to bring about what Obama calls "economic justice." The fruits of our labor belong to government ... and government can do with them what it pleases.

Now if this is your philosophy, then vote for this guy. Then every time you draw a paycheck why don't you drop him a line and ask him how much of it you can keep to care for your family and plan for your own future and how much he would like to have to redistribute to someone who sat on their butt while you were busting yours. After all, you voted for him.


Some interesting happenings last week. Argentina proposes seizing all private pensions. The purpose? That would be to redistribute all of that money to people who actually need it more. Now I've exhausted my Google capabilities trying to identify this person, I believe it was Barney Frank, but some leading Democrat last week said that the pensions belonging to some evil CEOs would be the first to go. That's just the beginning folks. Mark my words, because I want the "I told you so" on this one, after Obama is sworn in you are going to see an attack on privately held pensions and 401K plans. There's about four or five trillion dollars out there, and the Democrats want their hands on it to further their redistribution schemes.


A TV reporter in Central Florida actually asked Joe Biden questions that we have waited so long for the MSM to ask ... and the Obama-Biden campaign isn't pleased. Last Thursday, Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Joe Biden. You can watch the interview here.

West asked Biden about Obama's "spread the wealth" comment. She quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden whether Obama's comments were Marxist. Biden's response: "Are you joking?" West also asked Biden about his comments that Obama would be tested by an international crisis early in his presidency. His response to that: "I don't know who is writing your questions."

It doesn't matter who is writing the questions, Joe. What matters is that these are the questions that many Americans have been wanted answers to ... but nobody has dared to ask.

In fact, Biden was so upset by the interview, that the Obama campaign canceled an interview with Jill Biden, Joe's wife, because it was unhappy with West's questions.

Here's what the Obama campaign had to say about the interview. Notice how the Obama campaign has reacted to radio and TV stations that run unflattering ads or ask tough questions – ban them, ask the Justice Department to get involved, get a hold of their advertisers. This is just the beginning, folks.

"There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public -- not misleading the American people with false information. Senator Biden handled the interview well; however, the anchor was completely unprofessional. Senator Biden's wife is not running for elected office, and there are many other stations in the Orlando television market that would gladly conduct a respectful and factual interview with her."

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."

So by asking these questions, West is deemed "unprofessional." How about those reporters who reported on Sarah Palin's children, or her days as a beauty queen? Those reports are not unprofessional, but when you ask a Vice Presidential candidate about tax policy ... THAT is unprofessional.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Fred Thompson on the reality of our choice

This nine minute video by Fred makes clear the choice you have and what the consequences of an Obama victory would be. This video is part 1, there is a three minute part 2 in the right sidebar at Youtube.

Fred was my first choice, and as always is direct and to the point.

Help for the undecided: The Summary

Neal Boortz has written a summary of the issues at stake in this election, to help the undecided along. It's long, but shorter than many voter information pamphlets, and more helpful. He's given permission to reprint the whole thing, so long as he's given credit for the writing, so I'm posting it here in it's entirety. You can also see it on his website here.


By Neal Boortz

© 2008 Neal Boortz

This is long; very long. Hey, I'm a pretty entertaining writer ... so give it a go. If you're an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don't have all the facts here ... but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you've ever made.

This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters face. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It's just that the average American doesn't spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.

Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don't think 2008 is going to be the first time.

I've noted that some other "pundits" out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I'll make no attempt to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I'm just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I'm just pulling the handle.

The Race Factor

Are many black voters going to vote for Barack Obama primarily because of race? Of course, many will. Surveys and polling have shown that the figure may reach 20%. I think it's well more than that. Is race a sound reason to cast a vote? Probably not. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I cannot fault a black American for voting for Obama. It may turn out to be a negative vote insofar as their dreams and goals are concerned. It may not work out all that well for their children, especially if they're ambitions and talented. But I don't think many of us can absolutely say that we wouldn't be casting the same vote were we in their shoes.

If you are a white American there is no way in the world you can look at this election through the same eyes as a third or fourth generation black American citizen. Several months ago a caller to my show suggested that Barack Obama's ascendency in the presidential sweepstakes was Black America's biggest accomplishment. I disagreed. Though I can't remember the exact words, I said that, in a general sense, the shining moment for Black America may have been the show of patience and restraint shown by black men when they returned from putting their lives on the line in World War II and in Korea to a country with segregated schools, colored waiting rooms, whites only water fountains, beatings, lynchings, water hoses, police dogs and systematic discrimination pretty much every where they looked. The restraint showed by black Americans during the civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's, though not universal, was something to behold.

Now .. try, though you won't succeed, to put yourself into the mind of a black American. How can you experience or understand the legacy of segregation, violence and second-class citizenry your ancestors went through and not take pride in a black American on the verge of winning the presidency? How many black American voters do you think are uttering to themselves: "If my grandfather had only lived to see this." It takes a great deal of maturity and a clear understanding of the possible future consequences for someone to put their racial pride aside and swim against the tide on this one. So, there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election. As I said, It's understandable.

And Then There's the Race Card

This really isn't really a reason to vote for or against Barack Obama, but you do need to know what the next four years are going to be like with an Obama presidency.

During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let's see if we can remember a few:

  • Using the word "skinny" to refer to Obama is racist.
  • "Community organizer" is a racist term.
  • Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist ... that would be because Raines is black.
  • All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black.
  • Referring to Obama as "eloquent" is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent.
  • For goodness' sake, don't say that Obama is "clean."
  • This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a "socialist" is also racist because "socialist" is just another code word for black.

And so it goes. We've also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don't vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he's black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you're a racist. Simple as that.

Now let's consider the next four years under President Obama. He is certainly going to introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming "racist!" By the end of Obama's first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another. So, what else is new?

The Republicans

One thing for sure ... the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion's share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt's Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans – in 1994 – recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then ... this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.

As a matter of fact, it's not just the Department of Education; it's our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London ... all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.

The Republicans don't deserve power in Washington just as you don't deserve a boil in the center of your forehead. There are worse things, however. Complete Democrat control or, in the case of your forehead, a nice big melanoma. Pretty much the same things, actually.

It's not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us.

Obama's Friends

By "Obama's Friends" we mean the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko and other assorted miscreants. I could spend a lot of time here detailing the crimes of Obama's friends --- and make no mistake, they were his friends. At this point I don't think that any votes are going to be changed one way or another by detailing the corruption of Rezko, the America-hating of Wright or the unrepentant terrorism of Ayers. Suffice it to say that Obama was close to all of these people ... and these were associations born of mutual interests and philosophies. If you think that it is fair to judge the character of a person by observing the people they surround themselves with, then the judgment of Barack Obama would be a harsh one.

Obama's varied storylines regarding his relationship with Ayers have, to say the least, been interesting. The list is incomplete, but thus far we have:

  • He was just a guy who lived in my neighborhood.
  • I was only eight years old when he was throwing bombs.
  • I didn't know about his history when we started working together
  • I thought he had been rehabilitated.

Yeah ... I guess it's OK if you form a close relationship with a bomb-throwing terrorist, as long as he threw the bombs when you were a kid. Works for me. Work for you? In a similar vein, It must be OK if your pastor rails against America, as long as you aren't in church on those particular days. Or maybe we should say as long as nobody remembers actually seeing you in church on those days.

One interesting point: If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn't qualify for a security clearance. Pretty pathetic. If Barack Obama becomes president, he would not even qualify to be his own bodyguard.

Obama's Tax Policies

You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By "legitimate functions" I'm referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.

Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a "legitimate" function of government, but let's save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government's taxing authority than many of us do.

Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don't have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.

Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether or not you are going to be a customer of government. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy and even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.

Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of "fairness." In other words, Obama didn't wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous "fairness" in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who really do need it.

Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let's see. I know I've heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1975 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn't read that? Maybe that's because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He's eloquent, isn't he? And he has a good narrative.

As I've indicated, I've been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream "communism" every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you ... right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they'll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn't it?

Does this reflect your philosophy?

Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his "spread the wealth around" tax policy.

Let's talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I'm going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can't get those beats back. They're gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left ... and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats – your life – being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don't need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.

Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don't want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don't "need" it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the income they need by themselves ... or, as Obama puts it, "spread around."

What is Obama going to do? How does he determine "need?" What data does he use to determine "fairness?" Maybe he'll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic "need" level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person's wealth they really don't "need," it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be "fair," wouldn't it? Come on, it's not exactly like you worked for that money.

Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called "the less fortunate." This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn't that the world you want to live in?

There's a quote that's been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy's name was Tytler. Let's not argue spelling right now ... let's just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Think about this, my friends. Isn't this exactly what we're seeing right now? In fact, hasn't this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he's only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn't take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else's money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That's change you can believe in.

Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs

Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that's a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please ... just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes?

Here's the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don't pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama's plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It's convoluted, to say the least, but that's out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he's going to cut taxes for don't pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn't subtracted from the Trust Fund ... where does it come from? Obama's people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they'll just go out there and get the money from those "rich people."

OK ... so there we are. It's tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama's taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as "people making over $250,000 a year." That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a year figure was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail "families," not "people" earning over 250 grand. If you're single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you're talking to. We'll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.

There's your first lie.

So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America's small business owners.

The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh ... and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America's small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One's tax increases.

If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business ... and if you vote for Obama ... then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack's tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You're an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you'll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!

In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama's tax increases on America's small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It's a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America's small businesses don't make $250,000 a year, and thus won't be affected by Obama's tax increases.

That's the second lie. A lie of omission.

Obama's statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that "95% of all small businesses" line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.

The trick here is that the vast majority of America's small businesses are just that ... small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80's that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.

When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.

The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled "Socking It to Small Businesses." The WSJ reports that Obama is right "that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years." There's more to the story though: ".. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase." The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.

The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama's tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.

Again ... it is not the percentage of businesses that will have to pay the increased taxes; it's the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won't make it for you; so Obama's "95% of all small businesses don't make $250,000" line will probably rule the day.

Come on folks. These are your jobs we're talking about here. It's time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they're trying to fool you doesn't mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that's change you can believe in, right?

Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.

Now since we're talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah's "Employee Free Choice Act." Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words "free choice" to Obama's plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words "fun sex" to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama's plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time ... and it's all behind Obama's candidacy.

To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.

How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:

[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]

Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla
Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero
7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos
Colonia Centro
Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200

Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.

As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.

We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.

We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.


George Miller

Bernard Sanders

Lane Evans

Marcy Kaptur

William J. Coyne

Bob Filner

Martin Olav Sabo

Joe Baca

Dennis J. Kucinich

Fortney Pete Stark

James P. McGovern

Barney Frank

Zoe Lofgren

Calvin M. Dooley

Barbara Lee

Lloyd Doggett

So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.

That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law ... the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.

But – we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?

Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.

I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .

On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here's Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.

Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they're going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.

When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place – and he most certainly will – jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.

Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?

The Supreme Court

This is getting to be a bit long. We're over 6,200 words here. So let's end this message to the undecided voter with a few words about the Supreme Court.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama will get to make one, maybe two Supreme Court appointments before he's through in Washington. It is also possible that he will have a filibuster-proof Senate to help him ram those choices through.

I'm a lawyer, and I've always had this strange idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should base its decisions on the supreme law of our land, our Constitution. Many people think differently these days. A recent and rather shocking survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what's "fair." Egad! On the other hand, the strong majority of McCain voters believe that the Supremes should look to our Constitution as the final authority.

Let's just make this short and sweet, because I know you want to get out of here. If Barack Obama gets those two nominations, and if the Democrat Senate rubber-stamps them, then we are going to have a Supreme Court making decisions based on their liberal definition of "fairness" with some consideration to foreign court decisions tossed in. This is perhaps Obama's greatest opportunity to do permanent damage to our Republic; permanent and irreparable damage. It's one thing when Barack Obama talks about wealth seizure and redistribution in terms of "fairness." It's quite another when that talk is legitimized by a Supreme Court decision.

So, dear undecided voters ... as Og Mandino (a great American) once said: "Use wisely your power of choice." There's a lot hanging in the balance.

There. I'm done.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Which will benefit you, and our country, more?

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

You can follow the link to see a bigger image, and a summary of what the chart's data conveys in practical terms. It's wealth creation VS wealth redistribution.

McCain's tax plan would let us keep more of our own money, and let businesses invest more in creating jobs. The last thing our economy needs right now is a "Jimmy Carter" style tax burden plan. I'm old enough to remember how that worked out; we can do better.

John McCain's Health Care Plan is also something I'm enthusiastic about:

The Strengths of McCain's Health Care Plan

As someone who buys his own health insurance, I appreciate the way it will level the playing field and help me and others make our own, affordable health care choices, without depriving anyone of anything they are already getting. It's a win/win plan.

No one should BUY an election:

John McCain explains how it's not just about this election, but future elections too. See why it matters:

McCain predicts there is a scandal in Obama's future about this. Historically there usually is. Will it hold true for Obama? Perhaps after the election, but Big Media won't report on it at this point.


Obama campaign attacks ACORN prosecutors

Obama has not been able to distance himself from ACORN. Not only does he have a history of working with ACORN intimately as a community organizer, but more recently his campaign gave ACORN $800,000 to spend on voter registration. We can all see what they've been doing with it. Since he can't stop the information from coming out, he's shifting his focus on investigators. From Tammy Bruce:

Obamathugs Panic: Want Investigation of ACORN Investigators
Barky's team of thugs now want to prosecute, literally, those who are investigating ACORN fraud. Obama's socialism isn't limited to his economic policies, it's also reflected in his attempt to punish and destroy those who dare to ask questions and investigate wrong-doing. So now we know Barky's focus: prosecute those who dare discuss, expose and investigate crime. Obviously his socialistic policies extend to more than just economics, they also control his plan for society in general. [...]

This aspect of Barack Obama is the thing I find the most disturbing; the way he wields force to try to silence his critics or anyone who would dish the dirt on him.

Remember in the third debate, where Obama claimed that the McCain campaign was %100 percent negative? %100 percent? Translation: NO ONE is supposed to criticize THE ONE. He simply can't tolerate it. And I doubt he'd tolerate it as president, either. I think he would use every power and method at his disposal to silence his critics. Whatever he could get away with.

Here is a 3 minute video about Obama's Ties To ACORN:

Here is an 8 minute video about what ACORN has been doing:

The election process is being subverted here, folks. If we lose it to fraud and corruption, we may never get it back.

Related Links:

Obama, ACORN, Wright & Ayers all tie together

Obama, ACORN, and the attempted cover-up

Barack Obama; the larger, complete picture

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Tears of joy for "A Mighty Fortress is our God"

I got some cheap music CD's at the Dollar Store a while back, they were "Relaxation Music" to play during dinner. One of them was called "Spiritual Relaxation". It turned out to be Muzac versions of various Christian Hymns. Track number 9 was "A Mighty Fortress".

Pat thought it was an old Methodist Hymn. I recognized it as the theme music from Davey and Goliath, a claymation tv show for kids that they used to show Sunday mornings, sorta like Sunday School at home for church slackers. I was curious, so I did some googling, and found out some interesting stuff.

Starting in 1960, "Davey and Goliath" was a Lutheran clay animation series about a boy and his talking dog, that taught kids about "the love of God through everyday occurrences". The theme song in early episodes was indeed a stylized instrumental version of "A Mighty Fortress".

I read one blogger who remembers the show, describing it as "kinda creepy". I had to laugh! "kinda creepy" is what I thought of it too! That talking dog, with the low sounding voice: "Oh Daaa-veeey". But of course, when you're 6 or 7 years old, "kinda creepy" is also "kinda fun". Make no mistake, I'm not being snarky here, I did enjoy it. The pre-computer animation was really good, and was done by Art Clokey, the animator who did "Gumby", an important pioneer in the art of claymation whose work I've always been impressed with.

Here is a link to a clip from the series, adapted for a "Mountain Dew" commercial, I think: Sermon on the Mountain Dew. And here is an irreligious spoof of the show: Mad TV: Davey and Goliath II - Pet Cemetery. But what about the original episodes?

They were shown on TV up until the 90's. You can now buy most of them on DVDs. You can also see many full episodes from the show online at Youtube. Here is one of them:

Davey and Goliath: The Bell Ringer

Dick Sutcliffe, the producer who created "Davey and Goliath" and wrote the early episodes, died in May of this year due to complications caused by a stroke, at the age of 90, God bless him. The link is to his obituary. The show he created is still fondly remembered and loved by many.

But I'm digressing, back to the music. I had never heard the words to "A Mighty Fortess", so I googled the lyrics:
A Mighty Fortress

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

I could not conceive how these lyrics could be sung with the music. I found one blog by a Christian musician, who explained that "A Mighty Fortress" was not an easy song to sing, and should not be attempted by amateurs (like congregations), but only professional singers or choirs. He recommended a recording by Steve Green, as an example of it being sung correctly. So I looked it up, you can hear it at the link below:

Steve Green: "A Mighty Fortress"

When the song begins, it's just one man's voice. I was not very impressed. But it builds, and three minutes later, when it ended, I was in tears.

My glass of wine from dinner was still kicking in. Ok, it wasn't just that. You know, I don't call myself a Christian, because I'm not religious. But I am a christian culturally, and I have spiritual feelings. Good Christian music can move me. I can feel and appreciate the longing, the hope, and the joy.

The lyrics for the Hymn are a paraphrase of Psalm 46, written by Martin Luther in the 1500's. The music for the modern version we know today was written for it later by Johann Sebastian Bach.

Life today has it's hardships to be sure, but life in the 1500's was very hard for most people, and often short. If you remember that while you hear it, you appreciate it's poignancy. The Wikipedia page about the Hymn is here:

A Mighty Fortress Is Our God

As a contrast to the Steve Green version, listen to this organ and choir:

Very different, but also very moving.


Joe the Plumber Solidarity & the Silent Majority

From IowaHawk: I AM JOE
[...] Politicians -- Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, et al. -- obviously have to put up with some rude, nasty shit, but it's right there in the jobs description. Joe the Plumber is different. He was a guy tossing a football with his kid in the front yard of his $125,000 house when a politician picked him out as a prop for a 30 second newsbite for the cable news cameras. [...]

I hope you will join me in expressing a simple bit of solidarity with this guy, Spartacus style. I AM JOE. I am a Wal Mart schlub in flyover country who changes my own oil and unclogs drains without a license. I smoke and drink beer and toss the football in the front yard with my kid, and I figure I can fend my way without handouts from some Magic Messiah's candy bags. Most everyone in my family and most everyone I grew up with is another Joe, and if you screw with them, you screw with me.

Are you a Joe? Say it proud. Leave it on every goddamn newspaper comment section and online forum. Let these pressroom and online thugs know you won't stay silent when they try to destroy the life of a private citizen for speaking his mind -- because for every one of them, there are a million Joe Wurzelbachers. And for that we should all be thankful. [...]

[HT:Tammy Bruce] The media won't dig into or talk about Obama's background with any depth or detail, but they will disect, eviscerate and publicize the intimate details of the life of a literal "Average Joe" who was randomly approached by the Obamasiah, and had the audacity to ask him a question. For that, Joe needs to be destroyed?

Something needs to be destroyed, and it isn't Joe.

I don't claim to be exactly like Joe; I'm probably more of a "new age" redneck. I don't have kids. But I'm a small business owner in rural America. I understand his dream. He's a fellow citizen like me, who expressed an opinion. What the Media and the Obamabots are trying to do to him, they could do to any of us. How DARE they!

Pat has an interesting post on his blog this morning, with some excerpts of an essay called "The Left's Big Blunder":

Don't underestimate the Silent Majority

Follow the link for the quotes, but in short says what I've been thinking for a long time; that there is a silent majority that is being ignored by the media, and all this unfair skewering and bias in the news reporting has not gone unnoticed by them. Neither has events like ACORN's voter fraud financed with Obama's campaign money, or the thuggery by Obama's campaign to silence it's critics. What is happening to Joe the Plumber is just the latest of many attacks against ordinary Americans and their rights.

I'm not certain, but I think there may indeed be a silent majority that is taking all this in, regardless of whatever the media is saying. I think what's happening to Joe, plus so many other injustices, is rubbing them the wrong way, and we are going to see it reflected in the election results.

Related Links:

Operation Destroy Joe the Plumber

Obama, ACORN, and the attempted cover-up

Obama, ACORN, Wright & Ayers all tie together


Saturday, October 18, 2008

How to "downgrade" Windows Vista to XP

I had posted about this earlier. This post is a follow-up with more details about how to do it.

The Microsoft downgrade only applies to OEM editions of Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. The essential details from

FAQ: Giving up on Vista? Here's how to downgrade to XP
[...] downgrade rights lets owners of some versions of Vista replace it with Windows XP without having to pay for another license. In effect, the license for Vista is transferred to XP. Think of it as a swap, Vista for XP, not as an extra license. By Microsoft's end-user licensing agreement (EULA), you can't have both the Vista and its downgraded XP installed at the same time on the same or different machines. You have to pick: It's one or the other.

To the vast bulk of users, though, "downgrade" is a synonym for reverting to an older version. In that case, it simply means dumping Vista and returning to XP.

So, what downgrades does Microsoft allow? Owners of the OEM editions of Vista Business and Vista Ultimate can downgrade to Windows XP Professional, including Tablet PC Edition and x64 Edition. Only the OEM editions qualify for a downgrade, so if you purchased a new PC with either Business or Ultimate preinstalled, you're in like Flynn.

Those who aren't: All users of Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium, and anyone who upgraded to Vista using a retail edition of any of the operating system's SKUs. You are, as they say, SOL.

How do I downgrade? Install a copy of Windows XP Professional with the product key that came with the copy, and then when you hit the activation screen -- which is near the end of the installation process -- select the activate by phone option rather than the online method. You'll likely end up talking with a live rep; tell him that you're downgrading from Vista to XP, and give him the Vista product key. The rep is supposed to walk you through the rest.

Where do I get the XP install disc? [...]

If you need further answers, it's definitely worth reading the whole thing. I find the process a bit tiresome, but it sounds doable if you really want it. Me, I think I'll go with Ubuntu Linux, and run XP as a virtual machine with Virtual Box software if I need it.

Related Link:

How to make Windows XP last for the next seven years
Vista, schmista. Follow our tips for keeping your XP setup humming happily for a long, long time

Cindy McCain's "October Surprise"

It's not nasty, it's sweet.


What's so non-divisive about Democrats?

Nothing I can see. I keep hearing them accusing Republicans of being "divisive" whenever they disagree with Democrats on any issue. Yet it's Republicans like John McCain and Sarah Palin that I see consistently reaching across the isle and working with Democrats. But what is the Democrat party leadership doing? Claiming that anyone who doesn't vote for their candidate is a racist? Constantly bringing race into the debate, claiming that the Republicans are the ones trying to make race an issue?

How is that going to "unite" the country? How is the Democrat party, which divides everyone up into aggrieved special interest "victim" groups, whips up their discontent and then feeds off the anger, going to "unite" our country? They actually have an investment in keeping their members angry and discontented, because that is the driving force behind the party. How can that create national unity?

I think most Republicans and many Democrats truly love America. But unfortunately there is ample evidence that many Democrat Leftists hate America as we know it, and want to replace it with something else. Follow the link. If these folks love America, is certainly isn't the same America I know and love, regardless of what Senator Biden says.

They also hate ordinary Americans. Look at what they are doing to "Joe the Plumber", an ordinary American who had the audacity to question The Chosen One when the Messiah approached him in his front yard:

Operation Destroy Joe the Plumber

Obamugabe's Brownshirts vs Joe the Plumber

Here is an interesting solution:

Obamugabe's attack on Joe the Plumber was the last straw

Is it time to start dealing with the Media the same way they deal with us? I think what they are doing to Joe gives us the answer to that question.

We have people in both the Republican and Democrat parties who can work together and find agreement on those things we can agree on. Many of us understand what bi-partisanship means; we "get it". We know it's not possible to have 100% agreement on everything, nor is it even desirable. In a healthy free and democratic Republic dissent is tolerated and encouraged. People who claim that disagreeing with them is always "divisive" simply have no tolerance for disagreement. That's called Fascism.

Joe Wurzelbacher the plumber is not running for office. He's an ordinary American who asked a question when he was offered the opportunity by a candidate. I can only hope that the Brownshirt tactics being deployed by the Democrats against Joe backfire on them bigtime. The far Left often have no sense of propriety or limitations, and just unleash themselves and their hatred until they go too far.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

McCain was strong in the debate tonight

I thought he did very well. A running commentary by Michelle Malkin gives the highlights, and embedded links explaining Obama's mistakes/lies/distortions:

Liveblogging the last presidential debate of 2008

Tammy Bruce also has some good photos and commentary:

Final Debate Live Chat/Open Thread
[...] My assessment? McCain's performance immediately quashes the fears of some that McCain didn't have the fire-in-the-belly. A lot of people had begun to by the MSM spin that McCain was done. It's clear now he is not. With that myth finished, the next 18 days have never been more important. The ACORN election fraud scandal will get bigger, McCain will continue to hit Ayers, and needs an ad on Joe the Plumber, while repeatedly reminding people about the Pelosi/Reid/Obama machine and their responsibility for promoting and protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I will remind you again of Giuliani's admonition that Republicans don't win polls, they win elections. This is far, far, from over and Senator Government knows it. Why do you think he's spending $3 million for his primetime television a few days before the election? He still thinks you'll vote for a celebrity with an infomercial. He'll find out on November you're bitter and clingy enough to say "no sale." [...]

Amen to that! Be sure and check out Pat's post also:

And the winner of the debate was Joe Wurzelbacher...
[...] The loser of the evening was obviously Backtrack Obama - not only because he sounded like Polly the Parrot mouthing carefully rehearsed talking points but simply for using the phrase "the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression" five times. Of course, hardly anybody alive knows what the Great Depression was so Obama can lie through his teeth.

(The truth is that our financial crisis is not even as bad as the one caused by Carter 30 years ago. There are no gas lines let alone soup lines. But I'll save my thoughts about the Democrats' lies for a real rant.) [...]

Yes, Obama relied too heavily on talking points and distortions. Heavy rehearsing can only get you so far, you have to think on your feet too. I'm sure it won't matter one bit to the Obama worshipers, but we'll see what independent and swing voters think.

A Bagdad Puppy Rescue for a Soldier's Dog

At least, I'm hoping it will happen.

Army blocks soldier from bringing puppy back
WASHINGTON - More than 10,000 people have signed an online petition urging the Army to let an Iraqi puppy come home with a Minnesota soldier, who fears that "Ratchet" could be killed if left behind.

"I just want my puppy home," Sgt. Gwen Beberg of Minneapolis wrote to her mother in an e-mail Sunday from Iraq, soon after she was separated from the dog following a transfer. "I miss my dog horribly." Beberg, 28, is scheduled to return to the U.S. next month.

Ratchet's defenders are ratcheting up their efforts to save him. On Monday, the program coordinator for Operation Baghdad Pups, which is run by Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals International, left for a trip to the Middle East to try to get the puppy to the U.S. [...]

She rescued the dog as a puppy, from a burning pile of trash. Adopted dogs left behind in Iraq face death on the streets, as many Iraqis view dogs (and cats) as nuisances and disease carriers.

Sgt. Beberg sent her mom an email that confirmed the dog was still alive and ok. Hopefully it will remain so until it can be rescued.

The black face with the white on the nose, reminds me our our dog, Digby. I'm hoping they can bring Ratchet home safely for Sgt. Beberg.

Related Links:

The Dogs of War... [need good homes]

The Strengths of McCain's Health Care Plan

From Yuval Levin: The Cabinet of Dr. Obama
Over the past few weeks, in a series of television ads, in stump speeches, and in the presidential and vice presidential debates, the Obama campaign has sought mightily to attack John McCain's proposal for health care reform. It's vehemence and tenacity have been striking, especially given how little McCain himself has actually had to say about his plan. Ironically, their misleading critiques actually hint at the strengths of McCain's proposal, and point to the serious vulnerabilities in Obama's own approach to health care politics.

At the core of the McCain health care agenda is the most important conservative policy innovation since welfare reform: the transformation of the benefit now given to employer-provided health coverage into a health insurance tax credit made available to all. For almost 70 years now, the federal government has given a significant tax preference to employer-provided health insurance. When your employer takes money out of your wages to purchase coverage on your behalf, the money is not counted as part of your gross income, so you don't pay any taxes on it. But if you purchase insurance yourself, not through an employer, the money you use to do so gets taxed.

This makes employer-provided insurance vastly more appealing and places a serious burden on those to whom it is not available or who prefer coverage other than what their company offers. It has prevented the development of a genuine market in individually purchased health insurance and therefore artificially keeps insurance costs high. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Exactly. As a self employed person, I have to purchase my own insurance. I have to pay taxes on it, as income. People with employer provided insurance don't and it's grossly unfair. We need more freedom and more choices in buying our health insurance and making our own health care decisions.

Some folks who get their insurance from their employer are satisfied with the status quo, and don't want to rock the boat. But what if we could have the best of all the options?

[...] How can the problems of the current system be addressed without displacing the millions of Americans who are satisfied with it?

The McCain solution is to change the incentives for consumers, but not for employers, so that people find themselves with more options, but are not forced out of their current insurance arrangement. Rather than exempt from taxation all the money used by employers to buy insurance, he would treat it as income but then provide individual taxpayers (regardless of how they obtain their coverage) with a credit that more than covers the taxes. The effect of this, from the point of view of individuals and families, would be to make employer-provided coverage just one option among many.

All American taxpayers, regardless of whether they now have health insurance or where they get it, would receive a $2,500 health care tax credit ($5,000 per family) under McCain's plan. If you now have health insurance through your employer and would like to keep it, you can do that and the economics of the arrangements would change only slightly, and (for all but the top 5 percent of taxpayers) for the better. The money your employer takes out of your wages for your insurance would be taxed, but the new credit would more than cover the additional taxes, leaving you with the insurance you have now, and with a little more money in your pocket at tax time (between $700 and $1,600, according to the estimates of the Tax Policy Center). Things don't change for your employer, and they get a little better for you. [...]

Under this plan we would all have more choices, and more people would be covered too. Read the whole article, it's very detailed and also shows how and why Obama's arguments against it are baseless, and the weaknesses inherent in Obama's own plan.

Related Links:

[The truth about] Mac's health insurance plan

There's No Place Like Home:
What I learned from my wife's month in the British medical system.