|
"GOOD" Place for Never Asked Questions
Since Patriotfiles.com forum chock-full-of GOOD (actually quite damning & honestly exculpatory) INFO about: "The Second Coming" Barack Hussein Obama II or Jr. & his Marxist Clique and/or Big Brother Ideology gang & their typical ploys,...where better asking never asked (that I know of anyway) quite pertinent or very important credibility questions?
How come not even one of the multitude of political propagandists, pundits, commentators & journalists(?) have mentioned that the epitome of Marxist People-Deceivers or Phony Barack, actually proves himself & rest of deceivers are FLAT-OUT-LIARS & FULL-OF-IT,...by merely dissecting only one of His MANY MANY (backed by BILLIONAIRES) False or; "Pie-in-sky" Favoring Clique Campaign Ads? The Democrats' Great Hope for: "Recapturing The White House AT ANY COST to Americans" pretty-much ala Nancy Pelosi Style, actually proves Himself & Rest of Political Supremacists are nothing more than always quite purposeful pathological liars,...by repeatedly stating that:"Will raise NO ONES Taxes earning less than A Quarter Million Dollars" Doesn't seem mattering to such pompously cavalier deceivers that many times Obama has decreed would Abolish or Rescend The Bush Tax Rebate since adamently against such, if permitted either duplicitously buying The U.S. Presidency or having it handed to him on a silver platter by the longtime & nationally intrenched ACORN Voter Fraud Specialists. Personally I find hearing such non-stop lies over and over again & ACORN,...quite disgusting. Well:"Pilgrims"...there it is, and no need be: "A Rocket Scientist" to figure the math out. Take away The Bush Tax Rebate from EVERYONE & EVERYONE will AUTOMATICALLY have their taxes INCREASED. No ifs, ands or buts,...Fellow Middle Class Subjects. After all, Hundred$ & Thousand$ no longer returned to the initial Taxpayer and instead to NON-Taxpayers (lordly called: "Spreading it around"), sure-as-hell seem like one-helluva LARGE TAX INCREASE to me. Don't any others here think so? Neil |
The last 2 years
The Obama/Biden ticket's entire campaign theme is based on "the last eight years." Maybe we should really look at "the last two years," or the time period when both the House and the Senate were run by Democrats.
In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.
If you recall, that 2006 election was considered a referendum on Iraq. The people wanted change, so they threw out the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats. Welcome Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Here is how they handled Iraq once in office: Harry Reid that the Iraq war was "lost" and the surge was not "accomplishing anything." Senator Obama that would have prevented the surge and would have taken all US troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (that would be seven months ago, as you read this) . Were they right? Barack Obama now admits that "." So much for that change. And as the surge succeeded, Congress's approval ratings plummeted. The latest CBS/New York Times poll has it at 12%, well less than half of the already low level it stood at when the Republican Congress was being tossed out in 2006. The Democratic Congress did a great job, if what you're looking for in a Congress is continual investigation of Republicans. Did the White House out CIA agent Valerie Plame? No, it was the anti-White House Richard Armitage at State, but Congress investigated anyway. Did Alberto Gonzalez, with White House urging, fire nine prosecutors for political reasons? Probably not, and it wouldn't be a crime anyway, but Congress investigated, and is still investigating. Did the CIA, under orders from the White House, "torture" prisoners? No evidence of that yet, but Congress is on the case. What Congress would not investigate was anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, they fought against such investigations and cast aspersions against anyone who would even doubt the soundness of those institutions. Here is what Barney Frank said: These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.You can also how Democrats treated the regulators trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie. But now we know what happened. Fannie and Freddie were run corruptly and ineptly and went bankrupt. Their $1.5 trillion portfolios had to be rescued by the government this year. Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed CEO of Fannie Mae who was vigorously defended by Congressional Democrats, was sued by government regulators for cooking the books to the tune of $10 billion to increase his own bonuses to the tune of tens of millions. He settled his suit for an estimated $25 million. On the other hand, here is what the New York Times had to say in 2003 . The Bush administration is rightly pushing for the Treasury Department to regulate the two giants, along with the network of federal home loan banks. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide financing to lenders by creating a secondary market for mortgages. All told, these two institutions' debt portfolio exceeds more than $1.5 trillion. Their current regulator is ill equipped to keep tabs on Freddie's and Fannie's sophisticated hedging strategies and the other financial moves they use to manage their huge investments.And here is what John McCain said on the Senate floor: For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.So on the big things, the surge in Iraq and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to our recent financial mess, the Democrats were wrong. Dead wrong. One hundred eighty degrees out wrong. On the other hand, who supported the surge? George W. Bush and John McCain. Who tried to strengthen the oversight and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? George W. Bush and John McCain. In the case of the surge, Bush and McCain got their way. The result? Apparent victory in Iraq, a country that is now a democracy, at peace with its neighbors, no longer a WMD threat, no longer a terrorist sanctuary, and no longer filling hundreds of mass graves with hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, Bush and McCain did not get their way - Barney Frank did. The result? The failure of Fannie and Freddie, law suits against their executives and the spark that sent banks failing and stocks falling across the globe to the point of threatening a Great Depression. Let's vote for change. Let's undo what we did in 2006. Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his web site, kulak.worldbreak.com/. |
If Obama underperforms on Election Day compared to the latest polls, the reason may not be race.
............................. Long article Read at web address posted at bottom ............................. More damning is that Pew Research conducted a poll of their own earlier this year addressing the perceptions of blacks, whites, and Hispanics towards one another. Its revelation — “the overall portrait of race relations is one of moderation, stability, and modest progress” — was too positive for journalists to acknowledge. Pew differed from Stanford by neglecting to isolate whites as a group. On this occasion, 82 percent of whites had a “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” opinion of blacks. In harmony with Caucasian perception, 80 percent of blacks perceived whites in a “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” light. The proper conclusion to draw from this information is that America’s citizens are a high-functioning and kindly lot; however, good news will not pique the interest of our press corps, which remains mired in the days of segregation. A defining characteristic of the fashion by which the media attempts to mislead and indoctrinate our people is through omission of fact. Should whites fail to embrace Senator Obama it proves their underlying racism, but if blacks back him near unanimously — as they overwhelmingly did in the Democratic primaries of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi — it proves that they… supported a Democratic candidate. The sultans of spin were pleased to publicize the results from Stanford, yet analyzing it in the context of monolithic black support for Obama remains off limits. Clearly, racism is in the eye of the fabricator. In all likelihood, a biracial background has been a net positive for the junior senator from Illinois. Were it not for his mixed ethnicity he would continue to merely represent my state as opposed to being the nation’s presumptive savior. Geraldine Ferraro had it right when she said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” We certainly are, unfortunately. White guiltists everywhere have queued up in diversity droves to stand with him. My town now pulsates with every manner of yuppie sporting his kitsch. Personally, in regards to the Bradley effect, I do not doubt that Obama will under-perform on November 4 and perhaps even among those wearing the goofy symbols of his personality cult. The rationale for a possible disparity between pre-election polling and his final results will be more a product of political correctness than racism. Thus, a PC, or politically correct, effect is the accurate term, rather than one bearing the name of Bradley. Many whites may countermand their public utterances in the privacy of the voting booth, and the most likely justification for their doing so is that political correctness has cowed and emasculated them to the point in which a passive-aggressive rebellion is the only one viable. PC is a bully which eventually alienates most of those who are exposed to it. The thought processes of the person who abandons Obama in private do not involve “I don’t like Barack because he’s black,” but instead, “Fine, I told those idiots what they wanted to hear and now I’ll do what I want to do.” Most people do not want trouble and having vigorous arguments in the street with activists/pollsters counts as “trouble” in their eyes. This is definitely true of moderates who bear the appellation they do as a function of being less resolute than the rest of us. Swing voters are swing voters for a reason. Generally, they are not very serious about politics and possess no underlying ideology. As opposed to answering questions about preference in the manner of conservatives — “Of course I’m not voting for Barack Obama. He’s a leftist!” — they will consider superfluous factors like confidence level, speaking style, appearance, and what others think of their choice. The latter is key in this context. The perceptions of others fuel what we term the PC effect. It’s politically correct to back Barack so many vow to do so, but ultimately they may reconsider. Certainly, these are bleak days for the McCain campaign. Perhaps the natural inclination of people to stand up to a bully will force the timid to reverse their past declarations and assert themselves on Election Day — and, thereby, alter the course of history. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pc-effe...y-haunt-obama/ |
Joy,...
Your raise a lot more questions that need confronting & answering, before sensibly voting.
Still, the answer to question raised by John McCain himself while being intervieved is quite important for All Voters knowing, also. Basically: "How come I have to account for every Campaign Dollar received from The Voting Public,...and Obama DOES NOT"? Barack having staunch Democrat BILLIONAIRE Political Supremacists and/or wealthy One Party System preferring ideogues (ala Karl Marx) backers, does make it QUITE HARD believing that largest amount of funds ever accumulated in history (Obama can afford 10 more TV ads & airtime than Mccain) for Presidential Campaigning,...comes by way of $87.00 average Campaign Contributions? Yeah, sure (?),...and a few Bush/McCain/Palin Hating BILLIONAIRES contribute nothing? Also, I've no doubt whatsoever that Barack Hussein Obama II or Junior's tally of contributions are just as legitimate or unquestionable...such as "His" Bogus Voter Registration Army of Hacks called: "ACORN", have proved doing nationwide. If these questions not soon addressed & answered by The Mainstream/Media ALSO,...this upcoming 2008 Election will be no more legitimate that any such as in The Old Soviet Union were. America's Election now actually even worse, since never heard of any Soviet Politicians wasting so many Hundreds of Millions of rubles to Buy The Politburo or Commissariat, to achieve their One Party Supremacy & Dictatorial ends. Neil |
Joy,...
Whomever did what to what (?),...searched for "It" & found same a few pages back.
So, here it is again & can be accessed & responded to, just as before. Neil |
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" align=center bgColor=white><TBODY><TR><TD width=590><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" align=center bgColor=#ffffcc><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=136 bgColor=white></TD><TD vAlign=top width=416>A Story About a Man Applying for a Job
The Jihad Candidate II, Rich Carroll Imagine for a few moments that you are the human resources director of a major multi-billion dollar corporation. You are sitting in your large, luxurious office when you receive a phone call from the Chairman of the Board of Directors. He tells you that the board is considering a candidate for a high-level executive position. He advises you to complete a thorough background investigation and have it to him within 10 days. You immediately call the private detective agency you have used for years and give them the name and address of the prospective candidate, along with the deadline for a high level security clearance. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD width=590 bgColor=#ffffcc> Your next move is to call your assistant to your office, giving him/her the candidate’s personal information along with instructions to “do your standard beginning background checks.” Preliminary findings begin landing in your fax machine on the third day:
You begin to outline and write your “Summary Evaluation” to the Chairman of the Board of Directors:
© Rich Carroll 2008 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> |
Joy,...
Thanks.
Needs as much exposure as possible! Neil |
The Obama Temptation [Mark R. Levin]
I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way. There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff. Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama. But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual. Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands. The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place. http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...DI0MDRkOWFlMDQ= |
Joy,...
Re: Mark R. Levin's stating his: "Greatest concern whether this election will a majority
of voters be susceptable to the appeal of a demagogue"(?),...it's fair to say that NO ONE will ever TRULY know for sure whom voted so stupidly. After all, and since so-damn-obvious that duplicitous ACORN Alone will no doubt produce Hundreds of Thousands (if not Millions?) of bogus and/or illegimate votes cast for Obama, how-on-earth could anyone possibly determine how many LEGITIMATE VOTES were cast for same: "Demagogue"? It's truly a sad & rigged situation. Neil |
The debut of Alabama's new voter registration database has not been without glitches
Saturday, October 25, 2008 THE ISSUE: The debut of Alabama's new voter registration database has not been without glitches. If former Gov. Guy Hunt's story hadn't been well-known to registrars in Cullman County, he may have been surprised to find himself booted off the voter rolls. That's because a new statewide voter registration database rightly tagged Hunt as having been convicted of a felony - an ethics violation, back in 1993 - but wrongly overlooked his 1997 pardon. Luckily, the chairwoman of the Cullman County Board of Registrars knew Hunt was eligible to vote and didn't cross his name off the list. The county also caught dozens of people who were tagged as felons even though they had been convicted only of misdemeanors. How many others across the state may have mistakenly been removed as voters? And will all the mistakes be corrected before the Nov. 4 general election? These are daunting questions on the eve of an awfully important election. Then again, there's no good election for people to be wrongfully deprived of their voting privileges. Likewise, there's no good time to find out some Alabama counties have more registered voters than they have voting-age residents, at least based on census population estimates for those counties. A recent Birmingham News story found that to be the case in six counties - Conecuh, Greene, Lowndes, Perry, Washington and Wilcox. Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman has asked the attorney general to investigate, even though she said there has been no proof of voter fraud. "This is not something that is being taken lightly," she said. Nor should it be. Of course, the prospect of voter fraud is a big concern for Republicans (see national stories about a group known as ACORN and some of its voter-registration efforts). The prospect of people being wrongly denied the vote is a big concern among Democrats. It's no surprise, then, that the Republican Chapman expresses more concern about suspiciously large voter lists and less concern about some voters wrongly being removed from the rolls. But the truth is, Alabama has a pretty ugly track record in voter fraud and voter suppression, and neither should be taken lightly. The good news is, there are provisions in place that should limit the impact of both in the upcoming election. Voters at the polls must show identification, which limits the opportunities for fraud. And voters wrongly deleted from the rolls do have some recourse available to them. Still, the questions about the inordinate number of voters in some counties and the faulty elimination of voters based on information in the state's database are troubling. We understand the database is new. It was developed by Gov. Bob Riley under the direction of a federal judge as part of the Help America Vote Act. The Nov. 4 election will be its first test. And we understand the list of qualified voters is constantly changing: People register, move, die, get convicted of crimes that cost them their right to cast a ballot, and sometimes get it back. But voting is the cornerstone of democracy; we need to have faith our government leaders are selected in elections that are free from fraud but allow all qualified voters to take part. In other words, voter lists must be as accurate and clean as possible. In this age of automation, technology and information, that doesn't seem like it should be such an arduous task. http://www.al.com/opinion/birmingham...510.xml&coll=2 |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.