Voters, Wise UP

Congress is currently considering another Rebate to stimulate the economy. This will not solve the current economic crisis. How can a responsible Congress look at the National Debt, which is currently more than $10,000,000,000,000.00!!! Folks that's Over 10 Trillion Dollars we don't have.

Congress needs a wake-up up call!!! We are the Voters who allow these irresponsible windbags to $pend our money. We put them in office and, if we wake up, we can take them out.

It is up to the Voters, YOU, to stop this nonsense. Congress must be held accountable. They cannot keep spending the money we don't have.

You make the call. You decide who to vote for. Before you do, use your brain. Use your ears to process what the candidates are saying they will do.

Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes. Now forget the part that says only those who make over $250,000.00, because his spending programs cannot possibly be funded only by the rich. Why? Because the $250,000 is only for Families where both taxpayers work. For the Single wage taxpayer it's $125,000. Second, with 40% of the tax returns resulting in no Tax Liability, it is a $pend program. Third, his World Poverty, World Health and other World $pending Programs, will cost Trillions of dollars more than his tax program can produce.

And if Obama's World $pending already outpaces his Tax Cuts, what happens when you add the increases and new $pending for the US. Even if we pull out of Iraq, there is still not enough money to offset the Obama $pending Mandate.

This kind of $pending is IRRESPONSIBLE and will lead to 1)higher taxation 2)reducing the $250,000 tax cut levels 3)higher National debt or 4)a combination or all of the above.

Democrats other than Obama/Biden are beginning to say more taxation is necessary. Barney Frank (D-MA), for one, recently said we need to raise taxes. None of the Democrats are saying we need to Reduce Spending. The Democrats were quick to point out that we cannot Drill our way out of Foreign Oil Dependence, but the Democrats are equally adament that we can $pend our way out of an Economic Crisis.

Look at these two ideas. Democrats are correct about not being able to Drill our way out of Foreign Oil Dependence, but we can DECREASE our dependence by Drilling in the US. On the other hand, the Democrats are wrong about $pending money we don't have to solve our Economic Crisis, because increased $pending and Higher Taxes only add to the problem of our National Debt.

Simply put, we need our Congress to cut spending. We need our Congress to follow the example of the other developed countries of the World and keep taxes low. Lower taxes actually increase revenue as individual and corporate expansion grows. More income and more corporate profits due to lower taxes creates more tax revenue than higher rates and reduced income and profit. And when Business Grows, WE ADD JOBS.

Raising Taxes and Increasing Government $pending was the policy of the Hoover Presidency. It helped create the Depression and inhibited growth for individuals and corporations for the next 10 years.

So it's up to YOU the VOTERS, to choose wisely. Vote for those who will reduce our Federal, State and Local $pending. I will remind you that ONLY John McCain has said he wants to reduce The Federal $pending. Yes he opposed the Bush Tax Cuts in Congress, but do you know why? He voted against the Bush Tax Cuts BECAUSE there were no corresponding $pending Cuts.

Obama's Comment

With all the current bashing of "Joe the Plumber" by the Media, it is easy to loose sight of the real issue.

The real issue was not "Joe". It was Obama's answer. Obama's words "share the wealth" is the issue.

Why? These words indicate how Socialistic Obama's view of America is.

Who Is Barack Obama

Three recent articles from respected sources have some interesting information about Senator Obama and what Senator Obama really stands for.

1. Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami Investors Business Daily
2. Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around' Fox News
3. Obama's 95% Illusion Wall Street Journal Online

All of the publications make the case for Mr. Obama taking the Country far to the Left. In fact Senator Obama's ideas are very Socialistic in nature.

First consider the Investors Business Daily article Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami.

The freeze-up of the financial system — and government's seeming inability to thaw it out — are a main concern, no doubt. But more people are also starting to look across the valley, as they say, at what's in store once this crisis passes.

And right now it looks like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible [Emphasis Mine].

How is this going to be made possible?

It isn't only that the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party is favored to take the White House. It's that he'll also have a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.

Throw in a media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises, and it's no wonder panic has set in. [Emphasis mine]

The Economy is the main issue at present. So how will Senator Obama's agenda affect the Economy?

What is that agenda? It starts with a tax system right out of Marx: A massive redistribution of income — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need — all in the name of "neighborliness," "patriotism," "fairness" and "justice."

It continues with a call for a new world order that turns its back on free trade, has no problem with government controlling the means of production, imposes global taxes to support continents where our interests are negligible, signs on to climate treaties that will sap billions more in U.S. productivity and wealth, and institutes an authoritarian health care system that will strip Americans' freedoms and run up costs. [Emphasis mine]

Holly Cow!! What else can this agenda be called besides Socialism? Do we really want to join and follow Europe's failed policies? One of Senator Obama's policies is to send $50 Billion a year to foreign countries, which Senator Obama calls Foreign Aid. Couldn't we better use that money here? How does any of this massive Tax and $pend agenda help secure our oil Independence? How does a greater Tax and $pend agenda help our Businesses Grow?

The businesses that create jobs and generate wealth are already discounting the future based on what they know about Obama's plans to raise income, capital gains, dividend and payroll taxes, and his various other economy-crippling policies. Which helps explain why world stock markets have been so topsy-turvy.

But don't take our word for it. One hundred economists, five Nobel winners among them, have signed a letter noting just that:

"The prospect of such tax-rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy," they wrote, noting that the potential of higher taxes in the next year or two is reducing hiring and investment.

If you want to control something, reward that which you want more of, and punish what you want less of - Classic Carrot and Stick principles. Apparently, Senator Obama applies this principle in reverse. Punishing a Business Owner, a Job Creator, is not the way to expand an Economy. The last time raising Taxes in a downturn Economy Happened, President Hoover was in Office. We spent the next 10 years in a Depression. Why would the result of Senator Obama's agenda of Tax and $pend result in anything different? It Will Not!!!

As proof of what Senator Obama's agenda will mean, look at what he said recently. Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around' reports on Senator Obama's words to a Plumber at a campaign speech.

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies. [Emphasis mine]

Senator Obama's agenda is a "Robin Hood" take from the rich and give to the poor agenda. So no one thinks this statement is taken out of context, Here is the full exchange.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Is there any way this attitude can be characterized as anything other than Socialistic and Anti-Capitalistic?

In the third article, Obama's 95% Illusion makes the argument that Senator Obama's agenda is a Redistribution of Income and therefore by definition Socialistic.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut." [Emphasis mine]

It doesn't matter how you slice it, when about 40% of all Americans, (those who pay not income tax now), get a check from the Government, it's not a "Tax Cut". It's Welfare, a handout. This requires a "Redistribution of Wealth".

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles. [Emphasis mine]

Except for the 'clean car' credit, these are refundable credits. That means even if you have no tax liability, the Government will give you a check for these credits. That's Welfare, or Redistribution of Wealth.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is. [Emphasis mine]

And that's not all.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year.

How will this help our Economy? It Will Not!! We cannot afford to turn our backs on the system that has made us the richest country in the world.

Obama Tax Cut Redistribution of Income

Yes, That's What The Obama Tax Cut for 95% of Americans really is Redistribution of Income. That's A Nice Way of Saying SOCIALISM. Today's Online Opinion Journal piece (Obama's Magic) makes this point clearly.

... Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show. [Emphasis mine]

A Take from the "Haves" and give it to the "Have Nots". And Obama will stimulate the Economy by doing the following.

Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. [Emphasis mine]

We all tend to think of Jobs Creation in terms of Big Corporations, But the reality is - The Small Business Owner is the one who creates Most of the Jobs in America. The Small Business Owner creates Jobs 1, 2 or 5 at a time. Mr. Obama wants to tax and take Profits of these Small Business Owners. Think about that. If Taxes eat more of their profits, how will the Small Business Owner fund the Equipment, Facilities and Benefits to expand and thereby Create more Jobs?

Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules.

The problem is not De-Regulation. The Problem was lack of Oversight. The Problem was the Politicians who looked the other way, because they were getting Campaign Contributions from the guilty. The fox guarding the hen house.

We are shocked when the Police take bribes from the Bank Robbers, but we don't demand more regulation of the Crooks. No, instead we demand more oversight on the part of the Police. And we prosecute those Crooked Cops who took the Bribes. But with Politicians it's different. When they take a Legal Bribe (Campaign Contribution) we don't demand prosecution. We decide with help from those same guilty Politicians that the problem was caused by de-regulation. It was lack of Oversight by the Politicians. The Politicians are the guilty ones.

Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks.

Sarbanes Oxley is a flawed piece of Regulation which only increases the cost of operating a business. It should be eliminated. Government Regulation is not the answer, Proper Oversight and Proper Punishment are the answers.

And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! [Emphasis mine]

It is called $pend, $pend, $pend and $pend some more!!! Mr. Obama's plan includes spending $50 Billion a year on Foreign Aid! That's a 100% Increase over current levels. Could we use $50 Billion a year in the USA?

Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies.

Mr. Obama is full of platitudes and feel good words, but the substance is Re-Distribution of Wealth.

Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq!

Mr. Obama thinks that we have a "Moral" obligation to "Stop Genocide" worldwide, but the Genocide of Saddam Husain against the Kurds is not reason enough to go into Iraq. Saddam may not have had Weapons of Mass Distruction (WMD)when we went into Iraq, but everyone agrees Saddam used WMD to kill many Thousands of Kurdish People.

Mr. Obama supports Abortion at any time right up to the moment of birth for any reason. Even Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) finds Partial-Birth Abortion objectionable, and Senator Boxer has always been recognized as the strongest advocate for preserving Roe v Wade in Congress. That is until Senator Obama. Mr. Obama also believes any fetus born alive shall be dened care and left to die if the fetus was born as a result of a botched abortion attempt. Most reasonable people would call anything alive outside the woman's body a child, a person. Not Mr. Obama.

To most reasonable people, who believe in Abortion, consider abortion a right of a woman to choose because it's her body. But it is hard to extend this right to include a child who is no longer in the womans body. It is not a person and deserves the same rights as you and I do. Mr. Obama does not agree.

He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade!

Yes, there are other areas where Mr. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. And who is most to blame for letting Mr. Obama do his majic? JOHN McCAIN! Mr. McCain has allowed Mr. Obama free reign to say anything he wishes without question. All the things in this post are weakness of Mr. Obama, John McCain seems for some reason unwilling to point out and by so doing is giving the Election to Senator Obama.

Because of this We the American Public are the biggest Loosers. Thanks, John.

Connect the Dots

Here is a list for your consideration:

• Bernardine Dohrn
• Bill Ayers
• Sidley Austin
• Chicago Annenberg Challenge
• ACORN
• Antoin "Tony" Rezko
• Penny Pritzker
• Reverend Jeremiah Wright
• Father Michael Pfleger

Then consider that all of these people and organizations have a close relationship to Barack Obama. Just as significant, Barack Obama has a close relationship with each of them, and that's not necessarily the same thing.

We may not agree with the views and actions of every individual and group with which we individually have a relationship, but it is fair to judge our character by these relationship. And it does not matter when these unacceptable actions occurred. Past or present is not important. What is important is what we do after discovery. Once we discover unrepentant and/or radical behavior/views, our failure to disassociate ourselves from the offensive individual or group, indicates our true character and judgment. At the very least failure to disassociate from unrepentant individuals or groups signifies acceptance and tolerance for these actions.

Charles Krauthammer in today's Column (Obama & Friends: Judge Not?) makes much the same point.

Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

Can you say double standard? Yes it is. One cannot believe that if instead of Obama, the friends belonged to McCain, that the Media and McCain supporters would use words like racism and McCarthyite associations in defence of McCain's relationships.

But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.

As Mr. Krauthammer makes clear, This is an Issue Hillary raised during the Primaries, and which John McCain should have raised months ago. But, while the Economy is in such sad shape, right now other issues just don't have the same impact or acceptance by the public.

Are they still just as important? Absolutely. According to Mr. Kruthammer these associations are important, not because Obama is a terrorist, a racist or a felon. They are important because they tell us two things about Obama's character.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

Obama is an opportunist. He looks at relationships from the standpoint of "How can this relationship help me?" And Mr. Obama is very adept at covering his tracks once the relationship advances his career.

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse. [Italics in Original]

Now it is up to you the voter. Does the end justify the means? Is this acceptable behavior for a Man who wants to be the next President of the United States?

McCain vs Obama Round 2

Did the gloves come off? No. Senator McCain missed several opportunities to make his points and put Senator Obama on the defencive. One point was each time Senator Obama made reference to his income tax plan for America. Here is the Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate from which these quotes are taken.

So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen. McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent. [Emphasis mine]

At this point Senator McCain could have pointed out that according to the IRS figures, 40% of the Americans who file tax returns pay no taxes. Therefore these 40% are really part of an Obama Spend Program, not a tax cut. You can't cut income taxes for those who don't pay an income tax. The Obama Tax Cut Plan is a Redistribution of Income.

Consider next this exchange.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.

Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.

What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?

Look closely at Senator Obama's reply.

Obama: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.

If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.

So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. [Emphasis mine]

Senator McCain should have replied along these lines.

McCain: Senator Obama some will say we did intervene when we found out about the Holocaust. It was called World War II. And I am glad to hear you state that when genocide is happening we should not stand idly by, because I believe Saddam Hussein's genocide of the Kurds means we were right to go into Iraq. We may disagree on the reason for the Iraq War, but it is encouraging that you agree that we should have intervened.

There were other opportunities. The next 27 days will tell.

Obama's Closet Skeletons

We know that Senator Obama made Jim Johnson chairman of his VP Selection Committee. And we also know that Mr. Johnson was CEO of Bailed-out Fannie Mae.

We know that for 20 years Senator Obama attended a church headed by Race-Bating, Black Separatist, Jeremiah Wright. Also known is that Reverend Wright married the Obamas, baptized their daughters, was originally part of the Obama Campaign and was the senator's spiritual advisor. We know that Barack Obama condemed Rev. Wright's views, but only after saying that in 20 years of attending church, he had never before heard any of his Pastor's inflamatory language.

But do we really know Barack Obama? Apparently not. And confirming the fact that we do not know the real Barack Obama, are two recent articles. (Penny Pritzker: Another Friend of Barry We Should Be Concerned About and Who Are You? 'Cause I Really Wanna Know)

In Penny Pritzker: Another Friend of Barry We Should Be Concerned About the author uses a rifle shot approach to one of Barack Obamas friends. Currently John McCain and Sarah Palin are exposing the connection between Obama and a Domestic Terrorist as more than "... just some guy I knew from the neighborhood ..."

In response, the Obama Campaign is highlighting the Keating 5 S&L scandal and John McCain's connection. Meanwhile Former Democrat Senator John Glenn, who was also implicated in the Keating 5 scandal is actively campaigning for Barack Obama. Both Senators Glenn and McCain were cleared of involvement in this scandal.

But this is bigger than just John Glenn. Obama claims McCain can't be trusted because the Keating 5 had something to do with the S&L crisis of the eighties. What about the subprime mortgage crisis of today?

This is a more relevant issue, especially because Americans are hurting today because of the Financial Crisis and $700 Billion Bail-Out. And part of the concern, is because we don't yet know how many more Taxpayer Dollars will be required, let alone the question of have we reached bottom yet? The Economy is the current Number 1 issue for Voters. So a look at Senator Obama's history with Financial Failure is relevant.

The Pritzker Family co-owned the Superior Bank FSB, which collapsed in 2001, resulting in a $460 million payment to federal regulators. Penny served as head of the Board from 1991-1994 and is a director of the bank's holding company, Coast to Coast Financial Corp. [Emphasis mine]

Penny Pritzker is Obama's National Finance Chair.

The reasons cited for the Superior Bank, FSB's failure, Bad lending practices and improper bookkeeping .

Jay Tea at Wizbang takes a shotgun approach in his article Who Are You? 'Cause I Really Wanna Know.

As remarkable as Obama's official biography is, it's the items that are omitted that are really enlightening. One of the biggest weaknesses people cite in Obama is his lack of executive experience, but that's not entirely accurate.

Jay maintains that Barack Obama does have executive experience, but it has not been sucessful and/or was for very unpopular causes.

Barack Obama served on the boards of two very large organizations. He spent seven years with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (the first four in charge) and eight years as a director of the Joyce Foundation. But he doesn't want to talk about those 15 years of executive experience.

As Mr. Tea notes, the Obama Campaign will not talk about this executive experience, nor will Barack Obama himself. Why?

Obama served as a director for the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002. During that time, the Foundation put a LOT of resources into redefining the 2nd Amendment as not a collective right, and trying to ban handguns entirely. [Emphasis mine]

Well it is obvious why Mr. Obama might not want this executive experience publized.

So, what does this have to do with Obama? I dunno. Obama doesn't talk about it. But the circumstantial evidence is compelling. Obama has a long record of pushing for gun control. He sponsored some of the most restrictive gun-control laws in Illinois. He once filled out a questionnaire saying he supported an outright ban on handguns. Or maybe he didn't -- a "misinformed" aide filled out the form. Or, at least, that question, as Obama filled out other parts of it. Or something.

Surely something good can come out the executive experience at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. After all he was the Chairman of this organization for the first 4 years.

And then there's the Chicago Annenberg Foundation. This program was set up to improve Chicago's public schools. Bill Ayers, unrepentant former terrorist ("guilty as hell, free as a bird," in his own words), worked for years to start this program. And who was the founding head of the Challenge? Barack Obama. [Emphasis mine]

Oops. Somehow the words "unrepentant former terrorist" don't sound like the proper terms to be associated with a Presidential Candidate.

Obama, who describes Ayers as "some guy in my neighborhood" who he met at a few meetings. Obama, a lawyer and former failed community organizer (he cited his ineffectiveness as an organizer as part of his reason for going to law school), with no real track record of doing much of anything, was put in charge of a foundation that started off with a bankroll of $50 million and ultimately spent over three times that much.

Obama's qualifications up to this point don't sound like the qualifications of someone you put in charge of that much money. A point echoed by Mr. Tea.

There are many unfavorable things one can call Bill Ayers. Despicable. Communist. (Sorry, "small-c communist" is the term he prefers.) Radical. Terrorist. Anti-American.

But I don't think you can fairly call him "overly trusting" or "naive" or "gullible." And those are the qualities one would ascribe to someone who puts a complete stranger (or even a very casual acquaintance) in charge of a project Ayers put that much effort into creating.

It is fair to judge that there must have been a much closer relationship between Obama and Ayers. Why do Obama and his Campaign refuse to elaborate on the real nature of this relationship?

And what positive results for these activities can Senator Obama add to his resume?

Obama ran the board for four years, then stepped down to a board member for three years longer, until the Foundation shut down in 2002. In the end, they spent over $150 million on improving Chicago's schools.

And the result? A study showed virtually no difference between the schools the Challenge "helped" and those they did not. In short, Obama spent seven years and $150 million and achieved exactly nothing.

Except, of course, lining the pockets of his and Ayers' friends. With money from charities and the people of Chicago.

As a former Executive Recruiter (Headhunter to most of you) I can see why the Obama resume does not highlight his 15 years of Executive Experience. Now why exactly should we reward this man with the Presidency of the United States?

Biden's Making It UP

Biden's Fantasy World is a good indication of who knows the facts and who's being less than truthful.

We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.

May be Senator Biden was really intimidated by Governor Sarah "Pit Bull" Palin. Intimidated to the point that he had to exaggerate and misstate facts to compete with Governor Palin. Or may be he really doesn't know his facts as well as he should considering his 36 years of Senate experience.

In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?

Let's get to specifics. Where were the mistakes, exaggerations and just plane "I'm makin' it up, to keep up" quotes? Does Foreign Affairs Senator Biden know who the players are in the Middle East? His misstatements concerning Lebanon, France, NATO, the US and Hezbollah would indicate Joe don't know s**t!

Start with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." [Emphasis mine]

What good is experience if the experience leads to these glaring errors? May be Senator Biden should have been paying more attention.

The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan. [Emphasis mine]

Now I ask you to judge. Which misstatement is worse? The statements of Senator Biden or Governor Palin mispronouncing the name of the General in Afghanistan. Governor Palin reference General McClellan rather than General McKienan.

Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.

Senator Biden also contradicted himself when he made this amazing claim. Ask yourself as you read the following when were you misstating the facts Senator? Now, or during the Primary?

Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no." [Emphasis mine]

Both Senators Obama and Biden are attorneys. Were either of them presented with a courtroom witness who made contradictory statements, both of them would question the credibility of the witness (Senator Biden in this case) by asking "Were you lying now or then?" It is fair for us to ask the same question, Senator Biden.

Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.

Senator Biden apparently has a very narrow focus or he's makes this up as he goes. A bill may go through many incarnations during the legislative process. It is entirely possible at one point in the process, the bill contained language unacceptable to Senator McCain. This is very thin ice on which to claim that Senator McCain initially opposed the bill. The final result should be the judgment vote, and on that vote Senator McCain supported President Clinton.

Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.

Shouldn't a Resident and a Senator who Represents the area know that a Wilmington Restaurant (Katie's) closed about 20 years ago? The impression Senator Biden was trying to portray gives us the impression he frequents Katie's Restaurant to get the "feel of the common man". Clearly, Senator Biden is not that connected to the people.

NYT & AP Get Obama Ayres Connection Wrong

Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin has attacked the judgment of Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama because of his connection to a Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers. Mr. Ayers is one of the founding members of the Weathermen. The Weathermen were anti-Vietnam War militants who conducted violent attacks on the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Mr. Ayers is unrepentant about being a Domestic Terrorist, and in fact claims that the Weathermen did not do enough.

Both the New York Times [Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths] and the AP [Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge] have recently whitewashed and brushed aside the significance of this connection. But in fact, the connection is very important. It is important because it shows the lack of judgment on the part of Senator Obama. And because Senator Obama has not been completely truthful about his relationship with an unrepentant Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers.

NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash by Stanley Kurtz reveals the importance and the extent of the Obama-Ayers connection.

As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama’s friends and allies. Obama’s spokesman and supporters’ names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught. [Emphasis mine]

How close a relationship Obama has with Ayers is presented as the result of the work of Mr. Kurtz.

The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night was, "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close." That was quickly changed to, "Obama and the ‘60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." Perhaps the first headline made the paper’s agenda a bit too obvious. Even so, the new title simply parrots the line of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt that the two first met through an early "education project" and since have simply "encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood." Or, as New York Times reporter Scott Shane puts it at the head of his article, since an initial lunchtime meeting in 1995, "their paths have crossed sporadically...at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project (i.e. the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors."

So when Senator Obama claims in reference to his relationship with Ayers ... he's just some guy from the neighborhood is Senator Obama being Truthful? No, he is not. Senator Obama is really misleading all of us. Senator Obama and his campaign have the Mainstream Media like the New York Times and the AP to thank for attempting legitimize and mislead the public - US. Here is what Mr. Kurtz has to say about the Senator's and Ayers friendship.

There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers’ radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers’ radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).

The Obama-Ayers connection, and others of questionable merit, definitely reflect on Senator Obama's Judgment and fitness for the Presidency of the United States.

Shane’s article buys the spin on Ayers’ supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers’ supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960's has somehow been redeemed by Ayers’ later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it. [Emphasis mine]

Nor can it be said that Senator Obama did not know about Mr. Ayers radical views.

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country. [Emphasis mine]

The fact that there is little evidence that Senator Obama shares these radical views, does not change the reason for questioning Senator Obama's judgment. Since Senator Obama has a tolerance for radical views of the United States and juvenile crime, we have the right to question Senator Obama's judgment and temperament to hold the office of the United States President.

Democrat Blabbermouths Reid & Schumer IRRESPONSIBLE

Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are doing their part to insure the Economic Crisis is worse than it has to be. While the Mortgage Crisis is in need of responsible political actions, Both Schumer and Reid have been guilty of irresponsible talk. Both need to be sure their brains are in gear before they open their mouths.

The Trouble With Harry highlights the latest irresponsible actions of the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

"One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt. That's what this is all about." The next day, share prices fell sharply across the insurance industry. [Emphasis mine]

In this time of Financial Jitters, it should be obvious to a National Leader that such talk is going to cause further fears. Hopefully Reid is just naive. But whatever his motivation for making these statements, he is acting Irresponsibly.

The steep drop in the share prices of insurance companies Thursday destroyed wealth for uncounted middle-class investors holding onto stock in companies still considered healthy. [Emphasis mine]

Democrats are the party that claims to be for the Middle-Class, but Democrat Harry Reid's comments hurt the Middle-Class in the pocket book. Pension Plans, 401(k)'s and most who have Mutual Fund shares lost value when the market dropped due to the comment.

NICE GOING HARRY, THANKS A LOT!!!

In the same way Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made a similar irresponsible misstep in July. The $4 Billion Senator emphasizes the boneheaded talk of another Democrat.

The federal takeover of IndyMac Bank over the weekend could cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. between $4 billion and $8 billion. But Senator Chuck Schumer, who helped to precipitate the collapse by publicizing a letter to the bank's regulator last month, has no remorse. [Emphasis mine]

Schumer claimed he was ... just doing his job by publicizing a letter about IndyMac Bank he had written to regulators in which Schumer wrote that IndyMac Bank ... could face a collapse.

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), whose job it actually was to regulate IndyMac, took a different view. "The immediate cause of the closing," the OTS wrote in a press release, "was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York." The OTS added: "In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts." [Emphasis mine]

NICE GOING CHUCK, THANKS A LOT!!!

This is the same Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who joined Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) [Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee], Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) [Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee] and other Democrats in both houses of Congress to block all attempts by Republicans to impose tighter controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. See more on this here, here, here, and here.

In fact President Bush, John McCain, Alan Greenspan and other Republicans have been sounding warnings about this Current Credit Crisis since 1999. It has been the Democrats lead by Schumer, Dodd and Frank who have said there is no crisis. The Democrats Schumer, Dodd Frank and Maxine Waters (D-CA) are all on record as dening the shaky nature of Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while taking large donations from both Freddie and Fannie.

By the way, Barack Obama in 4 years has the 2nd largest amount of donations from Freddie and Fannie. Democrat Dodd has received the largest contributions, but his dollars from Fannie and Freddie come over a period of 20 years.

Barney Frank (D-MA) in the House, who is the current chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has what appears to be a conflict of interest in matters concerning Fannie Mac. While Representative Frank served on this House Committee, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, his lover was an Executive at Fannie Mae.

Fannie Mae has a history of Democrats bad judgment. Franklin Raines was CEO of Fannie Mae during an accounting scandal. He was forced to resign. This is the Same Franklin Raines whom Maxine Waters (D-CA) praised for his leadership of Fannie Mae, and who was President Clinton's Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. His Golden Parachute was about $90 Million.

Jim Johnson is the present CEO of Fannie Mae and was the Chairman of Barack Obama's Vice Presidential selection committee.

NICE GOING BARACK, GREAT JUDGEMENT!!!

Barney Frank Points Fingers In The Wrong Direction

According to this story, House ignores Bush, rejects $700B bailout bill, Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of The House Financial Services Committee, claimed on Monday that the Republicans were at fault for not passing the bailout bill. The Bill failed by 12 Votes and Representative Frank was upset with Republicans who blamed comments by Speaker of the House, Nancy Peloci (D-CA) for the failure.

Republicans blamed Pelosi's scathing speech near the close of the debate - which attacked Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets - for the vote's failure.

Someone smarter than I am once said, '... be careful where you point you finger of blame, because you have 3 fingers pointing right back to you.' Considering that 97 Democrats voted against the bill, maybe Representative Frank should have taken that advice! In fact 13 Democrat members of Representative Frank's own Committee, which you will remember he Chairs, voted NAY. Look at this list:

1. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-PA
2. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA
3. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-MO
4. Rep. Joe Baca, D-CA
5. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, D-MA
6. Rep. David Scott, D-GA
7. Rep. Al Green, D-TX
8. Rep. Melissa L. Bean, D-IL
9. Rep. Paul W. Hodes, D-NH
10. Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, D-CT
11. Rep. Andre Carson, D-IN
12. Rep. Don Cazayoux, D-LA
13. Rep. Travis Childers, D-MS

Did you notice the "D" after each name? They are all Democrats, and they are all Democrats who serve on the House Financial Services Committee, of which Barney Franks (D-MA) is the Chairman.

Mr. Franks, you have more than enough votes to pass this bill, if you just got 12 of the 13 Democrats on your own committee to vote "YEA". In fact, Mr. Franks and Ms. Pelosi, the House has enough Democrats to pass this bill without even one Republican Vote of "AYE". Since many of the 97 Democrats who voted against this bill owe their positions to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Franks, what does this say about Democratic Leadership?

By the way, Jessie Jackson (D-IL) is another "NAY" vote. Representative Jackson is a member of the same Chicago Political Machine which produced Senator Barack Obama. Representative Jackson is one of Obama's chief advisers.

Suggestion to Chairman Barney Frank. Be sure you think before you point fingers.