About Me

Name: Boomer911
Location: Chicago, IL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Great Information!!
  • The Patriot Post">Patriot Post

De-Valued President of A De-Valued Government

I happened across a great video today of a European Parliament session in which Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown gets raked over the coals by a gentleman from Southeast England named Daniel Hannan. Hannan is the MEP for that region and I could not help but smile as I watched him berate the Prime Minister and wondered if anyone in this nation had the courage to say this to Obama, Reid, or Pelosi. Mr. Hannan is right on point and in fact all one would have to do is change a few words and this wonderful and articulate rant could be delivered to president Obama and not lose any of the sizzle. My favorite part is the "de-valued Prime Minister of a de-valued government" and I have already taken the liberty of changing "Prime Minister" to president. Check this out:
 
                                                                  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Question Of The Night.....

If there was one question from last night's presidential press conference that I simply delighted in, it was the question asked by CNN's Ed Henry concerning the president's "outrage" over the AIG mess and why it took so long. But what Henry also did was call out the president by drawing in on the fact that Obama and his minions keep driving home this "we inheritted it" mantra all the while running up deficits that will surely be passed on to the next president. When asked about the inherent hypocrosy of the argument, Obama looks and sounds as if he was truly stumped. Kudos to CNN's Ed Henry for asking the question of the night.
 
You can watch the exchange here:
                                                      
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Drops Charges On Terrorist

In what has to be one of the most infuriating stories thus far into the infancy of the Obama presidency, this one tops them all. According to the AP, the last active war crimes case against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri ended when all of the charges were dropped in order to comply with Obama's executive order that all trials at Guantanamo be stopped. Al-Nashiri was a suspect in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 U.S. Sailors and will remain in prison apparently awaiting whether or not the United States will charge him again with any further crimes.
 
This is a slap in the face to all those who serve, especially the 17 who gave their all on that fateful day in 2000. The implications of such a move by Obama will reach far beyond our shores and only embolden our enemies. He catered to the far left of the democrat party and now a terrorist sits awaiting his outcome. Will we nail this piece of human garbage if the evidence is available or will we let him walk? President Obama, this is in your hands.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New Declaration of Independence?

Now that some of the fanfare surrounding the corronation, uh...excuse me, inauguration of Barack Obama has calmed down, there are a few lines from the address that should be examined, especially from a historical point of view.
 
While there are many lines in the address I found alarming, none were more so than his decree for this nation to proclaim ".....a new Declaration of Independence....". This line, framed in his usual fluffy yet soaring rhetoric, seems to call America to rally to a new beginning. A beginning which echoes the Founding Father's vision of America going so far as to say, "Our Founding Fathers ... drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man ... and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."  But when we compare the Founder's vision to Obama's, we see the stark contrasts in their visions for American government. The Declaration of Independence was just that...a declaration of independence from an oppressive government who had, in the Founder's eyes, long over stepped their authority in dealing with the American colonies. This led our founding generation to risk life and fortune to shake off the chains of oppression from thier existing government and start anew. But just what does Barack Obama envision as our "new Declartion of Independence"? The largest expansion of government into the lives of its citizens in generations. The Founder's felt the best government was the one that governs the least. Now compare that to what is currently being presented in Washington with the blessing of President Obama and the democratically controlled Congress. What it comes down to is an alterring of this nation and its founding principles to the point of faint recognition. The role of government under Obama and the democrats will share NOTHING with the Founding Father's vision for this nation. If you feel our government has already exceeded its Constitutional authority, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Must See Video...Fannie CEO and Obama

I was sent this video in an email and and it seems to go hand in hand with the SNL video from the previous post. The democrats, including and especially Barack Obama, are clearly responsible for this financial crisis and its time the American people learn what the mainstream media won't tell them.
                                                   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Presidential Character

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." —Samuel Adams

In his Inaugural Address on 20 January, 1961, President John F. Kennedy closed his remarks with these famous words: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

With those words, JFK, considered by many to be the most exemplary leader of the Democrat Party in the 20th Century, asked Americans to put country first, a bedrock principle of the Party until the last few decades.

However today, the current slate of Democrats have turned Jack Kennedy's national challenge on end, essentially proclaiming, "ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country."

In 1963, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said for all to hear, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Has his dream been realized, or have Democrat leaders divided us up into constituency groups, where we are judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual and national character King envisioned?

Kennedy and King had it right, but the Democrat Party has squandered their great legacy, and betrayed us, moreover enslaving many Americans as dependant wards of the state.

This is not the Democrat Party envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman, much less its founder, Thomas Jefferson, who would not recognize even the most vestigial elements of his once-noble Party. (This dramatic transition is evident in the Democrat Party Platforms from Kennedy to Obama.)

When asked why he left the Democrat Party, perhaps the most famous of former Democrats said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." That was Ronald Reagan, who earned the respect and support of an enormous number of Democrats during his presidency. His observation, "the Party left me," has never been more true than today.

For several months, we have heard and observed two presidential candidates, centrist Republican John McCain and liberal Democrat Barack Obama. It should by now, be obvious to all of us who put our country first, which of these candidates possess the high qualities of a statesman, and the prerequisite moral and civic virtues for an American president.

Unfortunately, too many of my fellow Americans have difficulty distinguishing these qualities.

Every four years, at the peak of presidential election cycles, we're told by the talkingheads and the party hacks that "this election is the most important in our lifetimes." This time, however, they may be right. These are indeed perilous times.

Our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts, including an historic economic disaster, the resolution of which will require the steady hand of a statesman in possession of outstanding character — character that has been honed over his lifetime, character that is proven consistent with our nation's legacy of liberty and equality.

That reformed Democrat, Ronald Reagan, wrote, "The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the 'little' choices of years past — by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that 'it really doesn't matter.' It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away — the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity — or dishonor and shame."

For the first and final word on the necessary character traits the next president should possess, let's return to our foundation, our Founders, those who risked all to proclaim our individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God, and outlined them in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Republic's Constitution.

Our Founders wrote at length about character, both of those who seek high office (or, rather, those that high office seeks), and those who elect them. Here are but a few excerpts in their own words.

John Adams: "Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom. ... If we suffer [the minds of young people] to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. ... We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."

Samuel Adams: "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. ... If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation. ... [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. ... No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. ... Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. ... Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson: "It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. ... If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ... The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. ... An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

George Washington: "No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. ...[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. ... The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

At the end of the Revolution, when our Founders were endeavoring "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," Founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and our Constitution's author, James Madison, wrote The Federalist Papers, its most authentic and comprehensive explication.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

Sound familiar?

In No. 10, Madison cautions, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm," and insisted in No. 57, "The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

Madison's Supreme Court nominee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote, "Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

The Founders thus warned of the perils posed by the candidate who lacks political courage; the candidate who tells us everything we want to hear.

In November 1800, John Adams, in his fourth year as president, wrote to his wife Abigail, "I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!"

We should all pray likewise, now, today, this minute.

As Adams understood, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Almost two centuries later, Ronald Reagan reiterated, "Freedom is ... never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone and gone for a long, long time."

So, what of the current generation of voters, and the two presidential candidates?

On 4 November, one of these candidates will receive a majority of electoral votes, and in January, be seated as our next president. But for sure, this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it is a referendum on the ability of Americans to discern between one candidate who possesses the character and integrity of a statesman, which the office of president requires, and one who does not.

At this pivotal moment in our nation's history, let's hope that a majority of us have sufficient courage and character to make that distinction, and vote on what we know rather than how we feel.

Let's put country first.

For more information on the character of the presidential candidates, link to The McCain record and The Obama record.

Please forward these insights to your family, friends and associates.
                                                               -  Courtesy of The Patriot Post
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Still Think Obama Isn't A Socialist? Read This!!!

The opinions and predictions coming from the pages of this blog have largely concerned this nations unknowing predisposition with the failed ideology of socialism. Anyone remotely familiar with history and politics should be able to acknowledge the radical shift in the democratic party's platform of "....ask not what your country can do for you..." to the current "nanny state" system of government that has begun to promote cradle to grave entitlements and  government solutions to all our nations problems. I have also no doubt stated many times that the Illinois Senator and democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the head cheerleader for socialism. If one has not been able to link Obama and his fellow democrats to socialistic ideas, they either don't know what socialism means or they don't care. I believe it is a combination of the two, as millions around this country, ignorant to history and the ramifications of socialism, are about to usher in a new era of government which shreds our Founding Fathers vision of limited government and the very document that lays out that vision, our Constitution.
 
When Barack Obama began his political career in Illinois, it was essentially started in the home of United States domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, when the two radicals held a fund raiser for Obama during his first campaign in 1995. Both Ayers and Dohrn, in addition to their radical anti-American views which lead them to bomb police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon, are admitted socialists. (Ayers, in an interview ironically posted on 9-11, has never shown any remorse for the bombings going so far as to say "we didn't do enough".)  Obama, having already grown up indoctrinated by his  admittedly anti-American communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, which he mentions in his first memoir "Dreams of My Father", already shared many views with Ayers and Dohrn, naturally allowing them to find common ground on many issues.
 
In 1995, Barack Obama's candidacy was endorsed by a radical socialist group called the "New Party" which was started by the Democratic Socialists of America. Obama and his campaign staff have repeatedly stated Obama was never a member of that party. Both the "New Party" and the Democratic Socialists of America have also denied any relationship going so far as removing letters and entries which mention Obama by name. But a recent discovery by the blog "Politically Drunk On Power", has discovered a October 1996 newsletter sent out to members of the "New Party" to update them on the local congressional races. Although deleted from the groups record it was located by going to the non-profit Internet Archive Organization and checking to see if any pages had been archived concerning Obama. Sure enough, there was the October 1996 newsletter in which stated, "New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago." The newsletter is very informative and should be read in its entirety as it gives you an idea what being a member of the socialist "New Party" entailed, specifically the last line which says, "Progressives should consider whether to take back the Democratic Party or take over the Reform Party. Since the Reformers are on the ballot in every state and have a guarantee of public funding in the next presidential race, somebody is bound to take it over."
 
Barack Obama is a socialist. I have never doubted that statement. This new look into the radical past of Barack Obama only solidifies what I have already known. He has duped America into believing he is a moderate with help from the mainstream media who have never questioned his background or record while they have been all too willing to dive into McCain's and Palin's earliest and most personal beliefs and associations. Democracy cannot survive when the agency responsible for informing the American people have an agenda that coincides with one of the political parties. Truth becomes victim to ideology and we, the American people, are the ones who are going to suffer for it. The left's takeover of the media and our schools and universities has begun to pay off. It has given the left a way into the hearts and minds of our people from a very early age and their message is only reinforced throughout our lives by what they put on our televisions as "entertainment" and what they allow us to know through various news reporting agencies, all the while claiming impartiality. There is a word for that, its called indoctrination. This has left us with generations of people incapable of making critical judgements and more importantly, it has left us with people too stupid to know the difference.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Unbelievable Obama Photo!

I received an email this morning from a friend of mine who noticed the title of the book Senator Obama is holding in his hand in this photo. The name is "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria and the book and its author has some very interesting views of America and the world. Essentially the books message is about other nations becoming as powerful as the United States economically while America is on the decline. The fact Obama is reading a book about the decline of America and the new "global" view is the proper course makes me very uneasy as it fits in perfectly with the lefts views for the future of the nation and the world in general. A "new world order" brought about by socialism is their goal no doubt and no borders, no countries, and one world government is the lefts utopian dream. I don't know about Senator Obama but I say we work to ensure America remains the greatest country?

"This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else." So begins Fareed Zakaria's important new work on the era we are now entering. Following on the success of his best-selling The Future of Freedom, Zakaria describes with equal prescience a world in which the United States will no longer dominate the global economy, orchestrate geopolitics, or overwhelm cultures. He sees the "rise of the rest"—the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, and many others—as the great story of our time, and one that will reshape the world. The tallest buildings, biggest dams, largest-selling movies, and most advanced cell phones are all being built outside the United States. This economic growth is producing political confidence, national pride, and potentially international problems. How should the United States understand and thrive in this rapidly changing international climate? What does it mean to live in a truly global era? Zakaria answers these questions with his customary lucidity, insight, and imagination."
                                                         - Amazon.com Book Review
                                                   
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Friend Has Feds Raid His Office

Could it be that democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has yet another personal friend in trouble with the Feds? The answer is YES! According to reports, the FBI raided the offices of Obama's friend, Illinois state senator Larry Walsh, on Wednesday morning. Walsh has been a long time friend of Obama and even Obama's chief of staff Matt Ryan. The Feds didn't disclose what they were looking for but did remain in the office for about an hour. Mr. Walsh, who served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2005, was endorsed by Mr. Obama in his county executive election bid. With the support of some of Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate volunteers, he easily defeated incumbent Republican Joseph Mikan. For more information go to http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/03/fbi-raids-obama-friends-office/
 
 
                                                            Sen. Barack Obama hugs Will County executive Larry Walsh in a hotel in Springfield, Ill., in February 2008. (Associated Press)
 
How many of Obama's relationships have to be called into question before the American people wake up to the fact he is nothing more than a product of corrupt Chicago/Illinois politics? Apparently he is not only a man of questionable and limited experience but also a man incapable of making smart critical judgements about the people he associates with.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Better Take Off The Gloves

Its difficult to put into words the thought that we are on the brink of a Barack Obama presidency. Just how a man with so little experience, questionable associations, and radical views for America and the world, has arrived at the doorstep of the White House is beyond me. I can say without a doubt, Obama is receiving more help from the media than any candidate in the history of our great nation. I could only imagine if John McCain had the same associations, radical views, and gaffes that have followed Obama but have been down played by the mainstream media. The fact is, you would never see the end of the coverage.
 
McCain has thus far given the media very little to run with as far as gaffes. The Obama campaign has seized on some of McCain's advisors previous jobs as lobbyists in a few campaign ads but the same could be said about many of Obama's advisors if only McCain would lose the countenance of clean politics and etiquette. The political world is harsh and all out war. Those who have a point to make need to make it, drive it home, and hound your candidate at the debates about the issue. Put Obama on the spot and bring up his questions of judgement, his lack of experience in all things political, and the hypocrisy concerning many of his views. For example; If I have to hear Obama talk about saving American jobs in one breath and in the next say he is in favor of raising the corporate tax rate thus removing a company's ability to compete globally without McCain jumping all over him, I am going to scream. This very issue was brought up in the first debate but was essentially fumbled by McCain. Whether it was an oversight or McCain playing the "better man" role, he blew a chance to make Obama look foolish. And this is just one of many views McCain should jump all over. The American people are mad and fed up, and they are looking for a candidate who will make sense of the issues confronting the country not only by putting forth their ideas and being able to defend them, but also by blowing holes in their opponents views and positions. The best way to make up any ground is to attack Obama and to use any means necessary. I am not advocating dirty politics as Obama has given the McCain campaign plenty of ammunition without having to resort to lies. But McCain better realize time is slipping by and he is running out of time. He better open up both barrels on the junior Senator from Illinois or McCain will find himself still the senior Senator from Arizona come inauguration day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain's Prophetic Prediction

While Sen. McCain is being pilloried by his opponent, Barack Hussein Obama, for asserting (correctly) last week that the fundamentals of most U.S. economic sectors are sound, clearly, Sen. McCain has understood for years that irresponsible lending practices for U.S. housing posed “enormous risk... to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

While Obama was out politicking this week, ostensibly itching for a debate that he’d been avoiding all summer, McCain suspended his campaign to work with Republicans in Congress, outlining conditions for an agreement that would both protect the American taxpayer and thwart a meltdown of the U.S. economy. So, “Country First” is not just a campaign slogan... - Courtesy of patriotpost.com

Here is the prophetic quote of John McCain from 2005:

“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... 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.” —John McCain arguing for passage of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) which he co-sponsored in 2005.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Created Financial Crisis

The political posturing by the democrats in light of the recent housing and market troubles has been one of shrugging shoulders and the old stand-by, blaming Bush. The democrats ruse of blaming republicans has gone relatively un-answered by many on the right who know exactly why we are in this situation. What defense has been mustered has not gained much traction in any of the media outlets (gee, big surprise) and therefore have not caught on with the people.
 
Well let me start by pointing out an article on Bloomberg called "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" by Kevin Hassett. He lays out some pretty convincing points but averts talking about a Carter era bill that was renewed under the Clinton administration which mandated lenders to make loans easier and more available to minorities. In essence, they mandated lenders to give loans to those who could not repay the debt. But don't worry, the government, with the aid of OUR money is going to bail everyone out. Hooray for socialism! But what is also great about the article is how he ties the money to Obama and other democrats. Its a good read!
 
The link to the article is http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0 but here are just a few great lines from the article:

"If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
And of course, my favorite:

"There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess."

 
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Obama Nation" Excerpts Not Refuted

I recently ran across an article by "The Obama Nation" author Dr. Jerome Corsi in which he claims the 40 page rebuttal to his book was completely unfounded. Corsi has issued a rejoinder to the 40 page offering from the Obama campaign claiming Obama proved nothing and only shows how accurate his book truly is. But Corsi would like to shed some light on the issues on which the Obama campaign ignored and did not refute in their 40 page rebuttal. They truly are powerful points and are worth mentioning here. What you see below are excerpts from Corsi's article. The entire article can be found at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75478 .
 

Chapter 3, "Black Rage, Drugs, and a Communist Mentor"

I consider the following arguments from "Black Rage, Drugs, and a Communist Mentor," the third chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

  • The Obama campaign has conceded for the first time that the identity of "Frank," Obama's mentor in his high school years, was Frank Marshall Davis, the communist poet and journalist from Chicago who retired in Hawaii.

  • The true identity of "Ray" is Keith Kakugawa, the high school friend who is a convicted drug felon, now living homeless on the streets of Los Angeles. [pages 74-77]

  • Obama was deeply influenced by Frantz Fanon, the African psychiatrist whose revolutionary writings were influential in shaping the revolutionary political left of the 1950s and 1960s. [pages 80-84]

  • In seeking his identity during high school, Obama was strongly influenced by reading Malcolm X's autobiography, identifying with many of the more anti-white passages Malcolm X wrote in that book. [pages 90-91]

  • Obama was a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine in his high school and early college years; he drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes with Frank Marshall Davis while yet in his high school years. [pages 87-89]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Chapter 5, "The Ideology of 'Change'"

I consider the following arguments from "The Ideology of 'Change,'" the fifth chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

  • David Axelrod, Obama's campaign strategist, was lying when he maintained Sen. Obama and William Ayers knew one another because they live in the same neighborhood and their children attend the same school. Ayers' children are grown adults and Obama's children are young girls; Obama's children and Ayers' children never attended school together. [page 119]

  • In his 2001 book entitled "Fugitive Days," Ayers openly admits his involvement in the 1970s bombings and the role he played as a radical revolutionary leader at the head of the SDS Weather Underground. [page 119]

  • Obama was recruited by Jerry Kellman to head the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, to be a community organizer working within the system developed by Saul Alinsky. [pages 128-130]

  • "Change" was a credo developed by Alinsky in his 1971 book entitled "Reveille for Radicals." "Change," for Alinsky, invoked radical socialism and meant the redistribution of wealth. [page 130]

  • Alinsky advocated creating change through a set of carefully calculated power-politics, where the ends always justified the means. [page 131]

  • Alinsky's goal was to set in motion a peaceful revolution, using the ballot box, not bombs or bullets, to wrench power from the hands of capitalist elites and business leaders currently in charge. [page 131]

  • "Change" was Alinsky's code word for creating a socialist revolution, even if the methodology meant radicals would cut their hair, put on business suits, and run for political office. [page 131]

  • Alinsky modeled Rules for Radicals after Machiavelli, also citing Lucifer as "the first radical" in one of three epigraphs with which Alinsky opens the book. [pages 133-134]

  • After endorsing Obama to take her Illinois state senate seat, Alice Palmer arranged a function for a few influential liberals in the district at the Hyde Park home of Weather Underground activists Ayers and Dohrn to kick-off Obama's political campaign. [page 137]

  • In 1995, Bill Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with a $50 million grant program for the Chicago public schools. Ayers selected Obama to be the first chairman of the board of the Annenberg Challenge, a position Obama held for eight years, until 2003, a period during which Ayers remained active with the Challenge. [page 138]

  • Obama and Ayers both served on the board of the Woods Fund, at the time the Woods Fund made a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network (2001), followed by an additional $35,000 grant (2002). The Arab American Action Network collaborated with the American Friends Service Committee to hold an exhibition in Chicago on "Al Nakba," translated as "The Catastrophe," meaning 1948 and the founding of the state of Israel. [pages 140-143]

  • Bill Ayers was photographed in 2001 standing on the American flag; the photos were taken for an August 2001 interview with Chicago Magazine. [page 146]

  • Sam Graham-Felsen, one of the official bloggers for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, was a self-proclaimed student of Karl Marx when he was an undergraduate at Harvard and proudly displayed a Russian communist flag in his dorm room. [page 148]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Chapter 6, "Tony Rezko and 'The Chicago Way'"

I consider the following arguments from "Tony Rezko and 'The Chicago Way,'" the sixth chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

  • Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord, helped bankroll Obama in five election runs – in Obama's successful 1996, 1998, and 2002 campaigns for the Illinois state senate, in 2000 for his unsuccessful run for the U.S. House, and in 2004 for his successful U.S. Senate campaign. [page 153]

  • Rezko gave Obama his first political contribution, $2,000, on July 31, 1995, when he learned Obama was going to run for Alice Palmer's seat in the Illinois state legislature. [page 154]

  • Obama has known Rezko for 17 years and he relied upon Rezko to help him raise contributions for his political campaigns. [page 154]

  • Rezko wanted Obama to return to Chicago after he finished at Harvard so he could hire Obama in Rezmar, the name of Rezko's community development firm. [page 156]

  • Between 1989 and 1998, Rezko got more than $100 million from the city, state, and federal government, plus bank loans to rehabilitate thirty buildings in Chicago. [page 160]

  • A Chicago Sun-Times investigation in 2007 found the following: six of the 30 Rezmar buildings were boarded up; 17 had gone into foreclosure, most after Rezmar abandoned them; an 19th property was being foreclosed on by the state after Rezmar walked away from it; hundreds of apartments were vacant, most in need of major repairs. [page 160]

  • Eleven of the Rezmar buildings were in the Illinois state senate district Obama represented. [page 160]

  • Rezko's money today is gone and Rezko seems unable to account for what happened to the millions he had been lent or granted by the city, state, and federal governments, never mind the money from private investors and banks. [page 161]

  • Obama's reputation was tarnished in Chicago, not only by his friendship with Rezko and the political contributions he took from him, but also by his involvement with the legal firm representing Rezko. [page 161]

  • There is no record that Illinois state senator Obama ever so much as placed a speech in the record objecting to the public-housing practices perpetrated in his district by Tony Rezko, let alone calling for investigation of Rezko and his business practices. [page 164]

  • The Chicago Sun-Times reported after a March 14, 2008, interview with Obama that Rezko had raised as much as an estimated $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought, up to and including his 2004 race for the U.S. Senate. [page 170]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Chapter 9, "A Far-Left Domestic Policy"

I consider the following arguments from "A Far-Left Domestic Policy," the ninth chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

  • The National Abortion Rights Action League, which prefers to represent itself more euphemistically under its acronym, NARAL, gives Obama a 100 percent score on his pro-choice voting record in the U.S. Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. [page 239]

  • As a state senator in Illinois, Obama supported various gun control measures, including a ban on the sale and transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, a bill limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and a bill requiring manufacturers to place child-safety locks on firearms. [page 243]

  • Obama intends to increase capital gains taxes, arguing that current capital gains taxes are not "fair," even though lowering capital gains taxes have proven to stimulate investment and raise tax revenues. [pages 244-246]

  • Sen. Hillary Clinton has charged Sen. Obama's proposal for universal health care will not work because his plan lacks mandates. [pages 246-250]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Chapter 10, "Obama's Antiwar, Anti-Israel Foreign Policy"

I consider the following arguments from "Obama's Antiwar, Anti-Israel Foreign Policy," the 10th chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

  • A contributor to Obama's "no-nukes" policy is Joseph Cirincione who has been outspoken in his criticism of Israel's attack on the alleged North Korean nuclear plant in Syria. In a September 2007 interview with National Public Radio, Cirincione argued, "certain hard-line Israelis" were using the air strike to prevent U.S.-Syrian or Israeli-Syrian dialogue. [page 264-266]

  • Obama promised during the CNN/YouTube primary debate in Charleston, S.C., on July 23, 2007, that he was willing to meet separately, without precondition, with enemies of the United States, including the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. [pages 272-274]

  • Foreign policy is Obama's Achilles heel. McCain will succeed by pressing Obama on specifics, demanding Obama stop blaming George W. Bush for international problems that go back at least to the Clinton administration, if not farther into history. [page 279]

  • As the Kenyan angle is investigated and Obama's interference to support Raila Odinga is understood, Obama may be seen to be inclined to pursue personal objectives in international relations, not necessarily objectives that derive from wide experience of a consistent concept of U.S. national security interests. [page 279]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Given the substantive issues in "The Obama Nation" that have not been refuted by the Obama campaign, the attacks against the book have been ideologically motivated.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Gaffe -"My Muslim Faith...."

This has been a tough week for the senator from Illinois. First, Obama gets a slight bounce in the polls after the democrat convention, which many thought would be double digit. Second, hurricane Sarah hit Minneapolis and lead the republicans to a hugely successful convention which has team McCain/Palin, as of 9/8,  with a decent lead in most national polls. Finally third, and perhaps the most embarassing thing to happen to Barack Obama this week, comes from the senator's own mouth. It appears Obama got a little off message on Sunday when he mistakenly said "...my Muslim faith...." instead of Christian faith, in an interview with George Stephanopolous. Obama didn't catch it as he said it, but Stephanopolous did and quickly corrected the senator. You can see the disgusted look on his face as he realizes what just slipped out of his mouth. Here is the video:
 
                                                                  
 
Now, I am not saying Obama is a Muslim like some on the internet. I feel this was an honest mistake and its exactly why I look forward to the debates. Obama is a bullsh_t salesman with a mouthful of samples, and sometimes he gets so caught up in the moment he isn't aware of what he said. But even so, this clip is kind of funny if only to see him squirm. Enjoy!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Mocks The Bible

I have just come across a video of Barack Obama making some comments on the Bible that I have never seen before. The video speaks for itself and is a very interesting look into the character of the democratic candidate. Pay attention to what he says about the Sermon On the Mount. Didn't he say a few months back that he uses the sermon to help guide him spiritually? But here in the video, he clearly says the sermon is "too radical". What a fool! Give it a look.
                                                                  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »