Powered by WordPress | Theme by mg12 | Valid XHTML 1.1 and CSS 3
  • Who’s Lying about whom?

    OBAMA’S NEW TACTIC: THEY ARE LYING
    Barack Obama says that John McCain and Sarah Palin are lying about their records when dubbing themselves as the “original mavericks” who would stand up for hard-pressed voters.

    Fine, Obama, you want to back that up?

    Let’s start with John McCain, who has a 100% approval rating on pork-barrel spending for the 2007 legislative season, according to Citizens against government waste. His lifetime score is 88%. What this basically means is that in 2007, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 100% of the time. This means that over his years in the Senate, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 88 out of every 100 votes. And when I say “with the taxpayers” I essentially mean he voted in a way that would allow taxpayers to keep their money, rather than spend it on frivolous government pork projects.

    Just in case you weren’t aware, Mr. Obama … you scored a 10% rating in 2007 and an 18% lifetime rating. Oh and your running mate, Joe Biden, he actually managed to score a 0% rating in 2007. These really seem like a pair of guys that are trying to create change in Washington. These really look like the people who are looking out for you, the taxpayers.

    But then it is John McCain and Sarah Palin who are lying.

    When it comes to Sarah Palin, we’ve been through the specifics on this Bridge to Nowhere crap. In fact, the Democrat Party in Alaska acknowledges that it was Sarah Palin who finally scrapped the bridge. That website, by the way, disappeared for a while, until pressured to re-post the page (which they did, only at a different address). But just as a little side note … guess who DID vote for the Bridge to Nowhere. Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Why doesn’t the media bring THAT to your attention. Even when given a second chance to shift the funds to Katrina relief programs, Obama and Biden still voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. While John McCain did not end up voting on the amendment, he is on record opposing the earmark.

    When it comes to Sarah Palin’s record of reform … let’s just look at earmarks, since this is something that Palin and her Senate opponents have in common. Before Sarah Palin’s time as governor, the state of Alaska used to request over 100 earmarks each year to be secured by Alaska’s congressional delegation. When it came time for Sarah Palin to request her earmarks for the first time as governor … she slashed that number by half, requesting 54 earmarks. The next year, Palin cut that number AGAIN down to just 31 earmarks. Of those 31 earmarks, 27 of these are continuous or were previously appropriated. When Palin entered the governor’s office, the total amount of quests averaged $550 million a year. That number has been reduced to less than $200 million now that Palin is in office. And it would only continue to decline. One of Palin’s stated goals as Governor is to ask Congress for no more than a dozen earmarks for her state. On top of all that, Palin insisted that each earmark requested by the state of Alaska demonstrate an important federal purpose and public support. Whenever possible, Palin wants to have earmarks only if they can be matched by state or local budgets. And her administration is currently re-examining previous decisions on transportation earmarks … the Alaska Department of Transportation is conducting an audit to determine the status of every single one of its recent earmarks.

    Let’s go ahead and take a look at Barack Obama’s earmarks in the Senate. In just three years, Barack Obama has requested over 300 earmark projects totaling $740 million. For the 2008 fiscal year alone, Obama requested 112 earmarks. Sarah Palin? 31.

    Just a little something for you have mulling around in your brain as Obama gets all huffy about earmark spending. Sarah Palin actually cuts earmarks, Barack Obama says he supports earmark transparency and then requests almost $1 billion of your tax dollars to be spent on pork projects. Sarah Palin reduces the number of projects, reduces the costs, calls for projects that will only serve the nation as a whole, investigates previous earmark spending … and yet she is the one “lying.”

    Remember this about The Chosen One. He is a creation of the corrupt Chicago political machine. Several times during his legislative career Obama has had the opportunity to speak out against and vote against the corruption in Chicago politics. Each and every time he failed to do so. He’s a charlatan; a phony. When it came to corruption in Chicago politics change was the furthest thing from his mind. The sooner some of you people get the stars out of your eyes, abandon your childish celebrity worshipping, and see this man for what he really is the safer our country will be.

    (Source)

    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 20:21
  • From the ‘Holy Crap’ files of Obama supporters!

    Here’s a statistic for you … only 29% of Barack Obama supporters believe that Supreme Court justices should make rulings based on the Constitution. Come on folks. You don’t see the danger lurking here?

    (source)

    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 20:16
  • Not sure I’m buying Obama’s lipstick excuse

    Here’s why:

    It’s been revealed that Obama’s words prior TO the “lipstick on a pig” comment was totally scripted and not off the cuff. The words leading up to the lipstick comment was lifted (uncredited – again!) from a political cartoon that was published two days earlier.

    Where Obama got his ‘lipstick speech’

    Obama very rarely speaks to crowds without a script. It’s easily obvious when he is off script because he slows down and ums, and uhs through and he lawyers his comments to avoid saying something stupid. It’s been suggested that his speech writers asked him to take the lipstick comment out of the speech and that he did but put it back in at the last minute and this last minute change is why he’s tooling along with his ripped off McCain list from a cartoon (even down to the “watch out Mr Bush” comment) until he gets to the sentence which contained the pig slur.

    Several people whom I’ve spoken too after viewing the video of this comment, and are trained in studying body language point to the pause and weakness of the delivery of this one line compared to all of the other lines before this. He begins to shift his stance and puts his hand over his forehead/eyes as if he knows he’s heading to a possible problem. even his facial expression is pained until he gets to the pause in between the phrase. The crowd immediately begin to laugh (they seemed to know something more humorous than this old worn out phrase could possibly illicit get normally even after breaking the phrase into two distinct parts by bad timing) he then smiles in relief and then finished the phrase getting a bigger response. This in relation to the most repeated and memorable phrase about being a hockey mom with the drive and will of a pit bull made by Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin only a few days before at the Republican National Convention, just makes this an obvious cheap dig.

    I context to the body language and the delivery and the crowd’s response and the famous Palin comment previously, makes this a weak excuse by Obama.

    Now, is this important? Not really. But it does show a little insight into the fear the Dems are feeling about the tidal wave called Sarah Palin that hit them unexpectedly and the drop in the polls of the Obama/Biden campaign. It also brings to mind the Clinton attack machine of trash talking women when they would come forward to accuse Bill of infidelities.

    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 20:08
  • CBO report: Deficit concern is a Red Herring, “real fiscal drag from government comes from how much it spends, not how much it borrows.”

    Whoops! I guess the Democrats are lying to voters again. The WSJ article goes on to report the following (NOTE: The last line of this excerpt will NEVER make the MSM headlines about the Dems – emphasis mine):

    The Bush tax cuts also aren’t the budget problem. Until this year federal tax collections have been surging. In the four years after the 2003 tax cuts become law, tax receipts exploded by $785 billion. This year revenues have declined by 0.8%, but a major reason is the $150 billion bipartisan tax rebate that has hit the Treasury without spurring the economy. Without these nonstimulating rebates, federal tax payments would have climbed another 2.5%, according to CBO. Revenue is expected to be a healthy 18.5% of GDP next year without any tax increase.

    Another myth is that the war on terror has busted the budget. While operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive, defense spending is $605 billion this year, or about 4.5% of GDP. That only seems large by comparison to the holiday from history of the 1990s, when defense fell to 3% of GDP. As recently as 1986, defense spending was 6.2% of GDP.

    The real runaway train is what CBO calls a “substantial increase in spending” that is “on an unsustainable path.” That’s for sure. The nearby chart shows how much some federal accounts have expanded since 2001, and in inflation-adjusted dollars. This year alone, federal agencies have lifted their spending by 8.1%, with another 7% raise expected for 2009. There’s certainly no recession in Washington. The CBO says that, merely in the two years that Democrats have run Congress, federal expenditures are up $429 billion — to $3.158 trillion.

    (Source)

    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 18:32
  • Globe wants Obama – Not sure about 911 origins

    Two interesting polls are coming to light at the same time. To me it shows the judgment (or lack thereof) of those who tout what other countries think of our country and the direction we could head if this election is thrown to the socialist democrats.

    BBC POLL: WORLD WANTS OBAMA…

    GLOBAL POLL: No consensus on who was behind Sept 11…

    So we want to give weight to foreign countries in who THEY want to be our president, when they aren’t even sure that Al Qaida was behind the 9-11 attacks on 3000 of our civilians?!?

    All I can do is quote Keanu Reeves: “Whoa!”

    This should be more reason to ignore the idiots from other countries who don’t get it. And this should show people where liberals stand on the future of our country who worship Europeans and their opinions of our country.

    Another headline out today alongside these idiotic World Polls states:

    Al-Qaeda Planning to Release 9/11 Anniversary Video…

    Gawd liberals are gullible. Terrorists love these kinds of naive sheeple.

    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 18:19
  • Obama wants his own Gestapo, KGB and Stasi for the US?

    In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.” [what objectives does he mean?]

    He stated, “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” [as the military?]

    (this text has been removed from official transcripts issued by the Obama campaign but the video still exists on Youtube and is reported on several websites. Link.)

    The three other main governments in the 20th century that had “civilian security forces” unattached form the military or federal (parliamentary) government were the Germans and the Russians.

    We have the FBI for internal law enforcement and the CIA for external enforcement. We have the Military for external national defense. We have the National Guard for internal national defense.

    What exactly does Obama think we need another security force to exist for?

    Look up Gestapo, the KGB and Stasi.

    He then talks about taking guns away (a prime tool for totalitarian governments to weaken the populace against resisting them) in a speech given Sept 5th in Duryea, Pa. Obama trying to cover his want to disarm America he states:

    “If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

    So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’ (Source)

    “Even if I WANT to…” not “Even if I wantED to…” His true desires coming out? And if a Dem congress were in power you don’t think he could possibly GET the votes??? WTF!

    Socialism
    Gun bans
    Infanticide (live-birth) abortion policies
    Civilian National Security Force
    Mandatory Government Service for govt services

    Starting to sound familiar to anyone?

    This guy scares the sh!t out of me. I studied Soviet social and political policies in the USAF. I studied Nazi German social and Political policies in college and for my own interests. Similar patterns of an ideological nature are there.

    Monday, September 8th, 2008 at 15:15
  • Obama Ego alert!

    Monday, September 8th, 2008 at 05:51
  • Example of the Obama Supporters @ RNC this week

    Here’s a report from the AP about some of the other wonderful plans Obama supporters had planned during the Republican National Convention this past week:

    Search warrants and other police documents made public this week claim that anarchists discussed plans to throw Molotov cocktails, sabotage the Xcel Energy Center or the St. Paul Downtown Airport, stretch metal chains across freeways and kidnap delegates.

    (Source)

    <sarcasm>Love those tolerant, peaceful liberals! Keep it up Code Pink and the rest of you “brown-shirt”, street-gang, losers. You’re making the argument against supporting your kind even stronger for most fence-sitters this election. Whoo Hoo, way to go nutbags!</sarcasm>

    Friday, September 5th, 2008 at 16:54
  • Congressional Elections are just as important this November

    This is THE single most important reason to vote in conservatives for Congress this November. If Congress is given a Democrat majority, you can be assured that NOTHING will get done (just like they are now with a Dem majority). The only thing preventing a witch hunt right now is the razor thin majority they hold in the Senate. Reps still have enough numbers in the Senate to hold them off.

    Joe Biden ripped into the Bush administration, promising to go through the administration with “a fine-toothed comb” and pursue criminal charges.

    A fine-toothed comb is the Democrat’s definition of fair and balanced. It’s drumming up any and all “potential” acts they can get a majority to vote on for some crime. It doesn’t matter to them about dragging the name of a president in the mud, after he’s left office. That boat sailed when Jimmy Carter began bad mouthing the current sitting president, a 200 year old honor system that every president until Jimmy boy had observed. So now there is no honor left to the Left in the office of the Presidency. Never mind that Bush, against massive conservative urging, refused to dig further into Bill Clinton’s obvious criminal behavior when he took office. President Bush basically told everyone that he was not going to pursue any charges or investigations into Clinton’s improprieties in order to bring stability and honor back to the White House after 8 years of scandal after scandal.

    So the Left in the press promptly began trying to drum up any scandal they could (real or imagined) from the moment Bush took office. From their tired and still constant harping about a judicially proved falsehood of “stealing the 2000 election from Gore”, to the demonstrable lie about how the Bush administration “told everyone that Saddam Hussein was working with the 9-11 attackers” and “made up all of the evidence himself to go to war”.

    They couldn’t wait to start in on him and try to de-legitimize his presidency. Don’t let anyone try to tell you that this whole thing is about the War in Iraq (another misnomer by the Left to try and de-legitimize the whole War on Terror). This BDS started long before 2003 when we invaded Iraq. It began in November 2000 when Al Gore lost the Electoral Vote to Bush as per the US Constitution. The Supreme Court didn’t steal the election for him. They sent the judgment back to the Florida Courts with the instructions to follow the Law of the Land as passed by the Florida Legislature and certify the vote count as per the LAW. They had no legal decision in the process other than to say, it’s not a federal or Constitutional issue, Florida has to follow their laws just like everyone else. Deal with it!

    So this November remember that this election is not ONLY about who will be President. It also is an election for who will control the power to make laws and regulations which will directly control and impact your daily lives. The President does not make those laws or regulations CONGRESS DOES. Regardless of how stupid the Democrats want to think the voters are in trying to tell you that McCain will take away your rights (Only Congress and the Supreme Court can do that) or will overturn Roe v Wade on abortion (Only Only Congress and the Supreme Court can do that), or raise your taxes (Only Congress and the Supreme Court can do that) or not bring the troops home (before they have completed winning the war in Iraq? – Congress can do that now, by un-funding the war, which they tried to do while soldiers were fighting on the battle field, but they support the troops – just not their mission to win).

    Congress has a much more direct and far-reaching impact on your daily life than anything the President will have. By Constitutional mandate (I know I keep bringing up that pesky Constitution thing a lot!) Congress makes they laws that govern taxes on gas, on medical insurance companies, on health care costs, on energy production, on education reform and a whole host of other daily-life issues that the Democrats want voters to believe that are the sole (if any at all) responsibility of the person in the White House. I seem to have learned that is a lie in a junior high government class (do they even teach the three branches of government anymore in public school?).

    Congress is the more important vote this November for our economy and taxes. The presidency is a vote for our future as a society and for our security. (I really wish more people who are able to vote had actually been taught the roles of the branches of our government so this would not be so easy for the Dems to dupe the voters into such stupid rhetoric about McCain raising taxes or ruining social security or not spending enough on education)

    The Presidency will determine how we protect our national interests and who is placed on the Supreme Court. In an age where judges are often making up laws from the bench or interpreting the Constitution to fit some social agenda, instead of interpreting laws based on what the Constitution says, this is possibly THE single most important role a president has. When the Left sneers at a judge who is described as being a Constitutionalist, you know the Left are not wanting what is best for America, they are “hoping” to “change” the US into something “better”. Better than what the Founding Fathers wrote into the US Constitution? Is the Left telling us that the Constitution is no longer good enough for America? If so, what is the guiding philosophical principles they are wanting to follow as the supreme law of the land?

    Obama and most Democrats have said that they think that some people make too much money and that they should be forced to give some of that money back to the government so that it can be given to “those less fortunate” (as if working hard, earning an education and building wealth is a fortunate coincidence like “winning life’s lottery” and therefore isn’t really legitimate somehow). “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is what the Democrats are telling us. Someone who makes a lot of money doesn’t really own his wealth as a form of personal property, it’s something the government can arbitrarily take away if it deems the amounts to be “too much”. How much IS too much? Who sets the limit? Who’s to say that later that limit is deemed to be too low as well. Where is the idea of being secure in the right to private property in all of this? Tell me which document the Democrats are following in their governmental philosophy – theUS Constitution or Communism?

    This election is truly for the future of this country. Will this country be a Socialist country in which true achievement is punished if you cross some government mandated line of what is “too much”? Or will this country be one of unlimited (by government) opportunity and potential (what the marketplace will allow) to achieve as much as you are willing to work hard for and put in the effort to acquire?

    This is the true things that are at stake in this election, not some arbitrary reference to voting in this race or this gender as a historical focal point. No one talks about the religion or the race or the height or hair color of Abraham Lincoln, FDR or John F Kennedy or Ronald Reagan when they talk about their contributions to history. These are of no real historical value. They only matter to those people in that point in history at that time. The choices made and the political philosophy of freedom and free will are what made those leaders historical figures not petty superficial things.

    Decisions made in government are additive. They either add to the growth and strengthen freedoms for the people being governed, or they take away and weaken those freedoms. Where does the strength of a nation come from, the individual people who strive for greatness, or the government who sets limits and hinders growth and opportunities in the name of making everyone equal. Is it the government’s job to make everyone’s life equal or to give everyone the equal opportunities to achieve whatever an individual is willing to work hard at to achieve?

    Limitations on what you can achieve and forced arbitrary equality in the face of unequally ability breeds apathy and sloth. A country is not made great by a people who are apathetic about going the extra mile to achieve. A country is not made great by people who don’t see the point in working extra hours or studying or training harder to be the best when their extra achievements will be taken away and given to those who did not make the same effort or have the same talents. Even back in the days of the ancient Greeks Aristotle said, “It is unjust to treat unequal things equally.” If you take away the rewards of excellence and effort, you breed resentment and kill the will to excel. You create mediocrity as a world view. This is what happens when the government punishes businesses and people by taxing them more for making more money than their neighbor. Why work harder if it’s only going to be taken away and given to someone who didn’t earn it. Why would a business invest in the future and potentially make more money when doing what they are doing is making them enough money to get by and doesn’t subject them to the government taking more from them? And if that company doesn’t grow and make more money, why would they hire anyone else to work for them? Socialism, that the Democrats are all but quoting these days, denies basic free-market economic principles, and it denies human nature. It promotes utopian ideals that are honorable but unattainable and disastrous and often deadly whenever they have been applied in the last 150 years.

    The Left believe that wealth is not earned, it is distributed. Money and wealth are not privately owned rewards traded for work provided (given value to the work based on the value set by the employer), it is something granted to an individual by the government and therefore is subject to the whims of government’s desires to distribute to whomever IT deems worthy. In an electoral society, where power is marginally given by the voting public, which groups would a government deem worthy? Those who will vote for it. And how can a government entice lowly educated, lazy or economically envious people to vote for them? Promise them someone else’s money in return for their vote.

    This election is about more than Obama & McCain. It’s about the future of this country being run by a Socialist Congress and potential courts (Supreme and other Federal courts) that see no problem with overstepping their Constitutional authority and making laws that did not exist before or referencing foreign laws that usurp and diminish the US Constitution’s authority.

    This election is about more than the next 4 years. Are people going to vote for a party that is promising to stick it to another economic group (wealth envy) and give it to those who didn’t earn it (wealth redistribution). Or are they going to vote for a party that is saying that individuals and companies that create jobs will get to keep their own earned money to spend and invest it as they see fit? The ownership society means you OWN what you earn, not what part of it the government says you own.

    Thursday, September 4th, 2008 at 15:13
  • In less than 60 seconds Newt lays out why Palin is better as #2 than Obama is for #1

    Here are two links (one video, one audio) of Newt Gingrich laying waste to the liberal media’s attempt to make Barack Obama who is going for the Presidency out to have more executive experience than Sarah Palin who is going for the Vice Presidency.

    Video

    Audio

    In less than 60 seconds he spells out the case that this liberal reporter for MSNBC cannot rebut after Newt asks him to give examples of Obama’s qualifications and has to hand it back to the anchor desk.

    I am REALLY jazzed about hearing Gov. Palin speak tonight. I’ve heard her before and know she can give a stem-winder of a speech so I can’t wait for her to hit it out of the ballpark.

    “It’s not always the results of one’s efforts that show a person’s character, but rather how you handle the results.” – unkn

    Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 05:49
TOP