What Obama's tax plan means for you

Today you can also find me guest-posting over at The Pursuit of Happiness ... head over and check out my lovely friend Sonia's blog! And please leave a comment (or two!) so her regular readers don't think I'm a loser ... !

- + - + - + - + - + -

As a small business owner, I've tried to make myself - and many others - very familiar with the details of Obama's proposed tax plan. Given the way it's spun in the MSM, it's become a rather daunting task ... or at least I can see where it could be if you weren't say .... an accountant like me.

The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9% all the way up to a staggering 50.3%.

The Tax Policy Center and the Barack Obama campaign used just a little slight of hand this week. To quote Eric Tolder of the TPC, “Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income.” While this is true, it completely and totally misses the point.

Let’s start with the definition of a “small business.” Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.

The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what’s important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

What’s the alternative? One place to look is the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points. Small businesses haven’t faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the creation of new businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

The McCain small business tax plan doesn’t end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment — which now must be slowly “depreciated” over many years — would be immediately expensed in year one.

Stepping back, voters and policymakers should ask themselves whether they want two-thirds of small business income taxed at a 50 percent tax rate or if they want nearly all small-business income taxed at a 25 percent tax rate. They should ask themselves whether it’s healthier for small businesses to write off a computer over six calendar years or to simply write it off in year one. To America’s small business sector, the answer is obvious.

If you don't own a small business, and think this doesn't affect you -- you're wrong. It's simple economics folks. When business taxes go up, so do their prices. When their prices go up, that gets passed directly on to the retail consumer or on to other businesses that buy services, inventory or supplies from them ... which then gets passed on to the consumer. When businesses can't continue to raise prices and still stay competitive, they start cutting costs -- which generally means labor. This is not a plan for growth.

"But Obama's going to give businesses a tax credit for creating jobs!" That one actually makes me laugh. A tax credit? It's $3000. If you've never hired an employee, that probably sounds like a good idea. But for the rest of us? Not so much. Do you have any idea what it costs a company to hire an employee? It's not just a salary. It's increased payroll taxes, 401(k) matching, health insurance, supplies ... and so much more. To be blunt, $3000 is a slap in the face to a business owner and is no incentive whatsoever.

If you think Obama's economic plan is going to be good for you, think again. If you're a small business owner, you probably already know that. If you're not, chances are you either work for a small business or buy goods or services from one. And you WILL be paying more.

I'll leave you today with one last thought -- our tax system was not designed to be this great fairness machine that so many people today make it out to be. It was not meant to decide who deserves more or less. Our tax system was designed to fund federal maintenance programs. That's it.

Tomorrow: The disguise of the middle-class tax cuts.

How NOT to Help the Poor

The concept of a welfare state or distribution of wealth from a Christian perspective:




Think about it.

An Open Letter to Moderates

ARE RACISM, SAUL ALINSKY AND KARL MARX THE big WINNERS IN THIS ELECTION?

An open letter to moderates

While it is true, as Obama has pointed out in defense of himself, that America has known some degree of social interventionism in its sociopolitical history, Obama´s desire to ¨spread the wealth around¨ has nothing to do with social “fairness.”

Obama’s economic ideology is rooted in Marxism, but his modus operandi comes from Saul Alinsky. Those who espouse Marxist theory but live in democratic societies will likely engage in “social work” as a means of advancing their goals unhindered and with government funding. That is why Obama chose to work as a community organizer, an indoctrination method introduced by radical leftist Saul Alinsky, instead of taking a lucrative corporate job. There is a deeper significance, however, to this job choice in his young adulthood. Obama did not want to wear an “oreo” suit. While Obama is half-white, he chose to reject the white side of his heritage, and embrace his blackness in a manner that fit into his radical paradigm.

Enter Black Liberation Theology.

Obama did not spend twenty years of his life in Jeremiah Wright’s church because his mentor was an inspiring Christian pastor. He did so, because he, too, is racist; not just racist, but
radical racist. Most of America agrees that Wright and Pfleger were not just preaching about racial injustice and inequality. Those sermons were about hatred of white dominance, and
they were about black power. This is very evident in one of Pfleger’s remarks on Hillary Clinton:”

‘This is mine… I’m white’… And then, out of nowhere, came ‘Hey,
I’m Barack Obama.” And she said, ‘Oh damn, where did you come from?
I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show…”

Now let’s review one of Obama’s remarks, in the light of the remarks made by his priest friend and campaign contributor:

So what they are going to do is make you scared of me. You know,
he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he
doesn’t look like those other presidents on the dollar bills.

Although some whites have had the courage – and it does take a lot of guts – to call Obama out on these racist remarks, I have not heard anyone tie them to Black Liberation Theology. Oh, but they most certainly are.

To begin with, it is interesting that at the onset of his presidential campaign Obama sees himself as already seated in the Oval Office, given that he compares himself to other presidents. He states that they would compare him to other presidents, which is a clear reference to whites. After all, why would blacks be scared of a black man? Now, excluding the two-dollar bill, half of
the other bills honor great American heroes who were not presidents. Why then does Obama refers only to presidents. Here’s why: Obama sees himself as The One who will succeed at the historical task of legitimizing the black man’s right to power, of overturning the unwanted white hegemony, or as he collectively labels them, “those other presidents”. That is why he recently boasted with great exhilaration that “We will change America, and we will change the world,” Michelle Obama´s expanded that statement in one of her speeches:

“All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do -
that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”

In all fairness, McCain must have unconsciously picked up Obama’s underlying message, because he also slipped and called Obama, “THAT one.” Those of us who feel the racial divide that Obama has spurred by putting his half-black heritage in the face of whites, either with his own remarks or that of his emissaries, and then turning around and accusing the McCain camp of being racist, are both outraged and deeply saddened by this. What makes his behavior even more egregious is that Barack Obama has never significantly improved the lives of needy blacks either in America or Kenya. This is proof that his racist remarks have very little to do with
compassion for his people, and a lot to do with power for himself.

I have mentioned only two of several slips that help reveal Obama’s complex ideological makeup. When they happen, Obama always insists that his words were taken out of context. The big mistake his good-hearted sympathizers keep making is that they resort only to the immediate context, to judge the veracity of his explanations. Obama cannot be judged in such a limited context. Rather, the words of a man of a radical and often obscure background should be studied within the context of his entire life. Thus the superficial meaning of Obama’s dollar bill remark is that of a black man playing the race card, while the subjacent text is his claim to be The One whose destiny it is to replace “THOSE OTHER PRESIDENTS.”

In like manner, Obama’s intention to “spread the wealth around” is not about “fairness.” It is about radical justice. Obviously, Obama has not used incendiary language. That would have destroyed his run for the presidency. However, as Jesus rightly observed, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Despite the teleprompter, the campaign advisors, and all the frenzied media spin, it is impossible for a presidential candidate in a democracy not to slip and speak from his heart. Just ask that ordinary guy who caught him off guard.

Like many, I hope and pray that it is not too late; that you moderates who are still undecided or open to reconsidering your initial choice will vote for the moderate candidate, who is John
McCain. Otherwise, America WILL certainly change. Obama will not, and the big winners in this election will be racial strife, nationwide community organizing à la Saul Alinsky, and economic
egalitarianism à la Karl Marx.


(courtesy of Choose The Hero)

Boehner Attacks Continued Fraud in Battleground State

Boehner Statement on Ohio Secretary of State Continued Refusal to Comply with Federal Election Law



Oct 22, 2008

Washington -

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued the following statement regarding Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s continued defiance of federal voting laws that require her to provide local election officials with access to resources to verify voter registrations:

“In the wake of widespread allegations of voter fraud and election abuses in Florida during the 2000 presidential campaign, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was signed into law to restore confidence in our electoral system and to establish the minimum standards to oversee a fair election. Secretary Brunner has shown no interest in conducting a fair election, instead refusing to provide HAVA-required access to a statewide database to verify voter registrations despite reports of voter-registration fraud from groups like ACORN and Vote from Home, a Manhattan-based grassroots organization whose employees and activities have come under scrutiny.

“We’re running out of time for Secretary Brunner to fulfill her oath to ensure Ohioans that their votes will be properly counted. In just two days, absentee ballots and ballots cast during Ohio’s ‘early voting’ week will be removed from their envelopes and co-mingled so that votes cannot be matched to a specific person, in keeping with our right to a secret ballot. But Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters has called for an investigation into the ‘early vote’ ballots after discovering that 166 ‘voters’ and 100 addresses were found not to exist.

“Verifying that persons wanting to vote are eligible to do so and cross-checking their residential status is not suppressing the vote. Instead, it’s suppressing illegal votes that cause irreparable harm to the integrity of our elections. Prosecutor Deters has asked that questionable ballots remain separate until the eligibility of the voters can be verified. Secretary Brunner has so far refused to provide any assurances that she can run a fair election, and removing identifying information from questionable ballots and mixing them with valid absentee and ‘early vote’ ballots increases the likelihood that fraudulent ballots will be counted among valid ones. Secretary Brunner must immediately provide access to statewide resources and order county elections officials to keep separate questionable absentee and ‘early vote’ ballots until the voter registration can be verified. Otherwise, she will devalue the votes of every eligible Ohioan who expects his and her vote to be properly counted.”

NOTE: A Rasmussen poll released last week showed that just 53 percent of Ohio voters believe their votes will be counted properly. Forty-five percent of those polled believe that people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote will do so and 28 percent said that it’s more likely that eligible voters will be denied a chance to cast a ballot. The poll also showed that 80 percent of Ohio voters believe that a driver’s license or other photo ID should be required before voting.

READ MORE: Boehner Signs Letter to A.G. Mukasey Asking the Justice Department Compel OH Secretary of State to Comply with Federal Law

Now THIS is an attractive black man. Word!

- + - + - + -

There's a special place in heaven reserved for John Boehner

From the website of House Republican Leader, John Boehner:


Boehner Signs Letter to A.G. Mukasey Asking the Justice Department Compel OH Secretary of State to Comply with Federal Law



Oct 21, 2008

Washington -

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) has signed onto a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey requesting the U.S. Department of Justice use its authority to compel Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to comply with the Help America Vote Act. The U.S. Supreme Court last week vacated a lower court ruling that ordered Brunner to provide Ohio county election officials with statewide resources to verify new voter registrations. The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on “the lack of standing of a private party to enforce HAVA’s requirements” and not on whether Brunner was acting in accordance with HAVA.

“As the eyes of the nation once again turn to Ohio in this critical election, partisan politics are making a mockery of our electoral system. Secretary of State Brunner has wasted countless tax dollars and the precious little time we have before the election to fight against protecting the rights of eligible Ohio voters to cast their ballots without questioning whether their votes will count. It is imperative that every Ohioan who is eligible to vote have confidence in our system and the best way to assure voters that this election is fair is to cross-check newly registered voters maintained in the Secretary of State’s database. Secretary Brunner’s shameful partisan actions are a black eye on the Buckeye State.”

Click here to read the letter


NOTE: A Rasmussen poll released last week showed that just 53 percent of Ohio voters believe their votes will be counted properly. Forty-five percent of those polled believe that people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote will do so and 28 percent said that it’s more likely that eligible voters will be denied a chance to cast a ballot. The poll also showed that 80 percent of Ohio voters believe that a driver’s license or other photo ID should be required before voting.


The Oct. 20, 2008 letter was signed by the following Ohio lawmakers: Reps. John Boehner (R-West Chester), Steve Chabot (R-Westwood), Jim Jordan (R-Urbana), David Hobson (R-Springfield), Jean Schmidt (R-Miami Township), Robert Latta (R-Bowling Green), Ralph Regula (R-Navarre), Patrick Tiberi (R-Genoa Township) and Deborah Pryce (R- Upper Arlington).

Inalienable Human Right

This video from Gloria.tv is designed especially for undecided Christian voters.

It is suitable for all ages and there are no graphic images. The goal here is to give American citizens a solid grasp of where Senators McCain and Obama really stand on the life issue, using their own words. Millions of young lives depend on our election-day decisions. Over 35 years of hard won pro-life battles could be reversed if voters remain uninformed — especially Christian voters who alone could reclaim the rights of the unborn on November 4th.

It's not above your pay grade-- Please help get the word out.




For more detailed information, see the original post at Gateway Pundit.

I've tried to remain strictly factual - with maybe a little snarkiness thrown in for good measure - since starting these political posts. But this? Abortion and infanticide stir something in me that is almost beyond words and I honestly don't have it in me to not make it personal.

To be fair, I can see where liberals come from on SOME aspects of abortion. I don't agree with them, but I can somewhat understand. There was a point in my life where I might have jumped on the "it's my right to choose what goes on with my body" bandwagon. Probably in college. Of course, at that same time, I couldn't have cared less about any election - so y'all are probably better off as a result. After I came to know God on a more personal level, that bandwagon was most definitely out the window.

I can understand why some people would want to have abortion available as an option in the cases of rape and incest. For me personally .... it would still not be an option.

I can understand why some people would not want the government telling them one way or the other what they can or can't do with their bodies. For me personally ... it's not the government, it's the Bible. (And yes, I know ... this leads into the whole separation of church and state, etc. - which is a debate for another time.)

I have some very good friends who had abortions in their youth and I don't love them any less for it nor do I judge their decisions. What I don't understand is MOTHERS that support the right to choose. How on earth can a mother look at her children and still support that? There is a local Christian radio station that is currently running an ad from an area church about abortion. I don't have the audio, but here's the nuts and bolts of it:

You say you support a woman's right to choose because you don't want to force your beliefs on anyone else. What do you say when your daughter comes home and tells you she just aborted your grandchild and thanks you for not forcing your beliefs on her?

And infanticide? How can you call that anything but cruelty and murder? My God. There have been news stories covering this that I have not been able to finish reading because they made me sick to my stomach. The video above moved me to tears.

So my call today is to the other mothers that may read this post who think it's above their pay grade to make the decision about when life begins. Look at your children. Even if you still support abortion, how in God's name can you support something as vile and inhumane as infanticide? And how can you support a candidate who blatantly refuses to put an end to it?

Feminists For .... Palin?

From GretaWire:

At a rally in front of thousands of cheering supporters, Palin spent most of her speech talking about women. She started by mentioning some female endorsements:

Prameela Bartholomeusz a small businessowner and a member of the Democratic
National Platform Committee…

Linda Klinge the former Oregon president and now Vice-President of the National Organization of Women…

Shelly Mandell President of the LosAngeles chapter of the National Organization of Women

Lynn Rothschild member of the Democratic Platform Committee

Elaine Lafferty a former editor in chief of Ms.magazine

Maybe just a little more proof that a lot of those 18 million cracks will put their proverbial money where their mouth is. Just sayin'.

Better read it now before it "disappears"

One has to wonder how much this might come back to bite Dear Leader in the arse. Any of this sound familiar to anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


Clinton campaign alleges “voter suppression, intimidation and harassment systematically engaged in by the Obama campaign.”

It’s not just about ACORN any more.

When Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama–possibly under duress from Obama’s cohorts and party leaders–she was probably supposed to have removed from the Internet all damning statements that she and her campaign had made about Barack Obama.

Unfortunately for Barry, a letter from her campaign counsel, which is still online here, may become the dreaded October Surprise. (A backup copy is now also here). This extremely damning letter not only reinforces what is being said about ACORN, but extends allegations of election irregularities to Barack Obama’s own campaign.

The text of the letter is as follows:

RYAN, PHILLIPS, UTRECHT 5. MACKINNON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
’ Nonlawyer Partner
1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 293-1177 Facsimile (202) 293-3411

January 23, 2008
Jill Derby, Chair
Nevada State Democratic Party
1210 South Valley View Road Suite 114
Las Vegas, NV 89102

Dear Chair Derby:

I write on behalf of Hillary Clinton for President (”the Committee”) in regard to the January 19, 2008 Nevada Democ-ratic Caucus. The Committee is aware of a letter addressed to you today from the Obama for America campaign requesting an inquiry into the conduct of the caucuses. The Committee shares the Obama campaign’s concern that full participation in the democratic process may have been compromised by the substantial number of irregularities occurring at the caucuses, and we fully support a complete inquiry by the Nevada State Democratic Party (the ”Party”) into all caucus improprieties.

This letter is not intended as a response to the Obama campaign’s letter. However, in the interest of a complete record, and in contrast to the alleged minor procedural problems noted by the Obama campaign, the Committee wishes to bring to your attention information we have received evidencing a premeditated and predesigned plan by the Obama campaign to engage in systematic corruption of the Party’s caucus procedures. Compounding this blatant distortion of the caucus rules was an egregious effort by the Obama campaign to manipulate the voter registration process in its own favor, thereby disenfranchising countless voters. Finally, the Committee has received a vast number of reliable reports of voter suppression and intimidation by the Obama campaign or its allies.

The Committee had 30 phone lines on Saturday to receive calls in its Las Vegas offices. These lines rang continuously from early morning until well after the caucuses concluded with reports from people who were victimized and who observed irregularities. The phone lines were so over-whelmed that many callers resorted to calling individual Committee staff cell phones to report that they could not get through. The Committee also received many similar calls at its national headquarters.

The Committee is confident that any investigation into the conduct of the caucuses will be thorough, fair and in the interest of insuring that future Party caucuses will be as open and democratic as possible.

Systematic Corruption of the Party’s Caucus Procedures
The Committee received substantially similar reports of improprieties of such a number as to leave no conclusion but that the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters engaged in a planned effort to subvert the Party’s caucus procedures to its advantage. For example:

þ Preference cards were premarked for Obama.

þ Clinton supporters were denied preference cards on the basis that none were left, while Obama supporters at the same caucus sites were given preference cards.

þ Caucus chairs obviously supporting Obama:
o Deliberately miscounted votes to favor Senator Obama.
o Deliberately counted unregistered persons as Obama votes.
o Deliberately counted young children as Obama votes.
o Refused to accept preference cards from Clinton supporters who were at the caucus site by noon on the ground that the cards were not filled out fast enough.
o Told Clinton supporters to leave prior to electing delegates.

þ Clinton supporters who arrived late were turned away from the caucus, while late Obama supporters were admitted to the caucus.

Manipulation of the Voter Registration Process
Numerous reports received by the Committee demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and its supporters to prevent eligible voters supporting a candidate other than Senator Obama from caucusing. The Obama supporters complained of were acting in positions of authority at the caucus sites. Some of these reports are as follows:

þ Obama supporters wrongly informed Clinton supporters that they were not allowed to participate in the caucus if their names were not on the voter rolls. However, Obama supporters whose names did not appear on the voter rolls were permitted to register at the caucus site.

þ Obama supporters falsely informed Clinton supporters that no registration forms were available for them to register to vote at the caucus site.

þ Obama supporters wrongly told Clinton supporters who were attempting to caucus at the wrong precinct that they could not caucus at that site, while simultaneously permitting Obama supporters at the wrong precinct to participate.

þ Obama supporters were allowed to move to the front of the registration and sign-in line.

Voter Suppression and Intimidation
The Committee received a substantial number of disturbing reports from voters that they had been subject to harassment, intimidation or efforts to prevent them from voting. Some of the most egregious of these complaints are described below:

þ Voters at at-large caucus sites were informed that those sites were for Obama supporters only.

þ Clinton supporters at at-large caucus sites were told that their managers would be watching them while they caucused.

þ Workers were informed that their supervisors kept lists of Clinton and Obama supporters, and were told that they could not caucus unless their name was on the list of Obama supporters.

þ Many Clinton supporters were threatened with employment termination or other discipline if they caucused for Senator Clinton.

þ Workers were required to sign a pledge card to support Obama if they wanted time off to participate in the caucus.
þ Workers at one casino were offered a lavish lunch and permitted to attend and register to vote only if they agree to support Obama.

The complaints summarized above represent only a small sample of the complaints received by the Committee. With respect to each of these complaints and many more, the Committee has the names and phone numbers of those reporting these incidents and the specific precinct numbers where the incidents occurred. Upon request the Committee will share these with the Party with appropriate safeguards to protect these individuals from reprisal. On the whole, these reports show a troubling effort by the Obama campaign and its allies and supporters to advance their own campaign at the expense of the right of all Nevada Democrats to participate in the democratic process in a free, fair and open manner.

Senator Clinton and the Committee are wholly committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has his or her vote cast and counted. There is no place in the American electoral process for the types of voter suppression, intimidation and harassment systematically engaged in by the Obama campaign, its allies and supporters.

Sincerely,
/v
Lyn Utrecht Counsel Hillary Clinton for President


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blog Burst: We The People

An Enigma Named Barack

We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.



Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.



Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):

William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieved national attention.



Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years.



Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.



Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.



Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.



Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.



Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)



Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.



Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.



Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.



Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground
leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.



Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”




Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bit misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”

Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.

The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:

The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.



Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).

Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this 1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).



Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.

From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.



Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”



Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.



Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.



John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.



Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.



Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.



Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.



We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.



We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.

CURRENT LINKS:



Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

(courtesy of L.A. Sunset)

Biden is right

Over the weekend, Joe Biden opened his gaffe-trap again and once more injected race into this election. He projected that Obama would start to slip in the polls because voters are still "having a difficult time" electing a black president.

While I laugh off just about anything Biden says these days, he is right about one thing - this election is all about race. Just not the way he and Obama would like you to think. Methinks Joe didn't get the memo:





And then there's this. Assuming this is actually true, and these poor folks just don't up and "disappear" before they pony up some proof ... Mrs. Chosen One might need to stop measuring for drapes.

Setting the record straight on Governor Palin's foreign policy experience

Question: What is America 's first line of missile interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?

Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.

Question: What is the ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty?

Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard

Question: Who is the Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor is routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor has a higher classified security rating than either candidate of the Democrat Party?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out.

This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

More of those pesky connections

From Gateway Pundit:


Obama & Ayers Shared Chicago Office For Years On the Same Floor... And Maoist Hardliner Mike Klonsky Worked There Too


More Hope and Change...
BARACK OBAMA LIED ABOUT HIS ASSOCIATION WITH BILL AYERS


Barak Obama told George Stephanopoulos during the ABC democratic primary debate in April that "Bill Ayers" was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood":






Barack Obama told Stephanopoulos:

"George this is of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from... The notion that somehow that by me knowing someone who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old somehow reflects on my values doesn't make much sense George."

Verum Serum discovered that not only were Barack Obama and Bill Ayers close associates but they shared the same office together.


Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop, the one Obama directed over $1 million to, is located at 115 S. Sangamon Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607.
This is from the 2000 website:





This is the same address as the Annenberg Challenge according to a 1998 tax form:






Obama and Ayers were serving on the same board in 2002- less than six years ago.
And they shared an office - for 3 years on the same floor.
But Obama says he's just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
No Senator, he's not.



More... Joshua discovered who else was working in the office with Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers... The radical 1960's Maoist Mike Klonsky.




Verum Serum even found an old letterhead with Klonsky's name on it.
Obama shared office space with Ayers AND Klonsky:

And gee... wouldn't ya know, idiot Mike Klonsky is listed as Co-Director with Bill Ayers at the same address as Obama. Now, not only do we have Obama linked to terrorist Ayers, but to another radical nutjob Klonsky.

Who is Mike Klonsky?

For that we don't just look up wiki. We look to a more informed site on connectivity and info...

From DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

"WorldNetDaily reported further that "while Obama chaired the board of the CAC,"

"... more than $600,000 was granted to an organization founded by Ayers and run by Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist."

Gee, there's that ugly "C" word that no one in the Media will mention - Communist.
"Klonsky was leader of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party, which was effectively recognized by China as the all-but-official U.S. Maoist party."

Obama funded this idiot- Obama.

Great. Our next president may not just be the most liberal politician to ever serve but his only major achievement will be his years working in an office with a domestic terrorist and a radical Maoist on failed educational projects.
Good God.

Here's a couple of previous posts on Mike Klonsky:
Maoist Hardliner And Former Weatherman Pal Blogs For Obama
Obama Throws Maoist Hardliner and Weatherman Pal Under the Bus

* * * * *
UPDATE: Zombie discovered that Obama also reviewed one of Ayers' books:







But, Obama says he's just "a guy who lives in the neighborhood."

More- Ayers mentions Obama in his book.

The post where I admit I was wrong

A friend of mine forwarded me this link, and I have to say this - normally I think these kinds of things are full of ... well ... crap. I will admit I rolled my eyes while clicking through, totally imagining the joke of a survey I was assuming I'd be partaking in. "Why do people send me this stuff?" (sigh).

I was wrong.

There.

That's probably the first and last time you'll ever read those words on this blog.

Now seriously, I challenge ... no, I DARE you to go take the election quiz from ABC News (shudder - can't believe I'm crediting anything worthwhile to them). I fully believe that so many people, Democrat and Republican alike, will swear up and down in public that they are voting on the issues, yet privately have no idea where either candidate really falls on the majority of them.

So let's see, ok? Go take the quiz and see if you really know what you'll be voting for. Come back and comment and let me know how you faired. You don't have to post your results, unless you want to. Just tell me if your votes on the issues match the candidate you think you want. If not, does that make you reconsider your position? If not, why?

Since it's glaringly clear which candidate I'm supporting in this election, I'll share this with you - on parts of 2 issues, I actually agreed with Obama.

Maybe I was just confused - or tired. I'll go take it again. I do live in Ohio, after all. We need to vote multiple times here to get it right....

Oh, you thought I was going to say I was wrong about Obama? (wink, wink)

C'mon, I want some responses here.

Maybe they're telepathic.

The liberal media does it again.

The allegations that someone yelled "kill him" from the crowd at the Scranton Palin event this week were bogus.

No one "heard" anything... Except for the liberal reporter from the Scranton Times-Tribune.

The Times Leader reported:

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story. Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment. “I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton. Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

See? I always knew the liberal media was nuts. Now they're even hearing voices.

(Credit to Gateway Pundit for the article)

"Do you have your papers?"

So.

Our government is currently "investing" in our banks and lining up to own our money. Under an Obama presidency, the government will run our health care and surely we'll have our drones children singing the praises to our dear leader at the start of every Ayers-run school day, where they no doubt salute his picture in lieu of an American flag.

And Obama is wasting no time letting the media know who's in charge. His campaign released their talking points to the media 12 hours before the debate tonight.

That way the media would have plenty of time to study them. Heaven forbid any of them think for themselves.

From Drudge Report:

OBAMA CAMPAIGN ISSUES TALKING POINTS TO MEDIA AHEAD OF DEBATE
Wed Oct
15 2008 11:13:03 ET

The Obama campaign issued a set of debate 'talking
points' to media on Wednesday morning, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Press Secretary Sean Smith issued the directive in an email from
Pennsylvania, 12 hours before the debate.

The memo oddly mirrors much of the main press analysis and theme of the
current campaign:

Read more at Drudge.

Why just stop at stealing votes?

A North Kansas City couple has been left scratching their heads after they became the victims of a political scam, says MyFox Kansas City today.

Steve and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their statement this month -- a $2300 donation to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. The Larman's say they don't want this to be about their political affiliation, but they say they're not about to give the Obama campaign any help from their pocketbook.

They said they notified Chase, their credit card bank, to report the fraud."(They) said that they had seen-they were familiar with this," said Steve Larman. "It was fraud, they believe through telemarketing but they were going to be doing some more investigations."

The Larman's don't want their politics to enter into what is essentially just a fraudulent charge. But they say that the charge involves the Obama campaign adds insult to injury for the registered Republicans.

"They (Chase) kept on asking me 'are you sure you wouldnt have gone to a site in support of Obama'," said Rachel Larman. "And I repeatedly said 'Im voting for McCain - I would not be going to an Obama site'.

"Chase dropped the charge from the Larman's card. The couple is thankful thay they caught the charge on the card, but worried that others may not see that type of fraud on their own credit cards before it's too late.

"You always get emails saying be on the lookout," said Rachel. "So I just wanted to get the word out, that there's someone out there perpetrating this against people, and to pay attention.

"The Obama campaign said they were aware of the Larman's story, but did not have any comment.

This story could be chalked up as a fluke, I suppose, but on Rush Limbaugh's show earlier today, a caller reported that her best friend had THREE charges totalling $2300 erroneously charged to her accounts. And get this - when she called the Obama campaign office, they tried to talk her into KEEPING THE CHARGES, even though she adamantly insisted on their removal.

Interesting stuff. Maybe that's how Obama can afford all those billboard and video game ads.

Blog Burst Tuesday: Obama/Biden Economic Plan a Fraud

OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD

The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week I want to address that issue; and do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?

I don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.

With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what I found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a
manner that benefits the middle class.

In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, our fathers earned $60 a month; when they retired in 1972, they earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”

Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.

He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.

Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.

Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.

To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?

To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.

(click chart for larger image)

Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.

None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.

Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH;

The REAL October Surprise

Do you know ACORN's attorney? I bet you do ...

Fannie Mae vs. Enron

It sure seems as though congress (Republican and Democrat alike) attacked Enron, but NOTHING against the politically connected Fannie Mae. Here's a slide show, care of Marc Ambinder, that the McCain campaign is passing around:






These points need to get out there and stick. Let's make sure of it.

Let's be clear: The Truth About Health Care Reform

- + - + - + - + - + - + -

If you watched the debate last night, or have had the TV on at all the past couple of weeks, you have, like the rest of us, probably heard some bald-faced lies misleading statements from Senator Obama about McCain's health care proposals, claiming that they would lead to millions losing health care coverage, raise taxes and hand over cash to insurance companies.

These claims have failed every fact-check – from CBS to the Washington Post. So "let's be clear:" John McCain is NOT going to raise taxes on middle class families....

Transforming The Tax Code To Create Greater Equity

The McCain plan transforms the current tax code to provide all American families – including the self-employed and the uninsured – the same tax benefit, a $5,000 refundable tax credit ($2,500 for individuals) that was previously only available to those with employer coverage. Families can use this credit to purchase insurance of their choice, including keeping their current coverage. This is an approach supported by Barack Obama's own Senior Economic Advisor Jason Furman who wrote that "we could scrap the current deduction altogether and replace it with progressive tax credits that, together with other changes, would ensure that every American has affordable health insurance."

· Better Than "Members of Congress": Under the McCain Plan, your employer can provide you with health insurance as good as a "Member of Congress", and you would pay no more in taxes – regardless of your tax bracket. In fact, you would have some additional money left over from the McCain tax credit to put in a health savings account.

· On The Issue Of the Congressional Plan – There Are Options, But All Are Under The FEHB Program: A good example is the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, which has combined monthly premiums for family coverage of $1027.95, for an annual cost of $12,335.40.


· Where Is The Middle-Class "Tax Increase"? If you or your family is in the 28% bracket, with an income of $180,000, you could receive employer-provided health insurance even better than a Member of Congress, with a cost of almost $18,000, with no increase in taxes. Even the liberal leaning Tax Policy Center, agrees that the McCain proposals will result in a "net tax benefit" of more than $1,200 for an average tax payer.


· Helping Those Without Employer Coverage: If you are a middle-class American today without employer provided health care, the McCain plan would give you a tax credit of $2,500 as an individual, or $5,000 for a family, to help you buy your own health insurance coverage, including across state lines. American families - not government bureaucrats or insurance companies – will choose the coverage that best meets their needs. Today, the government does nothing to help you. Why does Barack Obama oppose this?


· McCain Health Plan Puts Families in Charge: In another desperate attack, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have said that McCain health care tax credits to help families buy coverage "will go straight to the insurance company." Here is what they fail to mention – the credit goes to the insurance company that the American family chooses to get coverage from, anywhere in the nation. The power of choice lies with the family – not government bureaucrats or insurance companies. Ridiculing this line of strange attack, The Associated Press stated, "Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer." Furthermore, any additional money left over after purchasing coverage will be controlled by the family in a portable health savings account.

· McCain Health Care Plan Protects Our Vulnerable Population: John McCain believes that no American should be denied access to quality and affordable coverage simply because of a pre-existing condition. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow – a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP – that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.


· McCain Health Care Plan Gives American Families More Choices: John McCain believes that American families should be given more choices by allowing them to purchase policies across state lines. In a move derided by fact checking organizations including Fact Check, the Obama campaign used this as an opportunity to falsely accuse John McCain of deregulating health care markets akin to Wall Street. A recent study showed that simply allowing Americans to purchase across state lines would reduce the number of uninsured by almost 12 million.

· McCain Health Care Plan Preserves Employer Coverage: The McCain health plan builds on the employer-based system. Employers will have the same incentive to provide health insurance as they do today since they will continue to deduct the cost of health insurance they provide to employees. Nothing will change. In addition, payroll taxes will be protected from taxes under the McCain plan. Millions of American families with employer sponsored coverage in all tax brackets with the same coverage as a "Members of Congress" will now come out ahead with additional funds going into a portable health savings account. Importantly, younger and healthier employees with the McCain health care tax credit will have a bigger incentive to stay with the employers.

For example, a 25-year-old employee in the 25 percent tax bracket with a $2,500 tax credit could either purchase a policy in the individual market for the same amount or stay with his employer plan and receive a $5,000 policy with an additional $1,250 to invest in a portable health
savings account. Why would people choose worse insurance and less money?

Finally, the McCain plan, through comprehensive cost-containment policies, addresses the single biggest threat to employer coverage – rising costs.

And now the truth about Senator Obama's health plan ....

· Barack Obama's Plan Continues The Push Toward Government-Run Healthcare: The Obama plan will create a brand new government-run health plan at the cost of $243 billion a year – a financial burden of more than $3,000 a year on American families.


· Barack Obama's Plan Will Harm Employer Coverage: The Obama plan includes a $179 billion a year employer mandate. The mandate requires employers to either provide "meaningful" coverage or pay a tax towards the government plan.
Faced with tough economic conditions and rising health costs this creates a clear incentive for employers to drop coverage and move families into the new government plan. A Lewin Group study which examined a similar employer mandate combined with a national plan, like the Obama plan, concluded that almost 52 million individuals would lose their private employer coverage. To maintain their competitive edge, others employers will follow - spelling the demise of the employer coverage system.

· Barack Obama's Plan Will Damage Private Coverage: The government-run plan will have a clear advantage over private insurance since it will be subsidized by American taxpayers. A recent analysis of both plans by the nonpartisan CATO Institute concluded that the Obama government-run plan will be able to "keep its premiums artificially low…since it can turn to the U.S. Treasury to cover any shortfalls" resulting in "undercutting the private market." According to the Wall Street Journal, the goal of the Obama plan "…like HillaryCare in the 1990s, is to displace current private coverage and switch people to the default government option."


Just the kind of change you were looking for ... right?

NBC's Magic Trick

And here I was all impressed that NBC's writers had it in them to do a political, funny, not-entirely-conservative-bashing skit and .... POOF! It disappears.

Now you see it, now you don't.

But lucky for you, I have it here:

Blog Burst: Seriously NObama08

We cannot oppose Barack Obama without also opposing the party he represents, along with Republicans who enable socialist engineering. Barack Obama is not the only socialist who seeks elective office in November.

Why do we oppose Barack Obama? As comedian Jackie Mason recently reminded us, Barack Obama is popular because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the way he presents himself – but remember that’s his field of expertise. His primary accomplishments include looking good, lying with a straight face, and associating himself with powerful radical activists. When you think about it, he is exactly who un-American liberals want living in the White House. Last week, we argued that Barack Obama is an empty suit. This week, we should admit the suit isn’t completely empty … there are dangerous, anti-American forces at work within the Obama election infrastructure.

It is difficult to fathom the arrogance of someone who, after only 143 days in the U. S. Senate, announces he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency. And what is it exactly that causes this egotism? It may be that Barack Obama has cleverly orchestrated a sophisticated behind-the-scenes mechanism designed to create conditions favorable to his election. It is a cooperative of followers of (anarchist) Saul Alinsky, busily implementing the so-called “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.” According to The Nation magazine (1966), “The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

American Thinker illustrates the workings of this scheme in the following graph; one that demonstrates a well-funded program centered around George Soros’ Open Society Institute, managed by former SDS member Aryeh Neler, and facilitated by the now infamous Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) (Note: Associations … plural). With 28 days to the National Elections, we do seem suddenly plagued with one financial catastrophe after another. Government bureaucracy is definitely overloaded, and society is being pushed into a sense of crisis. Fact, or fiction … the reader can decide for him or her self. But if it is only partially true, the implications present us with unsettling possibilities.



We are used to political organizations, such as the Democratic and Republican Party; but no one outside the radical left can be comfortable with an organization such as this. And if Barack Obama’s ego causes him to believe that he is brighter than most, and that he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency … he could be correct – no one so far has been smart enough to figure out what is happening behind the scenes. Few mainstream journalists have seriously evaluated Obama’s connection to the anti-American, radical left; not the so-called conservative press, not the Republican Party, and none of the self-styled America-first organizations.

Barack Obama is dangerous for other reasons, too. On the one hand, it is possible to dismiss the junior senator as one of those people with advance degrees, lacking common sense. We can say that he is able to quote Marxist and anarchist rhetoric, but lacks a concomitant real world understanding of the implications of such radical ideas. But there is yet another possibility: Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He knows precisely where he wants to take this country. And no one who understands this man’s motivations can feel comfortable with that perspective.

Barack Obama’s radicalism, thinly disguised by his subtle move to the political center-left, clearly repudiates everything America stands for. Conservative Americans may find themselves baffled by a man who professes love for the United States, but who then seeks to institute radical Marxist changes in government, in our courts, and within society … but not if we are watching and listening carefully to the Obama rhetoric. If we have not already dismissed common sense concern for his radicalism, if we have not already accepted Obama’s mild protestations of innocence, then we can recall the words of Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit (“g-damn America”) and we can say, “There is the real Barack Obama.” If we can focus on the obvious, we can draw a direct line between Jeremiah Wright’s church and the Black Racist ideology of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan – both of whom engage in the radicalization of the black community, then we know the real man behind the deceptively “empty suit.” The underlying, important question is, “Are Americans Paying Attention?”

By pursuing his radical, anti-American agenda, Barack Obama repudiates everything America stands for … and his rejection of our traditional values extends well beyond the sophomoric debate between capitalists and socialists, even if not altogether irrelevant. The United States is a great nation today because of our traditional values. Our forefathers rejected big government, and they were able to raise their families without having to rely on the mistaken notion that “Only a village can raise a child.” They avoided personal indebtedness, preferring to live within their means, and they denounced the idea that government is entitled to their hard-earned income. In the past, we celebrated entrepreneurial spirit; today we demean it. Today, encouraged by the poison of materialism and socialist entitlement programs, America is a nation of debtors; ever the opportunist, Barack Obama and his radical left organization is taking full advantage of our social and individual indolence.

Let us not forget that government largess feeds upon itself. Marxists use government to redistribute wealth; it is the great equalizer ensuring everyone is equally miserable. Obama is using Alinsky’s “community activism” to achieve that power, and socialist ideology to maintain it. We stand in opposition to Barack Obama and his machine politics because we reject Marxist/socialist government. It strips people of their individualism, their dignity, and their will to resist subjugation, but this is the goal of an Obama administration, gift wrapped with empty promises. In our view, Barack Obama is willing to do anything to achieve his objectives, legal or not. We categorically reject him as a new-age messiah, and we stand united against his anti-American programs and policies.

Our question to Obama supporters remains unanswered: “How is it possible to love America, and support Barack Obama?” The horror of radical left/Marxist ideology is Obama’s consistent and unfettered promise for America. It is why we oppose him. It is why we urge our readers to vote NO to Obama and NO to socialists in Congress.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH;

WWBD?

(aka What Would Barney Do?)
(and I'm not talking the scary purple dinosaur)

So let me get this straight (hah! Pun most definitely intended.): Barney Frank gets screwed by a Fannie Mae executive - quite literally - AAAAAND after enjoying it so much, Frank then decided to share that loveley experience with the rest of the country. Only ... we didn't like it so much. Collectively, we don't swing that way. Now, of course, we have the mortgage crisis. This is all related to Frank turning the other way while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did their deed on the nation.

Today, hoping to distract the media from the orgy of homownership problems caused by Frankie, Fannie, and Freddie, Barney has thrown down the race card . . . er . . . is that "wace" card, being that it's Barney talking?

The Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act. You mean the same Community Reinvestment Act started under Jimmy-I'veLostMyMind-Carter and expanded under Bill-ItDependsOnWhatYourDefinitionOfTheWordIsIs-Clinton and shoved down the throats of local banks by this little community organization called ACORN and objected to time and time again by republicans like, oh I don't know ... John McCain? Yep, that's the one.

He said that blame is misplaced, because those loans are issued by regulated institutions, while far more foreclosures were triggered by high-cost loans made by unregulated entities.

Awww poor wittle, er I mean little Barney Frank. You let your gay lover get away with a heaping pile of fiscal wrecklessness at Fannie Mae, blocked the Republicans from investigating and curtailing the actions, and now we're having to clean up the mess.

You can't play the race card on this one, Barney. This is all you.

Problematic Pelosi

The Washington Times is reporting today that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband's real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the "culture of corruption" when Republicans did it.

Apparently the California Democrat's husband, Paul F. Pelosi, owns Financial Leasing Services Inc., which has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history.

Last year, Pelosi supported a bill that would have banned members of Congress from putting spouses on their campaign staffs. The bill banned not only direct payments by congressional campaign committees and PACs to spouses for services including consulting and furndraising, but also "indirect compensation," such as payments to companies that employ spouses.
The bill passed the House in a voice vote but died in a Senate committee.

Last week, Pelosi's office defended the payments, saying they were legal because she is compensating her husband at fair market value for the work his firm has performed for the PAC.

Ethical watchdogs called Pelosi's arrangement "problematic."

Hmmm. Ya think?

You can read the rest of the story here.