From the Office of Redundancy: It has to be said AGAIN! October 28, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Advance Voting, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mark Warner, Ronald Reagan
add a comment
Even some liberals recognize that Obama gets a pass on the economy:
“These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was… the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was… the Republican Party. Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame? Now let’s follow the money… right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing. If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was. But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an ‘adviser’ to the Obama campaign—because that campaign had sought his advice—you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.” —Orson Scott Card, Liberal columnist
Re-writing the book on racism…
“We need to rewrite those old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons, because now virtually any adjective, noun, verb or adverb aimed at Barack Obama that is not obsequiously sycophantic or wantonly worshipful runs the risk of being decried as racist. Community organizer? Racist! Mentioning his middle name? Racist! Arrogant? Racist! Palling around with a (white) terrorist? Racist! Celebrity? Racist! Cosmopolitan? Racist! This? Racist! That? Racist! The other thing? Oh man, that’s really racist. The new Schoolhouse Rock cartoon: ‘Conjunction: a word that connects a racist attack and Barack Obama’.” —Jonah Goldberg
Say what?!?
In 1994, Mark Warner (former governor of VA, D-VA) described the Republican Party thus: ”It is made up of the Christian Coalition… It is made up of the right-to-lifers… It’s made up of the NRA… It is made up of the home schoolers… It’s made up of a whole coalition of people that have all sorts of differing views that I think most of us in this room would find threatening to what it means to be an American.“
Wow! That’s from a “moderate” or “centrist” Democrat! Now, for some common sense talk:
“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business. Begin with the food and fiber raised in the farm, to the ore drilled in a mine, to the oil and gas from out of the ground, whatever it may be—through the processing, through the manufacturing, on out to the retailer’s license. If the tax cannot be included in the price of the product, no one along that line can stay in business.” —Ronald Reagan
“God’s view of government dictates that it carries out a specified and limited role in human affairs. The church and civil government are made necessary by the same thing (sin), but do not have identical responsibilities (Matthew 22:15-21). The humanist view of the role of government is to perfect mankind. The Scriptural view of the role of government is to protect mankind. Throughout Scripture, God is clear that civil government is charged with a limited responsibility and that good leaders decide to take a Scriptural view of government’s role. We also see in Scripture that God has a welfare plan—people are to look to the family, then the church, then the community (1 Timothy 5:3-16, Leviticus 19:9, 10, 23:22). The humanistic plan is publicly funded, coercive, and creates cycles of dependency. God’s plan is community-oriented, voluntary, and empowers people.”—Nathan Tabor
The good news: This election has brought out the electorate in unprecedented numbers. How can that be said when the election hasn’t been held? 3,4, even 8-hour waits for advance or absentee voting. My first presidential election vote was cast in 1972. This is the first election I’ve seen this kind of interest. The kind of interest that says “I have to vote when I can since it’s too important to sit on the sidelines.” This should be a lesson to conservatives who are uneasy with McCain-Palin. You will be much more uneasy with a President Obama and Vice-President Biden. Get over yourselves and get out and vote on November 4, if not before!
Libertarian Party not the answer, but… October 26, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Libertarians
add a comment
As I understand it, Libertarians in America favor minimally regulated or laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries. While I would agree with the first two planks of the platform, I substantially disagee with the latter two planks. This does not allow me to support the party or its candidates. But…if they grow stronger, they will be useful in keeping the two major parties in check unlike the special interest-based parties, like the Green Party.
From a Republican point of view, minimal regulation of markets is not only the best path, it is the only one. George Bush will not go down in history as the worst president in the 21st Century in part because he allowed the Democrat-inspired mortgage debacle to run its natural course…to disaster. I don’t agree with much of what he’s done to try to fix things, since, from the Libertarian point of view, he shouldn’t. Let the markets ferret it out for themselves. However, the Libertarian point of view begins to disintegrate shortly thereafter. I’ll get to that after one more point of agreement.
The Liberterians have it right on one significant point: Civil Liberties. And that, no surprise, has national security, law enforcement and global political implications. For example, legalize the currently illicit drug market and control it like you would alcohol and tobacco and you have taken the largest underground economy in the world and brought it to the surface. I am not naive enough to think it is a perfect solution. There are still bootleg cigarettes and liquor available but it is relegated to the minor leagues of crime, has no national security implications and certainly poses no global political threat. Wouldn’t it be nice to have that said of illicit drugs now being trafficked to America? And, yes, people do abuse legal prescription drugs. There is a black market for it. But, again, the deaths and crime associated with it are a bullet in a Kevlar vest compared to the Colombian drug traffic to America alone. On final example is prostitution. That it is illegal in most states does not stop it from being another stream in the underground economy, often related to the drug traffic problem. Legalize it and control it. Again, not perfect, but seek out Nevada authorities for advice on what works and what doesn’t and form policy accordingly. These two things alone would ensure tax reductions and the stability of Social Security and medical programs for the next 100 years or more. I end with that since it is obvious and it would take far too long to make my point if I went chapter-and-verse with everything that should be legalized and controlled by the state.
Sidebar (probably supported by Libertarians): I have advocated normalization of trade and other aspects of policy between the United States and Cuba for at least ten years. I came to it late, I admit, but it’s still not too late, although the sun is setting quickly. An open and accessible Cuba would make diplomacy in the hemisphere easier and the trade and social benefits would be valuable to both parties. They are Communists, but they are “our” Communists, just 90 miles from our shore, and we should do what we can to aid them and seek their assistance in the global war on terror and to keep things safer in our own backyard.
Having said that, I don’t think any reasonable person living in a major metro in the USA would agree with easier immigration policy. That’s what we have now and it is costing us in resources that should not go to help this flood of illegals. The old saying is “don’t pay where you don’t owe”…we owe illegals nothing but a quick trip back to where they came. The Libertarians are dead wrong on immigration.
Finally, Libertarians are most out of whack on “non-interventionism” with other nations. Woodrow Wilson and FDR both discovered that this was not a realistic course in their days, as the world spilled acorss seas to shake America from the course of “non-interventionism”. Wrong then and “wronger still” today! We may disagree on the Iraq conflict. We may believe what we will about the Islamofacists or internal terror groups, but the facts are obvious: there are clear and present dangers to our nation and our national interests abroad that will not be addressed by isolationist policies. If it didn’t work in 1911 or 1941, what in the name of all that’s good can make any reasonable person believe it’s a rational course of action for today?
The bottom line for this election is the answer to this question: What is the most important issue to the USA today and going forward? You will answer with your vote. At the moment, I can’t support my Libertarian friends. Nevertheless, I am glad to see them involved and asking the tough questions of Democrats and Republicans that the media seems to miss.
Historic and Current Comment Press Against Obama, Not To Mention His Nutty VP Choice (but I do!) October 25, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Cal Thomas, Democrats, Dennis Prager, Joe Biden, Mark Steyn, Nancy Pelosi, Noah Webster, Ronald Reagan, Yogi Berra
1 comment so far

“In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate—look to his character.” —Noah Webster (1758-1843)
“The left subscribes to the French Revolution, whose guiding principles were ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’ The right subscribes to the American formula, ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ The French/European notion of equality is not mentioned. The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left does. That alone makes right and left irreconcilable. The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions… The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal, but the right values liberty, a man-woman based family and other values above equality.” —Dennis Prager 2008
“The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership… for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation. I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation’s highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.” —Ronald Reagan 1980
“Under an Obama administration, it is not far-fetched to see the day when liberal federal judges decide that religious organizations must lose their tax exemptions should they refuse to employ homosexuals or others they regard as engaging in deviant behavior. Court challenges against those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful seem to be occurring with greater frequency… The aim of the gay rights lobby is to destroy all remnants of biblical values and societal norms. Gay rights advocates will take their agenda to federal courts as soon as sufficient numbers of liberal judges are there to give them what they want. Watch them vote in overwhelming numbers for Barack Obama. He is their future. This election is, among other things, about the future of the majority and whether we want this country to be shaped by the courts, or by ‘we the people’.” —Cal Thomas 2008
“[O]ur Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: ‘95.’ It’s the words ‘percent’ immediately following that are wrong: that’s a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut. Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting’s tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: ‘It’s not that I want to punish your success,’ he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. ‘I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.’ In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there’s another typing error: that ‘you’ should read ‘I, Barack.’ ‘You’ will have no say in it.” —Mark Steyn 2008

FROM THE LUNATIC FRINGE (OH NO, IT’S “MAINSTREAM” DEMOCRATS!)
“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you—not financially to help him—we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.” —Joe Biden
What about the law?: “I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.” —Barack ObamaGetting it exactly backwards: “John McCain has been a party to the most significant redistribution of wealth in American history and it has been all the wrong way… [McCain believes in] trickle down, government is bad, markets are right [economics].” —Joe Biden
Speaking of redistribution: “Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
From the Head Cheerleader: “One hundred percent Barack Obama is going to win! He’s going to be our next president and a great president at that. We’re all excited to work with him.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Thanks for clearing that up: “What I said, that indicted everybody, that’s not what I meant at all. What I mean is there’s still folks that have a problem voting for someone because they are black. This whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” —Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) “apologizing” for calling Western Pennsylvania racist **“I never said most of the things I said.” —Yogi Berra
Folks, these people indict themselves of their misguided notions better than anyone can concoct against them or opine ad nauseum. Don’t let them take the helm of the nation!

Photos courtesy of The Patriot Post, http://patriotpost.us/.
2nd Amendment not safe with Obama! October 24, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, George Soros
add a comment
Open letter from an Illinoisan about Barack Obama:
Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.
I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama’s attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than Barack Obama.
Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners and forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?
And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger – a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let’s not forget Obama’s pal George Soros – the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN’s international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.
Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people’s money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?
By now, I’m sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called “American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)” talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear – everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.
In closing, I’d like to remind you that I’m a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation’s outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants – so long as people are willing to give it to him.
That’s the Barack Obama I know.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Pearson
Executive Director
Illinois State Rifle Association
Convinced but not persuaded October 21, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Ronald Reagan
1 comment so far
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” —Barack Obama
“The notion that people don’t know who I am is a little hard to swallow. I’ve been running for President for the last two years. I’ve campaigned in 49 states. Millions of people have heard me speak at length on every topic under the sun. And I’ve written two books which everybody who reads them will say are about as honest a set of reflections by at least a politician as are out there.” —Barack Obama
Formula for Demo success: “The administration keeps plowing an Uzi’s worth of bullets into the McCain-Palin ticket every time they have something else go wrong… It’s good politics for us.”
—Bill Clinton (admitting that pain for Americans is good for Democrats)
And who said the following:
“You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.” (Answer at the end of this post)
There’s an old saying I learned from Zig Ziglar decades ago. It was in relation to sales but it fits well here: “You’ve convinced me, but you haven’t persuaded me.” In this political season, it’s true that much has been learned about Barack Obama, there is certainly more than enough evidence to demonstrate he is not fit to serve as President. Yet, being convinced does not necessarily persuade, does it? Think about your relative that continues smoking. In spite of the evidence, the habit or the addiction to what’s in the cigarette, he is not persuaded to do what’s best for his health. This is how I think of Obama supporters. They simply ignore the evidence because his candidacy makes them feel good. It doesn’t matter that he’ll pick their pockets with more taxes or weaken us economically and militarily. It doesn’t matter who he associates with or whom he has as counselors, he makes them “feel good” and that’s sufficient. No evidence needed or acknowledged that would make them consider an alternative.
I could say I now know how Democrats must have felt during the Reagan years. Remember, the Gipper was called the “Teflon President” since no matter what the Democrats did or said, it never stuck on Ronnie. It looks like the same is true of Obama. This is a typical response from Obama supporters: Bad choice of associates…huh? Poor policy choices…did you say something? Socialistic tendencies…I guess I missed that, pass the salsa.
Of course, all that convincing has not done alot of persuading. So, here’s the man behind the mystery quote stated earlier in this post: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. You don’t have to believe me, check it on YouTube. My guess it that if you’re an Obama supporter, you’ll just recoil with “So what?”
You make my point for yourself.
Presidential Character October 19, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Barack Obama, Democrat Party, Federalist Papers, Founding Fathers, John McCain
add a comment
Mark Alexander, publisher of Patriot Post, penned “Presidential Character” for a recent email to subscribers. In part, here is what he wrote:
“This is not the Democrat Party envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman, much less its founder, Thomas Jefferson, who would not recognize even the most vestigial elements of his once-noble Party. (This dramatic transition is evident in the Democrat Party Platforms from Kennedy to Obama.)
When asked why he left the Democrat Party, perhaps the most famous of former Democrats said, “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” That was Ronald Reagan, who earned the respect and support of an enormous number of Democrats during his presidency. His observation, “the Party left me,” has never been more true than today.
For several months, we have heard and observed two presidential candidates, centrist Republican John McCain and liberal Democrat Barack Obama. It should by now, be obvious to all of us who put our country first, which of these candidates possess the high qualities of a statesman, and the prerequisite moral and civic virtues for an American president.
Unfortunately, too many of my fellow Americans have difficulty distinguishing these qualities.
Every four years, at the peak of presidential election cycles, we’re told by the talkingheads and the party hacks that “this election is the most important in our lifetimes.” This time, however, they may be right. These are indeed perilous times.
Our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts, including an historic economic disaster, the resolution of which will require the steady hand of a statesman in possession of outstanding character — character that has been honed over his lifetime, character that is proven consistent with our nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.
That reformed Democrat, Ronald Reagan, wrote, “The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the ‘little’ choices of years past — by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that ‘it really doesn’t matter.’ It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away — the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity — or dishonor and shame.”
For the first and final word on the necessary character traits the next president should possess, let’s return to our foundation, our Founders, those who risked all to proclaim our individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God, and outlined them in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Republic’s Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson: “It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. … If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. … The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. … An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.”
George Washington: “No compact among men … can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. …[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.”
At the end of the Revolution, when our Founders were endeavoring “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” Founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and our Constitution’s author, James Madison, wrote The Federalist Papers, its most authentic and comprehensive explication.
In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned, “Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.”
Sound familiar?
In No. 10, Madison cautions, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm,” and insisted in No. 57, “The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
The Founders thus warned of the perils posed by the candidate who lacks political courage; the candidate who tells us everything we want to hear.
In November 1800, John Adams, in his fourth year as president, wrote to his wife Abigail, “I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!”
We should all pray likewise, now, today, this minute.
As Adams understood, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
Almost two centuries later, Ronald Reagan reiterated, “Freedom is … never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it’s gone and gone for a long, long time.”
So, what of the current generation of voters, and the two presidential candidates?
On 4 November, one of these candidates will receive a majority of electoral votes, and in January, be seated as our next president. But for sure, this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it is a referendum on the ability of Americans to discern between one candidate who possesses the character and integrity of a statesman, which the office of president requires, and one who does not.
At this pivotal moment in our nation’s history, let’s hope that a majority of us have sufficient courage and character to make that distinction, and vote on what we know rather than how we feel.
Let’s put country first.”
I suppose it might be said better and more compactly by others, but this is rooted in truth that would seem self-evident. If it still isn’t to you, investigate it thoroughly before you vote on November 4.
Here’s what Obama DOESN’T believe October 15, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Barack Obama, Teddy Roosevelt
add a comment
This is what Barack Obama DOESN’T believe:
“If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.” —Theodore Roosevelt
Sharing or redistribution of wealth, taking what you create and by force of government giving it over to those who did not create it or work to develop or maintain it, is the path Obama believes in. Increasing the tax burden on the very people who create jobs? That’s what Obama believes in. Destroying individual initiative? That’s the change Obama believes in. Negotiate with terrorist states without pre-condition? That’s change Obama believes in.
That’s not change I believe in.
BO: Smell the change…of contempt for you! October 13, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Barack Obama, gun control
add a comment
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
- Senator Barack Obama (April 6, 2008)
It’s important to remind you of the snide, condescending words of Barack Obama. As with all liberals, they know better than you what’s good for you, the nation, and the world…you are just too stupid to understand. You can call it lipstick on a pig. I call it old-time liberal arrogance and contempt for you.
Character is the thing: Obama-Ayers is important October 10, 2008
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Keating Five, William Ayers
1 comment so far
John McCain and Sarah Palin have a simple message: moderation and a steady hand navigate a crisis. Unfortunately, the economic panicking going on right now doesn’t seem to give aid to their message. We are told Barack Obama “looks” presidential, in command, has “a plan” for the economy and all other of the nation’s ills. While the former appears to be true, the latter is far from the truth. The point is that McCain-Palin need to get back on message, not ignoring the economy, but putting it in perspective against other equally important issues like national security. And there are no two softer on national security than Obama-Biden.
If it’s a question of character, look at McCain and the Keating Five. He admitted his error, took the punishment in the court of public opinion and moved on. Obama still denies anything is wrong with associating with the likes of William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Don’t trust me about what Obama has said, read for yourself (from Jake Tapper of ABC News, no less, not a right-wing blog):
“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a radio host yesterday (Oct. 9) that by the time he found out about William Ayers’ background as a member of a violent radical 70s group “The Weather Underground,” “I assumed that he had been rehabilitated” since Ayers at that point had become an apparently accepted member of the Chicago academic world.
Ayers was, when Obama met him, “a college professor, teaches education at the University of Illinois and that’s how I met him, was working on a school reform project that was funded by an ambassador and former close friend of Ronald Reagan’s and I was sitting on this board along with a whole bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders, and he was one of the people who was on this board.”
But since 1995 — when Obama met Ayers — the founding member of the Weather Underground has gone on to make it clear that he doesn’t think he did anything wrong. And Obama has worked with him (as have plenty of others, including some Republicans) on education issues and such.
And Ayers has made it clear that he is unrepentant.
”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” Asked if he would do it all again, Ayers said ”I don’t want to discount the possibility. I don’t think you can understand a single thing we did without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War.”
Not bad enough for you? Exaggerated, like the Obama Addicts think it is? Think again….the Chicago Sun-Times reports:
“The Ayers-Obama relationship became a hot topic in Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate. It is “an issue certainly Republicans will be raising” should Obama be the Democratic nominee for president, Obama rival Hillary Clinton said.
In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.
In addition, Ayers and Obama interacted occasionally in their roles with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a not-for-profit group charged with spending tens of millions of dollars it obtained through its affiliation with a school-improvement foundation created by late Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s board of directors. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on which organizations should get grants. The groups worked on school-reform efforts between 1995 and 2000.
“What Bill Ayers and Bobby Rush … did 40 years ago has nothing to do with” the presidential campaign, Chicago political strategist Marilyn Katz said. Ayers “has a national reputation. He lectures at Harvard and Vassar. He writes the textbooks that are the standard for innovative approaches to reaching inner-city youth.”
A book Ayers penned about those years, Fugitive Days, landed him in hot water on Sept. 11, 2001. That morning, the New York Times ran a story about the book in which Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers’ statement was made before the World Trade Center attacks, but its timing led some to believe it was in response. “My book is in fact a condemnation of terrorism in all its forms — individual, group and official,” Ayers later said in a letter to the Chicago Tribune.
NOW, for the stuff from the right-wing Discoverthenetworks.org…if it sounds like what ABC and the Sun-Times has produced, be VERY afraid…
“A substantial portion of Ayers’ book Fugitive Days discusses the author’s penchant for building and deploying explosives. Ayers boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.” Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers says, “Everything was absolutely ideal. … The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”
On another occasion, Ayers stated: “There’s something about a good bomb … Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down.”
All told, Ayers and Weatherman were responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S. “I don’t regret setting bombs, said Ayers in 2001, “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
STILL NOT ENOUGH? What’s the difference between Ayers and, say, Timothy McVeigh? A lucky break on a point of law and he’s alive. A terrorist is a terrorist. Can you imagine someone endowing a chair for McVeigh or giving him a forum for his “thoughts”? Yet, there are people who say that consorting with Ayers is no reflection on Obama’s character. It’s no different than having your picture taken with someone who winds up a felon. Politicians have this sort of thing happen, you can’t possibly blame them for that! But this isn’t that, by any objective measure. And if you still believe it, in spite of the evidence, then how do you explain Jeremiah Wright?
To sit at the feet of Wright for 20 years and then try to convince people that you were not impacted by his brand of radical Christianity spewed from the pulpit is taking the Swift Boat down the Denial River. It is totally UNBELIEVABLE!
Does policy position matter? Yes. Does the economy matter? Yes. Does character matter MORE than policy positions? YES!