Posts Tagged ‘Joe the plumber’

Remark Of The Night In South Carolina GOP Debate: Barack Obama IS A Socialist

May 6, 2011

At some point during the GOP debate in South Carolina, Rick Santorum made the comment that Barack Obama was a socialist.

In his after-debate panel that appeared on the Sean Hannity Program, Frank Luntz listened to a woman who pointed that out and said she believed it was true, and then asked the panelists (after saying, “I’m going to get in trouble for this”), “WHY is Barack Obama a socialist?”

One old man immediately said, “Ask Joe the Plumber.”

I can only tell you what I would have said, given the pithy answer that was demanded (although that old man’s was arguably even better):

“Karl Marx expressed the essence of his Marxist communism as, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the mainstream media demanded that Barack Obama refute that statement, and explained how his policies were (somehow) the opposite of that?”

And so, yes, that old man on Frank Luntz’s panel nailed it: when Barack Obama said

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

– There is no question whatsoever that Obama was patiently explaining that, yes, he is without any question whatsoever, a socialist.

For those who would try to argue that statement by Karl Marz is NOT the essence of Marxism, allow me to reproduce Karl Marx’s statement in context:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Which is to say that it is not merely the essence of communism, but in fact it was the destination that Karl Marx was striving to attain to in his “higher phase of communist society.”

So, given that liberal Democrats affirm this same exact ideal – which was the ultimate ideal of Marx’s “higher phase of communist society” – just how precisely are they not Marxists?

And yet whenever a conservative makes this accurate accusation, all we ever get from the media is a poo-pooing; as though pointing out and declaring the truth is an extreme thing to do.

Obama As Joker And Typical Hypocritical Liberal Outrage

August 7, 2009

Pictures of Obama as “the Joker” above the label “socialism” began popping up around the L.A. area.

Needless to say, liberal outrage was swift to follow.

It didn’t matter that liberals had already come up with the idea themselves to attack George Bush.  Nor did it matter that this was the work of one anonymous person, versus the fact that the “Bush-as-Joker” project was created by a major mainstream media outlet in Vanity Fair.

Joker_Bush

The blatant hypocrisy in crying “FOUL!” over the picture of Obama as Joker never even enter into the liberal mindset that saw no problem in the picture of George Bush as the Joker.  Hypocrisy is such a part of them – the very atmosphere they breathe – that they appear as completely unaware of their hypocrisy as a fish is unaware of the water around it.

Noel Shepperd at Newsbusters demonstrates the outrage from the mainstream media surrounding the “Obama-Joker” stunt that somehow never managed to materialize when a major media outlet portrayed Bush as Joker.

Oh, the OUTRAGE (pronounced in identical cadence to the “Oh, the HUMANITY” famously uttered by Herbert Morisson at the explosion of the Hindenburg):

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

And how long did you think it would take for some leftist goon to depict it as an act of racism? I mean, after all, we ALL know there is a long historic association between “the Joker” and the negro, going all the way back to when Cesar Romero played the role on the the campy Batman program in the 1960s.

Who could have missed the obvious anti-black racism of that role?  No one I know, anyway.  And, of course, when Jack Nicholson reprised the role in one of the more recent Batman movies, I remember everyone saying, “There they go with that racism again!”

I am now immunized from any charge of racism.  I have a knee-jerk response: “That is a terribly racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”  When charges of racism are unleashed like a flood, it simply turns into water flowing off a duck’s back.  The real racists are the people who keep leveling the charge for partisan ideological effect.

I think my favorite pseudo-outraged piece by the pseudo-intellectual Lost Angeles Times is this one:

Reading into the Obama-as-Joker poster … or not

11:50 AM, August 5, 2009

Joker There’s nothing like a controversial political caricature to get people talking, blogging and tweeting.

But when it comes to understanding those same cartoons — as opposed to rehashing, reblogging and retweeting them — context is key.

The New Yorker magazine’s infamous cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama in radical drag, bumping fists in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, is understood to be a parody of conservative paranoia, not an attack on the first couple. But put that same image on the cover of the Weekly Standard and the illustration takes on a vastly different meaning.

In this respect, the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise. The image seems to have emerged from nowhere and was created by no one. Deracinated from authorial intent, Obama-as-Joker becomes a free-floating cipher that can be appropriated and re-appropriated by everyone.

Clearly, the poster — which has already mutated into countless variations on the Internet — communicates a virulent hostility to Obama, but in a vague and flailing way. It can mean anything and it could mean nothing. (The latter seems more likely than the former.) In some versions of the image, the word “socialism” has been appended to the poster. But as media outlets like CNN have pointed out, the Joker (as portrayed by Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) was a rabid anarchist, which doesn’t jibe well with the accusation of socialism.

Like Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster, the mystery “artist” behind the Joker prank has borrowed and altered an existing media image of the president for his or her own creative ends. (It’s from a cover shot of Obama featured on Time magazine.) In many ways, the Obama-as-Joker picture can be viewed as the evil twin of Fairey’s “Hope” — one is laudatory and arguably hagiographic while the other is mean-spirited and demonic. Maybe one day, a publicity-savvy museum will mount the two of them side-by-side in an exhibition on the malleability of the digital image.

Understandably, some people have latched on to the poster’s white-face significance. Is the creator saying that the president is pretending to be someone he’s not? Again, it’s impossible to know for sure. The Joker was a garish parody of a clown, and a clown can be any race — the white makeup doesn’t necessarily have an ethnic subtext.

At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law — which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality — a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy.

The most that can be said about Obama-as-Joker is that it’s a prank that the Joker himself would have been proud of. It has exploded like a cultural grenade — an act of cultural terrorism? — and has left meaningless chaos in its wake.

— David Ng

First notice the complete omission of the Vanity Fair attack against Bush.  Mentioning it would obliterate Ng’s thesis, so he simply doesn’t mention it.  But isn’t the fact that it was done to Bush part of the overall “context” in understanding why it might be done to Obama?  Why bother yourself with revealing something that would only serve to demonstrate how truly full of crap you are?

Then there is the reference to the New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama “in radical drag.”  It’s not the Obama’s we’re mocking, it’s conservatives.  So it’s okay.  You see, it’s perfectly acceptable to fabricate a straw man by which to mock and attack conservatives.

Whether Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, the point is the same: if you’re a Joseph Goebbels-modeled propagandist, as long as you’re not negatively depicting your fellow Nazis, pretty much anything goes.  The left is always able to create a self-serving “context” to declare what is and is not in bounds.  “Joker-Bush” is perfectly acceptable; “Joker-Obama” is immoral, dangerous, and racist.  Says we.

Then there’s the dismissal of “Joker-Obama” on the grounds that Heath Ledger’s Joker was an anarchist – and Obama is clearly not.  Let’s put aside the fact that “the Joker” has been around for a loooooooong time prior to the Heath Ledger movie role, and that it is frankly asanine to define the meaning of the Joker strictly within the Heath Ledger-created “context.”  Let’s put aside that Cesar Romero’s Joker and Jack Nicholson’s Joker were just thugs (as in “Chicago thugs”) with an unusual pigmentation.

Was George Bush an anarchist?  You see, that’s why any analysis that really wanted to take itself seriously needed to mention the Vanity Fair “Joker-Bush.”  If Bush wasn’t an anarchist, and the left used the Joker anyway, then how is it somehow suddenly intellectually stupid for the right to use the same motif?  Other than the fact that Goebbels never turned his propaganda against the Nazis?  What about the simple playground rules that if you punch me in the mouth, I get to punch you back?

In any event, the Lost Angeles Times writer concludes that Obama as Joker “is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise.”

I’ve got two things to say to that.

First of all, it there is absolutely no related context, then why is everybody talking about it?  Why didn’t they talk about Bush-as-Joker the same way?  Good satire simply has to have some direct relationship with the object of the satire.  And the closer to reality the satire comes, the more powerful it is.  If there’s no connection, the joke is literally lost.  So I would ask the Lost Angeles Times, why is it that some lone guy put up a poster of Obama as the socialist “Joker” that struck a powerful chord, while a giant magazine published a nationally distributed cover that failed to strike anything?

And secondly, I would submit to you that there very much IS a context.  And that context is that President Obama, like the Joker, is “changing” society in what will be an incredibly destructive way.  Like the Joker, who loved to mar traditional societal representations with his own image, Obama is out reshaping and distorting and perverting our society into his own, yes, socialist image.  I can’t help but think of that elderly woman who got so tired of seeing Obama that she sold her televisions.

Joe the Plumber heard Obama talk about “spreading the wealth around” and responded by saying, “That sounds like socialism.”  And Joe the Plumber was right: it DID sound like socialism because it WAS socialism.

The Obama campaign came out in a fury that he was not a socialist, and that his policies were not socialism.

Then after Obama won election, the leftist magazine Newsweek triumphantly exclaimed:

And Earl Ofari and David Ng want to tell us it is somehow “mean-spirited and dangerous” to simply state the truth?

We’re seeing what is being done with the “Joker-Obama” poster to what is being done with the “manufactured anger” over health care town hall meetings.  Just as it was the left that FIRST attacked George Bush as “the Joker,” it was also the left that began using the tactics that liberals are ascribing to conservatives confronting Democrat politicians over health care.  An article written back in 2001 records how the left would show up and simply shout down conservative speakers such as David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, and many others.  They weren’t even allowed to clear their throats before they were shouted down.

This is part of the larger category of how the left used to say “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” (usually erroneously attributing it to Thomas Jefferson) when Bush was president, only to depict conservatives as being obstructionist and immoral for protesting President Obama’s policies.

This tactic of blatant hypocrisy is only successful because the mainstream media are themselves major participants in that leftist hypocrisy.

Hopefully, by pointing out these blatant acts of mainstream media hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage, we can turn the spotlight of legitimate criticism on them, rather than on the false target of conservatives.

Joe The Plumber Right On Socialism, Soaring Taxes On Small Businesses Under Obama

April 28, 2009

It’s not like Barrack Obama didn’t promise the American people that he would lead them into socialism.  You might remember the famous encounter with Joe “the plumber”:

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: “I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spread the wealth around,” Obama said.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Joe the Plumber famously answered, “That sounds like socialism.”

And how the liberals howled.  Pieces like Mc Clatchey Newspapers’ “Obama plan isn’t ‘socialism’; it’s traditional progressive taxation” by David Lightman and William Douglas abounded:

“It wouldn’t qualify as socialism.

“The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist,” said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. “We’ve had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it.”

Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America’s democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It’s a form of sharing the wealth.”

Now, of course, I read that last paragraph and I’m just rolling on the floor laughing at how ignorant and dishonest these liberals were – and are.

Let me just say two words:  “Auto industry.”  Let me say two more: “banking industry.”  Let me add a few others: “Obama fires GM CEO.”  And, “Government forcing GM board out,” And, “Obama won’t allow banks to repay bailout loans.”  And, “Government, UAW Own 89% of GM In Restructuring.”  And, “Government Power and Control: The One Trillion Dollar Takeover Of Health Care.”  And, “Obama’s cap-and-trade plan a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  And, most frightening and revealing of all: “Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion.”

“Let’s move it along, folks.  Move it along.  No socialists to see here.”

Sorry, mainstream media: Obama is as socialist as the sun is hot.  The fact that you were too blatantly dishonest and corrupt and incompetent to do your job during the campaign is just one more case in point that we are now under the thrall of totalitarian propaganda.

As the February 16, 2009 issue of Newseek gleefully trumpeted:

we-are-all-socialists-now

That pretty much makes it official: Obama and the Democratic Party lied to us: they were socialists all along, and too dishonest and too corrupt to honestly and legitimately represent themselves.

I also have to point out the fact that the VERY WORST ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM – right out of the playbook of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” – were used to attack Joe Wurzelbacher simply for asking a candidate for president a couple of questions right outside his house.  The media and the Democrat machine went after him with everything they had, including snooping through his private records in a very KGB-like manner in hopes of dredging up dirt on him.

You know, kind of like what Obama and his Democrat lynch mob are doing to Bush administration officials even as we speak in 1) releasing memos selectively targeted to make Bush look like a torturer while refusing to release any memos that would show how Bush’s actions kept America safe; and 2) threatening to prosecute Bush officials for their part in 1) in what would amount to a show trial.  How quintessentially totalitarian of them.

All this said, our socialist – and frankly fascist – president is now about to come after small business owners EXACTLY as Joe Wurzelbacher feared he would to pay for his socialist Statist agenda:

Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle
Under Obama Plan, Some Entrepreneurs’ Bills Would Soar
By Lori Montgomery and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 27, 2009

Gail Johnson doesn’t think of herself as wealthy. The former pediatric nurse has spent 20 years building a chain of preschools and after-school programs that accommodate sick children so working parents can keep their jobs.

But, like most small-business owners, Johnson reports her profit on her personal tax return. In a typical year, she and her husband make more than $500,000, according to her accountant, a figure that throws them squarely into the ranks of the richest Americans — and makes them a prime target for the Obama administration’s tax policy.

Since last year’s campaign, President Obama has vowed repeatedly not to increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That pledge, while politically popular, has left him with just two primary sources of funding for his ambitious social agenda: about 3 million high-earning families and the nation’s businesses.

Johnson, with her company, falls into both categories. If Obama’s tax plans are enacted, her accountant estimates that her federal tax bill — typically, around $120,000 a year — would rise by at least $23,000, a 19 percent increase.

“You hear ‘tax the rich,’ and you think, ‘I don’t make that much money,’ ” said Johnson, whose Rainbow Station programs are headquartered near Richmond. “But then you realize: ‘Oh, if I put my business income with my wages, then, suddenly, I’m there.’ ”

Across the nation, many business owners are watching anxiously as the president undertakes expensive initiatives to overhaul health care and expand educational opportunities, while also reining in runaway budget deficits. Already, Obama has proposed an extra $1.3 trillion in taxes for business and high earners over the next decade. They include new limits on the ability of corporations to automatically defer U.S. taxes on income earned overseas, repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes, and a mandate that investment partnerships pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate.

‘A Permanent Target’
Business groups say they’re bracing for even more battles with the administration.

“They’re desperate for revenue. And therein lies the concern of the broader business community,” said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“We’re going to be a permanent target, and we understand that,” added Catherine Schultz, vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council. “The way they see it, corporations don’t vote.”

[Read the rest of the article]

Many small business owners file individual income tax returns.  Their “incomes” do not merely go into their pockets; rather, they use their profits to pay their employees and reinvest in their businesses:

Johnson declined to say whether she voted for Obama. But she said she ignored his tax plans until her husband, who handles real estate and construction for the schools, mentioned it one day. “I’ve since talked to my accountant,” she said. “And, oh, my gosh!”

The accountant, Carroll Hurst, said Johnson is unlikely to owe any federal taxes this year due to accounting changes that confer a one-time tax benefit. But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions — much of it contributions to charity — reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is “substantially less.”

In a typical year, Johnson’s federal tax bill would be about $120,000. But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said. Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson’s tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800. Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

“You can try to pass it on to consumers. But if you raise tuition, you put pressure on family budgets,” she said. “For us, we’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Other business owners are also nervous. Jim Murphy, president of EST Analytical in Fairfield, Ohio, which sells analytical instruments to environmental testing labs and pharmaceuticals, said his company is struggling in the sluggish economy. But if profit returns to pre-recession levels — about $455,000 — Murphy said his accountant estimates that Obama’s proposals could add $60,000 to his $120,000 tax bill.

“The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets,” said Murphy, who employs 47 people. “But the money the company earns in a given year is used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire.” A 50 percent tax increase, he said, would be “really painful.”

So let’s review the basic facts: Barack Obama IS a socialist, just as Joe the Plumber intuitively understood even as liberal “intellectuals” loudly howled with all the outrage they could muster.  There’s no question of that fact any longer.  In fact, he is essentially a fascist, just as progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and even FDR were before him.  And Obama IS coming after small businesses and their owners, just as Joe the Plumber rightly feared.  And, furthermore, the Obama White House and the mainstream media alike will apply any tactic to attack and demonize their opponents for political purposes just like the worst socialist regimes in world history.

Corrupt Democrats Join Partisan Media In Violating Privacy Rights

October 31, 2008

The media tore into the personal and private lives of Obama “infomercial” Roberta Johnston, Larry Stewart, Juliana Sanchez, and Mark and Melinda Dowell, launching a massive investigative journalism war against the private citizens.  State officials joined in the effort to uncover every detail of the citizens’ lives, using state computers from public agencies to conduct thorough background checks.  Details began to come out immediately.  It was discovered that – contrary to her statement that she could only afford half a gallon of milk – Juliana Sanchez was seen buying TWO gallons of milk.  And, in an even bigger bombshell shocker, the Missouri mother that claimed that she couldn’t afford enough snacks for her children was caught buying a new pair of shoes with money that easily could have paid for an entire MONTHS’ worth of snacks.  With shocking developments like these, the effort of going through their trash and the use of state computers to dig up dirt was more than warranted.

Of course, that won’t happen.  It won’t happen because these people are Democrats supporting a Democratic candidate.  And the media is the official propaganda arm for the Democratic National Committee and for the Obama campaign.

Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher wasn’t nearly so lucky.  You see, when Wurzelbacher asked Barack Obama – who was walking past his house – a question that revealed that Obama was a socialist who liked to “spread the wealth around,” he became an instant arch-enemy of the Democratic Party and therefore of the media.  It was immediately revealed that his name wasn’t really even “Joe,” but “Samuel.”  “Joseph” is his MIDDLE NAME, which clearly proved that he had deep character flaws.  And THEN it came out that he isn’t really even a licensed plumber, but was working under his employers’ license while he prepared to take the ‘Master plumber’ examination.  They gleefully revealed that Wurzelbacher had a tax lien (conveniently omitting the fact that Obama’s campaign treasurer Martin Nesbitt likewise has a tax lien).  Every salacious detail – or at least every detail that could at least be made to sound salacious – was published and carried on every network and every news service.

Democrats attacked John McCain.  He hadn’t properly vetted Joe the plumber, they accused (which is another way of accusing the McCain campaign of failing to be as Stalinist as Democrats).  Joe the plumber is a private citizen.  Nobody SHOULD be “vetting” him.  All the man did was ask a simple question.  It wasn’t Wurzelbacher’s fault that Obama unmasked himself as a socialist with his answer.

It didn’t stop there.  Democrats are far too corrupt, hypocritical, and crazed to stop when it comes to unleashing the politics of personal destruction to annihilate anyone who gets in their way.  If Democrats had integrity, well, they wouldn’t be Democrats.

The Democrats and their media lackeys did a pretty effective job at convincing people that they had somehow trashed Sarah Palin even though they didn’t have anything on her.  Wicked lies about her pregancy and her family and violating her personal privacy by hacking her email account weren’t too low for Democrats.  Nothing is too low for Democrats.  They began by attacking her as a bad mother and then degenerated from there.

It turned out that Joe Wurzelbacher’s confidential information had been accessed via Ohio state computers:

Ohio’s inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on “Joe the Plumber.”

Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

She said there were no political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System.

Amid questions from the media and others about “Joe the Plumber,” Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.

Such information was not and cannot be publicly shared, she said. It is unclear if Wurzelbacher is involved in a child-support case. Reports state that he lives alone with a 13-year-old son.

“Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look” at them, Jones-Kelley said, citing a case where a lottery winner was found to owe past-due child support. “Our practice is to basically look at what is coming our way.”

Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles confirmed today that he is investigating the incident to determine if “Joe”s” records were legally accessed by Job and Family Services employees.

But Joe the plumber HADN’T won the lottery.  And Roberta Johnston, Larry Stewart, Juliana Sanchez, and Mark and Melinda Dowell have ALSO been thrust into the public spotlight.  The least the media and the Democrats can do is give the Obama infomercial citizens the same microscopically-detailed proctological exam they have given Joe Wurzelbacher.  If one of these people didn’t pay a parking ticket 30 years ago, we should know about it as a “public service.”

Then it turned out that the state computer searches on Wurzelbacher were “more extensive than first acknowledged”:

A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on “Joe the Plumber” were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed yesterday that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

Harris called the multiple records checks “questionable” and said he awaits more answers. “It’s kind of like Big Brother is looking in your pocket,” he said.

Then we found out that Helen E. Jones-Kelly – who had been behind the searches – was a Democrat who had given the maximum contribution of $2,300 to the Obama campaign.  We can only surmise whether she made further contributions under aliases such as Mickey Mouse, Will Good or Doodad.

Jones-Kelly assures everyone that there’s no way she intended anything political out of her tactics.  Why anyone would think that anything turned up in the state computer searches would have somehow found their way to the media is anybody’s guess.

Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland – who appointed Jones-Kelly this past January – claims that he is satisfied that there are no political overtures to the check on Wurzelbacher, a spokesman said.  And we should disregard the fact that the Ohio Governor is about as partisan a Democrat as they come, the kind of guy who’d be as likely to cover up Democratic political hatchet jobs as he would be to engage in demagoguery himself.

Liberals should be THRILLED, shouldn’t they?  They tried to sue the Bush Administration claiming the government had spied on private American citizens, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the ACLU wasn’t able to find anyone who had actually been spied upon.  Now they finally have a guy: Democrat government officials caught red-handed spying on a private citizen!  We can go back to the massive abuse of FBI files compiled against enemies of the Clinton Administration to see what hypocrites these people are.

Democrats are the greatest hypocrites since Jesus took on the nastiest of the Pharisees.  They regard their unsubstantiated allegations against Repubicans as being far more serious than the times they themselves are caught red-handed.  The fact that Democratic voter fraud organization ACORN has now been nailed in 21 states (with the list growing all the time) means nothing; the fact that Democrats allege that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote means everything.  The downfall of Rep. Mark Foley was a terrible disgrace that proved Republicans were corrupt and served as the straw that broke the camel’s back in the 2006 election; but the fact that Rep. Tim Mahoney was nailed doing far worse in the exact same district – with top Democratic officals trying to save his seat – is merely another sex scandal that should be ignored as a “private matter.”

Tragically, it may take an Obama victory, combined with an unholy Barack Obama-Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi trifecta and one party domination, to finally break the trend that has been building.  After Democrats ruin the nation with their excesses, their incompetence, and their depravities, the public will turn on them, and turn on the media propaganda machine that put them in power.

As much as I would love to see Democratic power broken for a generation and the liberal media driven out of business, I pray it doesn’t come to that.

ABC Journalist Damns Whole Field Of Journalism Over “DANGEROUS” Bias

October 29, 2008

This is as powerful as it is frightening, coming from a fourth-generation journalist with ABC named Michael S. Malone.

ABC News
Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline
Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why
Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE

Oct. 24, 2008 —

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer,” because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living — and when I knew her, scary — grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist,” you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word “said” — muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. — to influence the way a reader will comprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty — especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the ’60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from “real” reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I’d spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else’s work — not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I’d always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes — and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who’d managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith — and I know the day and place where it happened — was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNN would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather — not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake — but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far — such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends — can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer — when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide — especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power & only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe — and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway — all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself — an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country…

PISS OFF THESE DISGRACES TO FAIRNESS AND TRUTH IN THE MEDIA; VOTE REPUBLICAN ON NOVEMBER 4!!!

I have been writing about the horrendous media bias – and how terribly destructive it is to democracy, and to the American political process – for some time.  My point has been: when the media – which has been charged with the Constitutional duty to keep the political process honest and fair – itself becomes the propaganda arm for one political party, it becomes impossible to sustain a democracy.  If the truth is misrepresented, or distorted, nor simply not reported, in the interests of advancing one particular political ideology, a fatal cancer is introduced in the democratic process.

We have seen the very likely death of two precious institutions during this campaign: 1) of the media’s integrity and honesty; and 2) of public campaign financing.

The media has stooped to misrepresentation, propaganda, demagoguery, and flat out lying, in order to elect Barack Obama for President.  And Barack Obama – in order to win election – abandoned his own promise to accept public campaign finance and – in the words of The Associated Press – “doomed” public finance.

What major candidate for President will ever again accept public funding if he realizes he might very well find himself or herself outgunned by a 4-1 margin by electing to do so?  Enter big money the likes the American political process has never before seen, thanks to one Barack Obama.

You can’t put either genie back into the bottle.  If media propaganda obtains its intended result, if massive campaign money obtains its intended result, both institutions are doomed forevermore.  And democracy itself is doomed along with them.

How Much Have Obamas Spent On Clothes?

October 24, 2008

It’s kind of funny to me.  When John McCain and Sarah Palin point out that Barack Obama “palled around” with terrorist William Ayers (“partnered with” is a better way to put it), the all-over-the-air and way-over-the-top Democratic talking point was that this was an attempt to take attention away from the “real issues.”  Journalists told us that with so many issues of profound importance facing the country, focusing on something as trivial as a terrorist buddy was ridiculous.  And then the “bombshell revelation” that the McCain-Palin campaign might have spent $150,000 outfitting Sarah Palin and upgrading her image for the campaign hits like some major scandal.  And THAT’S relevant!

You don’t hear the drive-by mainstream media condescendingly pointing out how irrelevant Sarah Palin’s wardrobe is, or how this is a clear attempt to distract the public from the damage created by the “Joe the Plumber” situation.  Nope.  The media would never dare apply the same talking points to Republicans that they routinely use to justify and support Democrats.  Goebbels never turned on Hitler, you know.

In any event, I read a few condescending stories from the leftist media (such as the Huffington Post), but couldn’t find any reference to what Barack or Michelle Obama spent on their clothes.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that they’ve both spent a ton of dough.  The Politico article says that, “A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.”  But keep in mind that every penny of McCain campaign money is accounted for due to public financing regulations, whereas we have no idea where more than $200 million of Obama’s money came from.  And we also come to find out that designers have given wardrobes to Democratic candidates in order to garner publicity, which itself amounts to a violation of campaign laws.

Hillary Clinton’s famous pantsuits costs more than $6,000 each – and  she had a LOT of pantsuits.  And it turns out she probably didn’t pay anything for them, according to the woman who designed them for her:

One of Mrs. Clinton’s famous political fashion designers, Susanna Chung Forest, who designed Hillary’s pantsuits, which, that’s gotta boost the resume. She says that it would be unusual for a candidate as famous as Sarah Palin to need to buy clothes at all, meaning most of these women are not buying their clothes, they’re given to them by the designers in order to get publicity, just as Hollywood starlets on the red carpet before the Emmys and the Oscars, those gowns are all donated.

We also find out if we dig around long enough out that Obama is getting his suits at Barney’s, and that Michelle wears Maria Pinto, Valentino, and other top fashion brands.  And we learn that people who live in designer glass-houses shouldn’t throw diamonds:

The current issue of Harper’s Bazaar notes that the Democratic presidential candiate’s wife wears Valentino, among others. Looks like when the Obamas say “spread the wealth around,” they mean at top shelf department stores.

I’m not outraged at this. The pressure of being in the public eye is understandable. What’s disturbing is the double standard. Michelle Obama gets hailed by the fashionistas while Palin gets crucified and mocked by the fashion police.

These same liberals who are now appalled at the Palin shopping spree are the same ones that thought it shallow and superficial to discuss Newsweek’s obvious recent cheap shot cover of Sarah Palin because we have more important fish to fry. Where are these people now to shout that this issue is trivial? And how do they manage to get so fired up about Palin’s appearance all of sudden?

This latest attack on Sarah Palin is geared to undermine her as a real “woman of the people.”  But the reality is that it shows that she IS a woman of the people.  She didn’t have the kind of clothing that would withstand the unrelenting glare of the national spotlight.  How many “women of the people” do?  This woman who sold the governor’s private jet, got rid of the governor’s limosine, fired the governor’s chef, etc. clearly IS a “woman of the people” whether the McCain campaign upgrades her image or not.  And given the fact that the Obama campaign has easily outspent the McCain campaign 4-1, what does it matter that the McCain campaign believed that upgrading the image of an attractive candidate was money poorly spent?

The McCain campaign has reported that the clothes will be sold off and the proceeds donated to charity after the election.

Now let’s get back to the serious issues of the campaign, such as how Barack Obama is a socialist who will keep Joe the Plumber from being able to buy a small business so Obama can “spread the wealth around.”

A Tale Of Two Joe’s: Battleground Poll Shows 1-Point Race

October 21, 2008

Just a week ago, the Battleground poll showed Barack Obama had a 13 point lead over John McCain (53-40, taken 10/8-10/13).  Their poll released just today shows that the race is 48-47.

A CNN poll has McCain tied in five key battleground states.  A week ago McCain was behind in all of them.

Obama isn’t a good finisher.  He limped across the finish line against Hillary Clinton, and he’s starting to limp now.

Two issues have fallen into John McCain’s lap like golden nuggets from heaven in the form of two Joe’s: Joe the plumber and Joe the Biden.

Barack Obama revealed in his impromptu discussion outside of Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher’s house that, yes, all rhetoric aside, he IS a socialist who wants to “spread the wealth around.”  People are more interested in the details of Obama’s tax plan.  And, like a cheap auto paint job, it doesn’t look so good on a close inspection.

And Joe Biden revealed in his speech at a fund raiser that, yes, all rhetoric aside, Barack Obama IS young and untested and the world is most definitely growing to throw an international crisis at him to see what he’s made of.  People are going to think about Obama as a Commander-in-Chief ready to step in and deal with a real crisis.

And if that isn’t enough; the William Ayers issue just got fed a whole bunch of fresh raw meat:

And the issue of Barack Obama writing a positive “blurb” for William Ayers’ book is getting some fresh legs as well.

We’ve got more reasons to talk about Barack Obama’s Marxist/anarchist/terrorist buddy who helped him get his start in politics than ever.

We’ve got the momentum, Republicans.  It all depends on you getting out the message, and even more importantly, getting out and voting.

Actual Job Creators Favor McCain 4-1 Over Obama

October 20, 2008

It aint just Joe the Plumber; chief executive officers have a lot of problems with Barack Obama’s socialism, too.

Obama’s “spread the wealth around” answer to plumber Joe Wurzelbacher about the fact that his buying a plumbing business would put him into Obama’s $200,000 class warfare zone is the quintessential definition of socialism.  There literally could not be a better four-word definition.  It should infuriate Joe.

“Small businesses” which can employ as many as 500 people and gross millions of dollars, employ 84% of American workers.  And of those businesses that employ just ten or more workers, an overwhelming majority would fall under Obama’s federal income tax increase.  80% of the people who would their taxes increase significantly under Obama’s plan are small business owners.  Partnerships, sole proprietors, S corporations–80 percent of the tax returns are in those brackets that Obama considers rich.  Under Obama’s plan, a lot of ordinary workers will lose their jobs as employers struggle to retain profitability or even make payroll.

People are most concerned about jobs right now; maybe they should stop listening to mainstream media ideologues and start listening to the people who actually create jobs:

Chief Executive Magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.

“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”

Disastrous for the country.”  That doesn’t sound good.  And that’s about as optimistic as the CEO’s get about Barack Obama:

“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

Bankrupt the country within three years.”  There.  You want socialism, you can have it.  “Spread the wealth around” so that country itself is as broke as the defaulting homeowners and the defaulting mortgage houses we keep hearing about.

One thing is extremely important to understand: Obama’s health care plan is modeled on the Massachusetts plan.  How are things going there?  Well, in the three years of the program’s existence, the tiny state is now already facing cost overruns of over $400 million.  Does that sound like a rousing success?  Massachusetts is facing a projected 85% increase in its costs by 2009 – which should set up a serious red flag that such programs are MASSIVELY underfunded.

Barack Obama’s health care plan is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion in 10 years.  But that doesn’t take into account the very sort of cost overruns and cost increases that are even now plaguing the very state that Obama is basing his own plan upon.  What is going to happen to our economy given the extremely real likelihood that Obama’s massive national plan runs into similar issues?  Do you believe our economy is strong enough to bear the brunt of these massive cost increases?

Did you like that $850 billion government bailout of the US economy?  No?  Then you probably won’t like Obama’s $845 billion bailout of the world, either.

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, “We can – and must – make … a priority,” said Obama, a co-sponsor.

Barack Obama also wants to push alternative energy whether the market wants it or not by dredging up yet another $150 billion from the great-great-great grandchildren of taxpayers while ignoring oil and nuclear power.  He claims he is not opposed to these – now.  But he consistently has been, along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and his carefully-phrased distinctions guarantee we would see neither domestic oil or nuclear power during any administration of his.  The problem is, alternative energy will not be able to even begin to make a dent in our energy demand for decades to come.  Oil products constitute nearly 90% of our energy.  And Obama’s “safety regulations” would ensure that the only alternative energy source that even could conceivably lessen our need for oil, gas, and coal – nuclear power – would be unable to even get through the permit process during an Obama presidency.  Saying you “won’t take it off the table” is a far cry from supporting it, especially when you attack the candidate who supports it.

And Obama favors raising capital gains taxes, windfall profits taxes, death taxes, and significantly higher taxes for “the rich.”  At a time when we desperately need investment – which is why the government has been pumping in so many billions – Barack Obama wants to create a powerful negative disincentive to invest in the economy.  Everyone will ultimately pay more because of Obama’s tax plan as businesses pass their additional costs on to consumers through higher prices.  Worse, as Obama finds his income tax base shrivel up, the politician who supported tax increases on those making just $42,000 a year will levy higher taxes on larger groups of tax payers.  The percentage of tax payers in Obama’s “top 5%” have already shrunk by half due to the recent finacial meltdown.  In short, Obama’s tax plan will fail.

By the way, that overwhelming 4-1 preference for McCain over Obama on handling the economy is nearly matched by a better than 3-1 preference for professional soldiers for McCain over Obama on handling our wars and our defense.

Some Points On McCain vs. Obama Debate 3

October 16, 2008

On taxes and the economy:

The Joe the Plumber issue began with Barack Obama having a conversation with a plumber who planned to buy his employers’ business, but realized with concern that he would be paying much higher taxes under Obama’s plan.  Obama responded:

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

Please realize: we’re talking about a PLUMBER and a SMALL BUSINESS – not a Wall Street tycoon or a big corproation.  He would pay more in taxes under Obama’s plan.  It turns out that half of the over 8 million taxpayers in the top 5% of income earners are small business owners.  And it is small business owners who are and have been the engine of the economy and who are hiring the most workers.  All the small businesses that are driving that engine – the businesses that employ at least 20 workers – would pay more taxes under Obama’s plan.

Obama keeps claiming that he’ll cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  but about 40% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes.  Obama will give these free riders an IRS welfare check paid for by taxpayers, amounting to nearly $400 billion dollars a year.  Obama’s tax credit goodies will be “fully refundable,” which is taxspeak for government payments that do not require a tax liability on the part of recipients in order to be paid out.  This is a transfer payment, a transfer of wealth, and socialism.

Corporations don’t pay taxes; they pass them on to you through higher prices.  Obama’s tax increase on corporations will amount to a de facto higher cost of living for you.  To the extent that it cuts into their profits, corproations will increasingly outsource jobs to save on labor costs, or they will simply relocate their operations to countries with lower corporate tax structures (that currently means anywhere on the planet except Japan unless taxes are lowered here).

If you want corporations and businesses to hire more workers and provide goods and services at low prices, you have to lower their tax burdens.  You don’t create an incentive to hire more workers when you increase their costs of doing business.

“Spread the wealth around,” Obama says.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  Bottom line, if you design a system which does not sufficiently reward people based on allowing them to enjoy the fruits of their hard work, than no one will have incentive to work hard.  The hard worker will eventually get tired of working for the lazy person unless he can keep what he produces for the benefit of himself and his family.

In Europe, the steep rates create a disincentive to continue working.  If you have to pay skyhigh taxes after $200,000 (as a single filer in Obama’s plan), why keep working hard after you’ve made your $200,000?  Obama will confiscate most of your profits (for New Yorkers, as an example, it would be 65 cents of every dollar!).  If you’re a small business owner, you have good reason to simply shut down and take a long vacation until next April.  We don’t want that here.

Investors’ Business Daily describes Obama as “the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party.”  And for good reason.  Sadly, the media has largely given inspection of Obama’s economic and tax plans a pass.  The specifics are largely unknown to the American people.  Barack Obama will regard the recent socializing of much of our financial system as a leaping-off point.

On health care:

One thing is extremely important to understand: Obama’s health care plan is modeled on the Massachusetts plan.  How are things going there?  Well, in couple of years of the program’s existence, the tiny state is now already facing cost overruns of over $400 million.  Does that sound like a rousing success?  Massachusetts is facing a projected 85% increase in its costs by 2009 – which should set up a serious red flag that such programs are MASSIVELY underfunded.

Obama is claiming that his plan will save money.  It won’t.  It has been tried, and it has failed.  He is overestimating the “savings” of his plan, and massively underestimating the costs.

Barack Obama’s health care plan is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion in 10 years.  And that’s if everything goes wll.  But it won’t go well.  The numbers don’t take into account the very sort of cost overruns and cost increases that are even now plaguing the very state that Obama is basing his own plan upon.  What is going to happen to our economy given the extremely real likelihood that Obama’s massive national plan runs into similar issues?  Do you believe our economy is strong enough to bear the brunt of these massive cost increases?

You need to understand something else that emerged from the second debate: is health care a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?  Obama answered “It should be a right.” What does that mean?  It means that a government has a fundamental duty to guarantee me my health care the same way it has a duty to guarantee me right to free speech or my right to assembly.  You have a constitutional, government-imposed duty to give me health care – no matter what – regardless of how much it costs you and your family to do so.  Am I an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant?  You owe me a new liver.  As an American citizen (or an illegal immigrant, under Obama’s plan) I have a right to that liver.   Did I sustain a brain injury riding my motorcycle without a helmet because I like to feel the wind in my hair?  Doesn’t matter.  Do I want a sex change?  Give it to me!  I have a fundamental constitutional right to that liver, or to that brain surgery and all the long months of incredibly expensive therapy, or to my sex change operation.  I also have a right to years of incredibly expensive psychological counseling with highly paid professionals.  And if I have any pre-existing conditions, you still have to cover me (and illegal immigrants because we don’t deny fundamental rights to anyone in the United States, even if they are here illegally), no matter what.

Do you understand how expensive this can all get?

Do you understand that Barack Obama is essentially talking about socializing a quarter of our economy?  Do you trust your government’s track record to do that?

On the mortgage industry collapse:

Neither candidate brought up the fact that there was a gigantic elephant in the room.  And it was ridiculous.  A lot of people are livid over this collapse and the subsequent $850 billion bailout package Congress approved.  But Democrats are all over this.  From their passage of the Community Reinvestment Act, to Bill Clinton’s radical expansion of the program (particularly in the last two years of his 2nd administration); to the almost exclusively Democratic leadership of Government Supported Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (e.g. Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick who collectively took over $300 million from the GSEs even as they played around with the books); to the repreated stubborn refusal of congressional Democrats to regulate Fannie and Freddie during the first six years of President Bush’s presidency.

Barney Frank repeatedly said that Fannie and Freddie were fine, and that regulation was unnecessary.  The last time was on July 14, 2008 – only a couple months before they went belly up.  He assured the American people – and American investors – that Fannie and Freddie stock were strong going forward.  The stock of Fannie and Freddie and declined 90% during the Democrats’ watch.  And oversight of Fannie and Freddie was Congress’ job, NOT President Bush’s.

This was a Democrat-created disaster.

And the level of propagandizing and demagoguery blaming Republicans for “the failed policies of the last 8 years” has reached a level of deceit not seen since Hitler blamed the Jews for all of Germany’s problems.

On abortion:

Abortion is an issue that not only displays how radical Barack Obama is, but how deceptive and disingenuous he is.  Factcheck.org has a thoroughly researched article titled, “Obama and ‘Infanticide’: The facts about Obama’s votes against ‘Born Alive’ bills in Illinois” which will shock you.  Obama DOES support infanticide in the name of abortion rights.

Barack Obama is deliberately misrepresenting his position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  He has given fallacious reason after reason for wanting babies who have been born and are surviving outside of their mothers’ bodies to be killed.  Obama supports late term and partial birth abortion, too; but this evil transcends even that abomination against the sanctity of human life.

It is for this reason that I will refuse to support a President Obama or any country that elects him to lead it.  If the American people vote for Barack Obama, I will agree with Jeremiah Wright to this extent: “No, no, no.  Not God bless America.  God damn America!”  God damn an America that would vote for a certified baby killer.

Conclusion:

Our already-most-expensive education system in the world (around $65 billion a year) that isn’t producing education for our kids is going to get another nearly $20 billion a year from Barack Obama.  But the government throwing money at schools is clearly not the answer: Washington D.C. spends more money per student than any public school system in the world, but provides the worst education in the country.  As John McCain pointed out several times last night, again and again, Barack Obama sees big government spending other peoples’ money as the solution to every problem.

The obvious question to ask should be, where’s all this money going to come from?  From “the rich”?  Fat chance.  Half of the rich are no longer “rich” after all their investments went south; they invested themselves out of Obama’s 5% group.  The other half are going to shelter their money from Obama so they won’t have to pay Obama’s new taxes.  Where’s Obama going to get his money?  He’s going to come after you, and – given the polling figures – chances are you are too damn stupid to know it.

Economists by the truckload have come out against Obama’s plan, because when it fails – and it will fail – the costs will be catastrophic.

I liken this society to a culture that has been transformed into a lemming colony by a biased liberal media voting to jump off a cliff.