Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
The following is being passed around the email world. But it’s interesting and it offers some important truths:
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
The Obituary follows:
Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
This is truly scary!
Of course America is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.
Someone should point this out to Obama.
Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.
There couldn’t be more at stake than on Nov 2012.
The email gives the die date of America at 2012 (assuming we re-elect Obama).
It may already be too late for America. Just as one can smoke tens of thousands of cigarettes and only quit smoking after one has already guaranteed contracting a lingering death by cancer, we may have already put ourselves into such a state of deficit and debt that we cannot recover no matter what we do now.
We are to a point when fully half the population pays absolutely no federal income taxes at all while demanding that the few who still DO pay taxes pay more and more and more of the burden.
ABC Anchor Diane Sawyer sits across from Bill O’Reilly last night and casually says that ABC broke the story about the tapes featuring the sermons of now radioactive and decidedly ex-Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright.
“You’re talking to the network…Obama White House remembers this… that broke the Jeremiah Wright tapes.”
The implication?
ABC News was Johnny-on-the-spot on the story of then-Senator Obama’s now infamous — and ex — pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In March of 2008.
Remember that date. March — 2008. Here’s the link to the story, filed on March 13 by ABC’s Brian Ross
This remark came about in the course of a conversation with O’Reilly in which Sawyer, discussing the role of ABC News in the last presidential campaign, insisted that her network was not populated by liberals who tilted the news leftward. O’Reilly had cited a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs on the network news coverage of the Obama-McCain campaign that showed the tilt in favorable coverage for Obama over McCain as follows:
Obama McCain
CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56% 16%
ABC 57% 42%
ABC had fared best of the three broadcast networks, but the point of liberal media bias — the kind of reporting that dates as far back as the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign — stood. So O’Reilly persisted.
And out popped the above statement on Jeremiah Wright.
Let’s be clear here. Sawyer used the word “tapes” — and strictly speaking she is correct.
The problem comes with the context — in which she is clearly trying to imply that ABC was the proverbial dog with a bone in uncovering the relationship of Wright to his famous congregant, and what the implications might be for the country if a man who sat in Wright’s pews for 20 years listening to Wright’s leftist political rants were elected president.
Bluntly put — this is poppycock.
The man — and the network — that did the background research on this was, yes indeed, Sean Hannity and Fox News.
On February 28, 2007 — over a full year before ABC first aired its Wright story — Hannity had located columnist Erik Rush, who had written an article on Senator Obama and his church. He put Rush on the air that night.
The very next night, Hannity had managed to corral Wright himself on his Fox show with liberal Alan Colmes. Here’s the clip.
Out poured the tale of Wright’s devotion to Black Liberation Theology and the radical writings of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. From this initial work the connections of Wright to Louis Farrakhan and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Qaddafi were uncovered and more.
And on it went.
The role of ABC News here?
Zip, nada, zero.
And yet plain as can be, there sits Diane Sawyer, the anchor of ABC News, on the set of Fox’s O’Reilly Factortrying to pretend ABC was a prime mover in Hannity’s story — a Fox story that surely would never have seen the light of day anywhere had it not been for Hannity’s tenacity in digging it out and putting it on TV. And, as regular viewers will recall, being snickered at while doing it — snickering that stopped when Obama finally felt so much pressure on Wright he stopped going to the church and felt the need to publicly rebuke the man he had once said was like an “uncle” to him.
Ms. Sawyer insisted her network would be providing “fantastic coverage” of the 2012 race, citing the liberal ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as a key member of her team.
If this is an example of the work to come from ABC News on the 2012 presidential campaign… well, we report, you decide.
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight: As we reported last night, elements of the national liberal media have begun their campaign to re-elect President Obama. The attacks on Fox News are being stepped up, and we used an example of NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell deriding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for criticizing Mr. Obama.
Here now to talk about the Obama advantage in the media, Fox News political analyst Charles Krauthammer, who is in Washington this evening. So how much of an advantage? Because in my lifetime covering politics, 35 years now, I’ve never seen a media as rabidly invested in a president as the liberal national media is in Mr. Obama. Have you?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think that is true, and you can see it in a Pew study, Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism that they did in 2008 election. They found that of the three cable networks, Fox played it absolutely right down the middle, the same amount of favorability to McCain as to Obama. CNN three times as favorable to Obama as to McCain; MSNBC 5 to 1. So, I mean, and that was four years ago. Interesting, to give you an idea of how biased the media is, when it issued a press release on that study, Bill, it played it as CNN was the cable norm, with MSNBC on one side and Fox on the other deviating from the norm. The norm being the pro-Obama bias of CNN, rather than the norm that any objective American would say, which is what Fox has done, which was to play it right down the middle.
O’REILLY: Sure. Now, there was another study done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs that showed the network broadcasts — CBS, ABC and NBC — were 68 percent positive for Obama, Senator Obama, then-Senator Obama, 32 percent negative. For John McCain, it was the reverse: 36 positive, 64 negative. So, my contention is that nothing is going to change this time around. That the national TV media and the big urban newspapers, like The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, will all be trying to get President Obama re-elected. So the question then becomes: How much of an advantage is it for the president?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it’s a major advantage, but you’ve got to remember this. The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side. They’ve had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the presidency seven out of the last 11 elections, and that’s because what Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades. So what the media bias does is it slightly — it gives an advantage. It’s a major advantage, but it’s undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have because it’s a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal message.
And as bad as it appears to be with the tilt in favorable coverage for liberal Barack Obama for, well, somewhat less liberal John McCain – (and here is the result of the study again):
Obama McCain
CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56% 16%
ABC 57% 42%
– I believe it is actually FAR worse than that.
The reason I say that is there’s an implicit assumption that isn’t true; namely, that both John McCain and Barack Obama had exactly the same negative baggage or positive qualities. As an example, if Tom and Dick had pretty much the exact same record, and the press covered Dick more favorably than Tom, you’d certainly be able to show bias.
But what if Dick had a long history of radical associations, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis, and including racist un-American bigots such as Jeremiah Wright and terrorists such as William Ayers? What if Dick had all the political baggage of a Chicago thug, including dirty deals with criminal scumbags such as Tony Rezko? What if Dick’s wife had all KINDS of dirty baggage? What if Dick could be documented to have a radical history of being a communist? Just as a couple of examples? Would it be fair or legitimate to expect the coverage to be evenly “favorable” versus “unfavorable,” or would FAIR and OBJECTIVE coverage have skewed dramatically against Dick???
In the case of Barack Obama, the guy who deserved virtually ALL the negative coverage got virtually NONE. Versus war hero John McCain who should have received very little unfavorable coverage and got virutally nothing BUT???
And that same overwhelming media bias that got Obama an undeserved victory and the presidency in 2008 is just as biased today in defending the failure’s record.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? by novelist Orson Scott Card, a Democrat _________
.. This [financial crisis] was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
.. Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.) …
.. 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.
.. If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. …
.. So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
.. [Was] getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for? …
.. … tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
.. This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
.. If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie. – Novelist Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, on October 5, 2008,HERE
..
.. The Financial Sector Meltdown .. 1. Almost all of the financial problems we see today are based on bad mortgage lending. That would be lending money to people to buy homes who didn’t qualify for a loan.
.. 2. The Democrats, under Clinton, strengthened a government-created monster called the “Community Reinvestment Act” [first foisted upon the country under Jimmy Carter]. This law was then used by “activists” and “community organizers” … to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans … millions of them.
.. 3. Now we see what happens when political “wisdom” supplants good loan underwriting. When private financial institutions are virtually forced to make loans to people with a bad credit and job history … this is what you get. Enjoy it. — Neal Boortz, here ..
.
Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
..
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
..
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market.
.. — Kevin Hassett, Bloomberg News, here ..
.. Obama choice helped Fannie block oversight
National security adviser tied to discrediting of probe ..
By Jim McElhatton, The Washington Times,October 13, 2010here
..
UNDER SCRUTINY: Thomas E. Donilon worked as a registered lobbyist for Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2005.
..
Years before Fannie Mae foundered amid a massive accounting scandal, President Obama’s choice for national security adviser oversaw an office inside the mortgage giant that orchestrated a negative publicity blitz to fight attempts by Congress to increase government oversight, records show.
..
Thomas E. Donilon, who won the job as national security adviser this month, worked as a registered lobbyist for Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2005 at a time the company’s officials insisted finances were sound. He also earned more than $1.8 million in bonuses [from Frannie Mae] before the government took over the troubled company in the wake of an accounting scandal.
..
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Mr. Obama, who railed against lobbyists on the campaign trail, hailed Mr. Donilon’s appointment last week, but made no mention of his time as a registered lobbyist.st wee
..
..
Democrats and some [big-government] Republicans opposed reform in part because Fannie and Freddie were very good at greasing palms. Fannie has spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998 and $19.3 million on political contributions since 1990.
..
The principal recipient of Fannie Mae’s largesse was a Democrat, Sen. Chris Dodd (D, CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. No. 2 was another Democrat, Sen. Barack Obama (D, IL).
..
Mr. Dodd was also the second largest recipient in the Senate of contributions from Countrywide’s political action committee and its employees, and the recipient of a home loan from Countrywide at well below market rates. The No. 1 senator on Countrywide’s list? Barack Obama. Check it out here: http://tinyurl.com/4h9955
..
.. “Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.
.. “The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.” — Dr. Thomas Sowell, Professor Emeritus, Economics, Stanford University, HERE
..
.. When the Bush administration tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie from continuing to engage in risky practices, guess who stepped in to block their efforts? Democratic senators Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and — are you ready? — Barack Obama.
.. Meanwhile, guess who were the top four recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie between 1988 and 2008?
.. Senators Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and — still ready? — Barack Obama.
.. A coincidence, I tell you — just a coincidence.
.. More mere coincidences: Franklin Raines — a former Carter- and Clinton-administration official and former head of Fannie Mae, now under investigation for cooking its books — had a lot of powerful people in Congress beholden to his agency. Here is a list of his campaign-contribution recipients. Meanwhile, Democratic honcho Jim Johnson, another former Fannie Mae CEO, has been an economic adviser to and major fundraiser for Barack Obama, and even ran his vice-presidential search committee until growing scandals over his Fannie management forced him to step down in July. – Robert Bidinotto, here ..
.. On May 25, 2006, Sen. John McCain spoke forcefully on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. He said on the floor of the Senate:
.. “Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
.. “The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
.. ” The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
.. “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
.. “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
.. “I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”
.. It died at the hands of the DEMOCRATS — HERE’s a video clip showing their anger.
..
.. “Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs.These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. … The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy.” — Dr. Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, HERE
..
.. “Barack Obama wasn’t just the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political contributions. He was also the senator from ACORN, the activist leader for risky ‘affirmative action’ loans. … [The CRA] gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks … ACORN employed its tactics in 1991 by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. … Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the CRA and helped spawn the current financial crisis. Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort.” — IBD Editorials
.. “The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering [“community organizer”] efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding [via CAC and Woods Fund] for her efforts.” — Stanley Kurtz, “BARACK’S ‘ORGAANIZER’ BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES”HERE
.
. Bloomberg News has an excellent recap of the history of the financial meltdown:.HERE.
.
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama
not shown: Bill Clinton
..
“Scratch the surface of an endemic problem — famine, illness, poverty — and you invariably find a politician at the source.” — Simon Carr
“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.” — Ayn Rand
“I think that we all need to consider the possibility … just the possibility … that Obama is engaged in a conscious effort to destroy our free market economy so that he can build a government-controlled socialist party on the rubble.” — Neal Boortz, here
[Conscious effort or not, we have an emergency on our hands.]
The left is angry at Obama’s failed promises (a failed promise = a lie, by the way) as well. Obama promised to close Gitmo. He lied. Obama promised to have had the troops home from Iraq by now. He lied. Obama promised to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan with his own personal magnificence. And more than TWICE as many American soldiers gave their lives under Obama in Afghanistan in 2009 than during Bush’s last year in office.
Obama wants conservatives to lay down their arms even as his cockroach minions continue to shrilly attack them. Apparently he truly thinks people are that stupid.
Here were Obama’s words at the national prayer breakfast (which he ultimately politicized, because the man just can’t help himself):
At the event of the “national prayer breakfast” in Washington on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama has urged his fellow countrymen to adhere to the ‘spirit of civility’, affirming that “civility is not a sign of weakness”.
The event which attracts leading political, religious and business leaders was witness to the famous oratorical power of the US president.
“Too often that spirit (of civility) is missing without the spectacular tragedy,” Mr. Obama said. “We become numb to the day-to-day crises. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, and our contests for power. And in this tower of babble, we lose the sound of God’s voice.”
He remarked that we should be open to differing views and make a concerted effort to abandon the cynicism and skepticism that have done enough harm to American politics already.
Obama has repeatedly dishonestly demonized Republicans as obstructionists and hatemongers – which, for the record, is a very obstructionistic and hatemongering thing for him to do.
In his Q and A session with House Republicans, Obama said:
I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”
And how are Democrats supposed to embrace Republican ideas in a bipartisan fashion when Democrats just like YOU repeatedly demonize George Bush and demagogue Republicans for “the failed ideas of the past,” Mr. Hussein?
There’s a joke that Obama finally honored George Bush by naming the tectonic region beneath Haiti as “Bush’s Fault.” It’s not far from the truth.
Does Barry Husein seriously not realize that every single Democrat in the Senate voted for ObamaCare (not withstanding the outright bribes such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Purchase)? Since when is it that every single Democrat voting for a Democrat bill is good, but every single Republican voting against a Democrat bill is bad? Wouldn’t both Republicans AND Democrats be voting both for and against a bipartisan bill?
Since Democrats love to claim about how “bipartisan” they have been, I would love to see a Democrat offer me a list reciting 100 specific instances in which Obama or Democrats have said, “We’ll do this your way” on significant elements of any and all legislation.
It would be nice if Obama and Democrats paid attention to the giant log in their own eyes. Just for once in their lives.
Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters are like frothing-mouth rabid vermin:
New York Times columnist Frank Rich would have rebelled against the notion that opposing President Bush’s policies was unpatriotic. But he can shamelessly declare that opposing Obama’s agenda is unpatriotic – even if you’re John McCain. Rich wrote on Sunday:
If [Harry] Reid can serve as the face of Democratic fecklessness in the Senate, then John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”
Rich wasn’t going to find it ridiculous that Obama was blaming Bush for an “expensive” Medicare entitlement that Democrats voted for and/or felt wasn’t expensive enough – just as Obama blames Bush for the deficit effects of TARP, which he voted for.
It should be remembered that John McCain spent something like six years in the hellhole of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam and suffered terribly physically as a result. To accuse him of being “unpatriotic” after what he went through for his country is a disgrace from a disgrace of a newspaper.
Not to be outdone as a moral disgrace, Chris Matthews basically compared the Republican Party to the leftist communist regime that murdered well over a million people:
Huffington Post | Danny Shea First Posted: 02- 1-10 05:36 PM | Updated: 02- 1-10 05:59 PM
Chris Matthews compared the far right wing of the Republican Party to the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal Cambodian communist party led by Pol Pot, in MSNBC’s coverage of President Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans Friday night.
“The Republican Party is under assault from its far right,” Matthews said. “I don’t think I can remember either party being under assault by its extremes. I mean, there seems to be a new sort of purity test that unless you’re far right, you’re not a Republican, and this sort of tea party testing they’re doing now.”
Matthews called the party’s pull from the far right “frightening” in comparing it to the Cambodian regime.
“So what’s going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of frightening,” he said, “almost Cambodia reeducation camp going on in that party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, ‘If you’re not far right, you’re not right enough.’ And I think that it’s really – there’s going to be a lot of extreme language on the Republican side. And maybe, it will be a circular firing squad when this is all over.”
Just two days prior, Matthews came under fire for saying that he forgot President Obama was black for an hour while watching his State of the Union, a post-racial comment he would later clarify.
So let’s understand, this closet bigoted turd who is continuously aware of Obama’s blackness (light-skinned blackness with no Negro dialect only, mind you!) says that there’s a lot of extreme language coming from the Republican side — but only AFTER comparing those same Republicans to a communist regime that systematically murdered 1.7 million of their own people.
Rachel Maddow on Friday referred to attendees of the National Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee, as white-hooded racists.
Continuing MSNBC’s sad tradition, Maddow first attacked one of the convention’s speakers: “The opening speech last night was given by failed presidential candidate, ex-congressman and professional anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo who started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang.”
From there, she went after the audience (video embedded below the fold with transcript).
What a bigoted, vicious, racist thing of you to say, Rachel. But according to Obama, who only attacks Fox News for being biased, Barry Hussein tacitly approves of every single word.
And we can get back to Barack Obama and pretty much the entire Democrat Party as repeatedly demagoguing the Republican Party as “the party of no” when it is now an openly acknowledged fact that they were never any such thing.
Despite the “lecture” by the commander-in-chief, as one member described it, Republicans had the opportunity to articulate the proposals they’ve sent to the president over the past year.
And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.
At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.
“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.
In other words, it is now a matter of public record that Democrats have been intentionally lying, misrepresenting, slandering, and demagoguing Republicans all along. Why on earth should Republicans have cooperated with these vile people?
So Democrats can just shut the hell up with their accusations of Republicans saying or doing ANYTHING until they clean up the thousands of cockroach nests that constitute their political wing, and start being HONEST for once in their lives.
Personally, I am quite willing to cease fire on the rhetoric wars; all I need to see is for Barack Obama to denounce the mainline media for their lies rather than continually attacking Fox News; all I need to see is the Maddows and the Olbermanns and the Mathews of the news to be fired; all I need to see is for the left to quit demonizing and demagoguing. And I will happily practice all the “tolerance” and “civility” Obama wants.
The problem is that that will never happen, because the left is demagogic and hypocritical to their very cores of their dried-out, shriveled little souls.
And the fact that Barack Obama is out in front of the cameras beseeching for “tolerance” and “civility” while his minions are viciously and hatefully attacking day after day without any rebuke from the president just proves my point.
joining the ranks of the V. I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization,
in the presence of my comrades solemnly promise:
to love and cherish my Motherland passionately,
to live as the great Lenin bade us,
as the Communist Party teaches us,
as require the laws of the Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union.
And let’s not forget the rules. Rules are important, you know:
Young Pioneer is a young communism builder, labours for the welfare of the Motherland, prepares to become its defender.
Young Pioneer is an active fighter for peace, a friend to Young Pioneers and workers’ children of all countries.
Young Pioneer follows communists’ example, prepares to become a Komsomol member, leads Little Octobrists.
Young Pioneer upholds the honour of the organization, strengthens its authority by deeds and actions.
Young Pioneer is a reliable comrade, respects elder, looks after younger people, always acts according to conscience.
Young Pioneer has a right to elect and be elected to Young Pioneer self-government institutions, to discuss the functioning of the Young Pioneer organization on Young Pioneer gatherings, meetings, gatherings of Soviets of Young Pioneer detachments and Young Pioneer groups, in the press; to criticize shortcomings; to submit a proposal to any Soviet of the Young Pioneer organization, including the Central Soviet of the V. I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization; to ask for a recommendation of the Soviet of Young Pioneer group to join VLKSM.
Yes. We need more of THAT kind of thing. That’s why we so desperately need the Obama Youth now. I had this brilliant idea of militarizing the Obama Youth into little fascist Brownshirts. But – as the the following video demonstrates – someone beat me to it. Those nice boys sure do adore their fuhrer, don’t they?
Adolf Hitler is our Saviour, our hero
He is the noblest being in the whole wide world.
For Hitler we live, for Hitler we die.
Our Hitler is our Lord who rules a brave new world.
I have never heard children singing the praises of Reagan, or either Bush. But there were freakish children crawling out of the woodwork to sing about their messiah Obama. This bizarre devotion to a politician is as mystifying as it is terrifying to a student of history.
I remember this political re-education camp for kindergartners:
“You are the instruments that God is gonna 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.”
It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.
I don’t know about you, but that’s how I date things now. It’s the year One AB. It helps me better understand why the Mayans predicted the cataclysmic apocalypse on December 21, 2012 (according to that old “pre-BB/AB” calender). Unfortunately, Spike Lee’s Before Barack-After Barack calender only has four years in it before liberals completely ruin the world. It’ll be just like the Ghostbusters said: “Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
Okay, maybe it will just be no jobs, no economy, government control over all health care and all use of energy, and a bunch of weird fanatic kids running around taking over the world for Dear Leader Obama.
But the bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service.”
NO! Cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers”? PREPOSTEROUS!Never gonna happen. Okay, maybe it will happen just a little bit…
Americorps has a recruitment ad (which your dollars paid for) that is pure propaganda, associating themselves with people and events that have nothing whatsoever to do with them as they attempt to leech more and more government funding.
Now, all that sounds well and good. But just consider that the communist Young Pioneers depicted themselves as loving and cherishing the Motherland passionately; being a builder and labouring for the welfare of the Motherland; being an active fighter for peace; being a friend to workers’ children of all countries; upholding the honor of the organization, and strengthening its authority by deeds and actions; being a reliable comrade; respecting elders, looking after younger people, and always acting according to conscience. It all just sounds so good; can I sign up and be a communist Young Pioneer or join Americorps too?
Now, Glenn Beck came out with a theory which would sound preposterous unless you watched some of the videos above and realize a few key facts:
2) Americorps is competing for the same people in the same age group. “Volunteers” are actually paid to perform activities which are in fact political.
3) MICHELLE OBAMA on 2/18/2008 is on the record preaching, “Barack Obama will require you to work. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Glenn Beck says,
They are steering our youth into community service. Ted Kennedy and his ilk are even pushing the idea of forced service. They’re incentivizing working for the government with promises of paying off college loans. The catch, of course, is you have to federalize your loan before they’ll pay it. He wants you to be a bureaucrat slave to government.
It’s hard to believe that a President of the United States would deliberately torpedo minimum wage jobs to force young people out of the private workplace and into one of his government “volunteer” service organizations. But it was awfully hard for me to believe a lot of things I’ve seen this president do.
Obama has incredibly radical theoretical constructs:
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
Even the Warren Court wasn’t radical enough for what Obama wanted to do. He wanted to radically take the country further away from the founding fathers.
But to implement such “transformation” requires an army of leftist foot soldiers (preferably foot soldiers who are paid by federal funding, such as ACORN and AmeriCorps). You need to have mobs to protest every “lack of government social resources”, to challenge the status quo at every turn, to push for the liberal social agenda. You need those foot soldiers implanted in neighborhoods and cities across the country who are at the call of Team Obama – whether it’s answering the call to shake down banks, or form a housing entitlement mob, or foster voter fraud, or create statistical shenanigans with the census. You need community organizers and the bitter mobs they organize.
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Michelle Malkin has just written Culture of Corruption to explore “ObamaCorps” and how this army is being created.
There is another, even more sinister cospiracy. Because all of this reminds me of the Cloward-Piven strategy:
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.
I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy. If the economy somehow picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose. If – much more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government. And Democrats will win the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned. Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.
When Bill Clinton was president, I disagreed with many of his policies. But I have no memory of being literally creeped out by any bizarre cult-like followings. And I certainly didn’t constantly have to suffer legitimate fears that he was trying to fundamentally transform the very essence of America.
There are a number of solidly blue large states that will drive up the tally of Obama’s popular vote support. California, New York, and Illinois are examples of states that should easily go to Obama by huge margins.
But winning one state by a big margin in an all or nothing state doesn’t mean any more in the Presidential contest than winning that state by one single vote.
We are a nation that decides Presidents by an electoral college system that is based on building a coalition of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes. Any combination of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes wins the White House.
Right now, there are fundamentally seven “battleground” states that will decide the election, with the remaining states having already fallen one way or the other: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The way the election has been breaking based on polling data, McCain has to win the first seven, or make up for a loss by winning Pennsylvania.
The point is, McCain could easily lose the popular vote by a significant margin and still win the election by narrowly winning the states he needs to win. In the 2000 election, Gore lost to Bush while receiving a little over half a million more popular votes. The same thing could happen to Obama, only on a much more massive scale of several million votes.
The coal industry is located in some of the hardest-hit states. Obama’s words could have devastating consequences for a large swath of the nation.
Rasmussen currently has McCain tied with Obama in four of those vital states (Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia), and the Rasmussen data would not include either the full extent of the late McCain surge or the fallout from Obama’s “bankrupt the coal plants” statement. And the poll that predicted the race most accurately in the last presidential election has the national race within two points, within the IBD/TIPP poll’s margin of error. Most polls show the race at a 6-7 point gap.
On top of these factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, in which people told pollsters misleading information, but in the end refused to vote for a black candidate (Tom Bradley) who had led in the polls and who continued to lead in the exit polling in the 1982 race for Governor of California. And Barack Obama, whether due to the “Bradley Effect” or something else, did not prove to be a stong finisher during the primary races against Hillary Clinton. John McCain, by contrast, has always been a historically strong finisher who has relied on a “72 hour” strategy and simply doesn’t have any quit in him.
It may be a crucial factoid that seven of the eight critical states are traditionally Republican. If Republicans have a stronger get-out-the-vote machine in their “home field states,” McCain may very well pull out a shocking win.
An Associated Press article by Liz Sidoti titled “Can Obama win popular vote but lose election?” appears to be a fairly balanced presentation of the facts as most of the media believe they understand them.
But we can go back to 1980 to see the media asking the question, “Where the Polls Went Wrong” to try to cope with bad projections that led to massive failures by both the polling organizations and the media who broadcast what turned out to be disinformation.
One thing I know: nobody deserves to look bad more than the mainstream media.
The polls are all over the place in the Presidential race. I’ve had Democrats pointing to polls that have Obama up by as much as 14 points. This morning I assumed I must have slept through Wednesday, because the crowd at ABC’s “This Week” were all talking about the election as though McCain had lost in a Iandslide. Questions were phrased in terms of, “Is there anything that McCain could have done?” “What did McCain do wrong that cost him this election?” Personally, I still believe that McCain will eek out a victory, as voters who have no real inclination to support McCain will realize that they have very good reason to reject Obama. I just can’t imagine that the country would decide to make the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most radical candidate in U.S. history our next President given our fragile state.
But I’ve got to face reality. Maybe all those talking heads on “This Week” are right. I frankly don’t know which polls are “most accurate” (if any), or who will surge or who will fade (although it seems to me – given their Iraq positions – that it be only fitting that McCain “surge” and Obama’s “victory” turn into a “cut and run” on him). But regardless of what I hope will happen, or even what I think will happen, there’s always what might happen: Obama is clearly favored to win this election, and Democrats are clearly favored to win massive control of the House and the Senate under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The question is, if Obama does win, what should Republicans hope for about the Congressional elections? What should we hope for during the course of the next two years? During an Obama Presidency? Should we want Republicans to do well enough to filibuster? Or should we want to see Democrats do so well they destroy the country and destroy their own political futures in the process? Should Republicans hope the economy recovers and hums along under Democratic leadership, or should we literally hope the economy tanks under the Democrats’ control?
You’ve got plenty of your ordinary, traditional conservatives out there. They want what’s best for the country because they’ve always put country over party. They want to see the economy pick up, they want to see the United States maintain and even expand its power and influence. They want to see the country continue to remain great, because that’s what they’ve always wanted.
It’s what I always wanted. At least up to now. I was so proud to enlist in the United States Army with Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief. I was proud to wear two Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge on my chest. And I continued to remain proud of my country after I left the Army. During the Clinton years, I told more than a few bitter Republicans, “Whether you voted for him or not, he’s STILL your President!” I didn’t vote for President Clinton, and was disappointed by his victory; but I was an American, and he was my President because my country voted for him. I prayed for his wisdom and leadership. Too bad so many Democrats never brought any similar bipartisanship with them. They worked to undermine President Bush in every way they could.
I just cannot bring myself to support God Damn America. Or even wish it well. We have become so amoral that we easily support the death-by-mutilation of 50,000,000 babies. In fact, we have become so immoral that we are prepared to make a man who voted to let babies who have been born alive be killed. I find myself hoping that the economy goes down the tubes under the Democrats’ control, because that appears to be the only way that people will support traditional values or the party that seeks to uphold them.
If Barack Obama is elected President, I will quote the man he called his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years: GOD DAMN AMERICA! THE U.S. OF KKK A!!! And I will say my prayers accordingly: where I used to say, God, please don’t give us the judgment we deserve, I will say, “Lord, we voted for God damn America; go ahead and give it to us!”
I finally understand all the Democrats’ who expressed such vitriolic hatred of George Bush and the America that voted for him. I love the America that the founding fathers envisioned; these Democrats repudiate that historic vision for America – and with their messiah – view our Constitution as having had an “enormous blind spot” which “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country.” They think the Constitution and the country were deeply flawed; I think the flaw has always laid with the people who kept corrupting our system of government by imposing their will in place of our Constitution because they thought they knew better.
I loved the America of which Kennedy said, “Ask… what you can do for your country”; Today’s Democrats say, “Ask what your country can do for you.” Or, to put it in Obama-Wright terms, Democrats hated the God bless America that we once were; I hate the God damn America that they promise to usher in.
But I do wonder how conservatives – whose opinions I actually DO give a rip about – feel about my anger and bitterness over the prospect that half the country (or more, or less, as we’ll find out November 4) would elect such an un-American – or at least such a ‘God Damn America’ American – for President. I feel like Dietrich Bonhoeffer must have felt as he watched his beloved Germany fervently embracing Nazism. The German people in the 1920s wanted “change”, too: and Adolf Hitler gave them change in spades.
Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE. You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick? I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win. The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better. The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media. Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.
The media has been so blatantly biased that we are now in a propaganda state. There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased. Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain. The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats. Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded it, because no free society can survive a climate of propaganda.
The only way that America can turn around given the propaganda-dominated culture is if the media is utterly discredited, and Democrats lead the nation into calamity and despair. It can happen in two ways:
The second way that America will recognize that they’ve been lied to by both Democrats and their media propaganda is if we are attacked again.
Personally, if Obama is elected to the White House, I would like to see conservatives leaving military service the way rats might leave a sinking ship. Let them determine that they will not fight for God Damn America and leave the military in droves. Let Democrats do all the fighting and suffering sacrificing and dying (or at least all the cutting and running that they prefer to fighting) for the next few years. When 70% of the military is composed of McCain-supporting conservatives, something needs to change under a Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. Joe Biden – the foreign policy “expert” on the ticket – flat-out guaranteed that Obama would be tested with an international crisis in the first six months of his Presidency. Let the people who voted for him do all the dying for him, too. That only seems fair. I earlier suggested that we have a “Gay All The Way!” military.
The country that so totally rejects conservatives certainly doesn’t need their help. At this point – with the voters demanding complete Democratic domination – building up country amounts to tearing down the conservative vision for the country.
We have totally turned Iraq around in the last couple years, but that is only because President Bush and his commanders in the filed refused to listen while the Democratic Senate Majority Leader proclaimed defeat, while Barack Obama vigorously opposed the surge that allowed us to finally gain the upper hand in the first place, with Democrats claiming that President Bush lied about Iraq from the outset, and with too many Democrats loudly and publicly calling our soldiers war criminals and Nazis. Let’s see how President Obama fares against Iran. Let’s see what happens when – as I believe – Israel attacks Iran to try to destroy its nuclear program because they don’t believe that the United States under President Obama will do anything.
When a weak, passive, appeasing Barack Obama allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons (because only the assurance of a massive attack will stop them at this point), they will be coming after the Great Satan both directly and indirectly through terrorist proxies – and be able to threaten a few mushroom clouds should the Great Satan directly threaten them in return. That won’t look so good to the electorate, who will suddenly fondly remember that the Bush Presidency had actually managed to protect them from terrorist attacks. But I will be loudly quoting Jeremiah Wright and how “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
We are one major terrorist attack – just ONE – away from an America that overwhelmingly realizes that Barack Hissein Obama is UNFIT to lead this country. Don’t think for one nanosecond that the same fickle electorate that rejected Bush won’t reject Obama. One attack, and they will remember all the many ways that Democrats left this country vulnerable to terrorism.
Yes, in the short run, the Democrats would pass the fascist “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle all opposition speech and run so completely wild on social godlessness that they will make decent peoples’ skin crawl. But when they poison the nation against themselves do to their own rabid excesses – or if there is another major terrorist attack given the likely Democrat’s repeal of the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of terrorists, the abandonment of Gitmo and its detention of our terrorist enemies, and their overall perception by terrorists as weakling cowardly retreating appeasers ripe for attack – there will be a conservative victory in two years that will be like nothing ever seen. The only way Democrats can be seen as the incompetent fools they truly are is if they are actually allowed to run everything and they have no one to blame for the disaster but themselves.
Until then, I’m just going to spend the next four years reciting Democratic talking points: our country is evil; our President is evil; our soldiers are evil. God damn America, also known as the U.S. of KKK A. We’re immoral for doing every damn thing we do; Obama lied, people died. That sort of thing.
Generally, financial analysts say the stock market likes Republicans more than Democrats. And while predicting market movements is as difficult as predicting the winner of the World Series in August, some experts say the market is already anticipating an Obama win on Nov. 4 and has at least partially accounted for it.
“Potentially, you could see a one or two-day rally on a McCain victory, and not much of a reaction if Obama wins, because that’s what’s expected at this point,” said Justin Fishkin, a partner at The Cypress Group, a financial services company in Washington, D.C. Fishkin, who earlier in his career was a hedge fund manager specializing in political, regulatory, and legislative event-driven investments, said the key issue on Wall Street minds is corporate taxation — which is why the market might prefer McCain and his promised rate cuts over Obama.
In other words, a significant part of the massive sell-offs we’ve already seen were inspired by the belief that Obama would win the White House and start screwing up the economy with socialism.
This adds to the fact that CEOs overwhelmingly (74%) fear that “an Obama presidency would be disasterous for the country,” that Obama would “have a negative impact on business and the economy,” and that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” Oh, well, what do Chief Executive Officers know about business or the economy, anyway?
Politico isn’t the only major news source reporting on the fear of an Obma presidency by the people who understand money and finance. MSN has an article titled, “Why Wall Street Fears Obama“:
Investors this summer have been placing their bets on an Obama presidency, and for the most part that hasn’t been good for the market.
Without giving him a chance to explain himself in detail on the campaign trail or at the Democratic National Convention, they are voting with their shares by tossing financial, health insurance, manufacturing and high-dividend stocks into the ash can, and are growing skeptical about energy companies as well.
It’s not that major institutional investors don’t like the man — far from it. He has many backers among the financial elite, including multibillionaires George Soros and Ron Burkle. And it’s not that there aren’t many other reasons for investors to sell stocks now, as the global economy tangles with the terrible twin beasts of bank deleveraging and inflation.
It’s just that Obama’s rhetoric on taxes and health care is scaring common wealthy people with large capital gains from investments made over the past decade, and a lot of them don’t want to wait around to see whether it’s just populist fluff that might be set aside once he takes office.
The real question for investors after an Obama win is the extent to which Democrats assume control of the Congress, and the more there are the less they like it:
Joe Lieber, a political analyst at the consulting firm Washington Analysis who scrutinizes elections for his clients at hedge, mutual and pension funds, said an electoral lurch that gave the Democrats 60 seats could prompt a dramatic sell-off on Wall Street.
“We’re getting a lot more questions about the Senate than the presidential [race],” Lieber said, “because there’s almost nobody on Wall Street right now who believes McCain’s going to win.” A filibuster-proof Democratic majority (three-fifths of the chamber, or 60 senators) would not be well received by Wall Street traders, he added. “A lot of investment professionals don’t necessarily want to give one party the keys to the entire city. Free markets like gridlock.”
Ah yes, the thrill of one party domination, with the in-the-tank media determined to tell the Titanic that everything is fine no matter how fast the country plows toward the giant iceberg.
An interesting question is to what extent conservatives and Republicans believe we should try to forestall the disaster we think will occur under the Union of Soviet Socialist AmeriKKKa (because that’s how Barack’s Marxist/anarchist/terrorist pal and his preacher for 23 years spelled ‘America,’ after all) or just stand back and let the meltdown commence.
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:
Early on after the Palin announcement, the Obama campaign went after her on her limited experience. They seem to have backed off of the charge, but they left it hanging right over the plate like a bad change-up.
Palin has led a city (albeit a small one) and a state (an ENORMOUS one with a small population – about the size of Biden’s Delaware, by the way). Obama, meanwhile, has never run a city, never run a state, and never run a budget.
It’s frankly easier to do the same sort of thing on a larger scale than it is to start doing an entirely different sort of thing. Obama has a short career as a legislator; Palin has a slightly longer one as a leader. Palin was actually in elected politics 5 years before Obama.
Obama claims that his opposition to Iraq proves his judgment is better. But if that is the test for good judgment, why did he pick Biden, who vigorously argued for the war? And he showed terrible judgment in opposing the surge strategy. And he didn’t really do so great with his “nuanced” statements about Russia’s invasion of Georgia, either.
If anything, it’s kind of like standing in front of a mirror and shouting, “YOU’RE UGLY!” I mean, dude, so are you.
Meanwhile, John McCain, who has a lifetime of valuable experience from both his military and government service, is the guy on the top of the Republican ticket.
“Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.
“Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. … The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy.” — Dr. Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, 
Start Thinking Right 