Confederate Yankee
October 18, 2008
Obama's Stolen Tax Cuts
Barack Obama keeps telling us that he's going to cut taxes for 95-percent of Americans... but did you ever notice he never says where that cut is going to come from, and the media never asks?
There's a reason for that:
One thing: the 95% number is fundamentally dishonest because I'm pretty sure it measures against the CBO baseline – which assumes all of the '01 and '03 tax cuts expire in 2010. Politically, that's nonsense. But it allows Obama to count extending the politically popular Bush tax laws as an "Obama tax cut." Compared to what people actually pay (what Republicans at the House Ways and Means Committee call the "reality baseline"
, there isn't actually a tax cut. Put it this way: currently families get a $1,000 per child tax credit. Now, the CBO baseline assumes that credit drops to $500 per child in 2011. So if the Obama Administration keeps the credit at $1,000 – which means the family pays the same as they always have – it counts as a "tax cut." I know you understand all this, but it drives me batty how intellectually dishonest the mainstream media has been in covering the tax issue in this election.
Did you get all that?
Senator Government is trying to steal credit for the Bush tax cuts that he voted against in the Senate.
It turn out we do have a candidate running his campaign based on George W. Bush's legacy.
Barack Obama just doesn't have the integrity to admit it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:21 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The O spinners claim that SocSec tax is "income" tax, and claim that his credits are (in essence) deleting the SS tax paid on the first $8100.00 of income.
Posted by: dad29 at October 18, 2008 08:54 AM (nWJY1)
2
I suppose it wouldn't do for Obama to extend "Bush's tax cuts for the rich". Would some truly rich person even notice they received a $500 break?
Posted by: RicardoVerde at October 18, 2008 10:38 AM (PBTsv)
3
If you become truly rich on your own money (as opposed to freebies, bailouts, other gimmees from government, you worry about 5 cents, five dollars and five hundred dollars.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 18, 2008 10:47 AM (OmeRL)
4
The Big-Money Media, as John McCain said, is really an "independent, civic-minded, and non-partisan group.....like ACORN." The BMM is not only intellectually dishonest, they are fundamentally dishonest. They believe. That is their fundamental flaw. Dispassionate observers cannot allow themselves to hold a belief system with which all external observations must be rectified. It is the very definition of prejudice. Seeing The Media stripped naked in public in broad daylight, as their financial fortunes plummet like respect for them, has been the delight of the presidential campaign.
Posted by: twolaneflash at October 18, 2008 01:14 PM (05dZx)
5
Obama says he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. About 33% of filers pay no taxes now and file for benefits like the earned income credit. Obama proposes to cut their taxes. In other words, it's not a tax proposal but a gigantic new welfare scheme.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at October 18, 2008 03:46 PM (dWcV1)
6
Even better for BO; he simply lets W's tax breaks expire, then 'cuts' taxes to half of what W cut them.
He gets a raise that he can technically call a cut.
Posted by: Lord Nazh at October 19, 2008 04:54 PM (sBNzZ)
7
Ken Hahn said: "Obama says he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. About 33% of filers pay no taxes now and file for benefits like the earned income credit. Obama proposes to cut their taxes. In other words, it's not a tax proposal but a gigantic new welfare scheme."
Exactly my thoughts! Obama truly is going to spread the wealth by taking money from productive citizens and giving it to those whom George Bernard Shaw referred to as "the undeserving poor."
You might be interested in reading this post: http://grandrants.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/share-the-wealth-our-wealth-not-his/
Posted by: Stoutcat at October 19, 2008 11:52 PM (MpuZY)
8
check it out and spread the word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVS3F-4TB9c
Posted by: titor at October 20, 2008 08:28 AM (b0q90)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 17, 2008
The Racism They Teach
She's only 12 years old but Ashleigh Jones is feeling the heat of this election year.
That’s because the seventh grader at New Smyrna Beach Middle School was called a racist by classmates for wearing a pro-Sarah Palin t-shirt.
All dissent is racist, kids.
The thought of it getting continually worse for the next 4-8 years ought to motivate everyone who still believes in free speech to get to the polls and make sure Senator Government and his Truth Squads are relegated to being an Illinois Nazi problem, and not a national one.
The polls are tightening, and Barack Obama has still never won a contested election. Let's keep it that way, shall we?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:22 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
For whiteys who over the years have seen bigotry paraded and celebrated through the black community and meekly assented to being denounced as racist by, um, proud and vitriolic racists like Farrakan, Jackson, Sharpton and Wright for the temerity of being born white this had better be a wake-up call for it is the last one you shall receive that doesn't have a boot behind it.
Posted by: megapotamus at October 17, 2008 09:35 AM (LF+qW)
2
This has been happing for years. Children are indoctrined into pro liberal agenda in schools. I'm a young guy I remember being taught about global warming in elementry school. We got to evolution in Middle School and in High school they poured on so much white guilt I almost drowned. They make Abe Lincoln God. They treat the "white men" as savages compared to the calm peaceful indians that we massacred. Every student reads at least one book about the holocaust every year like it happened here in America and not across the Atlantic.We celebrated black and latino history month even though the school was 97% white. Every book in the library talks about some negro who lived in the pre-civil rights era south, and all the hardships they faced. We had various clubs but two clubs sounded liberal think-tanks. Amnesty International which supported giving all illegal immigrants amnesty. The other group was the gay-straight alliance. I think you already know that this group supported everything that wasn't straight.
Posted by: Red, White, and Blue Patriot at October 17, 2008 10:32 AM (Abqdw)
3
Illinois Nazis? I hate Illinois Nazis.
Posted by: Jake Blues at October 17, 2008 11:42 AM (+MtXg)
4
ACORN is there to insure he doesn't have to contest this one either...
Posted by: DirtCrashr at October 17, 2008 12:08 PM (VNM5w)
5
I'm from the Detroit area and have been subjected to racism for years. It's ugly, it's pevasive, and it's all around. Blacks are the worst racists in the country, and have been for such a long time that, in the north, when they snap their fingers, they expect all the whiteys in the area to be "in the air" before asking "How high?" There's only a few of us that have the guts to tell them to "f*** off". Try to buy a "Dixie Tag" for your car anywhere in the north. Intimidation and terror are attempted by blacks often in the north for their advantage. Race card playing is common and actually pretty mild. That sure doesn't play here in the south.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at October 17, 2008 12:10 PM (Qv1xF)
6
It dosen't make a difference if he was "Joe the Plumber", "Joe the Baker" or "Joe the candlestick maker." the premise of his question was spot on. What BO and company want is to live off the backs of others. Now SCOTUS just help the left win Ohio!
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at October 17, 2008 01:36 PM (8NiWI)
7
I couldn't agree more with Megapotamus - this is a wake up call we'd better heed and realize that our safety is in numbers. Also, let's stop prefacing everything with "...I don't want to sound rascist, but..." It plays right into their hands and instantly loses the argument.
Posted by: alby at October 17, 2008 07:16 PM (D610r)
8
Let's not paint this as white-vs-black racism: Farrakhan, Sharpton and company also hate Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Jews...basically anyone who isn't black. It isn't called afro-fascism for nothing.
Posted by: pst314 at October 17, 2008 07:29 PM (WjPRb)
9
My RPG-playing, science-fiction-watching teenaged son makes a good point: it isn't racism, it's colorism. We're all part of the same human race.
Posted by: Trish at October 17, 2008 09:28 PM (M6myP)
10
False accusations of racism have been used effectively to protect any number of scumbags: Kwame Kirkpatrick, OJ, Alcee Hastings, Marion Berry, and now Obama.
Time for it to end.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 18, 2008 12:29 AM (nTcQl)
11
As much as I agree that it was completely wrong for those kids to do that, it's because they indoctrinate their kids into politics that this happens. I wouldn't put a political shirt on my child, until they express interest in politics of their own accord. I usually criticize those who send their kids to school with an Obama shirt or button (to myself or my wife, not overtly), so I'd be a hypocrite to send my kid with a McCain/Palin shirt. Lets do our best to let our kids just be kids, even if they won't.
Posted by: douglas at October 18, 2008 03:15 AM (20QoQ)
12
Obama's supporters and the media (but I repeat myself), in their zeal to smear Joe Wurzelbacher, have no idea of the damage they are doing to Obama's campaign. I'd be surprised if the Obama campaign's own internal polling hasn't alerted them to how the attack on Joe offends Americans. Most Americans, I'd say, not just aspiring entrepreneurs like Joe, because while not all of us share the dream of owning our own business, all of us treasure the right to ask a politician whatever we damn well please without recrimination. I expect the Obama campaign, at least officially, to start walking back from attacking Joe though right now it hasn't happened. It depends if Axelrod & company want to win this election or stick to the Alinsky playbook.
Even though the outrage on the right over the treatment of Joe was something I sensed immediately, I had no idea of how deeply the attack on Joe affected people until I found myself doing something I purposely avoid: messing with somebody's job over something political. I've been online since before the web and one of the fundamental early rules of netiquette was that however the debate raged and flamed, messing with someone's job for something said online was out of the pale. It's the kind of intimidation that is symptomatic of the left and I don't like to do it myself. Also, back when I had a day job at DuPont paint lab, I was once leaving for lunch and someone from one of our customers was getting out of her minivan and I noticed her anti animal experiment PETA bumper sticker. I suppose it was a mistake asking her if she'd let one of her kids die rather than use a drug developed with animal experiments because when I got back from lunch I got called on the carpet, finding out that she tried to get me fired. So I have a personal distaste for messing with someone's job over political matters.
That's probably one reason why Joe resonates so well with me and maybe it's ironically why I broke one of my own rules. I was at a bank cashing a customer's check. I'm a voluble kind of guy and this particular bank specializes in servicing small businesses. I mentioned to my teller something about Joe the Plumber and how dangerous he is to the Obama campaign. That even many Obama supporters aren't comfortable with the idea of going after someone just because they asked a politician a question who gave a self-damaging answer. I then said that in any case, we'll have a new president next January and that their won't be troops in the streets keeping order, referring to our centuries old behavior of peaceful transitions of power. The bank wasn't busy, so the other teller, a black woman, who wasn't immediately attending to a customer, sort of challenged what I said about troops in the street, using the affect that only disgruntled black women can, a different ethnic style, perhaps, than the way my Jewish mother and her peers express their own disgruntlement, but there was an expression of disgruntlement, nonetheless. So I told her that the only people threatening riots are Obama supporters. At that point, she tried to cut me off and said she didn't want to talk about it. By then my ire was raised so I told her that she was the one who intruded and now that someone said something about Obama, the Messiah, she didn't want to hear it. My own teller was looking like she'd rather be someplace else and quickly handed me my cash with the smallest number of bills possible and I started to leave.
As I walked toward the door, I noticed that one of the managers was at his desk as I passed and that's when the rage took over me. I poked my hood in his door, said that I never like to mess with someone's job. Well, actually I said that I never like to fuck with someone's job but that now I'm fucking with someone's job and that the teller was rude to me over something political. I told him that if they were going to fuck with Joe the Plumber, screw it, I'll fuck with their jobs too, and stormed out with his mouth wide open.
Screw it. Sign me up with the guy who said he's going to use the left's own tactics during the next 4 years if Obama wins. The left cannot suppress it's own authoritarianism, so screw 'em.
Obama is a smart man and was right when he just said that the Dems can blow this race and shouldn't be overconfident. I think he's right. The Democratic base sees the video of McCain with that not very bright lady awkwardly calling Obama an Arab and they come away thinking what racists and bigots Republicans are. I think most Americans saw McCain's basic decency in how quickly he snatched the microphone away and said, no ma'am and defended Obama. I know that when McCain isn't always going for the jugular upsets the right wing, but I think McCain's strategy about setting clear lines and rebuking his supporters for excess zeal resonates with most Americans. I think the fact that McCain is riding with Joe the Plumber works well that strategy because in addition to keeping Joe's beautiful summation of Obama's tax plan and Obama's clumsy self-revealing response before the public, the treatment of Joe by the left and the media along with Obama's complicity (he and Biden have taken their shots at Joe) is a mirror image of McCain's decent campaigning behavior.
Obama's remark about sharing the wealth was clumsy and revealing, a self wound, but not fatal if handled properly. Obama may find that his attack dogs are gnawing on his own ankles.
Posted by: Johann Amedeus Metesky at October 18, 2008 07:53 PM (ofze/)
13
When I was about ten years old, I realized that the purpose of "public" schooling was not to educate children, but to domesticate them.
Nothing has happened in the intervening forty-four years to change my mind.
Posted by: Trish at October 18, 2008 10:23 PM (W2+rG)
14
When will someone stop those horrible 12 year olds in Florida? They're stealing our election and tied to Illinois Nazis.
Posted by: Godwin's Law at October 19, 2008 01:27 PM (IVQmE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Typhoid Barry
Hide your children, shutter your windows, and lock your doors, America.
Hope and change could be coming to a bitter and clingy neighborhood near you.
At any moment, Barack Obama could suddenly show up in
your yard and put you on the spot where you feel compelled to ask him a question. If—God forbid—he offers up an answer that reveals a disturbing aspect of his political agenda,
your life is over.
We've now seen this take place in the life of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, known to the world as "Joe the Plumber." Joe has become a cautionary tale of what happens when you allow Barack Obama to reveal himself.
Joe was playing football at home with his son when Barack Obama suddenly appeared, and then ruined Joe's life by answering a simple question about taxes with an answer about how those who chase the American Dream should be required to "spread the wealth around."
Oh no, Joe!
Now obsessed leftwing bloggers and designated media hitmen have combed through Joe's public records and private details, and have done their best to air his dirty laundry and smear his name, and all because he asked an honest question that they didn't like the answer to.
Let the story of Joe the Plumber be a warning to the rest of you, America.
Don't cross Typhoid Barry.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:07 AM
| Comments (74)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And this will be the MO of the Barack Administration when dealing with those who don't agree with his agenda. Wait and see, people. These tactics are about to become official US Government Policy.
Posted by: Jayne Cobb at October 17, 2008 08:13 AM (/j9KS)
2
God help us all.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Sir Winston Churchill
"Every member of the society spies on the rest, and it is his duty to inform against them. All are slaves and equal in their slavery... The great thing about it is equality... Slaves are bound to be equal."
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"I know no class of my fellowmen, however just, enlightened, and humane, which can be wisely and safely trusted absolutely with the liberties of any other class."
- Frederick Douglass
"The mission of the Gestapo expanded steadily as, from 1933 onward, “political criminality” was given a much broader definition than ever before and most forms of dissent and criticism were gradually criminalized. The result was that more “laws” or lawlike measures were put on the books than ever."
- Shelia Fitzpatrick
“We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.”
- Paul Joseph Goebbels
"That which the Fascists hate above all else, is intelligence."
- Miguel de Unamuno
"Our movement took a grip on cowardly Marxism and from it extracted the meaning of Socialism. It also took from the cowardly middle-class parties their nationalism. Throwing both into the cauldron of our way of life there emerged, as clear as a crystal, the synthesis - German National Socialism."
- Hermann Goering
"Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
"If we don't continually evaluate and re-evaluate ourselves, we fall into patterns and believe that what we're doing is right. You fall into movements where no one questions the company line. That's how Fascism began. We have to constantly look at the ways we deal with each other."
- Neil LaBute
"Economically, as Globalization is pushed down our throats, people are fractured into tribal communal groups. The world is getting more and more fractured. Nationalism, nuclearism, communalism, fascism, these things are springing up."
- Arundhati Roy
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
- Samuel Adams
"From a “pragmatic” point of view, political philosophy is a monster, and whenever it has been taken seriously, the consequence, almost invariably, has been revolution, war, and eventually, the police state."
- Henry David Aiken
"Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by power and by force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual."
- Albert Einstein
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
Posted by: Fed Up And Not Taking It Anymore at October 17, 2008 08:49 AM (a3lE5)
Posted by: Neo at October 17, 2008 09:45 AM (Yozw9)
4
Barry actually came to Joe? I was under the impression that this was a rope-line and therefore initiated by Joe, this fits much better with the notion that the guy is a plant. Did you know his real name is Sam? Why the subterfuge? one might ask. Much is revealed by a middle name, dontcha know. Joe is obviously a Rove-esque henchman; Sam Wurzelfuehrer (note the militaristic haircut) is a neoconazi agent-provocateur assigned the most difficult mission of all; get ONE straight answer out of The One. And we all got it. Like staring into the Ark of the Covenant, grokking fully Hussein's brief, straightforward answer produces a quake through reality that melts the flesh and implodes the landscape. Our Joe was closest to it but a funny thing happened. Joe met up with the sharpest and bloodiest teeth in this media kennel and they proved to be nothing but gum. It is not, apparently, so tough to stand up to the moronic myrmidons as our betters would have us believe. They played gotcha and got gotted like a cat falling into an aquarium. The jig is up. If this nation is going to vote in Marxism, not to mention racism and fascism, they will not do it blindly. Thanks Joe. It may be too late but thanks. See you at the barricades.
Posted by: megapotamus at October 17, 2008 09:48 AM (LF+qW)
5
Great post mega.
I'll see you at the barricades if I can stay out of "sensitivity Training" long enough...
Save our Country!
NObama '08
Posted by: Alan at October 17, 2008 10:04 AM (JHRJI)
6
"And this will be the MO of the Barack Administration when dealing with those who don't agree with his agenda. Wait and see, people."
No doubt about it. I'm not sure Obama himself is behind it, but we saw much the same sort of behavior from the Clinton administration when it was in power. Critics are treated like hostile witnesses at a trial, cross-examined and discredited in the court of public opinion.
I don't have to wait and see. I've already seen it.
Posted by: Yashmak at October 17, 2008 10:11 AM (ijC+u)
7
Megapotamus-
Good answer.
Posted by: Endangered in Mass at October 17, 2008 10:12 AM (duMjl)
8
The Bradley Effect should now be called the Joe The Plumber effect.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at October 17, 2008 10:25 AM (oC8nQ)
9
These acts by bloggers and their media brethren against Joe the Plumber are remiscent of what ar eknown as "acts of repudiation" in Cuba. Whenever someone has the gall to voice an opinion, government paid mobs attack that person physically and verbally.
Posted by: Val Prieto at October 17, 2008 10:31 AM (uguJZ)
10
Obama is Richard Nixon reincarnated
Posted by: jeff at October 17, 2008 10:45 AM (qGQu5)
11
I'm still shocked Joe wasn't skirted away for re-education. Doesn't he like kool-aid?
Posted by: Hawkins at October 17, 2008 11:12 AM (pKjWO)
12
I agree with the person who said that an Obama MO will be to silence or intimidate critics. It's already happening and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. I am a columnist for a local paper, rarely write political articles, but felt compelled to write a critique of media not asking Obama tough questions. You wouldn't believe the backlash of letters trying to shame me for "demonizing" Obama. That's a preview of things to come. Think Fairness Doctrine and Hate Crime! This election is serious!
Mike
Posted by: Mike Rostad at October 17, 2008 11:20 AM (DsCAt)
13
This is how Chavez and his gang in Venezuela treat those who oppose him. Coincidence?
Posted by: yorugua at October 17, 2008 11:38 AM (t0yGa)
14
Remember when the guy was attending White House press briefings on a visitor pass vs press credentials? The whole media world jumped on him because he wasn't using his own name, and somebody on a blog pointed out that Maureen Dowd and Larry King (among others) were made-up names. Wouldn't it be sweet if one of those mediaholes snarked on "Sam the Plumber." And I remember a quotation by somebody famous years ago that went something like this, "A society that gives more respect to a bad philosopher than to a good plumber will find itself with philosophy and plumbing that won't hold water."
Posted by: Billmax at October 17, 2008 11:54 AM (pJfqx)
15
If Obama is elected, how long 'til Joe the Plumber gets audited by the IRS? Forget his outstanding back taxes, what if the IRS decides he owes another hundred thousand? He'll be wrecked, and so will his business plans, and then the people he was going to employ will have to look somewhere else.
I predict a JtP audit is part of the 'first 100 days' of Obama's presidential business.
Clinton used that weapon regularly in the 1990s against political enemies.
Posted by: Dave at October 17, 2008 11:57 AM (1YMSY)
16
At least Nixon hired his own plumbers...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at October 17, 2008 11:59 AM (1hM1d)
17
Folks here might like this. Ordinarily I wouldn't cutnpaste but at least I wrote it myself on myspace.
Alright "Joe", if that IS your name....
Friends, we are under assault. I have already celebrated our emancipation from the dreary fatigues of the "election" by virtue of geography but a New Threat has emerged. I am speaking as you Good People already know of the elevation of one Samuel Joeseph Stalin Hermann Goering Wurzelfuhrer of Aushwitz OH to prominence from his deserved previous state of oblivion. This character calls himself, mendaciously and insidiously; Joe the Plumber.
Now, this is not the first time our Dear Leader, The One, the Big O (if only) has been burdened with a bald, white, racist, fascist, splitist honky stevedore's malignant stupidity but we must make it the last. Must I reprise this abomination's heresy? This stooge actually left his domicile, the hut not the yard, and frolicked unhidden with his Christer spawn in FULL VIEW OF BARACK OBAMA! There is little question that this was a malicious act NOT an innocent mistake. Of course our Beloved Father, Barack the Wise Gracious and Mighty indulged his singular weakness; an excess of love, and (I could almost call this a "mistake" if that were possible) ministered to this troglodyte, actually entertaining, get this.... A QUESTION from the brute! Whoa, not since Dr Zeus let Taylor spin his fanciful yarns unlobotomized has there been such an exchange! And like Taylor, (played so ably by Charlton Heston) this Samuel Wurlitzerbreaker vented his rotten spleen of all the noxious hatred he had been storing up against his betters for 34 resentful years. The exact verbiage of The Impertinence is well lost to history but the teaching, healing response of Senator Goodstuf is another gem we must preserve and perhaps have tattoed on our privates; "When you spread the wealth around that's good for everybody."
Yeah.
Everybody as in... EVERYBODY!?!?! Man, cool. He says it. I believe it. That settles it. The great tragedy is that this wisp of genius was never known to man before. Why didn't someone think of that before and build a global movement on that principle? Seems like we could try it out in a few countries if that is necessary to convince the cynical, and, like, see the results and see if we like' em and want to reproduce them. Why didn't we do it a hundred years ago? It seems so simple now that we are shown the way. Like fire, TP and the internets, we owe it to... Democrats I guess but Barack especially.
Yes, we owe He Who Shites Peppermints a proper tribute for dispensing this greatest nugget and have a rare opportunity to show our love and devotion. I am sure it was all our Precious Mentor, the Great Crossing Guard, the Lamb of Hyde Park could do to refrain from turning the beast Weaselsniffer to a pillar of salt on the spot. But refrain he did. And rightly so. It is not for the hands of Bachman Hussein Overdrive to be muddied calling down lightning on the benighted. That is our job. I had in mind some sort of zombie-mob action since we know his address (thanks, Kos!) but that might, ya know, not look GREAT on the YouTubes. (And it ALWAYS gets on the YouTubes) What with the brain eating. Seems like the current program of thorough investigation and instant national exposure of all his public records, associations, professional actions, health records, school records, friends, relatives, enemies, neighbors, colleagues, store clerks, jokes, pokes and smokes should be a gentle enough prod for him and his rude ilk to take the lesson of shutyeruglyholevenwhenaskednomakethatespeciallywhenasked. Sterner measures can be taken once the election is over, necessary or not. Besides, it wouldn't look right to be TOO tough on this creep. It's not like he's running for President or anything.
Posted by: megapotamus at October 17, 2008 12:20 PM (LF+qW)
18
obama is a fraud...the majority of citizens in this country will not vote for a marxist....The polls are fake, pay no attention to them.
Posted by: Antonio at October 17, 2008 12:30 PM (cgmcU)
19
Watch and listen to the video again: "...I think that when you spread the wealth around its good for everybody". THAT is socialism pure and simple! That means that for everyone who wants to lay around, do nothing they should get a subsidy, hand out or dole from those who are working 24/7 at a job or successful business.
Posted by: Me ida Lies at October 17, 2008 01:23 PM (PqLpO)
20
Wow. Joe the Plumber is on record saying he was sick of candidates not being asked the tough questions, so he made sure when his chance came he asked a tough one.
And you're blaming Obama for ANSWERING it?
You people are seriously off the deep end.
You want to criticize the media circus surrounding Joe, ask the McCain campaign why they didn't properly vet him before throwing his name out on national TV. Did they even check with him first?
And the best part is, Joe's actual income level gets a BIGGER TAX CUT from Obama than from McCain. Even Joe admits that he'll get a tax cut from Obama.
It is to laugh.
Posted by: Caro Hussein Cogitatus at October 17, 2008 01:24 PM (q2A7T)
21
Joe is proof that there no longer is a Silent Majority. We are now the Silenced Majority! NOT!
Posted by: Max at October 17, 2008 01:47 PM (MNANF)
22
After Obama went to Europe and the media sent its biggest cheerleaders to cheer him, I wondered what it would take for the media to get my jaw to drop that hard again. I mean, how many times can they utterly stun you with such acts that are becoming merely routine???....
These immediate attacks on Joe the Plummer are jaw dropping.
What is amazing is that the media has come to this without government interference. The government is not legislating this bias -- the people who staff the big media are doing this gleefully.
And I'll cut through some of the cute hyperbole by giving some examples that aren't cute or too hyperbolic:
The media will champion implementation of The Fairness Doctrine. Any radio station and right wing talk show hosts who resists will be savaged and any police brought in to shut things down will be praised.
Keith Olbermann will continue to be a rabid, nutty attack dog and the Fairness Doctrine will be extended against Fox News.
Hate Crimes Law will be extended to include Hate Speech Law (as I believe has happened in a few European nations and maybe in parts of Canada???).
Mosques will not be targeted. Any words a spiritual guide there uses against homosexuality based on Islam will not be arrested and/or fined.
But, you will see pastors of the popular churches in the largest cities in the nation investigated for violating such Hate Speech Laws.
Just take a look around the Ivy League and top state universities for how the thought and speech control will work. Look at the places where those who are leftist liberals and radicals have already gained such a dominate power.
A student who hates his high school or middle school teacher will just need to use their cell phone to record their teacher using the phrase "radical Islam" in some discussion of current events or history --- to have the teacher hounded out of the profession by the local and state boards.
Burning of "hateful" books will become a community sponsored event supported by local government and supported by the media and national government.
Voter registrations laws will be altered to the point voting as an illegal alien will be simple and easy to do ---- until perhaps illegal aliens are found to overwhelming vote Republican....
Felons will be able to vote - until they are found to vote predominately Republican.
It will become easy for younger or just more motivated individuals in blue areas of the country, like the major urban areas and the Northwest - Northeast --- to organize and drive to red states to register and vote virtually unchecked.
ACORN is the future, if current polling numbers are to be believed....
....and there is a lot more like this coming down the pipe.....
Posted by: usinkorea at October 17, 2008 01:47 PM (dEyP8)
23
What's the problem?
It's obvious from the color of Joe's skin that he is a racist.
/snark
Posted by: myiq2xu at October 17, 2008 02:05 PM (fH7Fv)
24
It wasn't who asked the question, it was the answer that shows who obama really is. Attacking Joe is a rather hollow ploy, we need to keep repeating the answer that he was given, therin lies the problem with the chosen one's policies, pure socialism.
Posted by: WTC at October 17, 2008 02:17 PM (a7L+v)
25
I loved Rush's comment - Okay, so it's his middle name that is Joe. He is a guy who is proud of his middle name unlike our presidential candidate.
I look at Joe as our current Willie Horton. His little tete a tete with Obama and the way the msm and left wing blogs are trying to ruin Joe's life have done more to expose what life could be like under an Obama administration than anything else yet.
And did you notice how much Obama's answer to Joe sounded so much like Castro?
To me Joe is more qualified to be president than Obama. At least Joe has experience working hard in real life.
America, wake up. Vote for Joe and McCain/Palin
Posted by: janet at October 17, 2008 02:28 PM (daub4)
26
Please do not vote for Obama. This man will ruin the country.
Posted by: mjones at October 17, 2008 02:51 PM (fJQkt)
27
Oh c'mon. Joe got exposed to the media after McCain decided to make him the posterboy for his latest stunt. Sure, there are bloggers seeking to discredit him after he took to the airwaves, but there hasn't been anything launched by the Obama campaign.
Posted by: ChenZhen at October 17, 2008 03:15 PM (o+rDh)
28
To Megapotamus: You said, "Did you know his real name is Sam? Why the subterfuge?" Gee, nobody has ever met someone who uses their middle name instead of their first. Never. That is, if they live in a freaking hole in the ground. Or their moma's basement.
To Caro Hussein Cogitatus: You said, "And you're blaming Obama for ANSWERING it?" No, we are castigating Obama for the SOCIALIST POSITION that his answer clearly reveals! Sheesh.
Posted by: MoonbatBane at October 17, 2008 04:52 PM (tr6EV)
29
The future is a darn scary place. The government already has access to all our private details and records, and what it could do to any one of us under Obama is far worse than what the media has done to Joe. The country will be run by left-wing illuminati and forget about free speech. If we know what's good for us, we'll see no evil, speak no evil.
Posted by: A.B. at October 17, 2008 04:59 PM (gM6DH)
30
The problem isn't Joe the Plumber - the problem is Obama's answer.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 17, 2008 05:03 PM (Vcyz0)
31
Personally, I hope the Obamamaniacs keep attacking Joe the Plumber.
Look at it this way... Adam Middleclass looks at Joe the Plumber and sees a guy that could be his next-door neighbor, the guy next to him at the ballgame or church, or even--gasp!--his plumber. Joe and Adam live the same kind of life, shop in the same stores (and don't order Iranian caviar and champagne from Waldorf-Astoria room service), and face the same problems with paying the mortgage, car payment, taxes, etc.
Therefore, every time the Obama camp attacks Joe, it's very easy for Adam to see himself in Joe's shoes... thus, at least subconsciously, Adam could easily himself as being attacked by every smear against Joe. And the more attacks, the higher the odds get better that Adam will perceive these attacks as aimed at him.
Please, Obamamaniacs, keep attacking. Drive the middle-class taxpayers further away from your secular savior.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 17, 2008 05:37 PM (kbd0j)
32
MoonbatBane:
Either you are extremely new here...or you don't get sarcasm. Of course you are right on with the other part of your comment.
Mega - you owe me a new keyboard - ROTFLMAO (and trying to wipe up what I just spewed)
Posted by: Mark at October 17, 2008 05:45 PM (4od5C)
33
Not only did Obama seek out Joe the Plumber during his walkabout if his campaignBOTV team is half as knowledgeable as they claim to be THEY HAD TO KNOW JOE WAS REGISTERED AS REPUBLICAN when they picked Joe's middle class neighborhood as the one Obama would go door-knocking for OBAMA-CAN votes.
Posted by: crazy at October 17, 2008 06:47 PM (leU9J)
34
The problem isn't Joe the Plumber - the problem is Obama's answer.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 17, 2008 05:03 PM
Obama wants to steal your money and to send $845 billion to the UN to finance his Global Poverty Act. He also wants to use your money to fund abortion-on-demand. He'll also want to use a lot of federal funds to underwrite Acorn activities, school reform along the lines of his useless efforts with Ayers in Chicago Annenberg challenge, and his civilian national security force (2 July 2008 speech).
Vote for McCain and against Obama. Let's preserve and improve our American way of life.
Posted by: SAM at October 17, 2008 08:29 PM (4gHqM)
35
It's clear to me that Obama's choice of that particular neighborhood, that particular time, that particular accompanying camera crew, that particular bald guy, that particularly scary quoting that escaped from the mouth of the The One were all Karl Rove plants. Mr. Rove is, in fact, a shape-shifting earwig who was able to crawl simultaneously inside the brains of Mr. Obama and nearly everyone else in the video as well as those who watched it. It's all a vast rightwing conspiracy, I tell you!
Posted by: Roger Godby at October 17, 2008 08:49 PM (bStfZ)
36
Caro and Chen,
Cute comments. I, for one, think McCain's going to come up with the Mother of All Unexpected Victories.
However, in the event His Majesty wins, do drop in this time next year. I'm sure you'll give us an entertaining whine about how shocked and disappointed you are that Obama lied about almost everything he promised.
In fact, guys, you can also tell us about how your job searches are going since you were both let go from "Burger World"...because "Don Obamleone" wanted to take a bigger piece of its action for his own crew.
Posted by: MarkJ at October 17, 2008 09:29 PM (ZFVlP)
37
Joe has helped turn the tide by exposing Obama for what he is.
Keep the American Dream alive. Get out and vote Nov 4th. Ignore the polls. The election is not over yet.
N0-bam-uh/B-lie-den 08
YES McCain/Palin 08!
Posted by: Ken at October 17, 2008 10:41 PM (HW7Yo)
38
I must say that Joe has been a strike of lightning at the just the right place and the right time. It has both nakedly exposed OBurkha in all of his rotting Marxist rhetoric, while giving a lot of people a good look at his Stalinist tactics.
Their going after Palin in such a revolting way opened up a lot of eyes. This latest North Korean-style terrorist tactic against Joe just puts the stake in The Moronchurian Candidate's ascension.
As mentioned above, McCain will win and big. And the stench of suicidal liberals will be overwhelmingly pleasant.
Posted by: NosferatusCoffin at October 17, 2008 10:43 PM (x1EnX)
39
McCain's going to pull it off all right! He's going to win. I made a big bet on intrade.com and get this: my contract's going to pay 5-1! Get in while the odds are still good. You know the polls are sponsored by the MSM but heartland American will not be deceived, not this time.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 17, 2008 11:56 PM (EWBay)
40
Droll, Luther. We shall see....
Posted by: megapotamus at October 18, 2008 06:53 AM (CaHEc)
41
Luther, if you'd bother to look at the facts, instead of polls that oversample Democrats by 10 points (also known as a "skewed poll" or "pollaganda"), you'd note that the current polls are within the margin of error, in essence, a dead heat.
Then you might look back at Obama's performance in the primaries, where The One tended to underperform his polls by about 5 points.
Taking both of those facts into consideration, it's entirely plausible McCain will win by 4-5 points. Not a landslide, but a victory is a victory.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2008 08:19 AM (kbd0j)
42
You know, I get up, work hard, and try to enjoy my life without imposing myself on others. I believe in the human spirit and that it yearns to be free of oppression and the spirit grows because nature provides competition.
I was fortunate enough when I was a teen during the Reagan years to visit some communist countries in eastern Europe. This was part of a student summer exchange program where we travelled around Europe for 6 weeks. None of my homestays were in communist countries, but we did visit them as part of the program.
While my visits to Hungary, Czechoslavakia, and Yugoslavia were brief, it left an mark on my life. I witnessed firsthand the oppression of forced equality under a totalitarian government. I saw the people, who refused to make eye contact with us for fear of the secret state police making a midnight house visit to them. I saw the invisible but noticeable weight of oppression they carried on their shoulders.
I returned with a true love for the USA and the freedoms it gives not only us, the Citizens, but the rest of the world.
I am fearful that the USA has embarked on a non-reversable path towards an oppressive socialist state. And I refuse to live under those conditions having witnessed how such governments squash the human spirit.
I have started buying ammunition and weapons and supplies. Have you?
When Injustice becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty.
Posted by: TheFightToCome at October 18, 2008 09:47 AM (kCWNh)
43
Well said, Fight to Come.
I'm glad you mentioned Communist-occupied Europe, because it's becoming ever more obvious that our opponents took a page from right out of the Stalinists' book.
The Orwellian media manipulation has been bad enough.
So has the reliance on failed economic policies in the name of fairness.
But now they're appropriating the tactics that were at the heart of Communist terror - personal destruction of ordinary citizens who "humiliate" the Great Leader. A man is minding his own business when 0bama APPROACHES HIM, with the intention of using him as a political prop. He has the audacity to ask the Great Leader a question that said leader cannot answer properly, because he's operated in a protective media cocoon for his entire political life. The resulting answer reveals just how totalitarian 0bama's "Hope" and "Change" really are. And for that, the man needs to be crushed. His name is dragged through the dirt, his personal information is posted on the web, and the State moves to run him out of business. All because he dared to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Does the Great Leader tell his goons to lay off? No. In fact, he and his VP continue to mock Joe in public, sneering at a working man who unlike them hasn't gorged at the public trough all his life.
And yet we're supposed to be comfortable giving this sociopath the keys to the White House? Where he'll have the full force of the Justice Department and other agencies at his power? These tactics are one step below using actual violence to enforce political conformity - perhaps that's what it's going to come to in the future if anyone goes against the will of 0bama.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 18, 2008 10:42 AM (i7AH9)
44
Why do you advocate cowardice, Bob Owens? I'll be damned if I just roll over for the Cowardcratic Party.
Posted by: Ken at October 18, 2008 11:34 AM (aw4CT)
45
Barry 'the Marxist' has improved on the Clinton tactics. Remember the thousands of personal FBI files in Hillary's office. Crossing a democrat is exactly like crossing Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez. You or your family will disappear or go through a wood chipper, aka the Lame Stream Media slime machine. Facts are facts but then where is a democrat who can read. Liberal college don't teach the three R's or ethics.
Posted by: Scrapiron at October 18, 2008 11:57 AM (GAf+S)
46
I believe the tape of Joe the plumber was doctored. Obama did not say "spread the wealth", he said "bend over and spread'em". Seriously.... is there anyone out there that isn't brain dead or close to it that actually believes that a far left wing Chicago politician who has NEVER voted to decrease taxes, with an automatic rubber stamp of far left wing leaders in the House and Senate is actually going to give anybody (that actually pays taxes) a break? Come on!
Posted by: Dave B at October 19, 2008 12:35 AM (IBEak)
47
Joe, by his own statement, sought out Obama to ask him that question. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he was put up to it by McCain's handlers. That it has proved to be uncomfortable for him and for both candidates could have been predicted by anyone who pays attention to the news.
Posted by: Southingtonian at October 19, 2008 05:19 AM (bjgJn)
48
That type of behaviour is so typical of how the socialist states treat anyone who disagrees with them, or, heaven forbid, tells the truth to the media.
Beware of Obama, he'll turn the USA into a socialist, totalitarian state, and spend half of the tax revenues to spy on ordinary citizens - like they've done in Britain, which spies on all it's citizens, and where even the dustmen can spy on people if they think they're throwing away too much garbage in their bins. Phone calls, emails and regular mail are intercepted by anyone in local government who wants to prove a point.
If Obama's elected it'll be the end of the USA as we know it.
Posted by: Nannette at October 19, 2008 05:42 AM (8d6hL)
49
Is there anyone else noticing that Obama supporters are pissed off that someone asked him a question and he answered the question in his own words? They are so f...ing spoiled. Hey people... the MSM should have been asking him those types of questions about 18 months ago! It would have been nice if Joe the plumber had a microphone and TV camera behind him but that hasn't happened. The McCain camp "planted" the guy in his own front yard to ask a question of a Presidential candidate? He should have answered like he always does... "Together We Can", "Hope you can believe in", "We need Change" and other clear, concise, to the point answers.
Posted by: Dave B at October 19, 2008 12:48 PM (IBEak)
50
Apparently Obama is trying to fool the voters now, if this report on NRO's Campaign Spot is accurate:
FYI—just a few moments ago I received an automated call at home from “Joe the Plumber” asking me to vote for O’Bama. He referred to the talk about Joe the Plumber in the debate—obviously trying to have me l_i_n_k* “Joe Sellers (I think that’s the name), a plumber from Falls Church, Virginia” with the Joe the Plumber everyone is talking about. Easy to think ‘Hey, Joe the Plumber wants us to vote for O’Bama.’
Dishonest? Yes. But about what you’d expect out of Washington.
* Edited due to spam filter.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 19, 2008 03:59 PM (kbd0j)
51
C-C-G: "Luther, if you'd bother to look at the facts, instead of polls that oversample Democrats by 10 points (also known as a "skewed poll" or
'pollaganda'), you'd note that the current polls are within the margin of error, in essence, a dead heat."
All the more reason to go long on McCain. It's irrational not to take 5-1 against even odds! By all means do share with us the particulars of your contract. In fact if you don't we might begin to suspect that you don't actually believe what you say.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 19, 2008 09:43 PM (CPYV1)
52
Hey Dave B you still don't get it! EVEN if Joe was planted which is ridiculous....it's Obama's answer that has caused all the stir. Was the response coming out of his mouth planted as well? Do you really want your wealth spread around - if you have any wealth that is? See this is the Democrat way ... punish those who work hard and do good and pass it on over to the people who sit on their fat a**es. Gosh...you people are so lame. All I can say is God help America if this man gets in office. Go McCain/Palin 08.
Posted by: Beady Babe at October 20, 2008 07:49 PM (OH75s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 16, 2008
WaPo's James V. Grimaldi's Dishonest "Hit" On Cindy McCain
I'm going to start doing something I should have done long ago. When I catch a journalist committing fraud or nakedly partisan political journalism, I'm join to make sure that I name them, and not just the organization they work for.
Today's poster child for journalistic corruption is James V. Grimaldi of the Washington
Post.
What kind of dishonest, biased journalism is the Washington
Post reporter James V. Grimaldi guilty of?
In
Exclusive: Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch, corrupt reporter James V. Grimaldi tries to insinuate that Cindy McCain is guilty of some sort of ethical violation because Verizon Wireless and AT&T installed portable cell phone towers to provide coverage at McCain's home in Hidden Valley near Sedona, Arizona.
Unethical reporter James V. Grimaldi writes:
Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because her husband is a senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services.
I have a few simple questions for morally bankrupt Washington
Post reporter James V. Grimaldi:
- Other than Stanley Brand, a former House counsel for Democrats, what are the names of the ethics lawyers you spoke with, and what positions have they held within the Democrat Party?
- Are any of the ethics lawyers you spoke with currently active as paid consultants or volunteers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign?
- Did Democratic operative(s) in Obama campaign suggested this story to you?
- Did you ever had any intention of directly informing your readers that the Secret Service requested these cell towers as a security issue?
Yes, you heard that right. Ethics-challenged Washington
Post reporter James V. Grimaldi did his level best to obscure the fact that it was the Secret Service that requested these portable cell towers, as stable communications are a vital part of protecting the lives of Presidential candidates.
This isn't journalism. This is partisan politics.
It's nice to know what kind of corrupt reporters the Washington
Post is willing to hire in men such as James V. Grimaldi, and the kind of political hit pieces they're willing to run as legitimate news stories.
Update: Jonathan Martin at
The Politico confirms the Secret Service request:
A representative for the Secret Service confirms Verizon's statement earlier tonight that the company only put in a temporary cell service facility near the McCain ranch in Arizona at the request of the agency.
"We made a request of Verizon in I believe May that was covered under our contract and they did address our immediate needs," said Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:28 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Super point, CY. As a lifelong member of the media (and a Reagan Republican since age 14), you can imagine the rolling waves of garbage and garbled "intellect" and reasoning I've been privy to among my peers. Some of the saddest, most ill-informed rhetoric you can't believe.
Everyone who reads and appreciates CY, please help us make these points on Liberal supremacist sites like pandagon.net. We need to disabuse the real "wingnuts" of their infantile "wisdom."
Posted by: Sugar Ray Republican at October 16, 2008 10:13 AM (H3Xi1)
2
An American Socialist Party Hussein O supporting media wonk lie. Say it's not true.
Hundreds of media wonks (enabling crime and covering up crime is a crime) should be caught up in the coming RICO investigation and charges facing Hussein O's organizaton called ACORN. Hussein O will likely face RICO charges also, that is if there are any honest law enforcement agencies left in the country.
Posted by: Firefighter 16 at October 16, 2008 11:05 AM (GAf+S)
3
It's almost a no-brainer to assume that a demonazi will lie to promote the socialist dem agenda. Certainly no suprise here, but GREAT WORK on the part of CY. Thanks!
Posted by: Tonto at October 16, 2008 12:44 PM (Qv1xF)
Posted by: ccoffer at October 16, 2008 05:00 PM (/ETI3)
5
You ought to preface the reporter's name with Democratic Party spokesman or Democratic Party mole, CY, as in "James V. Grimaldi, Democratic Party spokesman employed by the Washington Post."
Posted by: Dusty at October 16, 2008 05:40 PM (Mlw0p)
6
James V. Grimaldi, Democratic Party spokesman employed by the Washington Post."
The one problem there is that "Democratic Party spokesman" and "Washington Post" are synonymous, thus making that appellation redundant.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2008 06:56 PM (kbd0j)
7
Oops: no, they installed temporary towers Dan.
Try reading for comprehension.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 16, 2008 08:24 PM (eiOZw)
8
Heh, of course, it was probably a pretty good thing for the press corps follwing the McCain campaign around too. What an ingrate.
Posted by: douglas at October 16, 2008 08:48 PM (20QoQ)
9
Wild, my comment magically disappeared. Anyway, my mistake in saying that the PERMANENT towers underway for TWO YEARS were abandoned by Verizon, um, why, again? Bad business sense?
Bad ethics, maybe.
Posted by: Dan at October 17, 2008 12:27 AM (ho+YW)
10
Uh, from the article you mention:
"Instead, Verizon delivered a portable tower known as a "cell site on wheels" -- free of charge -- to the McCain property in June, after the Secret Service began inquiring about improving coverage in the area."
So, um, he did say that the Secret Service was involved.
Posted by: NutellaonToast at October 18, 2008 01:47 PM (kt0+L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Final Debate: The Morning After
So we had the final Presidential debate of 2008 last night, and folks on both sides are claiming victory... but what really "stuck" in people's minds?
It may be a bit early to see what is going to resonate up until the election (or even if anything does), but what stuck in
my mind is just how revealing Barack Obama's answers on domestic and economic issues were. His answers made it all the more damning when John McCain labeled Obama as "Senator Government."
In a nutshell, Obama promises to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers, while increasing various government programs. The freshman senator pitches an economic program that he claims will lower our taxes while increasing government spending.
Folks, you can't
cut taxes, and
raise spending during an economic downturn, without turning a recession into a depression and making the federal deficit even worse. It's common sense: you can't spend your way out of debt, but that is exactly what Barack Obama daftly suggests.
This begs the next question: If Barack Obama's cutting taxes for 95% of taxpayers, then where are we going to get federal tax dollars for the trillion dollars in spending increases he has proposed?
Obama's answer—as it has been for every liberal throughout history—is to raise taxes on the "rich."
Obama's populism plays well among those who don't earn much or know much, but the fact of the matter is that the people Obama wants to raise taxes on are the small businessmen that power our economy, and more importantly, provide so many of our jobs.
If you watched the debate last night, you can't have missed the roughly dozen references to "Joe the Plumber."
Here's the clip of Joe Wurzelbacher, who feels Barack Obama's economic policies are designed to punish him for chasing the American Dream.
Obama's answer—that he wants to spread Joe's wealth with those who haven't worked for it—may be the defining moment of the 2008 election.
Every small businessman, or person who dreams of owning a small business, has to be frightened at what Barack Obama is proposing to do to the American Dream. Obama's going to make it more difficult for workers like Joe the plumber to buy into small businesses. Obama's going to make small businessmen pay more taxes, meaning they will have less money to invest in their businesses. This means that small businessmen will not be able to hire as many workers under an Obama administration.
Worse, if Barack Obama is elected, small businessmen are going to have to lay people off. Fewer people will have jobs to pay taxes, and those that do have jobs will have to pay more. Barack Obama's "spread the wealth around" philosophy is the philosophy for a failed economy.
During last night's debate, Barack Obama rattled off all sorts of government programs he'd like to fund. He talked about how he would like government to play a bigger role in your lives. what he could not do is name a single government program he would cut. Not. One.
After last night's debate, they asked Joe the plumber—who almost overnight has become the Everyman of the 2008 election—what he thought of the candidate's proposals.
"Obama's proposal scares me because it's just one more step towards socialism."
That's the story of this debate, and perhaps, this election.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:06 AM
| Comments (68)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Something tells me that like me, Joe has never been polled either because the pollsters know our opinion would not match their preset agenda..
He certainly speaks for me and just about everyone who I know, friends and family.
Posted by: 1sttofight at October 16, 2008 08:18 AM (L+GKy)
2
Here in Belgium, the public radio news (which is reliable leftist, to say the least) declared the third debate to be rather good for McCain, since he was able to depict Obama as "a standard left-wing politician", noting that Obama has so far always tried (and to a large extent succesfully so) to avoid that label by projecting a post-partisan image of himself.
Much attention was also spent on the "Ohio plumber", who almost single-handedly forced the real, wealth-redistributing Obama out in the open. The two journalists sounded a bit puzzled as to why Obama thought it to be a good idea to tell a working class guy that he would indeed take his hard-earned money and give it to other people. Being leftists, both gentlemen almost certainly agree with Obama's position, but they admitted that it is political poison to put it that bluntly, especially to someone who cannot possibly be depicted as a card-carrying member of the club of the filthy rich.
Posted by: Peter at October 16, 2008 08:43 AM (nOcNK)
3
The big problem is there are too many people out there who just don't care. I've got a friend who doesn't see any problem with raising people's taxes, "if it helps people." Of course, he is on disability and doesn't actually pay much, if anything, in taxes. He also doesn't really see a problem with socialism, either, so he's going to vote for Obama even knowing many of the problems that'll lead to.
Posted by: Rick C at October 16, 2008 08:44 AM (ZZXtk)
4
With over 40% of the population not paying taxes and a proposal on the table to not only cut taxes but literally pay those non-taxpayers money taken from the joe the plumbers around the country, how could Obama not get elected? With only a few percent of the country actually paying the way for the rest, there is no way we can stop the looting of our most productive members of society.
Everyone should have to pay something. To buy in, as it were, to the country. To be more than just recipients of other people's efforts and completely uninvolved in paying for the never-ending cascade of benefits. To have created a class of nearly half the country that pays nothing--or worse, gets unearned money back--is a great indicator of how far we have fallen and how completely pathetic the Republicans have become.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 16, 2008 09:00 AM (nTcQl)
5
First of all, bravo for your hard, honest work in the name of a truly pro-American value system.
Rick C says right: Too many brainwashed, beaten-down, lazy types have simply given in. We lost the battle starting in the '60s; even Reagan's brilliant leadership couldn't keep us going in the right direction. The constant bashing from the Left (while they pathetically, hilariously cry foul at every GOP retort) has poisoned and infiltrated every sector of our society. Instead of a country in which Hollywood stars would drop their careers and go fight in WWII, we have a Hollywood of "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" elitists who are every bit as bad as or worse than the elitists on the right. I still believe in trickle down; we all want and need opportunity, and it's up to each of us to take personal responsibility and make the most of it. Trouble is, this country is enslaved by, held hostage by, a ceaseless reparations mentality: Some people just won't be satisfied until this country is disbanded, given back to hunter-gatherers, and white Europeans treated to a nice little genocidal purge. But then, where will all the creature comforts that these Leftist whiners love disappear to? Once this country's disbanded, who among the Left is going to take up arms/weapons/fists/whatever and forge a path? Or are they simply going to return to loinclothes and eating berries? That would be perfectly socialist: No more wealth, no more possessions, just little animal tribes like back in the "good old days." Pardon me, but fuck that ... I want the chance to make my own wealth and share it — or not — as I see fit. If we don't have a true separatist movement within the next 20 years, any of us with a shred of personal responsibility are going to be hard-pressed to find a land to live in ... unless we wake the hell up, speak the hell up and defend this country from within and without. Pull you kids out of these godawful, pathetic schools one and for all and home school them, as Michelle Malkin appropriately suggests (http://michellemalkin.com). Obama's socialist rant, his wife's newfound "pride" in her country (because "her people" seem to be on the verge of getting their revenge), and the rampant soft-brained idiocy of weak-kneed libs from sea to shining sea are imperiling this country to an unimaginable degree. We HAVE to MAKE THIS STOP.
Posted by: Sugar Ray Republican at October 16, 2008 10:11 AM (H3Xi1)
6
>Folks, you can't cut taxes, and raise spending during an economic downturn,
No but you can raise taxes on the mega rich and use that income on spending.
That's Obama's plan and it's a good one and it worked for America when Clinton did it.
Posted by: salvage at October 16, 2008 11:39 AM (Cix1B)
7
Actually, what Clinton did what cut military spending and use that money for his pet causes. Of course, that left us scrambling a bit when we got attacked and had to go on the offensive. But yeah, other than that it worked just swell.
Posted by: Tim at October 16, 2008 11:56 AM (3Wewy)
8
Salvage,
Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great. Unfortunately these same people believe that it's wrong to tax trust fund babies, thereby creating a permanently wealthy class.
Interestingly Obama is the very picture of an American success story. Born to modest means, he rose through dedication and brains to be President of the Harvard Law Review, perhaps the highest honor among his class of lawyers. Instead of taking a salary well into six figures he worked with the poor.
What saddens me is how the Repubs have lost their way on the issue of personal initiative and rewarding merit and fiscal sanity. Since Reagan the Republican party platform is: "Cut taxes on the wealthy. Throw the religious right and values voters enough meat to keep them from voting Dem. Respond to international friction with war."
This has left the Democrats with double duty: their traditional concerns plus being the adults financially. Look at deficit spending under Reagan, Bush I, and worse of all Bush II, then consider that Clinton left a surplus. Bush II has smashed all records:
"The White House just asked the national debt ceiling be raised another $700 billion, for the proposed financial-sector bailout. If that happens, in 2008 alone, $1.5 trillion will have been added to the national debt: every penny borrowed from your children and their children. Stated in today's dollars, in 1979 the entire national debt was $1.5 trillion. George W. Bush and Congress have in a single year added an amount equal to the entire national debt one generation ago. And the year's not over!"
--Gregg Easterbrook
Fiscal conservatives should flock to Obama over McCain.
Incidentally every poll I've seen shows a solid win for Obama in last night's debate.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 16, 2008 12:02 PM (b1AL7)
9
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html):
The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.
So, the top 1% earned 21.8 of income, but paid 40% of income tax. Seems like they paid their share, and other shares, too.
Posted by: Jay in Ames at October 16, 2008 12:51 PM (UEEex)
10
I agree that Obama's moment of honesty with Joe the Plumber about "spreading the wealth" could indeed make this a race. Joe the Plumber's plight is a simple narrative of a man trying to obtain the American Dream, yet it is Obama's tax and spend policies that may prevent him from achieving them, not to mention the disastrous consequences during an economic downturn. It's an opportunity that McCain has seized upon and can now put Obama on the defensive. He should continue to pound this relentlessly from now until Election Day.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at October 16, 2008 01:14 PM (d5LvD)
11
I'm guessing because those programs all are under the Defense Department umbrella, and that wouldn't help feed the other "facts" he's pushing.
Posted by: Hawkins at October 16, 2008 01:38 PM (pKjWO)
12
euro bookies are already paying off on the election according to Drudge. McCain is not going to win Americans are electing Obama
Posted by: John Ryan at October 16, 2008 01:54 PM (7a3/D)
13
"The White House Plumbers" were the undoing of Richard Nixon,wouldn't it be great if a real Plumber were the undoing of Barak "The One" 0bama??!! Dare to dream
Posted by: firefirefire at October 16, 2008 02:59 PM (V8jYh)
14
"I agree that Obama's moment of honesty with Joe the Plumber about 'spreading the wealth' could indeed make this a race. Joe the Plumber's plight is a simple narrative of a man trying to obtain the American Dream, yet it is Obama's tax and spend policies that may prevent him from achieving them, not to mention the disastrous consequences during an economic downturn"
First, a tax and spend policy is way better than Bush's spend and don't tax policy. GHW Bush at least had the stones to raise taxes when he saw a shortfall. Bush borrowed about 5 trillion so far, as much as all the other presidents combined. So put a sock in it.
Second, Joe turns out not to be a licensed plumber and he's not registered to vote anyway.
Third, Joe is complaining about Obama being a socialist when Bush just oversaw the most socialist program in living memory with the government taking equity positions in the banks.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 16, 2008 03:21 PM (b1AL7)
15
Luther Tines,
Bush isn't running this term, is he? Cutting taxes and cutting spending as a policy works for Joe the Plumber. You can cut taxes and actually increase tax revenue in certain conditions. And don't disregard the current Congress' role in authorizing the deficit and expanding entitlements. Many of these fiscal libertines are coming back to rape taxpayers further. Bank on that.
Posted by: ReginaldL at October 16, 2008 03:42 PM (AuXAX)
16
It must also be stressed that one of the primary tenets of Black Liberation Theology is spreading the wealth around. Making everyone pay their share. I guess a lot more of Wright is in Obama than he would be willing to admit.
Posted by: Roborob at October 16, 2008 03:59 PM (5RlWq)
17
Luther, you really should get your information from something more reliable than the crazy nest called the Democratic Underground. He is indeed registered to vote (Republican), and you don't need a license unless you do commercial/industrial work (he does residential).
But thanks for showing us your true colors by attempting to investigate and destroy a man who asked a legitimate question that your cult leader flubbed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2008 04:15 PM (HcgFD)
18
But thanks for showing us your true colors by attempting to investigate and destroy a man who asked a legitimate question that your cult leader flubbed.
No surprise here. Anyone that dares speak against The Obamamessiah must be destroyed.
If ya think it's bad now, wait and see what happens if he's actually elected.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2008 08:52 PM (kbd0j)
19
"Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great."
And how does that work?
Seriously. Explain yourself.
How does stock ownership, even massive stock ownership, by 2% prevent people from rising through their god-given and developed talents?
This age-old line about 5% of the nation owing 90% of the wealth in the country used to influence me, when I was a teen, but as I gained years and experience and maturity, I realized what hogwash I was being asked to swallow.
I grew up in a poor, working class family and could remember the 1970s and especially the way things were in Carter's economy.
Then in the 1980s, the media kept telling me about this "growing divide" between the "haves and have nots" and the 5% and so on....
...but what I saw was the nation getting richer and the standard of living rising overall.
Then in Clinton's era, you didn't hear nearly as much about this "growing divide" because of how much the media was trumpeting continued economic growth.
But, with Bush, it was back to the growing divide taking up the vast majority of the headlines......but I had long understood it was just propaganda.
When business in this nation grows and prospers, the nation prospers - all of it - the bottom as well as top.
Crippling business through taxation to provide a higher standard of living for the lowest economic strata of the society --- only ends up pushing more people into that strata.
I am not against Welfare. I believe if the government has the right to pass laws that impact on my life, has the right to police and jail me, and has the right - at times - to create a draft and send me off to war --- it has a minimal right to create a safety net for me as well.
But the key word is "minimal" in my believe in Welfare.
Trying to take away more and more of the 5%'s money will end up hurting business and will end up dragging the entire nation down.
Everywhere in the world --- the more wealth distribution has been tried - the lower the resulting overall standard of living.
That is a historical fact.
Why the bleeeeeeppppp can't well-educated intellectuals understand something so irrefutable?
Posted by: usinkorea at October 16, 2008 09:26 PM (7VLo4)
20
On the silencing --- it predates Obama.
Look at Paula Jones as an example.
Look at the drive to restart The Fairness Doctrine.
The realization that they are being successful in putting in power such a weak-backgrounded candidate, with all those radical connections, who is also such a strong liberal --- has them extra giddy.
Which means we can expect a beefed up Fairness Doctrine - and God only knows what else if Obama wins and the Dems gain in Congress....
Posted by: usinkorea at October 16, 2008 09:28 PM (7VLo4)
21
ReginaldL:
"Cutting taxes and cutting spending as a policy works for Joe the Plumber."
Sure, that's a coherent political position. No argument here.
"You can cut taxes and actually increase tax revenue in certain conditions."
I agree. For instance Britain had I believe a 95% tax bracket during the sixties and no doubt it discouraged entrepreneurship.
"And don't disregard the current Congress' role in authorizing the deficit and expanding entitlements."
True, but what I was getting at is that since at least Reagan's time, Repub presidents have spent like drunken sailors and Dems (well, Clinton) worked it off. The GOP is in critical need of reform. We're supposed to be able to look to the GOP for fiscal conservatism, but they've proven less responsible than dems over the thirty years.
CY: "He is indeed registered to vote (Republican)"
You're right, I got bad info. Turns out his name is spelled wrong in the registration role. However, "An official at Local 50 of the plumber’s union, based in Toledo, said Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a license. He also has never served an apprenticeship and does not belong to the union." He obviously does practice as a plumber so honestly I don't see what difference it makes anyway. I shouldn't have brought it up.
usinkorea: annyonghaseyo! thanks for the thoughtful reply.
'Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great.'
And how does that work?
Seriously. Explain yourself.
How does stock ownership, even massive stock ownership, by 2% prevent people from rising through their god-given and developed talents?
This age-old line about 5% of the nation owing 90% of the wealth in the country used to influence me, when I was a teen, but as I gained years and experience and maturity, I realized what hogwash I was being asked to swallow.
First, I said 'hinder', not 'prevent'. Wealth concentration certainly affects opportunities for the populace. Think about Russia. They have a handful of billionaires and no one else has a chance of joining the club. Granted we're much freer in the US, but the principle remains the same: the more capital there is in the hands of the elite, the less there is for you and me to start businesses. For decades the rich have grown richer while middle class wages have fallen when you account for inflation. Social mobility has shriveled in this country, google for it if you don't believe me. That's probably the best barometer for the meritocracy.
If you look down the list of the 100 richest people, many of them are Waltons, Marses, etc, people who were born incredibly wealthy and aim to stay that way. Rewarding merit is what makes this or any other country great. What if the next Thomas Edison is stuck working on diesel engines right now because he can't put together enough money to pursue his dreams?
Then in Clinton's era, you didn't hear nearly as much about this "growing divide" because of how much the media was trumpeting continued economic growth.
Right. Social mobility fell under Clinton, too. This isn't a dem/repub thing so much as it is rich vs. middle class.
When business in this nation grows and prospers, the nation prospers - all of it - the bottom as well as top.
No, during the last years middle class wages have stagnated.
Trying to take away more and more of the 5%'s money will end up hurting business and will end up dragging the entire nation down.
Everywhere in the world --- the more wealth distribution has been tried - the lower the resulting overall standard of living.
That is a historical fact.
Why the bleeeeeeppppp can't well-educated intellectuals understand something so irrefutable?
I hope you can come to see that it's not that clear-cut.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 16, 2008 11:21 PM (vA7wo)
22
It certainly IS clear-cut that the feel-good redistribute-at-gunpoint ideologies have FAILED every single time in history. And many times left oceans of blood in their historical wake.
Further, simply repeating an untruth over and over does not make it so. While this would apply to so MANY things said by the self-styled 'progressives', in this case I refer to the ludicrous claim that Clinton 'lowered gov debt'.
No, HE did not. The shift in gov-revenue wasn't of his making. Multi-trillion dollar economies are like ocean-liners...they take time to stop, turn around, etc.. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to understand that each president INHERITS an economic-situation that was YEARS in the making before they got into office.
In other words, Clinton 'rode' the wave/cycle that was already in progress.
The number-one reason for even 'liberals' to vote against Obama is how he's going to change SCOTUS; and the way he's going to SHRED the constitution.
So-called Liberals have been making a lot of noise lately about 'unconstitutional' actions by the fed-gov. Which is why I'm dumbfounded by their rapture over Obama. He's the very WORST in that regard of all the choices they had.
One appointment from Obama of an 'interpretive' justice, and we may never have a chance again to reverse course and begin returing some of that awful concentration of power in DC back to the citizens.
McCain is a terrible candidate, and socialist-lite; but he's likely to install the right type of "stick to the law" justice. And I'd FAR rather have 4 years of muddle and gridlock in DC than 4 years of a freaking JUGGERNAUT of 1-party radical madness passing bill after ill-conceived bill.
I'm libertarian, not dem or rep, and agnostic; but I'll be pulling the "Not Obama" lever this year; solely for the SCOTUS reason.
I urge every other libertarian and independent to do the same. Again, solely for the SCOTUS reason; it's that critical to us.
If we can save the court, we'll have a 2-yr breathing space to bust ass and get at least a few Constitution party reps into CONgress....and if the gods are willing, maybe even a senator.
THAT'S where our 3rd-party fight needs to be fought....in the mid-terms 2 yrs from now. Not in this prez-race; because of the VERY critical juncture we're at with SCOTUS. Think about 'Hiller', and how easily it could've been otherwise; and imagine a future where EVERY decision goes against the Constitution...
With the giant wake-up call about the major parties that the entire population got this year, when the criminals passed the Failout in the face of such outrcy, we finally have a real chance to build the Constitution party.
But NOT if Obama has a chance to appoint just ONE non-strict-constructionist judge in the next couple years. ALL the amendments are going to be ignored; not just the 2nd. He'll kill the 1st just as quickly (yes liberals, he will...look at the so-misnamed 'fairness doctrine' and THINK...EXTRAPOLATE)
So, no matter your party, when you get into the booth, and suddenly that very frightening wave of HUGE responsibility hits you right in the gut....choose wisely, please.
Posted by: rational-thought at October 17, 2008 01:17 AM (ofykG)
23
"While this would apply to so MANY things said by the self-styled 'progressives', in this case I refer to the ludicrous claim that Clinton 'lowered gov debt'."
All right, he left office with a budget surplus. Reagan, BushI, and BushII all ran up debt far more quickly than Clinton...
Oh hell I'm going to bed. You're kind of a nut. Sorry.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 17, 2008 01:42 AM (vA7wo)
24
Luther needs to go to bed and think about the facxt that it is th CONGRESS that writes the spending/budget bills. And who was it that controlled the Congress during the Reagan,
Bush and Clinton years? Oh my gosh, I believe it was the democrapic party.
And don't forget also that when the one lets the BUSH tax cuts expire, YOUR taxes(and everybody's - except for those who get EIC)are going to go up.
In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "What a Maroon."
Posted by: emdfl at October 17, 2008 07:29 AM (blNMI)
25
Again, I've been told my whole life this "rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer" --- that "the middle class is shrinking more and more and it is getting dangerous" and this quote of how much richer the Bill Gates have gotten while the rest of the nation has gotten poorer my whole life.
And what I have witnessed is --- during periods of economic growth, the standard of living for the nation as a whole has grown - not shrunk.
If making Bill Gates stock portfolio explode upward is what it takes to raise the standard of living --- Long Live Bill Gates.
And back to the stock point, I think you are confusing capital with stocks: Bill Gates, or even George Soros, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the stock market and businesses is not "taking away" from my potential or my own earnings.
If they are investing smartly --- meaning the companies they invest in are growing -- and the overall economy is growing --- gee golly --- they will indeed get richer.
And the economy will be creating more jobs and unemployment will be lower and the standard of living the nation will rise.
Before industrialization and the rise of international trade, you had serfs tied by birth to families who owned the land/wealth by birth.
The only other places on earth since the rise of industry and trade (capitalism) have been socialist hellholes like North Korea and the USSR and China.
When China has started over the last couple of decades to realize socialism is poverty and misery and started to move toward capitalism - and reap its rewards...
....are so many Americans willing to reverse history?
Posted by: usinkorea at October 17, 2008 02:02 PM (dEyP8)
26
"Luther needs to go to bed and think about the facxt that it is th CONGRESS that writes the spending/budget bills. And who was it that controlled the Congress during the Reagan,
Bush and Clinton years? Oh my gosh, I believe it was the democrapic party"
BushII had six years of one-party rule and doubled the indebtedness of this country. He has borrowed as much as all other presidents combined. You are depressingly ignorant.
usinkorea: You misunderstand. I have no problem with entrepreneurs. I worked for Gates and I appreciate his efforts more than you can know. Warren Buffet is a fine fellow. Ditto for Jobs, Ellison, Page and Brin, etc.
The problem I address is twofold. First, our tax system is regressive, thus the wealthy tend to pay proportionately less sales tax, have more vehicles such as 401K's to shelter funds from tax, and derive more of their income from capital gains, which are taxed lower than wages. Why on earth should the rich pay a LOWER tax rate than the poor? The folks on this forum call in "income redistribution", but really it's increased fairness. Buffet has complained that it's wrong for his tax rate to be lower than his secretaries, and he's right. You all are muddying the waters by calling a fix for this state of affairs "income redistribution". Similarly, the "death tax" is an imminently fair way to make those that enjoy the fruits of this country without contributing anything otherwise to pay their share.
I cited stock ownership only as a proxy for wealth. The more that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the elite, the less capital there is available for the lower classes. It's simple math. As you point out, a rising tide can lift all boats, but that's not what's happened over the last decades. The wealth of the rich has exploded while the middle class has stagnated. The middle class can no longer get by with a single wage earner. That's all the proof you need.
This study
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1579981
shows that "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults" (in the past the US was a leader in this area). In other words, the best and brightest in the US often end up stuck in jobs that are beneath them. He who could be the next Warren Buffet might be flipping burgers as we speak.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 17, 2008 05:27 PM (EWBay)
27
I think Luther has taken over Nunaim's position.
For those of you unfamiliar with Nunaim, see this thread where he tries to argue about the size of a standard-size door.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 17, 2008 05:45 PM (kbd0j)
28
You may be right, CCG.
LT - you say:
The problem I address is twofold. First, our tax system is regressive, thus the wealthy tend to pay proportionately less sales tax, have more vehicles such as 401K's to shelter funds from tax, and derive more of their income from capital gains, which are taxed lower than wages. Why on earth should the rich pay a LOWER tax rate than the poor? The folks on this forum call in "income redistribution", but really it's increased fairness. Buffet has complained that it's wrong for his tax rate to be lower than his secretaries, and he's right.
I'm going to break your statement down into things I agree with and things I don't (with a statement or three).
1) I agree our tax system is regressive.
2) I disagree that the wealthy pay less SALES tax (though, proportionally I do agree).
3) I agree the rich have more vehicles to 'hide' their wealth from the tax man.
4) I agree the rich have more potential sources of income.
5) The rich currently pay higher income tax rates than poor people - so your 'why' question is moot.
6) You claim what we call 'income redistribution' is simply "increased fairness". Increased Fairness = Income Redistribution. What the bleep has any 'poor' person done to be given rights to any 'rich' person's wealth? Answer - NOTHING!
As for Mr. Buffet - perhaps if he didn't have a huge staff of accountants/lawyers to find all those nice little vehicles to hide his wealth he would actually 'pay his fair share'. The man complains that he isn't...why then does he not simply DONATE his money to Uncle Sam? Answer - because he's rich and employs a huge staff of accountants to help him hide his wealth. (gotta love circular logic sometimes)
Posted by: Mark at October 17, 2008 06:03 PM (4od5C)
29
Excellent explanation, Mark.
Now, for all those who wish the tax system to be "fair," what's fairer than a flat tax, where there are either no or very few loopholes, and everyone pays exactly the same rate no matter what their income is?
What could be fairer than me paying, say (just for the sake of the argument), 20%, Joe the Plumber paying 20%, CY paying 20%, Mark paying 20%, and Bill Gates paying 20%?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 17, 2008 06:16 PM (kbd0j)
30
C-C-G-: I'm sorry if you're still sore from me pointing out that Thomas Paine is not what you had figured, and that you used an egregiously tautological argument. That's life, I'm merely the messenger. If you don't wish to hear things like that then, well, work harder. As for your latest: "I think Luther has taken over Nunaim's position", you're making a schoolyard taunt. You said you're a lay preacher? It's doubly unfortunate that you should fancy yourself worthy to lead others on moral issues.
Mark:
1) I agree our tax system is regressive.
2) I disagree that the wealthy pay less SALES tax (though, proportionally I do agree).
But I said proportionally, so you agree with me. Why not just say that?
3) I agree the rich have more vehicles to 'hide' their wealth from the tax man.
4) I agree the rich have more potential sources of income.
5) The rich currently pay higher income tax rates than poor people - so your 'why' question is moot.
No, they don't. You just said our tax system is regressive. You are contradicting yourself. Stocks pay almost no dividends now because cap gains are taxed at 20%. Basically it's rich people that take capital gains.
6) You claim what we call 'income redistribution' is simply "increased fairness". Increased Fairness = Income Redistribution. What the bleep has any 'poor' person done to be given rights to any 'rich' person's wealth? Answer - NOTHING!
You're confused. You said that we have a regressive tax system, yet the rich pay a higher proportion of tax. That's contradictory.
What right do the offspring of Mars and Walton, who have never worked a day in their lives, to be fabulously wealthy? If you're happy with that, fine, but I think it's rotten, and it prevents the cream from floating to the top. Since when is doing what's right for the US a bad thing?
Obama wants to tax the top 5% more. That's completely fair, they should pay at least as high a rate as everyone else. If you wish to keep subsidizing their lifestyle, fine, but call it what it is.
Buffet is a great guy and uncommonly charitable. He's giving almost all his wealth the the Gates Foundation. The importance of what he said is that there's a problem if his tax rate is lower than his secretary's.
No matter what tax policy you choose (except for a flat tax), you are "redistributing wealth". We have to put country first and make the fat cats pay their fair share.
C-C-G: "Excellent explanation, Mark." No, it was muddled. Again I can only encourage you to work harder to inform yourself.
Incidentally I'm not opposed to a flat tax.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 12:27 AM (EWBay)
31
Luther, as I've pointed out multiple times here and elsewhere, we on the right don't deify our leaders. I can easily say that McCain makes errors (campaign finance, immigration reform), Bush makes errors (Harriet Miers, immigration reform), Reagan made errors, Lincoln made errors, and even Paine may have made an error or two.
See, conservatism isn't built on the infallibility of its members... in fact, if anything, it understands better than any other political philosophy that people are fallible, and takes that into account when formulating its policies.
Lefism/liberalism, on the other hand, considers that its standard-bearers are always perfect and can never ever be wrong, even when they are demonstrably proven wrong... such as, say Obama's ties to ACORN, and Biden's numerous lies, including the one where he was "forced down" in Afghanistan.
Enjoy life in your little lefty bubble. It will be popped sooner or later, and, ironically, I believe that if the Obamamessiah is elected, it will be sooner rather than later.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2008 08:27 AM (kbd0j)
32
C-C-G: I will merely point out for the record that your response is to change the subject, again. You have an unreasonable expectation that I should engage you on a new front until you explain how I am mistaken in the numerous ways I claim you are wrong.
I can't resist clarifying one thing though. I'm far, far more fiscally conservative than Reagan or BushII, so I take exception to you calling me a liberal.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 01:58 PM (EWBay)
33
Luther, I was replying to this statement:
I'm sorry if you're still sore from me pointing out that Thomas Paine is not what you had figured
Might I recommend reading comprehension classes?
Oh, by the way, you're sounding more and more like Nunaim all the time. Is that you, under a different name after Bob banned you?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2008 04:01 PM (kbd0j)
34
The majority of your post that you quoted was a simplistic rant, unrelated to any specific argument of mine except the remark about Paine. You seemed to be mentioning him peripherally.
You are trying to save face with your comments about Paine. He believed you and your kind to be charlatans and your religion to be a modernized sun worship. You are debasing yourself to call this "a couple of mistakes". Paine would have regarded you as an enemy of the State.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 04:35 PM (EWBay)
35
Luther,
For your elucidation:
Regressive: decreasing in rate as the base increases (a regressive tax)
Via Merriam-Webster online: 3rd definition
Your understanding of the word regressive is incorrect.
The current income tax system is basically a pyramid scheme wherin the top of the pyramid pays the highest rate and the bottom the lowest. The current lowest rate is less than ZERO thanks to EIC and such give-aways.
Posted by: Mark at October 18, 2008 06:08 PM (w/olL)
36
Okay, Nunaim, drop the new moniker, I know it's you.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2008 08:49 PM (kbd0j)
37
Mark,
No, regressive tax system is one that affects the poor disproportionately, and progressive tax system is one that affects the wealthy disproportionately. Those terms are common and have been around for as long as I can remember.
"The current income tax system is basically a pyramid scheme wherin the top of the pyramid pays the highest rate and the bottom the lowest."
Your have your terms wrong again. A pyramid scheme is something different. Again, overall Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The wealthy are the least affected by income tax.
C-C-G: No, not Nunaim, I'm not familiar with that person. If it's important to you to verify this, I suggest you check with the proprietor. He might have a list of the IP addresses or geographical regions for his various contributors.
With that, so long fellas.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 18, 2008 10:04 PM (P38Lh)
38
"Luther," as a certified computer tech, I am very familiar with IP address... quite possibly more familiar than you are.
I am also familiar with ways of changing or faking your IP address, in order to get around an IP address based ban, including proxy servers, or just changing your ISP.
With that, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 19, 2008 02:30 PM (kbd0j)
39
C-C-G: I'm a computer programmer retired from MS. You have likely used software I worked on. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
"Faking your IP address" only makes sense when you do not need to get packets back. For instance, if I sent some TCP/IP packets with a forged source address to the server which hosts CY's blog, then I would of course not get any packets back, and thus could post here only with exceeding difficulty.
To be frank, "certified computer tech" would not impress anyone I know in the business. To apply for any technical or non-entry-level job at MS I suggest you leave it off your resume entirely.
I'm curious as to why you think I would go to such great lengths to post here. I'm not Nunaim, and don't know who that is. Anyway my identity doesn't make a difference. Either I'm right or you are, and you are unwilling to contest any particular point. You essentially start a new topic with each post.
"Don't let the door hit ya on the way out." Can you not even pretend to emulated Christ? You seem mean spirited in fact.
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 19, 2008 09:28 PM (CPYV1)
40
Luther, you just proved you know nothing about IP addresses, or how proxy servers work. Go do some research and learn not to make your idiocy apparent to those of us who really do know what we're talking about.
To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address.
Also, you're far far too defensive about not being Nunaim. A truly innocent person wouldn't be that defensive. In short, methinks thou dost protest too much.
And, as for Christian, did you know that Christ called people hypocrites to their face, and described them as "whitewashed tombs" or "a pit of vipers"? He wasn't the pacifistic milquetoast you lefties wanna make Him out to be.
All in all, you've proven that you're a clueless blowhard who, like Joe Biden, wants to claim to be smarter than he really is. And I've just exposed that.
You said you were gone once, will you please leave now?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 20, 2008 06:21 PM (kbd0j)
41
C-C-G: "To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address."
I was not talking about proxy servers. You have not yet understood what faking an IP address means. It means faking the source IP address in TCP/IP packets. Crackers have done this, but it is very complex as the cracker must figure out in advance the contents of the packets that the target computer will send out in response to your forged packets.
"To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address."
You didn't understand my remark. With a "faked IP address", which I took to mean "IP packets with forged source addr," you never receive any information back from the target machine. The target machine tries to reply to the IP address which you faked.
You meant "anonymous proxy" I think. Proxy servers are common and not at all nefarious. For instance many institutions use them to cut down on bandwidth. For instance if a computer lab has 200 kids requesting the page http://www.google.com, each one can get a cached copy of the Google logo image from the proxy cache, with zero net bandwidth for the lab. Proxies also restrict users in various ways and sometimes log user actions.
Anonymous proxies are proxy servers set up to hide one's IP addresses, not "fake" it. Again, feel free to contact Bob for my IP and you'll see that it's a regular residential IP from CenturyTel, not an anonymous proxy server.
"Also, you're far far too defensive about not being Nunaim. A truly innocent person wouldn't be that defensive. In short, methinks thou dost protest too much."
Balderdash! You brought it up numerous times. I ignored it a couple of times and calmly denied it twice, and did what I could to demonstrate this to you. You still have not told me what is the significance of this person.
"And, as for Christian, did you know that Christ called people hypocrites to their face, and described them as 'whitewashed tombs' or 'a pit of vipers'? He wasn't the pacifistic milquetoast you lefties wanna make Him out to be."
If you believe Jesus was not a pacifist I despair of your understanding anything from the Bible ever. No one said He was a milquetoast.
It's ironic that you mentioned that 'whitewashed tomb' passage. I wonder who He would regard as a whitewashed tomb today? Perhaps someone who crows about being a lay preacher while supporting a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocents have died? Or who supports a president who enjoyed putting people to death in Texas?
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 20, 2008 10:31 PM (CPYV1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 15, 2008
Secret Service: Media Claim of "Kill Him" Unfounded
Don't have any proof of rage-filled bigots at McCain-Palin speeches, even though you just know in your shriveled little heart that they have to be there?
Never fear. You can always just
make it up.
The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled "kill him" when presidential hopeful Barack Obama's name was mentioned during Tuesday's Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama's[sic] name a man in the audience shouted "kill him."
News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.
Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
"I was baffled," he said after reading the report in Wednesday's Times-Tribune.
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:46 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But... but... we all KNOW the Secret Service is a BushCheney MACHINE!
They CAN'T BE TRUSTED!
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 16, 2008 12:00 AM (M+Vfm)
2
Well, if the Palins, with their incredible combined income of $200k, can bully a hospital into covering up the birth of Bristol's kid, the mere Federal Government is obviously putty in their hands.
Heck, they've probably bought off Obama's protection detail already.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 16, 2008 03:49 AM (Vcyz0)
3
Those dang cops and Treasury agents! Always verifying things. I noted your entry in my blog.
Posted by: The Warpiper at October 16, 2008 06:41 AM (n1okD)
4
So a reporter probably lied? Wow!! Like it's not what he(and they) do everyday day. Of course the real story won't get any of the play that his lie did, but what else isn't new.
Posted by: emdfl at October 16, 2008 07:45 AM (N1uaO)
5
fake but true.
The Obama press at work.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 16, 2008 09:02 AM (nTcQl)
6
Ok, that's one "kill him" proven false. Now we need to debunk the one from Oct 6.
Posted by: Sphinx at October 16, 2008 10:45 AM (JnXTw)
7
I'm not "baffled". This fits the Big Lie template the Dems have been using for years: Lie Big, Lie Everywhere, then when you are caught, call it "functionally correct", claim "Well, maybe it didn't happen here, but it happened over There", decry the horrible lowering of standards, and stick with the story until you have to issue a retraction on page 95. Then claim it is all "old news" and that we need to "move forward".
Looks like Salvage is pushing the story into Phase 2.
Posted by: Georg Felis at October 16, 2008 12:59 PM (H0Orl)
8
When there is some equivalent press attention to the years of Bush-murder chic there might be some point. The Dem/Press objects on matters of tone? I think Barry needs to be burned in effigy a few hundred times by Freepers before there is any danger of the Left having moral standing to make such a gripe.
Posted by: megapotamus at October 16, 2008 01:18 PM (LF+qW)
9
Reporter and paper stand by story, offer more details:
http://www.scrantontimes.com/articles/2008/10/16/news/sc_times_trib.20081016.a.pg11.tt16newsecret_s1.2018812_top8.txt
Mr. Singleton, who was assigned to the rally to produce updates for the newspaper’s Web site, said he was standing behind a small set of orange bleachers, which were behind the main part of the crowd. He was about 70 to 80 feet from the stage where Mr. Hackett was speaking, he said.
“(Mr. Hackett) was discussing Obama and the guns and religion comment (made by Mr. Obama earlier this year) and talking about how (Mr. Obama) didn’t have Pennsylvania’s values and basically inviting him to come here and learn, get educated about Pennsylvania’s values,” Mr. Singleton said.
Mr. Singleton said the remark came from his right, amid booing that followed Mr. Hackett’s mention of Mr. Obama.
“(I) very distinctly heard, ‘Kill him!’ Male voice,” he said. “It was definitely back in the back.”
Mr. Singleton said other people were in the bleachers he was behind and in similar orange bleachers to the right.
He moved toward the area where he thought the remark came from to see if the person who said it would repeat it. That didn’t happen, and he was unable to identify the speaker, he said.
“I didn’t hear anything else at that point,” he said.
Posted by: Bill at October 16, 2008 05:50 PM (JMqNn)
10
So what else is he going to say, Bill? Oops?
Naw, the reporter stuck by his lie and the paper stuck by the reporter. The reporter should be flipping burgers in a while--maybe he is planning on getting some of that loot Obama promised from those rich folks....
Posted by: iconoclast at October 16, 2008 11:23 PM (DpXXf)
11
So what else is he going to say, Bill? Oops?
Naw, the reporter stuck by his lie and the paper stuck by the reporter. The reporter should be flipping burgers in a while--maybe he is planning on getting some of that loot Obama promised from those rich folks....
Posted by: iconoclast at October 16, 2008 11:23 PM (DpXXf)
12
Icono, as one who has both trained and supervised others, I'd have a lot more respect for the reporter if he had said "oops."
I guess that kind of honor and integrity are now extinct in the MoveOnMedia. I agree with Hannity, 2008 is the year journalism died.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 17, 2008 09:16 PM (kbd0j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tonight's Debate In Two Sentences
Senator Government: Spend, spend, spend.
Senator Blinky: You can't spend your way into prosperity.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:23 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Instapundit was right - you summed it up in two sentences! LOL
Well done.
Posted by: Erin at October 15, 2008 10:34 PM (hCJAZ)
2
Yep,
That'll do, Yank. That'll do,
Posted by: daddyquatro at October 15, 2008 10:40 PM (1QrsE)
3
In the other debates, I didn't really give it to either person, even the Palin debate, because I didn't think either side did significantly better than the other in a way that would mean much with voters.
This time, I think the combination of McCain's performance and Obama not seeming to get out of the gate much ---- should pick McCain up a few points in the polls this week and maybe more.
If he doesn't, after this, my only hope for him winning is that the polling people have been wrong about the race to date.
If he gets a boost, the media still has time to grind it down.
If he doesn't, he won't be able to gain with the media against him as it has been.
And everybody says he was behind going in tonight.
Posted by: usinkorea at October 15, 2008 10:42 PM (c3BH3)
4
I heard a lot of Beltway pundits talking tonight about how cool and collected Obama was in the debate and that he "smiled a lot."
Funny. They must have been looking at another guy, because the one I saw on TV was an insufferable, smirking jerk with a singular talent for expounding at length on absolutely nothing.
Posted by: MarkJ at October 15, 2008 10:57 PM (IKzfP)
5
(T)he one I saw on TV was an insufferable, smirking jerk with a singular talent for expounding at length on absolutely nothing.
What channel were you watching? I haven't seen John Kerry for over three years!
Posted by: What I Think at October 15, 2008 11:23 PM (+loVH)
6
I don't watch the debates. I selected a candidate ages ago. A debate is like a NASCAR race. Many people watch to see the big crash. I don't want to see my guy crash and burn by making some blunder.
Posted by: Claude Hopper at October 15, 2008 11:29 PM (Z6fQ+)
7
I can do it two words: "Senator Government".
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 15, 2008 11:47 PM (M+Vfm)
8
Watched 'Zohan'on DVD. Funny, the movie subscribes to the notion of America as a melting pot and not a multicultural mess.
I've said my prayers for McCain BUT will have my butt in the voting booth early on election day.
Posted by: Xixi at October 15, 2008 11:57 PM (iVuTg)
9
I kind of wish I could vote for Joe the Plumber ;-)
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 16, 2008 07:09 AM (BNCg2)
10
Was it my imagination, or did Barack Obama say last night that abortion is a "moral issue"? That doesn't sound like a liberal viewpoint to me. I always thought the liberal view is that abortion is a privacy rights issue, having nothing to do with morality.
Posted by: JMS2008 at October 16, 2008 02:53 PM (ycgHG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Surrogate Unable To Cite A Single Bipartisan Accomplishment
The warm tinging sensation in Chris Matthews' leg after this?
Leaky Depends.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:55 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Paterson didn't see that question coming
Posted by: dhan_su at October 15, 2008 08:30 PM (cJlsX)
2
Very uncharacteristic. Is Matthews flipping on Obama?
Posted by: PA at October 15, 2008 09:12 PM (Xl9pj)
3
That's our Gov. Man what an upgrade over Elliot and his hooker-bin.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 15, 2008 09:48 PM (M+Vfm)
4
That's sad -- I can name several accomplishments right now: Zip, zero, nada, niente, nichts, niets...
Posted by: Richard Romano at October 15, 2008 10:45 PM (kycO9)
5
Obama has been there for 2 years? I guess Patterson isn't counting the time he's spent campaigning for POTUS. That makes sense.
Posted by: Pablo at October 18, 2008 09:57 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Breaking on All Networks: Obama Assassination Plot Foiled by Secret Service
Did I say "Obama" and "all networks?" I meant "Bush" and the Fairfax Times:
A man in possession of a Chinese passport and an AK-47 was arrested in a Fairfax hotel Sept. 30 for sending threatening messages to President George W. Bush and former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.
According to an Oct. 5 search warrant affidavit filed in Fairfax Circuit Court, the United States Secret Service contacted Fairfax police on Sept. 30 after tracking a man named Charn-Chen DAI to an Extended Stay America hotel on Lee Jackson Memorial Highway in Fairfax. Both agencies questioned DAI at that time.
He's only the current President, not The One, so I guess it only qualifies as a local interest story.
h/t
Snapped Shot
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:19 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dang, that's right down the street from me. Crazy.
Posted by: Rob at October 15, 2008 07:55 PM (3kXwK)
2
Bob,
Are you so obsessed that you can't even post this story without bashing Obama?
Even the most rabid victim of BDS looks positively serene compared to you guys.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at October 15, 2008 08:00 PM (Bx4FB)
3
Sure. It's CY's fault that someone literally tried to murder the President.
That's sarcasm.
They tried to murder our President and failed. You have noting to gloat about on this thread.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2008 08:38 PM (jCgaD)
4
You have noting to gloat about on this thread.
He has very little to gloat about at all. His chosen candidate, despite having a very favorable environment, can't get more than a single-digit lead in the polls--except, of course, for those that grossly oversample Democrats and undersample Republicans. Given that we've seen from the Democrat primaries that Obama tends to underperform his polls by about 5 points, that's a real big problem for the Obama campaign.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2008 08:48 PM (kbd0j)
5
"Extended Stay America"....Yep, I'd say his stay just got extended alright...
Posted by: torabora at October 15, 2008 09:46 PM (F5QSs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Good Christian Can't Support Obama
I'm sure to ruffle some feathers, but it's undeniably true: Barack Obama is not a Christian and does not have Christian values, and therefore, I find it hard for a good Christian to argue that one can support him for President.
What do you mean he's not a Christian?
First, Barack Obama is not a Muslim. Barack Obama grew up the son of an ultra-liberal anthropologist mother, and while he was registered as a Muslim student in Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, under the name Barry Soetoro, this registration was completed by his stepfather, and
does not affect his citizenship or religion.
When Barack Obama found his religion, he found it in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama was a member of Wright's congregation for more than 20 years.
Trinity, however, is not a Christian church, despite its affiliation with the United Church of Christ.
At Trinity, Rev. Wright taught a "Black Values System" that decried white "middleclassness." If this sounds racist it should; Trinity is a church built upon Black Liberation Theology, not Christianity.
What is Black Liberation Theology?
Black Liberation Theology is not founded in the birth of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, but in the Afrocentric black nationalism espoused by Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party in the 1960s.
More deeply, liberation theology is Marxism in the guise of faith. A Catholic Cardinal (a man who is now the Pope)
wrote unambiguously:
An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church.
Black Liberation theology is many things—a racial veil of Marxist liberation theology, a form of racism and racial victimhood masked as salvation—but it is decidedly
not Christian.
It worships the concept of "blackness" over the teachings of Jesus Christ, and states that if God is not sufficiently "black" by their selective and murky definition of what makes someone spiritually black, then God must be killed.
No real Christian can accept such obvious heresy as threatening God.
Rather than further delve into the odd particulars of Black Liberation "theology" here, the following collection of links may prove helpful in examining the cult, the role of Obama's church in it, and how this "faith" may have influenced Obama.
The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology
Looking at Obama and black liberation theology
Dialogue on Black Theology: An Interview with James Cone
Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
A Closer Look at Black Liberation Theology
Glenn Beck: Black Liberation Theology (with Ken Blackwell)
Does Barack Obama's Religion Matter?
The Religious Cancer of Racism (by James Cone)
'Context,' you say? A guide to the radical theology of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright
All of this establishes that with Black Liberation
Theology sociology being his only reference point for religion, Barack Obama is not a Christian—how can he be, when he does not follow a Christian faith, but a false idol of a black Marxist Jesus?
Even apart from his heretical faith of 20 years, several of Barack Obama's political decisions should disqualify him from being the choice of any observant and faithful Christian.
The "least of our brothers"? Barack Obama supports abortion... and infanticide
Barack Obama's rabid support for abortion is well documented, including his infamous pronouncement that if his daughters became pregnant, that he would prefer that the grandchildren he obviously has the resources to take care of be aborted, instead of having his daughters become "
punished with a baby."
Even worse than his support for abortion is his shocking opposition to a bill requiring that hospitals provide medical care to infants born alive after failed late-term abortion attempts. This callousness is called by its proper name,
infanticide, and certainly a position no Christian can support, flying into the face of all our Biblical teaching to protect the weak and defenseless.
I'm not sure if Obama's faith supports the denial of medical care to infants, but as Christians, our's most certainly does not.
Yes, you can vote for Barack Obama for President, but if you do so, you vote for a man who is not a Christian, and who does not have Christian values.
As Christians, we aren't supposed to be perfect, which is something non-believers and holiday-only attendees don't want to acknowledge as it takes away their favored charge of hypocrisy when we frequently prove our absence of infallibility and divinity.
But now you know what Barack Obama is—and is not—it would seem obvious that supporting a man who professes Christianity but who is demonstrably a cultist, a man who professes Christain values, but them works to suppress the medical care of infants in a move that only the Devil himself could love, is not someone a good Christian can support.
I am not saying that God favors John McCain, nor am I suggesting you vote for him based upon any theological knowledge, as McCain is decidedly a secularly-focused candidate.
But there is simply no way a good Christian can support the heretical cult that so deeply ingrained itself in Obama's mind, nor his bizarre and brutal suppression of care for those among us who are weakest and most in need.
Matthew 25:37-43
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
Update: Bumped.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:41 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm about as thoroughly secular as a person can get but all religions are not created equally objectionable as the Mahers and Hitchens of the world would have it. It must be remembered that this jolly secular cornecopia that we see here is the product of a religious foundation that is Christian. Prior to its emergence in the forties and fifties it was unknown to humanity and it appears by all evidence that it will subsume as if it had never existed if a decade or three of amnesia once extinguishes that knowledge.
Posted by: megapotamus at October 15, 2008 11:55 AM (eBb4/)
2
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Matthew 7:1-6
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 15, 2008 12:03 PM (HYIi/)
3
I will not be voting for Sen. Obama, but not because he is not a Christian. As he sows, so shall he reap, and I'll leave the judgement in God's capable hands.
I'd vote for a Jewish person, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or perhaps even a Muslim, based on his or her actions. Sonorous speeches, punchy sound bytes, and a telegenic face are all very well, but by our works shall we be known, and I have no admiration for the few works that Sen. Obama has let us know about. I'm also concerned about all his works that we don't know about.
In short, I'm a Christian, but I'm not stupid, I'm not racist, I'm not a red-neck, I'm not a bigot, and I'm not voting for Obama.
Posted by: Stoutcat at October 15, 2008 12:49 PM (kKdtK)
4
Any place which has a pastor ranting GOD DAMN anyone or anybody can never ever be a house of God. God never damns anyone or anybody.
Posted by: dhan_su at October 15, 2008 04:46 PM (cJlsX)
5
Maybe he should have the witches cast out by an African reverend. Would that help?
Posted by: dBa at October 15, 2008 05:05 PM (1XWfF)
6
It's the whole Tenth Commandment - not coveting. Socialism and "Social Justice" is built upon coveting AND redistribution - but it starts with the desire to have your neighbor's car (ass), wife, kitchen appliances, golf scores, job, and station in life.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at October 15, 2008 05:34 PM (VNM5w)
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at October 15, 2008 05:55 PM (H3FMV)
8
**Socialism and "Social Justice" is built upon coveting AND redistribution **
I think that is a flawed outlook of socialism !
Socialism thrives on two factors :
Haves and Have-nots
If YOU have it and I don't, I will make sure you DON'T have it anymore, by whatever means necessary
The more the have-nots, the more stability for a marxist regime
Prosperity is the enemy of socialism-marxism
Masses living in fear and poverty fuel communist regimes all over the world. So communists create more poverty to prolong their own survival
On the other hand, Capitalism is about generating WEALTH
And we all know what Obama likes to do with other ppl's wealth
Posted by: dhan_su at October 15, 2008 06:15 PM (cJlsX)
9
Luther Tines:
Too often "judge not lest ye be judged" is used as a cudgel to silence those who speak out against evil. The problem, however, is that this would mean a passive fatalism when faced with horrors such as the Holocaust or the Cambodian Killing Fields: How can we judge Hitler or Pol Pot? Thankfully, the way out of the conundrum is clear: judge the actions, not the person, and stop/oppose the person if the actions are evil.
Thus, I do not judge the state of Obama's soul, but I will judge the actions he takes (or says he will take). And these I find totally un-Christian in the most fundamental sense. Anyone who espouses the Freedom of Choice Act is supporting the murder to even more innocents, and this no Christian should be able to accept. So I oppose Obama for his actions, and leave it to God to judge Obama when it comes to his salvation.
Posted by: Mike at October 15, 2008 07:08 PM (PQZGd)
10
Hey, Luther... you might wanna check out the following verses as well as Matthew 7:1-6...
"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa 37:30)
"With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth." (Psa 119:13)
"Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9)
Jesus commended Simon, "Thou hast rightly judged." (Luke 7:43)
"Now, thou son of man, wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge the bloody city? yea, thou shalt show her all her abominations." (Ezek 22:2)
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (1 Cor 2:15)
"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor 6:2)
"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" (1 Cor 6:3)
I urge your prayerful consideration of all of the above verses. Perhaps you will come to a deeper understanding of the true meaning of the Matthew passage.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2008 07:50 PM (kbd0j)
11
I've been told that when the devil comes, he'll be quoting scripture.
I see evidence of that here.
Humility is also a Christian value.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at October 15, 2008 07:57 PM (Bx4FB)
12
Gee, David, does that mean that every Christian preacher in every pulpit across the world is the devil in disguise, because they quote Scripture? Quite the broad brush, hmmm?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2008 08:06 PM (kbd0j)
13
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
CCG,
That's Shakespeare, not the Bible.
But of course you knew that.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at October 15, 2008 08:18 PM (Bx4FB)
14
Indeed, I did know that. Thanks for admitting that I can tell the difference between the Bible and Shakespeare.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2008 08:34 PM (kbd0j)
15
Judge not, eh? Far too many folks misunderstand that scriptural admonition. The Bible is very clear that we must make judgements about the character of others, and several primary ways to do that are through their associations and alliances and through their statements and behavior. To fail to make such judgements renders long term personal survival a rather iffy proposition and makes living a moral life all but impossible. So what does it mean? Don't presume to know the mind of God. Don't presume to judge the depth and degree of the personal relationship of others and God.
As to Mr. Obama, Wright's church was indeed preaching a "gospel" about as far from the good news as is possible to be without any actual Bible in the church bursting into flames from the heat of blasphemy washing over it. Wright did and does preach a racist, black liberation theology that is rooted in black superiority, marxist theory, bizarre and scientifically unsupportable pseudo-anthropology, victimhood and downright, every day hatred. It is not at all unreasonable to argue that anyone espousing or practicing such theology is just about as far separated from mainstream protestant theology as it is possible to be. In that, Obama can easily be considered a highly unconventional Christian, but that might also be a judgement best left to God.
That said, it's certainly reasonable, considering Obama's absolute, two decade long embrace of Wright and his teachings, and his immediate abandonment of same when it became politically inconvenient, to question his sincerity in practicing his faith, and his dedication to it. Is he a believer, or merely using faith as a political tool to be wielded when useful and discarded when a liability.
While Obama has claimed that his middle name--Hussein--would make his diplomacy with muslims easier, he might think again. In Islamic tradition, children don't choose their faith, they are born into it--for life-- and faith is determined by the father, not the mother. Obama was, by sharia and muslim tradition, born a muslim, and his abandoning Islam for any other faith, whether a mainstream version of Christianity or a lunatic, racist aberration like black liberation theology is not a plus, but grounds for his immediate murder as an apostate. In fact, Obama would be even more fit for death--in the minds of traditional muslims, to say nothing of crazed jihadists--than the average infidel.
In any case, little that is known about what Obama has done would be considered to be honorable in light of Christian tradition. His relationship with God? Judge not.
Posted by: Mike at October 15, 2008 11:03 PM (kf6Mc)
16
Mr. Terrenoire! It seems like just yesterday we were saying our goodbyes.
C-C-G: "I urge your prayerful consideration of all of the above verses. Perhaps you will come to a deeper understanding of the true meaning of the Matthew passage."
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged" is not subtle. Your citations do indeed contradict it. Presumably you believe that God placed dinosaur fossils in the ground to test our faith as well. Dollars to donuts you don't believe in carbon dating. You trample science but have zero qualms about enjoying its fruits.
I like your website. I too am a Thomas Paine fan. Here are a couple of my favorites from him:
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine
The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.
--Thomas Paine
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 16, 2008 12:35 AM (b1AL7)
17
You know you hit it right on the head. That is a mainstream take on Barrack Obama. It isn't left or right it is a moderate approach. Moderates are gone in today's media. You should be running CBS not those liberals. I just hope for my sake and yours alike Obama doesn't get elected. Obama is so sketchy you could be a marxist or even a islamic terrorist and I would be afraid of Obama. For a god-fearing WASP like myself Obama is a nightmare.
Well keep up the good work!
Posted by: Red, White, and Blue Patriot at October 16, 2008 01:59 AM (Abqdw)
18
One does not need a belief in God(though it obvioulsy helps those who are conflicted on the matter)to understand that forcing doctors and nurses to do intentional harm by taking no measure to save newborns who survive the blotched abortion, is without question imhuman barbarism.
It's like Medea's barbarism only she is afforded all the legal protection to kill her offspring as justification for her revenge.
Posted by: syn at October 16, 2008 07:00 AM (wJ6Sn)
19
Luther, why don't you do a quick internet search of that Matthew passage and see what leading Christians have to say about its meaning? I am very confident, being a lay preacher myself, and having preached on this very passage (meaning I did a lot of research on it), that you'll find that they agree with me, not you.
Or, you could just go back to KOS. Your friends there miss you.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2008 08:15 AM (kbd0j)
20
Oh, Luther, thanks for your kind words regarding the website. However, it's soon to be going down, replaced by a joint project between myself and another frequent commenter here. Stay tuned.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2008 08:21 AM (kbd0j)
21
C-C-G,
"... why don't you do a quick internet search of that Matthew passage and see what leading Christians have to say about its meaning?"
The passage is crystal to me. Those who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God must of necessity come up with a subtle interpretation in order not to contradict those other parts of the Bible that you quoted.
Jesus was a moralist of the highest order. I've yet to meet anyone who earnestly emulates him. Christians that I've known have no problem with at least some of these: wealth (camels and needles), the Iraq war (love thine enemies), capital punishment (thou shalt not kill), graven images, interest (money changers) etc. When confronted they deny what the Bible flatly states, or say solemnly that they are, sadly, imperfect. It's one thing to strive for perfection, and quite another to feel sanctimonious while not to making the slightest real effort to emulate Christ.
Incidentally, one hears ad nauseum about how the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian nation. Actually several of them were deists. What's interesting is the before Darwin, there simply was no hypothesis, much less explanation, for the origin of species. Therefore deism was as close to atheism as one could reasonably be at the time.
Obviously you won't change your mind about anything, but maybe it will give you some food for thought.
Best,
Luther
Posted by: Luther Tines at October 16, 2008 11:40 AM (b1AL7)
22
Americans should be VERY disturbed about what has happened this election season.
Barrack Obama has advertisements up that say, "Come join the "movement"!" (Movement? I thought we were electing a president?)
We have a corrupt and biased news media who is furthering the Obama "movement" by hiding all the details of his corrupt and anti-American past.
We have teachers teaching their students to sing songs praising Obama, much like is done in church when people sing praising God.
We have a cult-like mindset across the United States. We have people who follow Obama much like the zealots followed Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Hitler.
We have a presidential candidate who says, "I am the one you have been waiting for" and who designs his OWN presidential seal and now a flag. We have a presidential candidate who doesn't salute our flag and who goes overseas and talks trash about our country. Yet we have people right here in the United States who still want to vote for him.
I find all of this very disturbing. I have done my research and tried to find ONE extraordinary thing that Barrack Obama has done in his lifetime to deserve all this worship and devotion.
Did he ever climb a tree to save a kitten? No. Did he give away all his money to the poor? No. Did he ever travel to a third world country and take along a present or some food for the starving? No.
So now I am asking one of you Obama-bots who are so soaked in the Obama Kool-aid to tell me ONE thing extraordinary that Barrack Obama has done for his fellow man that has earned your devotion.
I am only asking for one.
Feel free to E-Mail me so we can discusws this further.
buds.killer@yahoo.com
Posted by: Mike at October 16, 2008 02:42 PM (BZuwT)
23
Since you've declared that you won't change your mind, further discussion with you is a waste of bandwidth, Luther.
Go back to KOS, please.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2008 06:59 PM (kbd0j)
24
I think you have a wrong perseption of who a Christian is. To be a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus Christ and not be a part of a religion, party or nation or just holding to a set of values and culture. No sir. Here is what Jesus had a in mind when the Christian movement started; (hope you'll read these scriptures) John 3:16,4:13-14,11:26,Acts 2:21,10:43,Rom.10:11-13,1 John2:23,Luke 14:27,7:23,9:37,12:8-10 and so on. Now you will notice the qualification for being a Christian all these scriptures (again l wish you'll read them), it says "whosoever" I think when we get this straight you will discover that there are indeed more Christians than your narrow minded presupposition. Does this qualify Obama, Mccain,Clinton, Republicans, Independents or Democrats as a Christian beacause of the Church they visit? Nope. You have to believe what Jesus believed. If Obama had being a member of Black Theology for 20 years and in 2008 declared that Jesus Christi is his Lord and Savior, let it be said he is a Christian. Heaven agrees with that and angels rejoice at that. See what 1 John 4:2-3 and 4:15.
Now let's talk about you. Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? Do you know who He is and that He came into this world in the flesh so that your sins may be forgiven and you may start a new relationship with God. I'm not talking about belonging to a Church (it's good though), but about have a meaningful relationship with Him through the infilling of the Holy Spirit. You can go to Church and still end up in hell. Some Pastors, Reverends, Bishops and Popes are going to hell if the only thing they have is Church membersip, titles, being a culture warrior and upholding ethical standards but do not have a relationship with God. God;s demand for being a follower of Jesus is to confess and repent of your sins (Proverbs 28:13) confess and accept Jesus as Lord and personal Savior (Rom.10:9-10) and be determined to live the life God has prescribed (1 Peter 1:15-16). My friend, l want you to accept Christ into your life if you have not genuinely done so. It's as simple as that. Just follow the steps enumerated above, read the scripture and go on youe knees, bow your head in respect to God and pray a simple prayer that will come to your mind. Nothing special, just tell God you are sorry for all the wrong doings-hatred, lying, skander, lack of love, cheating, adultery, fornication or whatever wrong you may be doing and presto, God will change your life.
Let me leave you with this great scripture in 1 John 1:9. It helped me whn l first accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I'll be praying for you l promise. Shalom!
PS
I'm not even an Obama fan.
Posted by: Tim at October 20, 2008 08:43 AM (bz8RB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Obot Voter Fraud
Michelle Malkin has the story put together by Palestra (video here) concerning an attempt by a bunch of Democrats to use a street address in Ohio to vote from out of state and influence that state's election.
If Barack Obama's supporters truly think they have the election in the bag, then why do they keep resorting to voter registration fraud and voter fraud and similar schemes?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:38 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good point and I have been wondering also. Why all the lib/dem hysteria? Why the frauds? Why the "hiding" of Obambi's background? Why the viperous attacks on Palin? Why all the attacks and huge ad spending at all if it's "in the bag"? I think the whole "in the bag" thing is a lie. And it sure ain't like the dems don't lie, they got black belts in lying. I think the polls are a lie, and I think Pelosi's BLATANT lies about the origins of the mortgage crisis is a lie tale all it's very own. Wow, are people so stupid? I really don't think so. I think the dems have good reason to be hysterical. They're on the edge of almost total power in America and are very scared they're about to blow it. With luck, they will and we will dodge the death pill again. And that is NO lie.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at October 15, 2008 07:38 PM (Qv1xF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Murtha: Western Pennsylvania "Racist," But Obama Will Still Win State
If this is what Democrats consider voter outreach, Barack Obama is in for a rude surprise come November 5.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:27 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Fulton Armory Promotes Election Ammo Sale
While the sale prices on parts and ammunition, are nice, what kind of message are they sending?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:06 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Seriously, what kind of election sale is it when rifles are excluded?
Frankly, I think Impact Guns has better deals, but that's just me.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 15, 2008 03:10 PM (HcgFD)
2
Maybe they're just saying that if Obama wins you better hurry up and buy your ammo before it's outlawed.
Posted by: Tim at October 15, 2008 04:40 PM (sp1sQ)
3
Thanks for the reference. I just order a thousand rounds.
Posted by: JerryT at October 16, 2008 05:23 PM (CHcTO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Part of the Problem
Know who was at least part of the reason we are in such dire financial straits?
As
Allah notes, the ad is highly effective among both Democrats and Republicans because of its accuracy.
John McCain should focus on the fact that Barack Obama is an economic nightmare, and that he will make the lives of Americans worse if elected, and not just for the short term, as our children are going to shoulder the debt of moe than a trillion dollars in new spending.
Let blogs hammer Obama for consorting with terrorists and racists, and have the campaign hammer Obama's dangerous economic plans and abject lack of experience.
Despite what the media would like for us to believe, the race is far from over, and we still have a good chance of defeating Barack Obama's trainwreck economics.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:27 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obviously, instead of sending money to the GOP or the McCain campaign, we should send it to Let Freedom Ring! Let's just get it out there.
Posted by: douglas at October 16, 2008 03:04 AM (20QoQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Four Years of This? I Can Hardly Wait
Joe Biden has funneled more than $2 million in campaign funds to his family over the years.
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. has paid more than $2 million in campaign cash to his family members, their businesses and employers over the years, a practice that watchdogs criticize as rife with potential conflicts of interest.
The money largely flowed from the coffers of Mr. Biden's failed presidential campaign during the past two years to a company that employs his sister and longtime campaign manager, Valerie Biden Owens, according to campaign disclosure filings.
If revelations like this keep breaking against Obama/Biden, we might see them indicted shortly after the election.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:42 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I wonder, would Sarah do this?
Posted by: bill-tb at October 15, 2008 02:12 PM (7evkT)
2
Biden is essentially broke with a near zero net worth. Probably doing this out of desperation because he manages his personal finances so poorly.
Posted by: PA at October 15, 2008 06:45 PM (Xl9pj)
3
I'm sure BO could fit Obiden under the bus too.
He will have to.
Posted by: torabora at October 15, 2008 09:51 PM (F5QSs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Drop the Filter
The New York Times could save some money if they fired fired the middlemen and simply let the Obama campaign post directly to their blogs.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:21 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Tonight's Debate
Today.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:13 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There's still 3 weeks to go! Check Out The Truth About… for expert opinions on Your Vote -- http://www.thetruthabout.com
Posted by: andrea at October 15, 2008 01:26 PM (QYUEC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No Awakening in Pakistan
Why an Iraqi-style Awakening movement in Pakistan is destined to fail.
My latest at PJM.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:45 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Michelle Obama Blasts African News for Supporting the "Racists" That Oppose Barack Obama, Calls Opposition Evil People (Obama Camp Calls Claims a Complete Fabrication)
She's not happy with those who aren't marching in lock-step with the demands of blind racial loyalty:
Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said she decided to call API because of what she termed, API's help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man's name, saying she hopes African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.
When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: "African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view," and she went to state that, "it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon[sic] to API."
This is a shocking rant, even for someone as extreme as Michelle Obama.
She honestly believes that the African Press should offer "unwavering support to her husband" simply because he has African roots?
Those that criticize her husband, or are concerned about his background are all "racists"?
And it gets worse.
Michelle Obama's
caricature in the
New Yorker as a black nationalist suddenly isn't so funny.
The Obama Camp is
pushing back hard, but for now API—whoever they are—is standing behind their story.
Take it for what it's worth.
Update: I'll let this play out as it will, but will point out one thing that should be self-evident that some anti-Obama sites can't seem to grasp as they look at this API post. Some are claiming that it adds credibility to the claim that Obama doesn't have U.S. citizenship because he was adopted.
This is easily the dumbest claim on the internet today involving Obama. A child cannot lose the birthright of his citizenship merely because he is adopted by a foreigner. It's moronic, logically inconsistent, and most importantly, not legally supportable. If Obama was an adult and refuted his citizenship that would be another matter entirely, but as he hasn't done so, this claim is entirely bogus.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:02 AM
| Comments (42)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Gets me to thinkin' that the claims that he's forfeited his citizenship when taken to Indonesia might have some legitimacy after all. She's clearly concerned.
Posted by: douglas at October 15, 2008 11:15 AM (20QoQ)
2
The only way this would seem to be an eligibility problem is the question of his name. For years he was Barry Soetero. How did it become Obama or did it ever, really become Soetero? The candidates are obliged to run under their own legal name. It would be an amusing irony if the sort of ballot chicanery that has benefited Barry so roundly in the past but whatever. This contest will not be decided thus if only because McCain would never push it.
But more importantly, African-Americans (and apparently Africans) of good will should notice that there is a special place in Obamerica for those people of color who have the temerity to, say, stray from the plantation. Us whiteys can probably hope for a bit of patience given our disabilities but brothers and sisters have NO excuse. If you are not on the Obama train fully totally and enthusiastically you are in for a world of hurt. Thuggery, thy name is Obama.
Posted by: megapotamus at October 15, 2008 11:43 AM (eBb4/)
3
Isn't it funny how suddenly Michelle Obama speaks like one of those spam emails purporting to be from the son of Moboutu Sese Seko? I'm gobsmacked that anyone has to even question whether this is fake.
Posted by: Julian Sanchez at October 15, 2008 11:48 AM (pmyHQ)
4
I think Amanda Carpenter blogged this at TownHall - and has a notice up that it's a complete fabrication.
Ah yes:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/d60e7409-a6fe-4785-9974-c21b944cbcd9
Posted by: Jeff at October 15, 2008 11:56 AM (yiMNP)
5
Wow! Don't you guys get it? In the "PC Rule Book", it's OK for blacks to play the "Race Card" and not OK for whitey to "call". That is immediate grounds for REPLAYING the "Race Card" and a "shut the fuck up" penalty on whitey. Jeez, you guys should read more, or visit California for a retraining seminar.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at October 15, 2008 11:58 AM (Qv1xF)
6
Fake but accurate......
Posted by: Jack at October 15, 2008 12:15 PM (Ss83y)
7
Except that the source is standing by its story:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/african-press-michelle-obama-lashes-out.html
Posted by: ECM at October 15, 2008 01:01 PM (q3V+C)
8
Actually, CY, a parent can renounce citizenship for their children. I am NOT saying that was done for "Barry Sotero" (sp?) by his "adoptive father" and/or mother. My two oldest brothers were born in Japan when my father was stationed there. At that time, the Japanese recognized birthright citizenship. Shortly after their births, my parents formally renounced my brothers' Japanese citizenship. IF the adoption included a formal renunciation of citizenship there MUST be a record of it in the US...somewhere. Since that document hasn't come out yet, I believe we can presume it was never done...and (unfortunately, in my view) B(H)O is a natively born American citizen.
Posted by: Mark at October 15, 2008 01:12 PM (4od5C)
9
I still think that more proof is needed that Michelle actually made the call. Did they record it? If so, can a third party actually offer any assessment that the caller was likely to be Michelle.
I know Michelle feels entitled because of her race--I heard her say "it is out turn" (referring to the Presidency) on a talk radio show in LA last spring. The context of the discussion was on the fact that it was African-American's turn for the Presidency. Not that Obama had earned it--that it somehow was owed to him because of his racial identiy.
But she did not sound so barking insane as the person in this transcript. Not to say that proves it wasn't her, but there is a (maybe tiny) fraction of doubt in my mind that she would be so stupid as to say these things to a media operation.
Good call on the citizenship issue, btw. While Barry isn't much of an American (57 states?), I am convinced he is a legal one....
Posted by: iconoclast at October 15, 2008 01:22 PM (ex0JG)
10
"The candidates are obliged to run under their own legal name."
- I wouldn't be so sure. Normally, you can use an alias provided that it is not being used for criminal purposes.
I think that "Indonesian Citizenship" is only an issue if it turns out that the rumors that he traveled as an adult using an Indonesian passport turn out to be true. And by that, I mean that a copy of an actual passport turns up. The hit there being that this is something his campaign concealed/lied about and not whether he is an American or not. (Regardless of the legal standing/arguments that it does effect his citizenship.)
One more thing about Citizenship. You can go and renounce it and the IRS still has a right to come after you for taxes for ten years or so. So if it is not that easy to throw it away, it is probably not that easy to lose it either.
One more thing about the media. When O loses due to all these rumors that they were sitting on for over a year will the left give them yet another free pass for they will be very responsible if the Democrats don't win the White House.
Posted by: Fred Fry at October 15, 2008 01:28 PM (JXdhy)
11
LOL! "This is not the wife I knew."
Posted by: Paul Atreides at October 15, 2008 01:32 PM (WOi7W)
12
When he went to school in Indonesia, he had to be a citizen of the country and a Muslem. Indonesia did not accept dual citizenship with the US during this time period. If he was adopted by Seotoro, he was no longer a citizen of the US. His Kenyan grandmother satated that he was born in Kenya, she stated that she was there. She's so proud of him, why would she lie?
I need to see a documented with state seal birth certificate.
Posted by: EMC at October 15, 2008 01:42 PM (WNSpb)
13
EMC, it is irrelevant that Indonesia refuses to recognize a dual citizenship; the United States does.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 15, 2008 01:44 PM (HcgFD)
14
The 'adoption by O's Indonesian step-daddy' is just a secondary allegation in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (currently pending a ruling by the U.S. District Court Judge in Philly) - the primary allegation is that O was really born in Kenya and has, to date, refused to provide a genuine, certified "vault copy" of an Hawaiian birth certificate and that the "birth certificate" shown on O's website and to factcheck.org are, in fact, forgeries. Thus, if O was not born in HI as he says, O is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Lee at October 15, 2008 03:09 PM (oMgnY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2008
Plumber Frightened by Obama's Socialism, Redistribution of Wealth
Plumber Joe Wurzelbacher is not happy with Barack Obama's plans to punish him for his hard work.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:50 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We're supposed to be shocked that Obama is a hard core socialist bent on wealth redistribution?
The only thing shocking to me in this farce, is the sheer number of people willing to enable this THIEF.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 14, 2008 10:29 PM (M+Vfm)
2
Obama's proposed rates on the rich are lower than there were under the Nixon administration. To call this proposal a theft is to cry entitlement.
Posted by: Sally at October 15, 2008 12:24 AM (r2mpW)
3
Sally, Tax growth was lowest under Nixon than any President besides G.H.W. Bush since before FDR (I don't know about Clinton, and W., I couldn't find info that included them).
There is no question that Obama wants them to go up. I'll take Nixon's approach on taxes over Obama's any day.
You can't fairly compare absolute rates, because they were dealing with different rates going into their term. Point is, if you lower rates, (to a point that we're nowhere near) you increase revenues.
Posted by: douglas at October 15, 2008 02:47 AM (20QoQ)
4
Hmmm... and here I always thought that Nixon was a Bad Man. Now we find out that on taxes, he was the John the Baptist to Obama's Messiah.
Amazing the logical pretzels Obamamaniacs will twist themselves into.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2008 07:13 AM (kbd0j)
5
When I had a small business, as taxes increased I stopped hiring and readjusted our health plan to a less generous one. Our market share stagnated but I refused to work 16 hours a day instead of my usual 12-14. People I had wanted to hire had to stay in crumby jobs and earn less. Small business looks like easy picking to socialists like Obama, since it has little concerted political force to oppose them. In France now the total tax on small business is almost 62%. Younger employees have no chance of advancement or starting their own business so they emigrate.Their bosses have no capital to expand. No wonder 90% of French mothers thnk a govt job is the best thing for their children. Obama's parents probably thought the same.
Posted by: mytralman at October 15, 2008 08:51 AM (0mKiN)
6
That Nixon was SUCH a socialist, with his wage and price controls (even though he only did it to mollify the Demoncrats in Congress, and to satisfy the demands of the majority of the American people who were upset about spiralling inflation. But since when does satisfying the stupid majority of the population have anything to do with democracy?)
Even Nixon didn't have the U.S. government take over banks. It's all BHO's fault that this happened, even though he's not president. Thank God McCain doesn't want to do anything socialistic like having the government own the banks. Or is it the other way around?
Posted by: Bukko in Australia at October 15, 2008 08:53 AM (oiB9C)
7
Obama's proposed rates on the rich are lower than there were under the Nixon administration. To call this proposal a theft is to cry entitlement.Ah, the dangers of a little knowledge. May I introduce you to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Anyone besides me remember being able to deduct credit card and car loan interest? In addition to lowering rates and eliminating deductions, TRA '86 was likely instrumental in exacerbating(if not causing) the S&L Crisis of the late 80's. Since TRA '86, every administration after Reagan's until GWB has increased the marginal rates. Some bargain that was...
Posted by: Diogenes at October 15, 2008 09:28 AM (2MrBP)
8
This plumber makes more than $250 K a year?
So much for my college degree.
Posted by: kindness at October 15, 2008 09:40 AM (uabyl)
9
I have significant contact with the 'Small Business Community' in my state. Since August I've been asking some 'judicious' questions of the owners. All but one of them told me they expect to keep less of the money they make under an Obama administration. Circa 75% have told me they will not expand. Just under 25% have told me they will "close their doors and walk away".
If that last happens nationwide, where does that put unemployment under Obama? What will that do to his revenue stream? Will he be able to keep his promise of a "tax cut for 95%"? If you think the economy stinks now...just wait.
Posted by: Mark at October 15, 2008 10:11 AM (4od5C)
10
I find it interesting B(H)O believes most small businesses don't make over $250k when the following definitions and guidelines are involved.
CY's filter won't allow me to do the URL for the SBA's definition of 'Small Business'. Check the story at Patterico's Pontifications)
SBA Table of Small Business
(Thanks to and story at: Patterico's Pontifications)
Posted by: Mark at October 15, 2008 12:02 PM (4od5C)
11
He's a marxist. He doesn't WANT small business -- or any business -- to do well. He wants us all poor, and dependent on government.
Posted by: Bill Smith at October 15, 2008 12:33 PM (x9fYa)
12
"This plumber makes more than $250 K a year?"
No, his company grosses 250k. My bar/restaurant grosses 1 million but my salary is only around 60k. Obama is going to double my taxes. Do you think 60k is rich?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 15, 2008 05:24 PM (vuXJQ)
13
Consider: If the tax bill for a company increases, assuming more or less constant company income, that company will have less to pay its employees. Therefore, at best, they won't be hiring any new employees, and at worst, they may have to lay people off.
And this is supposed to be a Good Thing?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2008 07:13 PM (kbd0j)
14
One's business taxes are based on the NET of a business, not the GROSS. Once you subtract all the expenses & deductions from the GROSS, you obtain the NET.
If you are only netting $60 K on a business that grosses $1 M, I can't say I'd want to follow your business model. Happily for you though, under Barack's tax proposal, you'd get a tax break at that level.
Posted by: kindness at October 16, 2008 10:48 AM (uabyl)
15
Kindness, please provide a l_i_n_k (darned spam filter) to your source for Obama's taxes being based on net income instead of gross income.
I ask that because I've looked, and can't find any information on the specifics of Obama's plan. I'm hoping you can do better.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2008 07:03 PM (kbd0j)
16
All of the morons who are subscribing to the 'socialist' or 'redistribution of wealth' arguments ought to take time to read (you can look up the big words) Thomas Franks' book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" The same Joe-Six-Pack/the Plumber crowd whoa are screaming about money being taken from them have been fiscally raped by eight years of the Bush Administration. I'm a small business owner and now for one second do I feel threatened by Obama. You dopes have bought the McCain/Palin fear-mongering attack, hook, line and sinker, doggone it.
Posted by: Diane at October 18, 2008 10:22 AM (DPJs8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 105 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1801 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1574 seconds, 246 records returned.
Page size 212 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.