I’ve never understood why American Jews are so much more likely to vote Left than Right. I suspect it has something to do with the success of STALIN’s public relations ploy to distance himself from fascists, whom he deeply resembled, by inventing the notion that fascism is from the extreme RIGHT, while socialism is from the extreme LEFT. Jews can hardly be blamed for wanting to vote for candidates as far from fascism as possible, and I fear most do not know that they’ve essentially fallen for a Stalinist labeling system. What they fail to appreciate is that fascism and socialism have in common super-authoritative statism, and are more alike than different. The American academic establishment, which has large Jewish representation, has been happy to continue this fraud, implying that people on the Right are somehow closer to Hitler than people on the Left, while always denying that, on that scale, they must be closer to Stalin. Only super-authoritative states can carry out genocides on the grand scale. And Stalin’s treatment of Jews was hardly gentle, was it?
Continue reading “Jews for Obama? Holy Moley”
Oct 15 2008
Jews for Obama? Holy Moley
Oct 14 2008
Linking Obama’s relationships to Ayers and Wright
If you’ve been paying attention to the election coming up, you know that Obama’s alliances with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are matters of considerable concern, one being a racist, apparently America hating pastor, the other being an unrepentant terrorist, and both being close to Obama for many, many years. Now Powerline reports on new work by Stanly Kurtz in Connecting the Dots
But now Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated a more concrete connection, and one that implicates Obama directly, not just through “association.” Kurtz’s review of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) — the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led for a time during the 1990s — has established that “Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright.”
I hope you’ll read this entire report. It is clear that there is yet more evidence of Obama’s radical past, and likely radical future.
Oct 14 2008
I Know vs. I Believe II
Can it truly be that someone of so little substance, and experience can be elected to the office of President of the United States?
Can it be we the people are so laissez faire about our future that we are persuaded to hand the Presidency to someone we know so little about?
Can we truly be so foolish as to elect a leader who has again and again been found among those who hate the very country he now aspires to lead?
Can it be we will place a man in the Oval Office who has no greater qualification than eloquent rhetoric?
What does this say about us?
I don’t know what you think of Howard Stern, and in this case it really doesn’t matter – but I do know you should listen to this audio clip and then ask yourself about what hope there is for us as a nation when so many will exercise their precious right to vote enshrouded in a cloak of ignorance.
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
Oct 13 2008
Last chance for McCain
Dick Morris thinks there is still time for the public to become aware of the terrible alliances (not mere associations) Obama has had in the past, and still has, if the market settles down and stabilizes just a bit.
A man whose spiritual adviser is Wright, whose financial backer is Tony Rezko, and whose first major employer was William Ayers might not be a good choice for president. But for these associations to loom large enough in our consciousness to impact our vote, the market has to settle down so we can hear the campaign over its din.
Oct 12 2008
Obama and Fannie/Freddie CEOs: some clarity
As reported at SNOPES, a normally reliable fact-checking website, an email has been making the rounds linking Obama to Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines and Tim Howard. Johnson and Raines are former Fannie Mae CEOs whose tenures were marked by fraudulent accounting practices and the reporting of false profits to pump up earnings reports and get executive bonuses. Howard was CFO (Chief Financial Officer) during Raines tenure, and was right in the middle of the false accounting and false profits scandals.
Snopes declares that the email is FALSE. That’s odd, because significant parts of the email are TRUE, but it does have a few incorrect assertions. Snopes’ practice in such situations is usually to say something is partly true and partly false, and to be very clear on the distinctions regarding which is which. One can only wonder why that practice was not followed in this report, which was simply declared FALSE at the top, and only a careful reader would discover that much of it was TRUE.
The email first gives the history of the involvement with Fannie Mae of former CEO Jim Johnson, former CEO Franklin Raines, and former CFO Tim Howard. Even Snopes does not deny the accuracy of this summary.
Continue reading “Obama and Fannie/Freddie CEOs: some clarity”
Oct 11 2008
Big Brother is taking over my TV: be afraid, be very afraid
Friday night I noticed that two of my favorite TV shows, Life and Numbers, were at the same time. So I decided to watch one, and record the other on a Dish Networks DVR. I live far out on the boonies… so we have a Dish Network satellite system for TV.
I went to the TV/DVR receiver where I was going to record Life, while watching Numbers. I turned it on. It was SUPPOSED to have already been preset to record Life, since I record all episodes, so it’s sort of a global thing in the receiver’s settings. And it was time, and should have been recording.
But it wasn’t tuned to channel 4 and recording. Instead, it was tuned to channel 73, and the show was “Obama’s Plan For America” (paid ad).
I was confused. I knew it was preset to record Life, whenever an episode came on. The DVR has been very reliable and stable. Still scratching my head, I changed the channel to channel 4, and was going to just manually record Life for now. And indeed, the DVR registered the key press, and changed to channel 4… except that it didn’t. It showed the TEXT display for channel 4, but still displayed Obama’s Plan For America. And then the text display switched back to channel 73. Obama was talking about universal healthcare. Maybe he really, really wanted me to hear.
Continue reading “Big Brother is taking over my TV: be afraid, be very afraid”
Oct 10 2008
Obama’s tax cut: what he doesn’t mention
So: in ALL of Obama’s discussion of his plans to raise taxes on only the top 5% in income, and “cut” taxes for the other 95%, how much have you heard about his plans to allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?
Does he mention those tax cuts were across the board, so that EVERYONE who paid taxes got a tax cut?
From where I sit, letting a tax cut expire is about the same thing as raising taxes.
By the way, does Obama ever mention that, historically, when taxes are CUT, including on the investors, entrepreneurs and employers (i.e., that top 5%), revenues to the US Treasury actually go UP (allowing more entitlement spending, if you’re so inclined… sigh)? Does he ever explain why he wants to RAISE taxes on the highest tax payers, when that behavior is virtually certain to LOWER revenues to the Treasury, thus limiting the ability of the government to provide the services socialists demand? Does he admit that raising taxes on the economically active top 5% will affect their economic activity, causing them to take fewer risks, invest in less business activity (all of which creates jobs), move more of their economic activity to other countries, etc.? Can Obama point to any instance in human history where a tax raise CAUSED people to be more economically active, and therefore created economic growth? (Don’t confuse correlation with causation when you start looking for examples of this, if you’re so inclined.)
Has he explained why it’s better for the “working class” to get a tax cut (or just an outright check for $1000 or so from the government for the 40% who pay no income tax) than it is for the same people to have a secure job in a growing economy? And the great probability that his tax raise on the top 5% will SLOW or STOP growth altogether, especially in the current economic situation? That his tax raise on the employer class is going to cause fewer jobs, because the money that would have supported more workers will go to the government, or employers will simply manage their situation to reduce activity in the USA, and thus reduce tax liability?
Has Obama ever explained why HIS socialist leaning plans will work in the USA, when they’ve essentially failed in other nations, and are being replaced by more privatization?
Has he ever mentioned that the tax on US business is among the very highest in the world, already? Has he ever mentioned the fact that when taxes are raised on business, they either cut jobs, or raise prices, or both?
Well…. probably not.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
