Who To Really Blame

Originally From:
Letters from Readers, Florida Times-Union, Monday, October 13 edition; submitted by T Criss.

Financial Crisis: Blame Government Interference

Legislators and bureaucrats have duped the American public again.

This time it is into believing that government is the benefactor and their rescuer, instead of accepting their responsibility for creating the financial crisis we are facing.

Both Republicans and Democrats should have accepted their bipartisan responsibility for dictating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac acquire mortgages from lenders that were granted to unqualified borrowers under the equal-opportunity lending guidelines of these quasi-governmental agencies.

These democratization-of-credit rules mandated by Congress ultimately eroded the capital of these entities, with losses caused by the default of such borrowers when the mortgage principal balance exceeded the home values in the current real estate market.

In a free market, lenders would never be foolish enough to loan money to unqualified borrowers they believed could not repay the loan. Surely, no one would purposely lose their own money.

Government interference with sound business practices was promoted by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee that the government would immediately reimburse lenders for loans issued under its guidelines and allow lenders to earn fees for generating such mortgages.

Indeed, we are now deafened by congressional and presidential candidate screams decrying predatory lending practices when, in fact, the ultimate lender was the government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Now the same government that created this debacle wants us to believe that it can "rescue" us from the mess it created by taking over management, ownership and $5 trillion of debt of Fannie and Freddie, not to mention, by passing a $700 billion "bailout" bill for other bad, mortgage-related assets.

Since government officials caused this mess through their interference, do they think that citizens are simple enough to believe that increased government involvement will stabilize the marketplace?

If so, we should be insulted that they have the hubris to think that Americans trust them to take care of us in the future. Bailing out bad investments of selected citizenry with taxpayer money is not the place of, nor within the constitutionally enumerated powers of, our republic.

When is enough going to be enough?

==========================================================

I would suggest that all who agree with the above research the source of,and who supported, the "Community Reinvestment Act" which contains the origins and cause of this "crisis."In my mind, not only should government stay out of free enterprise, but it should also stay out of the social engineering which is invariably presented by the non-conservatives as ways of "taking care" of "everyone." This issue all by itself should be enough to make anyone leaning democratic to re-think their position.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/19/2008

"Welcome to Obamaland!"

Some personal thoughts and comments are included . . .

Originally Posted by: knot4u Oct 31, 2008 1:26:48 PM on ABC News “Political Radar”

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can expect:

• Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

Never mind laws regarding citizenship and rewarding foreigners who learn and come to care about our country. Let’s just let everyone in and recognize them as a full-fledged American, no matter where they’re from and what they bring to our country, like the many criminals accepted into Florida after the Mariel boatlifts.

• Border security will go on the back burner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

Here again, why bother with any rules to maintain the legalities of our country? Scrap all laws, why don’t we??

• Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

Remember . . . if we complain about paying more and more taxes, we’re “selfish,” right? I say, there’s a virtue to being selfish and more people should recognize it.

• Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes re-imposed.

Mr. Obama will make absolutely sure that we are NOT working for ourselves any more even in the slightest degree. He and his government alone should determine what will be done with our money . . . and we’d better like it!

• Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

• Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

• The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

Believe me, I have nothing against gays and lesbians, but my marriage is not the same as the union they wish to share with a partner. I have nothing against their sharing a life with a loved one, but it is not a marriage.

• A Freedom of Choice Act nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on Earth.

Let us go back to “free love” without restrictions, without consequences at all. let’s have abortion on demand because, of course, we mustn’t do anything to restrict the sexuality of a 12 or 14 year old, must we?

• Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

Yup, force companies to hire anyone that fits the demographics. Let’s drop the term “qualified” from the lexicon altogether. Let’s forget the concept of “learning from the bottom up” or “working our way to the top.” Let’s have everyone who fits a certain demographic get hired at any position applied for, regardless of anything else.

• Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

Medicaid and public hospitals, for which every working American’s taxes already pay aren’t enough?

• A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

• The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

The last two items speak for themselves. Yes, Senator McCain voted for the passage of the "rescue" bill -- he really had no choice based on the presentation of the situation. I personally wish he -- and the rest of them -- had not voted in favor, but here we are with yet another government "program" to deal with. At least Senator McCain did not attempt to shirk his responsibility as a Senator by saying, "Call me if you need me."

Welcome to Obamaland!

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 11/02/2008.

Obama's Position on the Second Amendment

Mr. Obama and his supporters have already started to try to limit or even rescind our 1st Amendment Rights by their actions and reactions to any who disagree with or speak against him. Please be aware that he is also trying to restrict or rescind our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Personally, I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of guns. I do not support the mindless mantra that “guns kill.” Logic tells you that people kill using guns, machetes, cars, axes, knives, and innumerable other items that come to hand.

Should we, then, ban every single thing in the world that has the potential of being used as a weapon? That’s the nonsense mentality I’m against.

I am also vehemently against any effort to restrict, ban, and further amend our individual and personal rights as citizens of the United States. The Liberal Agenda is one that seeks to control every citizen in almost every aspect of our private lives. We must be constantly on guard that our rights as citizens are not regularly eroded by those with the “nanny” mentality who feel they know better for us than we do ourselves.

A perfect example in recent days has been Mr. Obama’s response to a representative of us, the common man. According to Mr. Obama, we need to “spread the wealth.” He will decide whose wealth, of course, and where to spread it, though it is The People’s hard-earned money.

Additionally, these efforts from the Federal Government to impose such restrictions on individuals border on the unconstitutional: there is a total disregard for States’ Rights. This is yet another

As one example of how far the Liberal Agenda wants to go, here are some pretty important aspects on the gun laws that I am positive will negatively affect this country if Mr. Obama and his partner, Joe Biden, get their chance.

Do we really need these two at the helm of our country?

======================================

From: America’s First Freedom Magazine, November 2008

Here is his position, in his own words . . .

“I am consistently on the record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed weapon carry.” Chicago Tribune 4/27/04


“There is an individual right to bear arms. But it is subject to common sense regulation.” Journal Sentinel Online, 02/15/08

“I think it is a scandal that this president [Bush] did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” Illinois Senate Debate # 3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04

“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers’ lobby.” The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, 2006

“I think we have two conflicting traditions I this country” [gun ownership and restrictions on guns.] Politico, 02/11/08

“I think that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws.” Baltimore Sun, 02/15/08


But . . . this is what Mr. Obama actually does . . .

Self Defense:
Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes. Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 03/25/04

Ammunition Tax:
Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent. Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

Lawsuits:
Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. United States Senate, S. 397, vote 219, 07/29/05

Clinton Gun Ban:
Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. Illinois Senate Debate # 3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04

Handgun Ban:
Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 09/09/1996; Politico, 03/31/08

Right to Carry:
Obama opposes Right to Carry Laws. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 04/02/08; Chicago Tribune, 09/15/2004

Ammunition Ban:
Obama voted to ban almost all riffle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 0729/2005

Gun Registration:
Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration. Fact Check: No News in Obama’s Consistent Record.” Obama campaign website, 12/11/07

Limits on Gun Purchases:
Obama voted to limit gun purchases to one per month. Illinois Senate, H.B. 2579, vote 34, 05/16/2003


Alongside Mr. Obama, we have Joe Biden, the Veteran Anti-Gun Senator who says, “I’m the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban.” (Cnn/UTube debate, 07/23/07.)

The FACTS are:

Joe Biden voted to ban virtually all hunting rifle ammunition. United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 07/29/05; United States Senate, S. 1805, vote 28, 03/02/04

Joe Biden wrote and introduced one of the first bills to ban semi-automatic firearms. Biden Bill, S. 1970, 1989

Joe Biden voted to ban hundreds of models of common rifles and shotguns. United States Senate, S. 1805, vote 24, 03/02/04; United States Senate, S. 1607, vote 375, 11/17/1993

Joe Biden voted to impose a five-day waiting period on all handgun sales. United States Senate passage of H.R. 1025, vote 394, 11/20/1993

Joe Biden voted in favor of reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. United States Senate, S. 397, vote 219, 07/29/05

Joe Biden voted against confirming pro-Second Amendment justices to the Supreme Court. Samuel Alito, vote 2, 01/31/06; John Roberts, Jr., vote 245, 09/06/05; Clarence Thomas, vote 220, 10/15/1991




Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/21/2008.

Obama's Claim of Benefit Cuts Suspect

Originally published on Oct 18 03:52 AM US/Eastern

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Medicare has become a new focal point in the presidential campaign, with Democratic nominee Barack Obama accusing Republican John McCain of seeking "cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."

Elderly voters are sure to take notice of such statements being made in a 30-second television ad that the Obama campaign will air in some crucial swing states. Obama hit the same theme in a campaign appearance Friday in Virginia.

But Obama's charge is built on a shaky foundation. The campaign's evidence that McCain would make such cuts relies on a Wall Street Journal article where no specific cuts were mentioned.

In what little detail McCain discusses Medicaid and Medicare on his campaign Web site, he makes no mention of cutting benefits. He says this about the two health programs, the first for the poor, the second for the elderly and disabled: "We must reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement."

McCain wants to provide tax credits to encourage Americans to purchase private health insurance. To pay for it, he has proposed requiring workers to pay income taxes on the health benefits they now receive tax-free from their employers.

The Tax Policy Center has projected that the change would actually be a tax cut for most people and would reduce federal revenues by an estimated $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

McCain's campaign has said the goal is for the program to be revenue-neutral, so he would find savings through Medicare and Medicaid.

And that's where the allegation about benefit and eligibility cuts comes into play.

Obama's ad cites a Wall Street Journal article from Oct. 6 that began: "John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said." That very day, Democratic lawmakers and the advocacy group "Americans United for Change" held an "emergency press conference call" to react to McCain's health care proposal "that would gut Medicare and Medicaid by $1.3 trillion."

But McCain's focus on Medicare has been on overhauling the way it pays providers. McCain has taken up the mantra that the government's payments should be based more on the quality of care that patients get rather than on quantity, which is how the current fee-for-service-system operates. An advisory commission to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, has long recommended that paying providers based on quality "is an important first step towards purchasing the best care for beneficiaries and assuring the future of the program."

In comparing the two candidates' health care plans, the Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducts health research, also makes no mention of McCain calling for benefit cuts to reduce Medicare costs. It does say that he would support the establishment of a commission to make recommendations on how to sustain the program for the future.

McCain's economic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said in an interview this week that allegations McCain would cut Medicare benefits are "just false."

"There are many opportunities to deliver the same benefits in Medicare for lower costs and thus take pressure off premiums for the beneficiaries," Holtz-Eakin said. "That's a very different thing than the idea you would be cutting Medicare."

In the end, the Medicare program faces a difficult future with promised benefits far exceeding the program's projected revenue. Both candidates have been very careful to leave hard decisions about Medicare's future solvency for another day.


Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Can We Really Afford Obama's Health Plan?

Taken literally, 116 million American families would save as much as $290 billion on health insurance annually under the Obama proposal. That's a remarkable claim, considering the rapid increase in health insurance costs over the past four decades.

Sen. Obama's plan will ensure that someone writes a check to cover the high cost of your health care. But that someone will probably be you.

Where will the Senator find the money? According to Harvard professors David Blumenthal, David Cutler, and Jeffrey Liebman, the Obama plan will rely heavily on improving health-care efficiency, in addition to taxes covering $50 to $65 billion of the cost. Most of the plan's savings will come from health IT, improved clinical decisions, and reduced administrative overhead. Improvements could, and should, be made in each of those areas. However, there is ample evidence that such policies cannot produce the kind of savings that are being promised.

Health IT (including such innovations as electronic health records and e-prescribing) is popular with politicians on both sides of the aisle as the key to better care at lower cost. Anticipating big returns, the Obama plan would spend $50 billion to promote health IT.

A well-known RAND study credits health IT with $77 billion in savings, but only after 15 years of putting the infrastructure in place. Nonetheless, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says health IT will not produce significant savings, at least in the near term. So for the foreseeable future, this initiative will push costs up, not down.

Determining which treatments work best for which patients, and doing a better job of managing care is another worthwhile idea that is not likely to have a quick payoff. It is often claimed that 30 percent of what we pay for health care is wasteful and unnecessary. Comparative effectiveness research could give us a basis for eliminating the unnecessary, but only with the investment of many billions of dollars over a long period. CBO finds only $6 billion in reduced health spending over the next decade from such research. That's less than a 0.05 percent reduction in the $32 trillion that will be spent for health care during that time.

No one can doubt that health costs could be cut if we increased efficiency in the delivery of care. Yet no one should doubt that if we knew how to accomplish that, we would have done it long ago.That leaves the insurance industry. This year, the administrative costs of private insurance are expected to be about $100 billion, or just over 12 percent of the cost of health coverage. Arguably, the insurance industry could become more efficient, but under the Obama plan, money will still have to be spent to do the paperwork, go after the cheaters, and pay the bills.

As much as $46 billion could be saved if the insurance industry's overhead costs were lowered to levels seen in Germany, according to the Commonwealth Fund. Even if that were the case, we would still be $240 billion short of the promised savings.

The Obama plan would also create new subsidies to cover the uninsured and help people facing high health costs. That, and the fact that we can't expect to see savings in the health sector that approach the promises made by the campaign, will unavoidably mean higher taxes. The Senator would increase the top two income tax brackets, raise the top capital gains tax rate, raise the top dividends tax rate, increase payroll taxes, and bring back the estate tax.

According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, those proposed tax increases would yield an additional $600 billion in revenue--but only over the next decade. That is not a great deal of new money for a major expansion of health programs (much less for one costing several hundred billion a year) and other initiatives supported by the candidate.


Sen. Obama's plan will ensure that someone writes a check to cover the high cost of your health care. But that someone will probably be you.



Joseph Antos is a Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at AEI.



Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/19/2008.

Concerned About Obama?

You should be.

When Mr. Obama spoke to a multitude in Germany on July 24, 2008, one would have thought he was campaigning for the German vote.

“History has shown that a naïve and weak foreign policy has resulted in tragic outcomes for the Jewish people.”

The National Women’s Committee of the Republic Jewish Coalition reminds us of the following extremely pertinent facts regarding Mr. Obama’s credentials to be the next leader of this great country of ours.

“Many Americans have questions about Barack Obama and whether his views are good for the United States and for Israel. And for good reason.

“Most concerning is Sen. Obama’s naïve grasp of the threats against the United States and Israel.

“From his opposition to legislation against labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization to his willingness to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad without any preconditions, Sen. Barack Obama has raised real questions about his judgment and experience.

“Obama surrounds himself with anti-Israel advisors like General Tony McPeak, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley and Rashid Khalidi. These men have place instrumental roles in shaping Sen. Obama’s world views.

“Sen. Obama told a Jewish group he supports an undivided Israel, only to flip-flop the very next day. Another time, Obama called his support for an undivided Israel a ‘poor phrasing’ of words.” (Jerusalem Post, 07/14/08)

“Obama himself has pointed out that ‘words matter.’ And they do. Words matter to people who care about the future of Israel. And they mattered earlier this year, when Obama stated, ‘Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.’

“Human rights leader and former Israeli Cabinet minister Natan Sharansky said Obama’s lack of experience is a ‘risk’ to Israel. (JTA, 08/05/08)

“His naïve views are a risk to us, as well.”

The National Women’s Committee of the Republic Jewish Coalition states that “Obama has not shown the wisdom, experience, or strength to stand up to the people who would do us harm.”
Mr. Obama’s weak and naïve foreign policy “platform” includes stating that he would meet on the executive level with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, having anti-Israel advisors, and flip-flops on the subject of Jerusalem.

There has already been clear evidence of his unfitness to serve because of the many real questions about his character and personal connections: Bill Ayers, Father Flagle, and Rev. Wright as a few of the most well known examples.

His connection to ACORN, the cause of so many irregularities and concerns about voter registration fraud and potential voter fraud in Illinois and many, many other states, is a constant real concern as actual voting begins throughout the country.

Connections such as these should not be allowed access to the White House and the President of the United States. An individual with connections such as these should not be granted the position of President of the United States.

Should Mr. Obama be elected, those ideals, concepts, and connections will have unfettered access to the halls of lawmaking and legislation.

If any doubts were left about his lack of qualifications and experience, his foreign policy platform makes clear there should many, many doubts and concerns. Combined with his existing connections with dubious and doubtful characters, there should be no doubt that Mr. Obama is not fit to be elevated to the highest position in the land.



Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/24/2008.

Who are the "Elite"?

For whatever reasons, this question is being bandied about on the news networks. Why? And, who are the “elite?”

I think the reason this is being thrown about at this particular moment is to once again throw a red herring into the discussions of who is best qualified to lead this country.

In an effort to paint him as an "elitist," Senator McCain has been disparaged and insulted for supposedly owning more houses than he is apparently aware of. Let’s forget that the truth is that the homes belong to his wife who inherited them from her father and have nothing to do with Senator McCain.

Also ignored is the fact that Mrs. McCain’s family owns an extremely lucrative Budweiser beer distributorship which her father and grandfather made into successful enterprises through their own hard work.

Had they been in the process of growing their distributorship under Mr. Obama’s tax plans, it is impossible to imagine that the concern would have become anywhere near as successful as it did over the years.

If it was up to Mr. Obama, Mrs. McCain’s family’s hard earned dollars would have been taken from them in order to spread the wealth as Mr. Obama has declared he wishes to do with everyone’s hard earned money.

This mentality begs the question . . . why should anyone take anyone else’s hard earned money to spread it around to others?

Well, you see . . . that’s what the “elite” do. They feel they know better for you in every possible way. They know better for you where to go to school, what clothes to wear, what foods to eat, and most of all . . . what should be done with your money.

Joe Wurzelbacher has had a great taste of the “elite” in recent weeks, starting with Mr. Obama’s inadvertently honest comment that he will spread the wealth that Mr. Wurzelbacher may acquire so that everyone has some, too. The elite claim to know better than Mr. Wurzelbacher what he should do with his money, should he happen to have any left after "sharing."

The “elite” claim to “understand” how the average person lives. They claim to “feel” what we go through as we try to determine which Peter to rob in order to pay which Paul. They claim to understand us better than we understand ourselves.

They are the “elite.”

I strongly, fiercely and emphatically beg to differ with their assertions. How in the world can one who has “lived” the majority of their lives in the Ivory Towers of academia or the star-studded, glossy world of the “entertainment” industry possibly understand how We the People feel?

They cannot. They do not. They merely wish to expand the control they feel they “deserve” to have because they supposedly “care” so very much. They already have too much control over We the People’s lives as it is: highly influenced, and controlled as much of life is, to a great extent, by “celebrity” talk show hosts, “movie stars,” and “rock stars.”

Now they are working very hard to influence We the People's choice of President. They have imbued Mr. Obama with a gloss that glares very hard when one attempts to examine the realities behind it.

Why is many of us are all so eager to be influenced by that type of "elite" and use the same term to denigrate another, less "glossy" model?





Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/23/2008.

We Should Be Afraid . . . Be Very Afraid

A co-worker of my husband’s whispered to him and asked if he thought “he” would win. My husband asked, “Who, McCain?” The co-worker nodded wordlessly. My husband, sensing her discomfort and fear, whispered back, “Yes, I think he will win.”

Discussing this interchange led us to the inescapable realization that there is real fear out there of speaking out, of expressing one’s opinions about this election in public. We had to acknowledge that there is also a real reason for that fear.

For starters, our McCain-Palin yard sign was burned. Yes, it was burned. We immediately got another one from McCain Headquarters and stuck it back in the yard – inside the fence. As my husband planted it, I thought out loud, “Let them try and burn this one – they’ll have the cops to contend with for trespassing and destruction of private property!” We had no doubt who “they” were.

My husband and I have no fear of expressing our views and opinions; I hardly ever leave the house these days without at least 2 or 3 McCain-Palin buttons on me; my car sports two McCain-Palin bumper stickers and a “Stand Up for America!” sticker.

We are not fearful of expressing our political preferences, but there are clearly many who are. As the Commentary by Michelle Malkin of Creators Syndicate in the October 17 edition of the Jacksonville Times-Union very clearly expresses, there is a “Rage” from the Obama supporters that is felt by those who support Senator McCain.

There is a fear of that rage. Rightly so, considering the actions of some of those supporters so far. Those who do not support Mr. Obama are subject to more than just the usual liberal disdain for those who do not agree. That standard liberal disdain has escalated to something much worse: extraordinary virulence and not-so-subtle threats.

My mother has mentioned that her friends in New York City and Miami are anxious and fearful of what may happen if Mr. Obama does not win. There has been growing concerns about comments such as “we’ll see what happens if he doesn’t win!” There have been other comments made by the supporters of Mr. Obama in those cities that there will be “repercussions” if he does not win.

At the cost of being trite, it must be said that the fear is palpable in many quarters.

Is this the type of atmosphere in which one of the greatest privileges given to U.S. Citizens should be put into practice? Should American citizens feel threatened to vote against their conscious and personal choice because they are afraid?

I have had my own concerns about Mr. Obama since the start. Those concerns go far beyond his lack of experience, his lack of leadership ability, his lack of discernment, his bad choices, and his lack of executive expertise. The concerns I have are justified by and reflected in the fear that has become part of the mindset of those who do not support him.

To me, if anything broadcasts the man’s complete unsuitability to be the President of the United States, it is the broad base that supports him: the “literati,” the “celebrities,” the “elite.”

The man is reflected in the support he attracts.

It is the kind of support and the company he frequents that feels it necessary to tear Governor Palin to shreds, throw unbelievably gross insults at her from the concert stage and jeer at her from a comedy stage. The company he keeps is able to afford to pay almost $40,000 for a dinner and concert.

We’re supposed to accept that they, the supporters who are buying his election and he, “really” feel what we, the true middle class feel and experience daily?

I don’t accept it. I never will. I fear for this country should he be elected.

Does anyone else but me hear the jackboots, yet?





Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on10/17/2008

The Virtue of Selfishness

I would suggest to Mr. Obama, and his supporters, that they read an incredible book called The Virtue of Selfishness written many, many years ago by Ayn Rand, a powerful philosopher.

She clearly delineates why "selfishness" is a virtue. To put her philosophy simply, selfishness is a virtue because if one thinks of and takes care of one's family and one's self, FIRST and is happy with one's family and one's life, one is much, much more likely to want to go out and make the world happy, too.

One is much, much more likely to want to go help others through their difficult times and to get them to a point where they, too, can feel ready to help others in the same way they have been helped.

Yes, selfishness is a virtue.

Forcibly taking from those who have worked hard and earned what they have is not.

"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives." (Ayn Rand)

===========================================

Obama Says Tax Foes 'Selfish'
by Mark Impomeni
Nov 1st 2008 2:30PM
Filed Under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Taxes

Sen. Barack Obama told a crowd in Missouri yesterday that those who don't want to pay higher taxes to help fund his redistributionist policies are "selfish." In a long defense of his tax policies, which have come under withering criticism in recent days, Obama blamed Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin the McCain campaign for lauding those who resist higher taxes. Obama said that McCain and Palin were, "making a virtue out of selfishness."

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich. I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That's the American dream, that's the American way, that's terrific.

The point is, though, that -- and it's not just charity, it's not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it's that when we actually make sure that everybody's got a shot...everybody is better off. All boats rise.

John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

Sen. Obama's explanation is reminiscent of his conversation with Joe Wurzelbacher, in which he said that his tax plan was not intended to punish success, but to make sure, "everybody who is behind you – that they've got a chance at success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

The problem for Sen. Obama is that he has promised "tax cuts" for 95% of Americans.

Close to 40% of Americans already pay no federal income tax. Obama proposes to give them "refundable tax credits" of $500 to $1000. That leaves no way around the fact that Obama wants to increase taxes to give money to people who don't pay taxes. Americans are the most unselfish and charitable people in the world, but they resent being forced to contribute.

They instinctively reject the notion that the government should take from one group to give to another. But Sen. Obama's tax plan would use the power of the federal government to do just that. Americans have every reason to be suspicious of Sen. Obama's tax plan. And they should not have to be called names for asking questions.



Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 11/02/2008

Spread the Wealth!

The following is an example of how "redistribution of wealth" (also known these days, as "spread the wealth") actually works. . . that is the reason communism fell, and why currently socialist countries are in worse difficulties than we are right now, even at the height of our "economic crisis."

Socialist leaning countries have an on-going, permanent economic crisis because there is just so much the government can take from one group of people in order to give to a group they consider more "deserving."

Eventually, with that kind of process, everyone is going to wonder what's the point in continuing to work hard to have good things in life if the government will take it away from you to give to some on else anyway.

Eventually, everyone will figure out that it's just as easy to take it easy, not work harder than necessary, and let the government take care of you . . . yanno, like it turned out to be in Russia, under Stalin.

My husband and I contribute, donate, and give money whenever we can to those less fortunate and to the organizations that support and help them. Many of us, if not all of us, do the same as often as we can, I have no doubt. [Update, 11/08/08: There was a terrible incident in Petionville, Haiti, today. A school with an unknown number of children inside collapsed, trapping the children inside; last mortality count is 75 to the best of their knowledge. We contributed to this cause because it is right to do so.]

The key here is that we determine when and how much based on our own financial situations -- not based on one individual's decision that we should because he feels we should; not because the government has a supposed right to take whatever amount off the top of our hard-earned money, because one person says so, over and above what we already pay to the government (existing taxes).

Allowing the government that much direct decision-making into our personal lives over and above the amount the government already has is really and truly the first giant step toward Mr. Obama's idea of socialism.

Have you noticed how Mr. Obama's idea of "not wealthy" has shifted from $250,000 and below at the start of the campaign, to $200,000 and below after his moment of inadvertent truth with Joe Wurzelbacher, and most recently, according to Mr. Biden, it is down to $150,000.

The question here is, how far will the definition fall. . . will the next group of "not wealthy" under Mr. Obama's definition be those making less than $100,000, and so on, until we get to maybe those making less than $50,000 being considered "not wealthy?" (Goodness gracious, my husband and I hope so! That's our category!)

The theory presented by Mr. Obama is that those making less than the above amounts of income (I guess you'll have to pick one and hope you're in that bracket when it's all said and done if he wins) will not get a tax increase, but those who do make more than the above will get an increase.

From all the independent, non-partisan reviews of the plans that we have seen, almost all show a massive, relatively massive, or just plain large tax increase for everyone in Mr. Obama's "economic" plan, regardless of what he says.

The numbers are the numbers, and wishin' or repeatin' don't change nothin'!

Whatever you do, do not let the "poll" numbers discourage you. I've been volunteering for the McCain Campaign for the past couple of months (I've been unemployed, LOL) and I know that there are "external" polls and "internal" polls.

Senator McCain is within a point or 2 of Mr. Obama in those reality-based internal polls, and we can get Senator McCain to the White House.Think about it, folks, protect our country, protect our future, and vote for John McCain.

Now, if THIS doesn’t give you a complete definition of “redistribution of wealth” I don’t know what does…


FOOD for thought............... ?!?! From the friend of a friend . . .

REDISTRIBUTE, MAKE SOMEONE HAPPY!

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read"Vote Obama, I need the money."

I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie.

Again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept.

He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going toredistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside.

The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank theserver inside as I've decided he could use the money more.

The homelessguy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow inconcept than in practical application.





Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/31/2008

Let's State Some Facts

Senator Barack Obama has been falsely attacking John McCain's record on Social Security over the past few weeks.

Senator Obama claims that John McCain is in favor of privatizing social security, that he wants to gamble with senior citizens' life savings, and that he would cut Social Security benefits in half. ("Obama Distorts McCain Social Security Stances," Washington Post, 9/23/08)

The Facts

The Washington Post has called Senator Obama's claims a gross distortion of John McCain's position on Social Security. ("Obama Distorts McCain Social Security Stances," Washington Post, 9/23/08)

Fact-Check.org characterized Senator Obama's accusations as "not true," "simply false" and "highly distorted." (Brooks Jackson, "Obama's Social Security Whopper," FactCheck.org, www.factcheck.org, 9/20/08)

John McCain's Position

John McCain has committed to solving our nation's entitlement challenges in a manner that protects our commitment to America's seniors and retirees. John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security, and he believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts - but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot t be kept.

John McCain will reach across the aisle to address these challenges, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threaten our future prosperity and power.

My Question Is:

Do we have any concrete answers from Mr. Obama as to what his actual plans are?

By concrete, I mean specifics . . . not flowery, eloquent, pie-in-the-sky responses like "everyone should be taken care of" and "95% of citizens' taxes will be reduced.

"I want to know the specifics of the plan, as in how, what taxes exactly, what that 95% represents, and, most importantly, who is going to pay for it?

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/22/2008.

Freedom of Speech?

In the past several weeks, I and many, many other people have had their property trespassed upon and damaged by people who have stolen our political signs from our lawns. (Ours appears to have been burned.)

Strangely enough . . . all the stolen signs support John McCain.

We live in Jacksonville, Florida. I thought this was still in the good ole US of A where we all had the right of freedom of expression.

I was wrong, obviously!

The fact that our signs are stolen from our own front lawns clearly shows that those with different opinions will not allow others the freedom of expression they always demand.

Freedom is not a one-way street! Those who support Senator McCain have as much right to express that preference as do those who support Mr. Obama.It appears the only ones who do not seem to understand this are those who support Mr. Obama.

Is this indicative of the type of leader to be elected? I think not!

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/19/2008.

Virulence and Vitriol

Virulence and Vitriol

The attacks on Governor Palin are thoroughly outrageous, uncalled for, and border on the hysterical.

The obscene remarks made about her by so-called “celebrities” (Madonna, et al) are of the most base type imaginable.Many honest people have questioned, “Why?”

Because, having been a target of “liberal” thinkers myself, like Governor Palin, I can say in all simplicity it is because she is not “one of them.”

Yes, that does sound simplistic, even too easy an answer. Believe me, that is the answer.Governor Palin has accomplished everything these “liberal, open-minded, accepting” people claim that women can and should accomplish.

Their resentment, horror, revulsion, and fear are caused by the fact that she did it all as a Conservative woman, giving credit to her God, her family, her children, and her husband for their support.Liberals, especially liberal women, cannot accept that there are women who do not feel it necessary to still burn their bras and denigrate others in order to “prove themselves.”

I have had to “discuss” this issue most of my adult life and explain that, just because I am black, from a foreign country, and female, I am neither automatically a “feminist,” in the modern sense of the word, nor a liberal.Considering the behavior of both groups these days, I proudly retain my independence from those “clubs.”

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/22/2008.

We Are All "Joe the Plumber"

There are already "comments" out there (let's never use the term "attacks" . . . only those who do not agree are the ones who attack) trying to disparage and tear down the guy."They" have been out in force already and have apparently "found things" to supposedly discredit the man.

He has a lien on his credit, supposedly, and that is one of the things that makes his thoughts and opinions invalid!It would seem to me that would make him even more one of us, the middle class struggling to make it and be successful in life.It appears, however, that one must meet some type of undeclared qualification requirement in order to be accepted into Mr. Obama's "middle class."I guess "Joe the Plumber" does not . . . we should all wonder if we do meet those qualifications according to Mr. Obama's categorizations.

Ask yourself . . .

Are you "Joe the Plumber?"

Who is Joe the Plumber?

His name is Joe Wurzelbacher and he is a plumber from Ohio. Last night in the Presidential Debate, Joe the Plumber became a symbol of the economic troubles crippling the United States. Joe encountered Senator Obama while he was campaigning in Toledo, Ohio earlier this week. Joe wants to buy the company he works for, but purchasing it would make him a target of the Democrat's plan to tax the "wealthy." Joe told Senator Obama about his frustrations with Obama's plans to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and the Illinois senator replied that it was important to "spread the wealth around."Spread the Wealth?

Yes, Senator Barack Obama said he wants to "spread the wealth around." That means that he wants to take Joe's, and countless other small business owners', hard earned money. Senator Obama wants to raise their taxes so he can pay for his government mandated healthcare system and other big government programs. He wants to punish small business owners who are successful and about to climb the next step on the economic ladder by spreading their "wealth."It's No Surprise that Obama Wants to "Spread the Wealth Around"It's no surprise that Senator Obama wants to spread Joe the Plumbers "wealth."

He voted for higher taxes 94 times in four years in the United States Senate. And, he requested nearly $1 billion dollars of your money for wasteful pork barrel spending. Imagine what he will do as the most powerful man in the United States. Obama's rhetoric sounds nice now, but it will feel like a painful sucker punch if he is elected and his plans to raise taxes are implemented.

My husband and I are Joe the Plumber (though between the two of us we hardly make $50,000/year) and we do not agree with Mr. Obama's pledge to take our money and use it as he sees fit. I do not see how anyone would agree to that premise!We support Senator McCain because:

• Senator McCain will Fight for Every Joe the Plumber


• John McCain consistently voted against tax increases and never once took a wasteful pork barrel project. As a result he was given an "A" rating by the National Taxpayers Union and has received awards from the Citizens Against Government Waste for being a good steward of taxpayer money.


• John McCain wants to lower your taxes and reduce government spending and has the record to back up his rhetoric.

Every "Joe the Plumber" Must Fight Against Senator Obama Before It's Too Late

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/19/2008

Do We Really Want This?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

Do we really want to confer power on those whose actions clearly state that they consider themselves the arbiters of to whom and when the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies?

Read on for examples of what they consider to be acceptable and what is not.

-----------------------------------------------------

Rage of Obama supporters never makes news coverage

When a few unruly McCain-Palin supporters show their anger at campaign rallies, it’s national news. It’s an epidemic of “Weimar-like rage” and “violent escalation of rhetoric,” according to New York Times columnist Frank Rich.

It’s the “re-emergence of the far right as a power in American politics,” according to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.It’s a mass movement of GOP crowds “gripped by insane rage,” according to newly minted Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.Too bad they don’t give out global awards for the Blindest Eyes in Punditocracy. We’ve just hit a trifecta.

Are a few activists on the right getting out of hand? Probably.Between ACORN voter fraud, Bill Ayers’ and Jeremiah Wright’s hatred of America and John McCain’s inability to nail Barack Obama on his longtime alliances with all of the above, conservatives have plenty to shout about these days.A couple of random catcallers do not make a mob.

And there’s an overflowing abundance of electoral rage on the left that won’t make it onto your newspaper’s front page.Last month, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a small, brave contingent of McCain supporters marched through the streets with campaign signs.

They were met by a menacing horde of New Yorkers who displayed their disapproval with a barrage of jeers and various vulgar gestures.“The number of middle fingers in the ‘progressive crowd’ is directly proportional to the number of Ph.D. degrees in the 10-+block radius,” one of the witnesses wryly observed.

A YouTube video of the confrontation now has nearly half a million views.

But don’t expect to find it on the nightly news. It doesn’t fit with the narrative of the Angry Right.Neither does the reaction of Obama supporters to a McCain-Palin sign in Democratic-dominated Prince George’s County, Md.

Buried in a back local section, The Washington Post reported this week that “pandemonium” broke loose when an unsuspecting businessman erected a “Country First. McCain/Palin” message on the marquee at his Colony South Hotel & Conference Center.Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships.“The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events,” the little-noticed article reported.

A black professor called the sign “a stink bomb in the middle of the living room” of Obama land. The poor hotel manager, Alan Vahabzabeh, surrendered.Can’t blame him for missing the fiery hint in Portland Ore. — where two deranged vandals were arrested after throwing a Molotov cocktail at a McCain yard sign in the middle of the night.Nope, that didn’t make it into the columns of Rich, Dionne, or Krugman. Doesn’t fit the Angry Right narrative.

Speaking of “violent escalation of rhetoric,” you never hear about: • Obama supports in Philadelphia sported “Sarah Palin is a (disgusting vulgarism referring to female genitalia) T-shirts and yelled, “Let’s stone her, old school” over the weekend. • “ABORT Palin” graffiti has sprouted on the sidewalks of Seattle and “Abort Sarah Palin” bumper stickers are in Web stores.• Palin-bashing Madonna performs before an audience of thousands, screeching and threatening to “kick her a.” • Getty Images publishes a photo of a man pointing a fake gun at the head of a cardboard but-out of Palin on display at the Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition building.Not a peep from Obamamedia.

But when Palin spotlights Obama’s long-time relationship with Weather Underground terrorist Bill “We Didn’t Do Enough [Violence]” Ayers?

“Inciting violence,” frets NBC reporter Ron Allen.

All the world’s a Kabuki stage for the selectively outraged over rage.

-- By Michelle Malkin, Creators Syndicate, printed in the Jacksonville Times-Union, 10/17/08.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/17/2008.

Do Clothes Make the Man?

My husband and I were watching Huckabee the other night and one of the “issues” brought up with guest Janine Turner was the flap (no pun intended) over Governor Palin’s wardrobe on the campaign trail.

The headlines blazed – of course – over the supposed cost of the clothes: $150,000.00 or some such “outrageous” sum. Of course, this was a lead story on all the so-called “major” networks. Of course, this was the front page story on all the so-called “major” newspapers.

Of course, as often occurs when the Fourth Estate is dishonest in their “representations," the truth finally emerged (and probably already known at the time of the “broadcast”):

• Governor Palin did not purchase the clothes herself.

• Governor Palin did not request the purchase of the clothes.

• Governor Palin did not have any input into the decision.

• The clothes were purchased by the Republican Committee to be lent to Governor for her use on the campaign trail.

The crux of the matter is, of course, yet another example of the supposedly “open-minded and fair” network press and broadcasting . . . like the New York Times, for example.

Other than John Kerry’s shoes and haircut, and all the hoopla over Jackie Kennedy’s designer clothes, I have never heard such a plethora of nonsense regarding any candidate’s clothes.

Do the clothes make the man – or woman, as the case may be? Of course not!

So, then, why all the hullabaloo being made over Governor Palin’s wardrobe? I would bet that the greater majority of the Republicans and others who have donated to the McCain-Palin campaign more than likely don’t care a hoot about any portion of contribution money that may have been spent on Governor Palin’s clothes.

The fact that she could not reach into her own closet and drag out a Givenchy or Armani or Versace or whatever other “name” is tops among the clothes-horses these days merely proves to me – as it should to everyone – that she really is just like one of us, the regular people, the “Joes” of the world – also known as "We the People."

As Janine Turner astutely points out, “It’s not about the fiber that she wears. It’s about the moral fiber that she has.”

And that’s one of the only characteristics that matter in a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate.John McCain and Sarah Palin have both proven they have all the moral rectitude and character needed for the positions for which they are applying.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/26/2008.

Is This the Type of President We Want?

"Just one week ago, the Obama campaign declared that 'Barack Obama never organized with ACORN.' According to today's (10/11/08) New York Times, that statement is simply not true. The paper quotes Barack Obama on his role as head of Project Vote and says the statement 'linked his 1992 work to ACORN in a meeting with ACORN's leaders in November.' In fact, Barack Obama has a long relationship with ACORN, to which he and . . . terrorist William Ayers funneled nearly $200,000 from the Woods Foundation, and as recently as February of this year his campaign paid nearly $1 million to an ACORN affiliate for services related to get out the vote efforts.It is clear that Barack Obama is not being honest about his association with ACORN, just as he has not been honest about his association with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. The media has an obligation to investigate the obvious contradictions between Barack Obama's rhetoric and his record."

=========================================

I’ve been around long enough to know that most politicians are not too often straightforward, direct, and honest. I am not naïve; I do understand that most politicians feel they must “adjust, “change,” or “clarify” themselves and their issues in order to appeal to the broadest base when running for office.

However, do we really, really want a politician who is so comfortable with such an extraordinary level of obfuscation and dissembling that even a well-known liberal paper calls him on it?

Think about it, folks!

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/19/2008.

Response to Clarence Page

This piece is from the Editorial Page of the Jacksonville Times-Union. I reproduce it in full, verbatim, but include the questions that should be asked of the writer, as well as of Mr. Obama, before accepting these “conclusions.” My comments and questions are clear.

“Just Like Palin,” Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services, 10/21/08

With Election Day closing in, Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign has been lurching along like an old car that can’t get out of first gear. He desperately needs to gain ground with independent voters.

McCain’s woes were embodied in his biggest surprise of the last debate: Joe the Plumber.

That’s Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, 34, who confronted Obama recently at a campaign stop in Joe’s Holland, Ohio neighborhood.

In addition to the unnecessary insults lobbed above, the use of the term “confronted” is not only additionally unnecessary but inaccurate, as well. Since when is it a matter of “confronting” a candidate to approach and ask a question?

Joe didn’t like the fact that Obama’s tax plan might raise his taxes, if he bought the plumbing company on which he had his eye.

I would not hesitate to say that many, many, regular people do not like the fact that Obama’s tax plan not only “might” but definitely will raise his taxes.

McCain brought up Joe during the debate as an example of an American who supposedly would be hurt by Obama’s tax plan, “class warfare” and “socialist” ideas, in McCain’s view.

Not only in Senator McCain’s view, but also in the view of any regular citizen who has worked hard for everything earned and accomplished. The idea of “spreading it around” is without a doubt at least the basis of socialism at best, and the start of the road to communism at worst.

For now, with much of Wall Street now bought up by the federal government under the Bush Administration, McCain’s political vocabulary seems to be painfully out of synch with the times.

Perhaps out of synch with your times, Mr. Page, but not out of synch with those of us who really are “regular Joes.” We understand the source of the current economic problems (President Clinton’s Community Reinvestment Act) and continuously made worse by the likes of Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd and the many other democrats who felt it necessary to, as Nancy Pelosi so eloquently put it, “save the world!” It is the Democratic misrepresentations, lies, and greed that have brought us to this pass, Mr. Page, not the so-called “8 years of mismanagement,” when one considers the Democratic-majority congress of the past few years.

It turned out that the man McCain put at the center of his tax debate was delinquent in his taxes. He wasn’t quite an independent swing voter, either, having voted Republican in this year’s primary. Even his plumber status was questioned. He was not licensed, although the company for which he plumbed was licensed.

I understand the liberal mentality of “repeat a lie ‘til it becomes truth,” but this is pretty bad, even for the liberal perspective. 1) Senator McCain did not “put” him at “the center” of anything. It was a natural reference to be made after the man questioned Senator Obama on a legitimate issue. 2) I, for one, understand Civics 101, Mr. Page, though you appear not to. One must register to vote, and declare one’s affiliation for primaries, but one need not necessarily vote in the same vein in a presidential election (hence the talk about “cross-over” votes). 3) It is typical of liberals to attack and try to deflect legitimate concerns with perpetual red herrings. The man owed about $1,000 or so in taxes – not “back” – taxes. I personally fail to the see issue here as my husband and I owed about $6,000 in taxes – not “back” – because of issues that are immaterial to this discussion. Does that make us ineligible to ask a legitimate question of a political candidate, or are only those who “follow” him allowed to question? 4) I am not surprised that nothing specific is charged about Joe’s “plumber status.” Only a half-finished innuendo, inferring some nefarious dealings where there are none to be found.

Do we really want to bring into the Oval Office a candidate so beholding to those who are willing to lie, misrepresent, and attack a citizen’s right to question?

How many other rights should we be ready to give up should an Obama presidency be on the horizon?

Most important to the presidential debate, a host of experts said Joe’s taxes probably would not be increased under the Obama tax plan. In fact, if Obama’s health plan proposal and tax breaks went into effect, Joe’s new business might fare better than they would under McCain’s tax plans.

I have also encountered articles from a “host” of experts who decry the Obama tax plans as impossible to implement without raising everyone’s taxes. It appears to be fairly simple mathematics. How can 95% of the citizenry’s taxes be reduced when 45% of those citizens already do not pay taxes? In addition, according to a “host” of experts, Mr. Obama’s health plan is nothing more than a widening of public health (Medicare), making it merely one more area for the government to intrude in, and control, each individual’s personal life.

Had anyone in McCain’s campaign bothered to check Joe’s background before McCain used him as a debate foil? Was Joe vetted by the same genius who vetted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be McCain’s running mate?

Here again, a classic red herring. Since when – in a Democratic society – is it necessary to “vet” a citizen who asks a straightforward question of a public figure? I know it is a requirement to “vet” a citizen before that citizen is allowed to do anything in a socialist or a communist society, but things like that just aren’t done in the U.S. – at least, not so far.

In case Mr. Page missed it, Governor Palin was “vetted” when she became the governor of the great state of Alaska, not only by the citizens of that state, but no doubt by the open-minded, accepting and ‘sincere journalists’ such as yourself.

The comparison between Joe and Palin is revealing.

The truest words in the entire essay! The comparison is incredibly revealing! Mr. Obama claims to bring some so-called “change,” but his running mate is one of the most long-term senators in the Senate. His running mate is an expert in the very old boy politics the candidate claims to want to “change.”

Senator Palin, on the other hand, clearly represents a “change” – for the better. She represents not only the regular Joes who have made good as business people but also all the regular women who never felt it necessary to get rabid about “women’s rights.” She represents the women who have always known they could do everything their hearts were set on, as long as they were ready to work hard and earn their way. Now, that’s “change!”

Each offers Republicans a new, exciting small-town working-class face at a time when the party’s brand is badly damaged.

Since there is still freedom of speech in this country, I will merely ignore the nonsense about “damages” brands. We are not in a commercial. We are not electing a “brand.” We are electing the person We the People see as bet fit to run the United States of America.

Since the greater majority of us really are working class, if not from a small town, it is clear to any thinking, rational person whose policies best support working class ideals.

John McCain will not tax us out of our success.

John McCain will not push government into our health decisions.

Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/mczwz/blog, 10/22/08 by MCzwz, all rights reserved.

Let Us Think!

Let Us Think!

November 4 is coming fast upon us. Let us think about what we are choosing.

We are not choosing the next "Idol." We are not choosing the next "Rock Star."

We are choosing the next leader of this great country of ours.

We are choosing the person who, because of his qualifications, experience, knowledge, and background, is best equipped to lead our country through the next several years.

The person we select must possess a specific set of qualifications and character. We need someone who has been in the political trenches on his own for many years. We need someone who knows what dealing with The Congress is all about. We need someone who has had to determine what deals are necessary to get things accomplished, and when to implement those deals.We need someone who recognizes his duty and can determine what is most important at any given point in time, focus on that most important item, and still know what is going on everywhere else.

We need someone who is pragmatic, who can face up to and make the difficult decisions needed to keep this country going.

We need someone who understands the inner workings of this government because he has been intimately involved in for with those inner workings for many years.

We do not need someone who has been guided and led by others who do not have the best interests of this country as a priority.

We do not need someone who has the gall to say "call me if you need me," in the middle of any national emergency because he sees his own ambition as a greater priority.

We do not need someone who has been "mentored" by extreme ideologies and whose current path is still guided by those same extremes.

We do not need someone whose only contact with government on any level has been to find ways to justify getting more money out of that government.

We do not need someone who has made clear that he supposedly has no idea with whom he has been intimately involved for over 20 years.

We do not need someone who does not hesitate to claim ignorance in order to escape responsibility for his own choices.

We do not need someone who is quick to place the blame on anyone else around him rather than stand up and face up to the consequences of his own choices.

We do not want someone who will say one thing to one group of Americans on one coast and something completely different to another group of Americans on the other coast.

We do not want someone who is ready to collaborate and compromise with any leader of an antagonistic foreign country in order to keep them quiet.

Please -- THINK -- long and hard when standing in that voting booth next month.

Do not allow yourself to be swept away by all the supposedly "nice words" when making your decision.

Do not allow the emotionalism created to be your guide.

Rather, please THINK and question all the claims made, question all the pretty promises.THINK about the type of person you want in the White House as the main representative of your country.

THINK about it and vote for John McCain. The only viable choice we have who meets all the important qualifications of experience, knowledge, character and understanding we have.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/19/2008.

Qualified to be Vice President?

I've been pretty confused to hear denigrations of Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President. Extraordinarily much has been said about the supposed "failed" interview with Katie Couric. Not much, of course, has been said of Senator Biden's qualifications as shown in the following. Regardless, it appears that only one side of this, and most issues that Democrats and liberals do not want to acknowledge, are off the table, aren't they?

Biden Removed From the Campaign Trail

Originally posted on 10/24/2008

MSNBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported yesterday (Video is Available Here) that the Obama campaign took Joe Biden off the campaign trail and sent him home to Delaware.

Who can really blame the Obama campaign? Joe Biden has made more gaffes in the past couple of months than most people make in a lifetime.

Here is a sampling of some of Biden's gaffes:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." -Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time.

"No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them, over there... We're not supporting clean coal." - Joe Biden in Ohio (Watch the Video)

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." - Joe Biden, speaking at a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire.

Well, we can't complain about truth in advertising, can we? We can't ever say we "didn't know!"