Barack Obama justifies and perpetuates division.
Rather than tell all Americans that the type of hatred Jeremiah Wright preached and his congregation celebrated was wrong, and any American, white or black, harboring such vile hatred in their hearts was wrong, Barack Obama made excuses for Wright, and ultimately rejoined Wright’s non-repentant congregation.
Rather than celebrate the fact that Americans are free to vote as they choose and promote Americans voting according to their beliefs, Barack Obama postulated and perpetuated the belief that white Americans that did not or would not vote for him made their decision based on race, but he made no such assertion with regard to the incredible majority of black voters that supported him.
Rather than attempt to unify voters/Washington and continue on his alleged quest for hope and change by choosing a running mate that embodied his new call to arms or assisted him in representing a larger swath of America, Barack Obama chose for his Vice Presidential running mate, Senator Joe Biden. Biden is entrenched in Washington as a special interest Liberal and arguably one of the most venomous and divisive political figures the left has to offer, wholly unrepresentative of independents, moderates, and conservatives.
Rather than explain to Americans that personal decisions brought many of their economic woes and personal sacrifices would be the cure, Barack Obama promised to take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.”
Rather than recognize or acknowledge the reality and responsibility of leadership and war, Barack Obama simply perpetuates the notion the US government is wrong/evil. Here in the US it’s the “failed administration/bad Republican” mantra and when echoed by complicit liberal media it makes for excellent “us/them” campaign fodder, but shortsighted and naïve individuals fail to recognize the butterfly effect that such media has with respect to international relations(unfortunately for the anti-war crowd this has historically proven more detrimental than preemptive strikes).
So, under Obama, racism by or in favor of black Americans is justified, white Americans who oppose him are racist, all Americans will be represented by a liberal agenda, all rich people are undeserving of their wealth, and international hatred of the United States is universally justified.
Aw crap, we are so in trouble.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Change?
If Joe Biden is change we can believe in, then I'm the Easter bunny.
After all of his rhetoric about change, Barack Obama selects for his Vice Presidential running mate one of the most deep-seated, old-school, partisan, party-line politicians that Congress has to offer; the same Congress that has accomplished nothing in the last two years and has lower approval ratings than President Bush, even though they do not suffer from the same mass media maligning.
So much for hope and change; political expedience wins again.
After all of his rhetoric about change, Barack Obama selects for his Vice Presidential running mate one of the most deep-seated, old-school, partisan, party-line politicians that Congress has to offer; the same Congress that has accomplished nothing in the last two years and has lower approval ratings than President Bush, even though they do not suffer from the same mass media maligning.
So much for hope and change; political expedience wins again.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Campaign Ad
Disclaimer: Sometimes my sense of humor is very wry and over-the-top. Please accept my apology if this is too vivid or harsh. I often wrestle with writing to inform, to affirm, or to inflame; I think I may have lost this battle.
Open: A slightly past middle-age, lower middle-class white couple sits at a table over a check book, obviously anxious over their bills littered across the table. The couple looks at one another in obvious concern.
The couple looks up at the viewer.
Scene change: A young black woman, on the front porch/stoop of an inner-city shack. She turns from looking forlornly at something over her shoulder and fixes her despairing gaze on the viewer.
Scene change: Slow motion shot in the front of an unemployment office; an obviously tired and beaten middle-aged white male makes his way dejectedly into the office as a homeless woman sits on the sidewalk eating out of a can, and to the right the police wrestle a young Hispanic man into a squad car.
Scene change: Show a picture of Obama with that stern, half confident, half cocky smirk and that gleam in his eye as he looks at something in the distance that only he can really see.
Dramatic pause with background music, fade a flag into the bottom half of the screen with Obama’s face.
Scene snaps: Flash back through the characters and capture their inquisitive and hopeful looks; the couple, the mother with child, the unemployed male, the homeless woman, the police and the suspect.
Scene snaps: Capture genuine relieved smiles…leave out the suspect.
Scene change: Strong patriotic Obama standing near a flag ready to take on the world.
Scene snaps: Smiles slightly fading into confusion…include the suspect (minus the confused look), and introduce a well dressed and obviously employed black male walking confidently through the scene past the homeless woman and the unemployed man.
Scenes snaps: The couple is now completely confused, anxiety creeping back in; the mother sits down on the steps in renewed and resigned despair; the homeless woman and unemployed man stare at the well dressed man as his BlackBerry ring-tone sings out Hail to the Chief and he slows down almost to a stop in their midst to address the incoming message (completely unaware of their presence); the police pull a BlackBerry from the suspect’s back pocket (almost clueless as to what it is) as the suspect strains indignantly to look over his shoulder, obviously interested in the incoming message (his ring-tone is Ludacris).
Scene snaps: The couple embraces to console each other; the man eyes the viewer in disgust and disappointment as his wife, her face hidden, begins to sob. The mother on the porch has set the child down and has her head down in her hands. The man checking his BlackBerry is pleased with what he sees and looks up in a celebratory manner and his countenance changes immediately when he notices the homeless woman and unemployed man staring at him; the man casually disengages and hurries off to the safety of his office (inside the unemployment office), giving only a slight, anxious glance over his shoulder as he reaches for the door. The police, ignoring the suspect, both stare dumbfounded and incredulous at the viewer as the suspect coolly finishes reading the message on his BlackBerry and stuffs it back in his pocket (unfazed).
Scene change: Phase into a screen shot with Obama and his BlackBerry, and slow to a stop on his smile.
Open: A slightly past middle-age, lower middle-class white couple sits at a table over a check book, obviously anxious over their bills littered across the table. The couple looks at one another in obvious concern.
“In trying times…”
The couple looks up at the viewer.
“…America needs a President that understands,”
Scene change: A young black woman, on the front porch/stoop of an inner-city shack. She turns from looking forlornly at something over her shoulder and fixes her despairing gaze on the viewer.
“…a President that knows where Americans are coming from,”
Scene change: Slow motion shot in the front of an unemployment office; an obviously tired and beaten middle-aged white male makes his way dejectedly into the office as a homeless woman sits on the sidewalk eating out of a can, and to the right the police wrestle a young Hispanic man into a squad car.
“a President that recognizes where things are going,”
Scene change: Show a picture of Obama with that stern, half confident, half cocky smirk and that gleam in his eye as he looks at something in the distance that only he can really see.
“and has the courage and character to change our course.”
Dramatic pause with background music, fade a flag into the bottom half of the screen with Obama’s face.
“But he can’t do it alone.”
Scene snaps: Flash back through the characters and capture their inquisitive and hopeful looks; the couple, the mother with child, the unemployed male, the homeless woman, the police and the suspect.
“He needs Americans like you by his side, and his Vice President will be someone like you,"
Scene snaps: Capture genuine relieved smiles…leave out the suspect.
“…like him.”
Scene change: Strong patriotic Obama standing near a flag ready to take on the world.
“So, keep your BlackBerry close.”
Scene snaps: Smiles slightly fading into confusion…include the suspect (minus the confused look), and introduce a well dressed and obviously employed black male walking confidently through the scene past the homeless woman and the unemployed man.
“You will be the first to know who will stand by Obama to make certain your voice is heard,”
Scenes snaps: The couple is now completely confused, anxiety creeping back in; the mother sits down on the steps in renewed and resigned despair; the homeless woman and unemployed man stare at the well dressed man as his BlackBerry ring-tone sings out Hail to the Chief and he slows down almost to a stop in their midst to address the incoming message (completely unaware of their presence); the police pull a BlackBerry from the suspect’s back pocket (almost clueless as to what it is) as the suspect strains indignantly to look over his shoulder, obviously interested in the incoming message (his ring-tone is Ludacris).
“and together, we will change the course of our nation…(slight pause)”
Scene snaps: The couple embraces to console each other; the man eyes the viewer in disgust and disappointment as his wife, her face hidden, begins to sob. The mother on the porch has set the child down and has her head down in her hands. The man checking his BlackBerry is pleased with what he sees and looks up in a celebratory manner and his countenance changes immediately when he notices the homeless woman and unemployed man staring at him; the man casually disengages and hurries off to the safety of his office (inside the unemployment office), giving only a slight, anxious glance over his shoulder as he reaches for the door. The police, ignoring the suspect, both stare dumbfounded and incredulous at the viewer as the suspect coolly finishes reading the message on his BlackBerry and stuffs it back in his pocket (unfazed).
“…and restore hope.”
Scene change: Phase into a screen shot with Obama and his BlackBerry, and slow to a stop on his smile.
“Barack Obama, change you can believe in.”
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Economics or Empathy
Who better to answer the nation's housing market woes than a guy whose family securely owns seven houses?
I’m confused about what the latest attack ad approved by Barack Obama is saying.
It starts by implying that McCain’s faith in the economic fundamentals that made the US what it is today is misplaced. For example: the fundamental that if you spend/invest $200,000 on a $400,000 home you will likely make out like a bandit, but if you spend/invest $400,000 on a $200,000 home, you will likely lose your shirt.
You can appreciate the economic fundamentals without appreciating the current economic state, because the fundamentals are sound. In fact, it is a lack of appreciation and understanding of those sound economic fundamentals that has gotten many in their current situation.
The economic marketplace is no picnic, and for years people hoping to get rich quick have been having their butts handed to them by a market that does not share the Democratic Party’s bias for the less economically fortunate or intellectually diligent. How the failure of many Americans to perform even a basic risk/benefit analysis amounts to a federal fiscal responsibility is well beyond my comprehension.
The attack ad went on to portray McCain’s response to a question ultimately about Cindy McCain's, his wife, portfolio as evidence that he is so wealthy he can’t even recall how wealthy he is. I’m not sure how McCain’s inability to answer questions about his wife’s economic ventures is proof that he cannot relate to the needs of Americans.
If you ask most non-wealthy Americans how much money is in their savings account, they couldn’t tell you; imagine if you asked how much was in their spouse’s account. Most people have to check their pockets before they can tell you accurately how much money they have on their person, so there’s no way they’ll be able to tell you how much money their spouse is carrying.
You don’t need to know how many jellybeans are in that jar at the carnival, how Barack Obama could be a friend and parishioner of Jeremiah Wright for nearly twenty years without ever tasting the Kool-Aid, or how much money your spouse may be carrying in order to know that if Americans spend more money than they have (even if they spend it on those they deem less fortunate...versus dreams of getting rich quick flipping real estate), they will ultimately go bankrupt.
It seems to me that the Obama campaign’s latest derisive and divisive attack ad demonstrates clearly that Obama does not understand the fundamentals of economics in America, and one obvious reason is likely his inability to relate to real people’s real situations; real people like me.
Americans need to answer one simple question when it comes to the nation’s money: do you want someone who knows economics (Republicans) or someone that simply purports to “know your pain” (Democrats) making the economic decisions? Just because a person has had a heart attack does not qualify them to perform open heart surgery; leave that to the surgeon who has likely taken better care of his body using the same knowledge that he’ll use to operate on others.
Republicans and Democrats alike are filthy rich. Are Republicans being truthful when they say they know economics? You better believe it. Are Democrats being truthful when they say they “know your pain?” Not even a little.
I’m me, and I approved this message.
I’m confused about what the latest attack ad approved by Barack Obama is saying.
It starts by implying that McCain’s faith in the economic fundamentals that made the US what it is today is misplaced. For example: the fundamental that if you spend/invest $200,000 on a $400,000 home you will likely make out like a bandit, but if you spend/invest $400,000 on a $200,000 home, you will likely lose your shirt.
You can appreciate the economic fundamentals without appreciating the current economic state, because the fundamentals are sound. In fact, it is a lack of appreciation and understanding of those sound economic fundamentals that has gotten many in their current situation.
The economic marketplace is no picnic, and for years people hoping to get rich quick have been having their butts handed to them by a market that does not share the Democratic Party’s bias for the less economically fortunate or intellectually diligent. How the failure of many Americans to perform even a basic risk/benefit analysis amounts to a federal fiscal responsibility is well beyond my comprehension.
The attack ad went on to portray McCain’s response to a question ultimately about Cindy McCain's, his wife, portfolio as evidence that he is so wealthy he can’t even recall how wealthy he is. I’m not sure how McCain’s inability to answer questions about his wife’s economic ventures is proof that he cannot relate to the needs of Americans.
If you ask most non-wealthy Americans how much money is in their savings account, they couldn’t tell you; imagine if you asked how much was in their spouse’s account. Most people have to check their pockets before they can tell you accurately how much money they have on their person, so there’s no way they’ll be able to tell you how much money their spouse is carrying.
You don’t need to know how many jellybeans are in that jar at the carnival, how Barack Obama could be a friend and parishioner of Jeremiah Wright for nearly twenty years without ever tasting the Kool-Aid, or how much money your spouse may be carrying in order to know that if Americans spend more money than they have (even if they spend it on those they deem less fortunate...versus dreams of getting rich quick flipping real estate), they will ultimately go bankrupt.
It seems to me that the Obama campaign’s latest derisive and divisive attack ad demonstrates clearly that Obama does not understand the fundamentals of economics in America, and one obvious reason is likely his inability to relate to real people’s real situations; real people like me.
Americans need to answer one simple question when it comes to the nation’s money: do you want someone who knows economics (Republicans) or someone that simply purports to “know your pain” (Democrats) making the economic decisions? Just because a person has had a heart attack does not qualify them to perform open heart surgery; leave that to the surgeon who has likely taken better care of his body using the same knowledge that he’ll use to operate on others.
Republicans and Democrats alike are filthy rich. Are Republicans being truthful when they say they know economics? You better believe it. Are Democrats being truthful when they say they “know your pain?” Not even a little.
I’m me, and I approved this message.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Socialism…here we come!
“Live Free or Die” has become “live free, others will pay the bill.”
My family has been living in apartments for the last 8 years watching the housing bubble grow and grow. We make a very reasonable income, but we stayed (were forced to stay) out of the housing market, because it required an excessive financial investment with only a premise of potential return, and we felt it was only prudent and reasonable to avoid such risks due to the potential dire consequences.
Judging by the rapid and ever expanding bubble, and the bank’s offer of a loan we felt was well beyond our means, it seemed that not everyone was as prudent as we were. We realized we might be mistaken and could end up so far behind the market that we’d never catch up, but we decided we’d rather risk missing the market and postpone our dreams of owning a home than risk our family’s financial wellbeing and lose everything.
Then, what seemed reasonable…happened. The market that was skyrocketing out of control lost its momentum, turned, and began plunging back to reality. As we watched and waited for the market to naturally correct and get within reach of prudent would-be homeowners like ourselves, news of the bailout began to spread.
The bill was signed, and now the natural market correction is being unnaturally arrested. Houses will remain out of reach, propped up by the tax dollars of prudent citizens like us; unless of course we borrow beyond our means for a house that costs more than it may ever be worth and rush anxiously into an unstable market. Ironically, that's what got the market where it is today and what we've worked so hard to avoid.
How exactly does this promote or ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for my family? Prudent and fiscally responsible people like my family are the backbone of this nation and its economy, and this may be the straw to break this camel’s back.
I cannot see how this can possibly be constitutional. Where in the constitution is it guaranteed that people will be relieved of the consequences of their poor decisions? How is it constitutional for one group to be rescued from their own ignorant decisions and misfortune at the forced expense of another alleged free group?
If I am free, I choose not to give my tax dollars to such fiscally irresponsible behavior/endeavors.
My family has been living in apartments for the last 8 years watching the housing bubble grow and grow. We make a very reasonable income, but we stayed (were forced to stay) out of the housing market, because it required an excessive financial investment with only a premise of potential return, and we felt it was only prudent and reasonable to avoid such risks due to the potential dire consequences.
Judging by the rapid and ever expanding bubble, and the bank’s offer of a loan we felt was well beyond our means, it seemed that not everyone was as prudent as we were. We realized we might be mistaken and could end up so far behind the market that we’d never catch up, but we decided we’d rather risk missing the market and postpone our dreams of owning a home than risk our family’s financial wellbeing and lose everything.
Then, what seemed reasonable…happened. The market that was skyrocketing out of control lost its momentum, turned, and began plunging back to reality. As we watched and waited for the market to naturally correct and get within reach of prudent would-be homeowners like ourselves, news of the bailout began to spread.
The bill was signed, and now the natural market correction is being unnaturally arrested. Houses will remain out of reach, propped up by the tax dollars of prudent citizens like us; unless of course we borrow beyond our means for a house that costs more than it may ever be worth and rush anxiously into an unstable market. Ironically, that's what got the market where it is today and what we've worked so hard to avoid.
How exactly does this promote or ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for my family? Prudent and fiscally responsible people like my family are the backbone of this nation and its economy, and this may be the straw to break this camel’s back.
I cannot see how this can possibly be constitutional. Where in the constitution is it guaranteed that people will be relieved of the consequences of their poor decisions? How is it constitutional for one group to be rescued from their own ignorant decisions and misfortune at the forced expense of another alleged free group?
If I am free, I choose not to give my tax dollars to such fiscally irresponsible behavior/endeavors.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Hearsay!
According to Nancy Pelosi, President Bush is a “total failure.”
The Democrat controlled Congress’s approval rating is at 18%; down 5 points from last month. That’s a full 10 points lower than President Bush’s steady rating of 28%, yet Pelosi has the nerve to call the President a failure.
Pelosi’s statement epitomizes what seems to be the Democratic Party’s media backed strategy of divisive and subversive negative propaganda. The strategy has served the Democratic Party well, even making Obama look good by comparison to the excessively demonized President Bush, but at what price?
Only 16% of Americans have confidence in the direction the nation is heading. Is it because things are so bad, or because they have been hearing how bad things are for almost four years consecutively?
I was at a restaurant the other day and my waitress…correction, my rude waitress finally recognized my existence. She came over to the table, spattered with tattoos and with something stuck through her nose…and eyebrow…and lip…and ears…and who knows what else. I looked around at the bustling crowd and two things occurred to me. If the economy is so bad, why is everyone out here spending all this money, and if there are so many people out there without jobs, why is the bride of Frankenstein the best they can offer in terms of a customer service oriented face for their business?
There are two possible answers. Either the people who suffer are responsible for their suffering, and someone else is being held accountable; or things are not nearly as bad as we are being led to believe. The former is the Liberal Democratic political curse or platform (depending on your point of view), and the latter is the Liberal Democratic political strategy aided by complicit and politically biased media (what free press was meant for, I'm sure).
"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."
The Democrat controlled Congress’s approval rating is at 18%; down 5 points from last month. That’s a full 10 points lower than President Bush’s steady rating of 28%, yet Pelosi has the nerve to call the President a failure.
Pelosi’s statement epitomizes what seems to be the Democratic Party’s media backed strategy of divisive and subversive negative propaganda. The strategy has served the Democratic Party well, even making Obama look good by comparison to the excessively demonized President Bush, but at what price?
Only 16% of Americans have confidence in the direction the nation is heading. Is it because things are so bad, or because they have been hearing how bad things are for almost four years consecutively?
I was at a restaurant the other day and my waitress…correction, my rude waitress finally recognized my existence. She came over to the table, spattered with tattoos and with something stuck through her nose…and eyebrow…and lip…and ears…and who knows what else. I looked around at the bustling crowd and two things occurred to me. If the economy is so bad, why is everyone out here spending all this money, and if there are so many people out there without jobs, why is the bride of Frankenstein the best they can offer in terms of a customer service oriented face for their business?
There are two possible answers. Either the people who suffer are responsible for their suffering, and someone else is being held accountable; or things are not nearly as bad as we are being led to believe. The former is the Liberal Democratic political curse or platform (depending on your point of view), and the latter is the Liberal Democratic political strategy aided by complicit and politically biased media (what free press was meant for, I'm sure).
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Don't even think about "it."
Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams says of Barack Obama "I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.”
History thrusts him to think about “IT?”
What is “it?”
It must be giving in to the culture of oppression, or maybe it is rallying the divisive use/cry of racism and injustice to milk the loyalty out of an obligingly ignorant community. Wait, I’m trying to think like Barack Obama.
In order to understand it, maybe I should examine what Williams said: he doesn’t like Obama’s policies and he doesn’t like what Obama advocates. That’s it. It is suddenly so clear and unmistakably obvious.
It is completely betraying the truths that your life has been based on and that you’ve advocated to others, and completely following a path wholly incongruent with objective rationale and throwing your lot in with a media driven frenzy bent on making history rather than making a real difference.
Why didn’t he just say that, instead of trying to make it look like he thought it out and applied some sense of logic, or moral or political value to the decision?
To vote for Barack Obama because you’re proud that a black man has a chance to win the Presidency is to say that you aren’t genuinely considering what it means to be President. It’s to say that you are not looking past his skin color.
DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE! That is an insult to reason. His race should not make any of his politics more or less palatable. If you are considering his race at all, it is inappropriate.
If it was not about his race, any chance for him to be seriously considered as the nominee would have and should have been eliminated by his connections to and reflections of a culture that is completely contrary to the American mantra of justice and equality, by his overt displays of inexperience and cultural intolerance, by his almost complete lack of an articulated political platform beyond 'hope and change,' by his ignorant idealism and ineptitude with regard to foreign policy, by his continual political pandering and backpedaling, and by his demonstrated weakness in the polls in key states.
If nothing else convinces you that Barack Obama is not suited for the Presidency of the United States, just consider that he does not represent all Americans, he’s made it clear that he cannot and will not represent all Americans, and neither the Democratic Party nor the mainstream media will hold him accountable to represent all Americans.
History thrusts him to think about “IT?”
What is “it?”
It must be giving in to the culture of oppression, or maybe it is rallying the divisive use/cry of racism and injustice to milk the loyalty out of an obligingly ignorant community. Wait, I’m trying to think like Barack Obama.
In order to understand it, maybe I should examine what Williams said: he doesn’t like Obama’s policies and he doesn’t like what Obama advocates. That’s it. It is suddenly so clear and unmistakably obvious.
It is completely betraying the truths that your life has been based on and that you’ve advocated to others, and completely following a path wholly incongruent with objective rationale and throwing your lot in with a media driven frenzy bent on making history rather than making a real difference.
Why didn’t he just say that, instead of trying to make it look like he thought it out and applied some sense of logic, or moral or political value to the decision?
To vote for Barack Obama because you’re proud that a black man has a chance to win the Presidency is to say that you aren’t genuinely considering what it means to be President. It’s to say that you are not looking past his skin color.
DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE! That is an insult to reason. His race should not make any of his politics more or less palatable. If you are considering his race at all, it is inappropriate.
If it was not about his race, any chance for him to be seriously considered as the nominee would have and should have been eliminated by his connections to and reflections of a culture that is completely contrary to the American mantra of justice and equality, by his overt displays of inexperience and cultural intolerance, by his almost complete lack of an articulated political platform beyond 'hope and change,' by his ignorant idealism and ineptitude with regard to foreign policy, by his continual political pandering and backpedaling, and by his demonstrated weakness in the polls in key states.
If nothing else convinces you that Barack Obama is not suited for the Presidency of the United States, just consider that he does not represent all Americans, he’s made it clear that he cannot and will not represent all Americans, and neither the Democratic Party nor the mainstream media will hold him accountable to represent all Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
