Monday, November 3, 2008

The Mac is Back!

Obama's Incendiary Remarks Compiled

Other people did the job for me, so enjoy!

Remember to Vote: New Media Study Indicates Bias for Barack Obama

Remember to vote on (or before) November 4th...

Before you vote, it may be interesting to you that the study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University found that coverage of Senator Barack Obama has been 65% positive, but coverage of Senator John McCain has been only 36% positive.

According to the study by researchers at George Mason University, there has been a documented media bias for Obama and against McCain. Does this influence your vote? I don't know. Should it influence your vote? I don't know that either. However, it is my belief that you should know about it.

The link below has the details. Judge for yourselves...

Source: http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm

Additional References: Pew Charitable Trust Study of Print Media: "The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended."

Source: http://journalism.org/node/13307

Sunday, November 2, 2008

I Grew Up in a Small Town, I Am Not Bitter

The evidence shows this race is tightening both in the popular vote as well as in the Electoral College. As closing argument to our viewers, I am going to remind them during these two days Obama's most incendiary statements and associations. I begin by his condescending "small town people are bitter" argument. Mr Obama, I grew up in a small town. Through hard work and dedication I have managed to accomplish many things in my life. In my way to Silicon Valley, through Pamplona, Paris and Madrid, I have met many people from many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Yet, some of the most respectable and honorable people that I have met through these years, and regardless of their education attainment or ethnicity, come from small towns. Mr Obama, if you don't get it, maybe it's because the hard drugs that you admit you took in high school and college had a permanent effect in your brain. Alas, I grew up in a small town and I never took or tried those.

More Obama Socialism:'Do What I Want or You'll go Bankrupt'

Three Things the Obamedia Will Do to Depress Republican Turnout and Help Obama - From Hillbuz!

I found this very encouraging article from a blog by Hillary supporters, Hillbuz. If you're thinking there's no way McCain/Palin still have a chance to win this coming Tuesday, think again!
Please share this article with your McCain/Palin supporter and independent friends who might have gotten demotivated to cast their votes for McCain/Palin after seeing the poll #s on TV everyday! I honestly think we should just all turn to the QVC channel for the next 3 days until the election! Why? The Main Stream Media (all the local news and cable news channels, including the FoxNews, sadly) has done such a bang up job in making sure that we know that Obama is winning in all the polls - even the non scientific bobble headed dolls one!



The fact that Obama is leading 'comfortably', as one of the famous pollster said (I think it was Zogby) honestly, has scared the beejesus out of me. It has nothing to do with his race or skin color. It has everything to do with his tax and spending proposed policies, his sense of globalism, his sense of communism, his associations with groups or individuals who are either racist or socialist/communist or both and his lack of experience. How someone with all the aforementioned characteristics can be on the brink of becoming the president of this great free country is just beyond me! Hey, perhaps I should run in 2012...at least all's I have is the lack of experience part!

If today were 09.11.01, I betcha (**wink**wink***) that BHO would not stand a chance of winning this general election, even being the presidential nominee coming out of the primary election! But let your hearts NOT be troubled my friends! According to our Anti Obama friends at Hillbuz, the ONLY thing that WILL stand in the way between Obama and the US Presidency is Us! Yep...US...all of US that support McCain/Palin, if we get demoralized easily by the Main Stream Media that has been relentlessly making us sure that we know Obama is 'comfortably' leading in all the polls.

So, here we go: Three things the Obamedia will do to depress Republican turn out and help Obama
(1) Calls for McCain to just give up and quit, because the race is over. This one is a favorite of the trolls who lurk on pro-McCain sites. We get them here, despite all the spraying and fumigating we do, but notice how we ignore these trolls We’ve identified two paid Obama staffers who have been assigned to HillBuzz. We picked them up around the same time people from Ace and LGF started picking up some of our stuff — so our guess is they were assigned to us by whoever was monitoring those sites. They’re different trolls than the ones assigned to us during the primaries (we only had one back then, so evidently we’ve gotten more on the radar now). One of them starts posting “her” concern troll remarks here at 8am. The other one starts “his” remarks around 5pm or so. It appears there are two shifts for the trolls — and from what we can see, they share the same computer and IP address. And it’s an address right here in Chicago. [...]

(2) Wild claims of Obama winning states that shock and surprise you. Since Obama believes there are 57 states (maybe 58 or 59, depending on how he’s counting that day), the Obamedia will report huge wins for Dear Leader in the states of Confusion, Denial, and Undress, with Atlantis, Oz, Hopetopia, and Leningrad all going to Obama early on November 4th — because everyone loves Obama so much, that places that don’t even exist have voted for him (with 100% of the vote of the dead, cartoon characters, and historical figures going to Dear Leader in unprecedented numbers). The best example of the Obamedia making up lies like this was on Super Tuesday, when every Eeyore we knew ran through the streets crying and pants-wetting, gnashing their teeth and yanking their hair as the sky fell around them — BECAUSE OBAMA IS WINNING CALIFORNIA! MASSACHUSETTS! ARKANSAS! TENNESSEE! NEW JERSEY! NEW YORK! WAAAAAAAAH! DOOOOOOOMED! [...]

(3) Repeated insistance that blacks and young people will decide this election, and they are all going to vote in record numbers for Obama. First of all, black voters have always voted Democratic in massive numbers. We don’t think blacks have ever voted for Republicans in any substantial way in any race we can think of. Blacks vote as a race-bloc, and they always vote for the Democrat. Maybe Obama will get blacks who have never voted before to vote for him, or blacks who don’t bother to vote on Election Day to show up and vote, but we doubt that it will be very many people. Black voters were highly motivated to vote in 2004 because they felt George W. Bush stole the 2000 election, and they saw that as a civil rights issue that increased black turnout to one of the highest levels we have ever seen. [...]


After reading this Hillbuz article, read these articles to pump yourself up! More importantly, read all the comments, if you have the time! Trust me, it's totally worth it! It would really make you regain your confidence (if you ever lost it, like me...:) ) that the chance of McCain winning is not just some wishful thinking, it can be made a reality...with our relentless support!
1) A Risky Prediction: McCain Will Win
2) Signs Pointing to A McCain Victory
3) Stunning Results in Early Voting in CA. Smile Redstaters!
4) GOP Internal Polls (NJ, CA, MI, PA) Show Possible Landslide for McCain

So, go out there and:
1) VOTE! Don't get demoralized by the MSM and polls!
2) Make Calls to the battlegound state. Go to johnmccain.com to find out how!
3) Post comments on as many blogs as possible about McCain's chance of winning (quote this Hillbuz article, and other articles I give you) and Obama fake tax cut plan. This should be a priority over Obama's many radical associations as this it seems people don't care if they are lead by someone who "seems" to have socialistic view. But for sure, they SHOULD care about the money in their pockets and their jobs and how if Obama gets elected, they will end up with neither. And this is not a scare tactic my friend, just tell them that higher taxes lead to businesses spending cut which will eventually lead to businesses laying off people. No job, no money. And if they say...but..but Obama said bla bla bla (you know what he said about his tax cut plan) , just laugh, say that's BS and point them to this website: Barack Obama records on tax reform
4) Talk to your friends who are lukewarm in supporting Obama and are indifferent about this election. Do the same thing as the above. Also, use the right analogy to compare Obama's tax cut rhetoric with Obama's tax cut records. Ask them if they would trust a convicted bank robber to make a deposit for you at your bank? Ask them if they would trust a convicted child molester to babysit your children? Then....ask them if they would trust Obama, with his (lack) of tax cut voting records, to really cut their taxes?

Lastly, HAVE FAITH in the greatness of this country and its citizens!

We beat the Nazis and Fascism in the world war, we got through the Great Depression just fine, we beat the USSR and won the cold war, we toppled Saddam Hussein that the world does not have to worry about him breaking the 13th UN resolution anymore!, we give aids (financial + human volunteers) to other countries that were hit by natural catastrophes and malignant diseases like Indonesia, Pakistan and African countries, respectively. If we want to surrender to socialism and communism, we would have done that long time ago and Carter would have been elected twice.

SO...FIGHT! LET'S GO OUT THERE AND WIN THIS ELECTION! Let's make sure that after January 20, 2009, we're not gonna see what's depicted on the video below really happening!

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Reasons to vote for McCain; reasons to vote against Obama

My reasons for voting, not just for McCain, but also against Obama, are almost all premised upon two basic belief systems I hold: (1) As a general matter, that federal government is best which governs least; and (2) that country is safest which has a strong military and is willing to use it in its own defense. With those principles in mind, here's my laundry list of reasons for favoring McCain over Obama.

1. National Security. While Obama has run from the subject for a long time now, he had made it clear through his own speeches and those of his surrogates that he wishes to do two things that will turn America into a wounded deer, lying there to be savaged by rapacious scavenger nations. First, he intends to remove America instantly from Iraq, despite the fact that we're finally winning. While we all understand that even the best commanders sometimes have to conduct a strategic retreat ("he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"), it's insane to back out of a fight that one is winning. I don't think it's ever been done at any place in any time. Second, at a time when America is disliked by her friends and loathed by her foes, he wishes to slash the military. He seems to be clueless that, in the real world, you first get people to become your allies, and only then do you lower your defenses.

McCain understands that the best defense is the promise that, should anyone attack you, you can and will go powerfully on the offensive. His fundamentally cheerful personality makes it clear that he's not out there looking for trouble but if trouble looks for him, he's ready.

In that regard, I have to say that I find it amusing that all the good liberals at my martial arts dojo, the ones who are desperate to unilaterally disarm America, are assiduously training themselves to be strong in case of an unexpected personal attack on the street. It baffles me that they can recognize at a personal level that the strength and training they're developing will not turn them into killing machines, but merely keep them safe; but are unable to extend that basic principle to a national standard.

In any event, McCain's entirely successful take on the surge should in itself demonstrate that he understands warfare in the modern era and is the one most likely to be able to protect America from her stated and violent enemies.

2. The economy. Neither Obama nor McCain is an economist. Neither understands the minute ebb and flow of the economy. That's fine. We're not electing an economist in chief. But each does have a view of the government's role in the marketplace, and this view will definitely affect the economy.

Obama wants to push out individuals and make the state the major player in the market place. How? Redistributive taxes. He wants to take more and more money away from people who have earned it, not simply to fund basic government program such as defense and infrastructure, but to give it to people whom he thinks deserve it. He doesn't believe in a fluid, flexible, reactive marketplace that rewards initiative and hard work. He trusts only the government, which doesn't reward action and initiative, but merely distributes pay based on a victim hierarchy.

Fine, you say, but what does this have to do with the economy? Everything.

The government does not make money; it only spends money. When you suck money out of the marketplace, there's less to go around, and you create infinitely smaller incentives for the entrepreneurs who create products and jobs. And aside from the lack of incentive, punitive taxes that benefit people who haven't earned money provide a strong disincentive for workers and entrepreneurs. Why should I think, and risk, and create, and sweat, if it's just going to go to the guy who whined about the fact that life is hard? News flash: Life is hard and life is unfair.

In a large, heterogeneous society, it makes sense for the government to provide a safety net for those who cannot possibly succeed economically (the aged, the ill, the handicapped), just as it does to provide a safety net for productive people who have fallen on hard times. However, it drains the economy dry to suck money out of the productive segment of the economy only to divvy it up amongst those who feel entitled for no other reason than their identity. Even Obama figured this out when he said at the start of the market's problems that he wouldn't put his tax changes into effect (and, mark you, at that time he'd only been admitting to tax "refunds" made on the backs of small businesses) because it would harm the economy. Well, duh!

Fast forward to John McCain. McCain also can't talk economic tech talk, but he understands that people, not government, make money, and make jobs, and have ideas, and show initiative. He understands that, when it comes to the marketplace, the government's job isn't to take over, but to police. It's job is to make sure people don't cheat or abuse their privileges.

In that regard, one of my favorite books in the world, To Serve Them All My Days, tells the story of life in a small public boys school in England between the world wars. I mention it here because the wise old headmaster has a good policy. Rather than myriad rules than simply invite evasion, he operates the school on a single principle: "Few rules but unbreakable." This would be an excellent rule for the marketplace, too. Figure out the big cheating problems, and slam down on them. Then see what else flows from that.

3. The judiciary. Do you like judges to make it up as they go along, depending on their emotional response to the parties before them? Each judge gets to decide if any given party is a good guy or a bad guy, or if the party belongs to a class of good guys or bad guys. Oh, I almost forgot! The judge also gets to define what constitutes "good" and "bad."

If you think that's the appropriate way to run a judiciary that will result in fair rules of law and the reliable application of laws so that individuals and businesses can make future plans, then Obama is the guy for you. Not only is he a member of a political party that believe that judges are uniquely situated to make these kinds of personal decisions, he has also stated that he believes Supreme Court justices should be guided by empathy, not law. And as you all know, we recently learned that he thinks the courts should be used as instruments of economic redistribution of wealth.

If, however, you believe that judges are to apply the law equally to all parties before them, regardless of the judge's personal response to any given party, and if you believe that a judge's role is to interpret law, not to make law, McCain is definitely the guy for you. While not as pure as one would wish, there is no doubt, absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that his judiciary will be more of a strict constructionist and less of an activist judiciary than Obama's.

By the way, one thing about judges: they're all former lawyers. If you think lawyers are scuzzy (and so many Americans do), why in the world would you want to vest all your trust in judges who are, after all, just lawyers? (Incidentally, let me remind that Obama is also a lawyer).

4. Abortion. The abortion issue is actually a subset of the judiciary issue. Despite all the screaming about the fact that Sarah Palin is pro-Life (and she actually walks the walk, rather than just talking the talk), the bottom line is that the president doesn't set abortion policy (nor, of course, does the VP). The only thing a president does that affects abortion is appoint judges.

A strict constructionist judge, one who sees the line between adjudicating and legislating, will honestly admit that Roe v. Wade made up a constitutional right where none exists. A strict constructionist judge will then say that, since there is no constitutional (i.e., federal) right, abortion must be decided either by the states or by constitutional amendment. Most states would continue to keep abortion legal, some states would limit it, and one or two might do away with it altogether.

There is no doubt but that McCain would appoint judges who wouldn't expand federal abortion rights (since they don't exist in the constitution) and who might in fact limit federal abortion rights (since they don't exist in the constitution). And there is no doubt that Obama, who refused to vote on a law that would allow live-born aborted babies to receive care, would not appoint those judges.

5. Freedom of speech. The evidence of your own eyes should convince you that Obama and his party are not committed to free speech. I'll give you a few examples. You can provide the rest.

First of all, there's the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which demands that radio stations give equal time to alternative political views, and then insists that the government determine what views get this time. Keep in mind, by the way, that the people advocating this doctrine also contend that NPR, the New York Times, The New Yorker, the Washington Post, ABCNBCCNNCBSMSNBC, etc., all have no actual political view -- they are, say the Fairness Doctrine advocates, impartial reporters of the news. It's only such nefarious sources as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Fox, Hugh Hewitt, etc., who purvey "biased" material that cannot be allowed to sully American ears, and that must be reduced by 50% (making it unprofitable, of course, for radio stations to carry them in the first place).

Suffice to say that, if Obama is president and a Democratic Congress passes the Fairness Doctrine into law, he'll sign the bill with pleasure. If McCain is president, and if the bill isn't veto proof, I can guarantee you he'll veto that bill.

That's big stuff. Here's the little stuff: Obama hasn't given a press conference in over a month; Obama's minions went after Joe the Plumber's private information in an effort to destroy him when he made Obama look bad (just by asking a question, mind you); Obama refuses to give future media access to two TV stations that asked Biden hardball questions; Obama has kicked off his plane reporters from media outlets that haven't endorsed him; Obama's minions threatened to investigate all of his major donors; and, lastly, Obama's minions have subverted the democratic process (which is a form of speech) through hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registrations.

6. Immigration. There is no doubt that conservatives think McCain is soft on immigration. But if you think he's bad, please remember that Obama represents a party that wants to do away with immigration limitations altogether. It's a party that wants an open border policy.

Is that what you want? Hey, even if you're Hispanic, even if you're a recent Hispanic immigrant, is that what you want? Keep in mind that an economy and a society can absorb only so many newcomers at a time. America's great virtue, as Tito the Builder appreciates, is that America provides enormous opportunities for those who come here, not simply to take from the government, but to work and to give back to this country. That system falls apart if America is flooded with unlimited numbers of immigrants. It's like overloading the lifeboat, with everyone drowning.

England serves as a great example of a country that is destroying itself through its unlimited immigration policies. Without passing any judgment on Muslim beliefs and values, it is still noteworthy that, in less than 15 years, Britain's elites have managed to create a situation that will see their ancient English culture gone in a few more decades

Think I'm exaggerating? The most popular baby name in Britain right now isn't Charles or Jonathan or Bert, its Mohammed. The biggest religion in England right now isn't the Church of England, it's the Catholic Church (because of the influx of Polish immigrants). I have great respect for the Catholic Church, but its current dominance is an historic irony that would make Bloody Mary happy, but that is, well, weird in the great panoply of British history. And when all those Mohammeds grow up, I can guarantee you a very bloody religious war in that country if the little Polish Lechs and Katerinas don't want to convert to Islam without a fight.

There are less than 72 hours left to the election. The media wants to tell you that this election should be Obama's because he's pretty and speaks well and has a calm temperament and, while we're not supposed to talk about race, he's of a race that will make the whole world happy and let us pat ourselves on our collective backs for being so open-minded. The media, of course, is wrong. This race is about incredibly important issues that will, at the least, affect us for years, and at the most (and worst) change America forever.

Even if you're no huge McCain fan because he's not conservative enough, or you're one of those Ivy League conservatives who thinks that Palin isn't "one of us," none of that should matter right now. In a vote between Obama and McCain, for those who cherish freedom from an intrusive federal government and who believe that the federal government's most vital role is national security, the choice should be clear: VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

Cross-posted at Bookworm Room and at Right Wing News

More Yes Men Please

Here's a story you won't see in the MSM: Yesterday Obama kicked off reporters from The New York Post, the Washington Times, and the Dallas Morning News - reporters who had been traveling with Obama's campaign all this time but just happened to belong to papers that endorse John McCain. Obama's campaign cited the need to make space for the far more important black monthly magazines Essence and Jet, who I bet will give Obama a real rough time with hardhitting stories like this one about the best black couples in politics today.

Now to be fair, McCain hasn't allowed Maureen Dowd and Time columnist Joe Klein to come along with his campaign in the past, but there's a difference between barring news reporters versus barring columnists. The first kind of journalist aims to deliver objective accounts of the facts, while the second type is given far more free rein with speculation and reporting.

I guess this is a sneak peek of what we can expect from an Obama administration. God help us all.

Obama Will Take Care of Me...

I'm really not sure whether to laugh or cry here. Laugh because it's a little bit funny, cry because this type of mentality does exist and has spread all across USA. I'm not sure whether this lady is being serious or not, but what I know is I'm so sad to know this type of mentality exists, cultivated and promoted by Barak Obama and his liberal congress friends.
I guess when you can't win the votes of American people, you just BUY their votes! What's the price tag? $1000k per year or $83 per month (i.e. Obama's promised taxcut for the "middle class"). What good would $83 per month do if you can't buy much and don't have a job because your employers want to cut budget because of high tax issue and these employers will be laying off people?

I wouldn't have to work to pay for putting gases in my car, I wouldn't have to work to pay my mortgage. If I help him [Obama], he will help me!

What this lady sadly does not realize is what government gives, it can take it away whenever it wants it back!


GOD SPEED - GOD BLESS AMERICA

GOD SPEED. May He win! Let's put this man in the white house! Let's defend our Freedom and Liberty! Go out there and VOTE! There's NO WAY we're going to let the Freedom and Liberty that makes this country great be taken from us without a FIGHT!


Friday, October 31, 2008

Why We Must Fight For McCain by Arnold Schwarzenegger

The whole video is interesing, but if you are in a rush, make sure you watch minute 5:20


Petition to the LA Times: Release the Obama/Khalidi Tape!

I encourage our readers to sign it. At the time of this writing: 5000 signatures and growing!

Victor Davis Hanson: 'The End of Journalism'

Victor Davis Hanson is a well regarded scholar in military history, fellow at the Hoover Institution and a registered Democrat. I always love his columns because they are cogent and persuasive. In every single piece that I have read from him, he usually goes in detail through his arguments, providing solid evidence backing his points. That's why I find his piece about media bias in this Presidential election particularly interesting. Call it a "scholarly researched" version of Michael Malone's illuminating piece. Please read it here,
"There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored.
.....
Imagine the reaction of CNN or NBC had John McCain’s pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years been revealed as a white supremacist who damned a multiracial United States, or had he been a close acquaintance until 2005 of an unrepentant terrorist bomber of abortion clinics, or had McCain himself sued to eliminate congressional opponents by challenging the validity of African-American voters who signed petitions, or had both his primary and general election senatorial rivals imploded once their sealed divorce records were mysteriously leaked."

Thursday, October 30, 2008

CNN's King: 'Whining' Media 'Out of Touch' on Election Coverage

Read the whole story here,

"You know media bias has reached epic proportions when journalists are criticizing their own colleagues for a lack of professionalism in covering Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama and Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin."

Are the MSM suddenly realizing that they have crossed a very dangerous line that might lead to their extinction given the new emerging media?

LA Times: Shame on You!

A Spaniard's Case For McCain and Against Obama

November 4th is approaching and those who are undecided are beginning to make up their minds. I want to present my reasons for supporting John McCain for President and why an Obama Presidency brings to my mind deeply uncomfortable thoughts.

In full disclosure, I must say to all of you that I am not a US citizen yet. My immigration status is known technically as US Lawful Permanent Resident, commonly known as "green card holder". My status in the US is, for most practical purposes, similar to that of a US citizen except that I cannot vote in those elections which require US citizenship, ie the vast majority of elections held in the US. What that means is that in everything else I have most of the same rights and obligations of a US citizen, including my eligibility for the US Army draft. I also plan to apply for US citizenship next year, so my interest in who will be the next US President goes beyond a mere curiosity from a foreigner who lives in the US.

Simply put, I cannot be truthful to my reasons for willing to become a US citizen without passionately supporting John McCain in what has been called the most important election since 1980. This has nothing to do with calling Obama unpatriotic, although the latter's own statements on his reasons for not wearing a US flag pin would raise alarms on any reasonable person, but with the vision of America that captured my imagination as a child and teenager. Is that vision, that I received through American movies and TV, that triggered my desire to work hard so I could come to the US to seek the American Dream.

So what vision am I talking about? I fell in love with the America that gives every individual an opportunity to raise by himself regardless of his economic or family background. An America where individual freedom is the creed upon which its patriotism is based. An America where individual enterprise created the technology breakthroughs that have changed the world in which we live. An America that rewards individual merit while she is generous with the less fortunate of society. An America whose powerful Army has been used mostly as a force for good, unlike the different European armies that have been used mostly to subjugate neighbors and the rest of the world. In summary, an America that promises to those who give the best they have in themselves that success will follow their hard work and dedication. The last eight years haven't been perfect and frankly, George W Bush, mainly through an incompetent administration, has made a lot of damage to that vision of America. Whatever mistakes Bush made however, do not justify giving the highest office in the land to an individual, Barack Obama, whose vision for America is nothing like what grabbed my imagination as a kid but that sounds a lot like the European nightmare that I lived before coming to the US.

So, what nightmare I am talking about? Well, a society where the economic and social status where you are born pretty much determine your future. A society that provides universal state funded education and health care but with the catch that the government, not the individual, decides which school you attend and which doctor you go to. A society where asking a powerful politician a simple question can put you and your family in trouble (does the Joe the Plumber story sound familiar?). A society where mediocrity is rewarded and excellence punished (convince yourself by looking at the list of the best world universities and count the number of European universities there). A society where the "old money" still controls businesses, where chronic high unemployment exists because some people find it a better deal to receive government checks than to help themselves by having a job. A society where if you take a look at the largest companies, by almost any measure, 30 years ago you'll discover little change with respect to the largest companies today (in the US companies such as Google didn't exist 30 years ago; others like Microsoft or Apple were garage startups back then). A society where the last time the Europeans had armies comparable to the present US army in size and influence, they brought us World War II (ethnic nationalism is so ingrained in each European country that the only way the different European countries have found to be good neighbors is to have armies so weakened that they don't pose any serious threat to each other). Do I really need to continue?

When I hear the Obama/Biden ticket talking about "spreading the wealth around", "giving government checks to people who don't pay income taxes", "government mandated health care insurance", "negotiating without preconditions with the crappiest dictators of the world", rhetoric that puts the government playing an intrusive role in people's lives, education, free enterprise, science and technology, deciding when an individual is too rich for his own good... I get reminded of what I left behind in Spain. When in addition I see the press lynching a private citizen who dared ask a question to Obama or Biden avoiding the journalists who ask him hard questions, I am fearful that an Obama regime would make incidents such as Valerie Plame's the norm, not the exception.

For all these reasons, I cannot but wholeheartedly support John McCain for President.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

LA Times covering up Obama

It's official. With so many false rumors around, I was hesitant to believe this one at first. Now, the LA Times has confirmed the existence of the tape and its opposition to release it,
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
The Obama/Khalidi story can be viewed here,
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about
meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

Clerk charged with unlawful search of Joe the Plumber

Read here,

"Toledo Police have confirmed that a TPD records clerk is accused of performing an illegal search of information related to 'Joe the Plumber.'"

Keep The Change

CBS Exposes The Obama Campaign's Financing

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered!

I found this chilling audio recording through Drudge and Littlegreenfootballs. In this audio, in his own voice, as Naked Empire put it (the audio poster in Youtube), he wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth. In the audio, the discussion is not about whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong, it is about HOW to do it legitimately! Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth! Read more about Warren Court after you watch this video. It will open your eyes about Obama's real agenda - redistribution of wealth BY ALL MEANS!

I would recommend to watch the video, record it (use Camtasia software) and store it in your hard drive. I've heard about controversial Obama movies disappearing from Youtube before as in case you don't know, the CEO of Google (youtube parent company) supports The One.






Why Obama's socialism should not be necessary in America

My mother, bless her heart, said something very important the other day. She said that Europeans are much more socially conscious than Americans and that's why they have all those government programs (i.e., socialism or spreading the wealth). She was clearly trying to say that Americans are mean and selfish, and that's why they've traditionally leaned to keeping their wealth, rather than allowing government redistribution. She's completely wrong, of course, but wrong in a very interesting way.

What she neglected to consider with her pronouncement is that, traditionally, America and Europe had vastly different social and economic fluidity. While Europe has had an exceptionally rigid class system from which few escape, America has been since it's inception a place in which people can "make it." Every immigrant group (and such is the nature of America that all but the Indigenous Americans are immigrant groups), has managed to assimilate and rise economically.

Census records from the Lower East Side in New York, through which passed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of immigrants from all over Europe, show that within two generations, all of the families that once lived there had moved into the working, middle or wealthy classes. Certainly, individuals may have suffered and failed but, en masse, the immigrants did well. They didn't need to become the recipients of perpetual government largesse.

In Europe, however, there were no systems by which the lower classes (and that also always meant the poorer classes) could escape their stratum. Whether by accent, education, poverty, or tradition, they stayed there. (And, interestingly, even the educational opportunities socialism provided didn't much change that. When I lived in England a couple of decades ago, after almost 40 years of free access to college education, most English people did not go on to college and people still gave away their class instantly just by opening their mouths.) Socialism, in other words, was just a totalitarian government substitute for the old noblesse oblige that saw the upper class (or, at least, the socially conscious ones) take care of the poorer orders, all the while ensuring that they stayed in their place.

The intense stratification of that system continues to exist with the new immigrants to Europe. Whether in Germany, Norway, Sweden, England, Italy or France, these new Muslim immigrants are instantly the recipients of government largesse that gives them housing and money -- and that essentially tells them to get into their immigrant ghettos, and stay there, preferably feeling grateful to and voting for the government that was so good to them. Its a shock to the ruling class, and one that they can't seem to understand, that these immigrants, rather than feeling grateful at being stuffed away into ghettos without any opportunities, loath the countries in which they live, and cheerfully envision their bloody overthrows.

My mother agreed with me on all of these points (how could she not?), but then produced her "a-ha!" to prove me wrong: "What about blacks in America (and, she could have added, Native Americans, too)?" To her, they proved I was entirely wrong in describing America's social and economic fluidity. To me, though, the were just the extra evidence I needed to prove that when, as they do you Europe, a government provides too much for people, it consigns them permanently to poverty and social exile.

As you know, African-Americans (and Native Americans) differed from all other immigrant groups in America because the American system essentially imposed against them, for centuries (and in brutal and horrible ways), a European style stratification that prevented any upward movement. This is true whether one is looking at slavery, relocation, genocidal wars or Jim Crow. I'll focus from here on out on what happened to blacks when Americans finally wised up to the error of their ways, but you can tell the same story about Native Americans.

Beginning in the 1940s (with the WWII economy) and continuing into the 1950s (with the Civil Rights movement), blacks started the same upward movement as other American groups. That is, once the nation began removing the artificial ceiling it had imposed on them, blacks too made social and economic strides. The strides were slow, because prejudice is slow to die, but they were real, and they created a rising black working and middle class composed of nuclear families. I have no doubt that, had the government continued to educate and police against discrimination, and otherwise left the market to do its work, African Americans would have joined other immigrant groups in realizing the American dream in a generation or two.

The death knell for this laborious, but real, social and economic ascent was the Great Society. The moment comprehensive welfare programs began (around the mid-1960s), government workers fanned out to black communities all over America and made huge efforts to tell blacks to stop working, because the government would pay for them. White guilt was at its apex, and government welfare was its expiation.

Being rational actors, blacks gave up bad, low-paying, often demeaning jobs for free money. And being rational actors, they gave up nuclear families and parental responsibility for even more free money. And so began the terrible slide of the African-American community. Even if you all don't remember that time, you do remember what finally arrested this slide and helped put African-Americans back on the same, slow upward trajectory that existed before the Great Society: The fact that Clinton, under duress from a real Republican Congress, ended “welfare as we know it.” Once again, African-Americans, being rational actors, were given the incentive to shelter in the strength of the nuclear family and plug into the American Dream.

Obama wants to undo the American Dream and turn us into a European economy, where all benefits flow from the government, rather than individual effort. You can call it "socialism," or "big government," or "spreading the wealth," or whatever else suits you, but the outcome will be the same: People will be locked into government induced poverty in perpetuity, the middle class will become slack, the economy will enter into stagflation, unemployment will rise, and service in every area of American life will fall as people lose their incentive (because they've lost the ability) to rise upwards and join in the American Dream.

Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory - NO KIDDING!

After I posted my latest article, Why Do Barack Obama Unfounded Rhetoric and Radical Associations Seem Insignificant, I decided to do more research on the net to find a glimpse of hope that the American People can still see through the Main Stream Media and US Academia Indoctrination, about what Obama really is. I'm just not ready yet to believe that the ideology of Freedom and Liberty can be easily replaced by the Socialism, From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need, Ideology. So here you go: Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory! Go PUMA (Party Unity My A**)! You also have to read PUMA letter that's addressed to the Republican Party! If PUMA will fight to the end for the McCain/Palin ticket, we have to fight too! It's so comforting to know that we have a friend in PUMA!

Here's one of the comments on the article (1 out of 250-ish last time I check!):

Thank You for this uplifting article. I am a lifelong Democrat and an African American. I was a Hillary Supporter during the primary but I am now voting for John McCain. The same goes for my husband and his sister. I realize that I am one of the 4% of AA's not voting for Obama. In my book principals should trump race, gender and party. I cannot vote for Obama. While I would love to have an African American or female president someday, I am disappointed in the DNC's choice of Barack Obama who is an empty suit that talks a good game. Obama has accomplished nothing in Illinois. The city of Chicago has the highest sales tax in the nation at 10.25%. The city has had 462 murders this year and we still have 2months in the year left. If you look at his record you see nothing. During the debates, Obama had no experience to draw upon for examples. Sarah Palin did, Biden did, obviously McCain did. When I hear Obama talking I glaze over because it is such empty rhetoric. he criticizes the other guy and really says nothing about what he will do beyond his flash card answers.

I am also disturbed by the African American leaders who have been used and thrown under the bus by Obama such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.If Martin Luther King were alive he would have found a place under that bus as well. You can be sure of it. Donna Brazille is a race baiting buffoon and Colin Powell is a desperate man whose legacy is on the mend.

Interesting that Obama delivered his Denver DNC speech on MLK's "I Had a Dream" anniversary yet did not mention Dr. King once. Obama lacks humility and smacks of insolence--the kind that a true leader should not possess. Obama lacks judgment. The media constantly gives him a pass on purchasing his home from Rezko, his unscrupulous relationships and lack of experience. It amounts to affirmative action.Which I am not in favor of. Obama is the least qualified person to ever run for POTUS.

I will be happy to vote for John McCain on November 4th. John is a true patriot and has a deep commitment to this country. When I see McCain his words are sincere and not preachy like Obama. Not condescending like Michelle Obama either. Who by the way will make a terrible first lady. She is a very angry,bitter woman and it shows. I will not let her work through her race issues by being our first lady. I don't need Barack to enlighten me. This so called Great Unifier has caused division among woman, blacks, the DNC and everything else that he touches. Go back to Chicago Senator Obama and finish,or I should say start the job that the people of Illinois elected you to do. 143 days was not enough.

I know how to bring change into my life without this just add water arugula smoothie drinking Messiah.

McCain/Palin 08

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Obama's Campaign Cancels Future Interviews With WFTV

I just read this at the Orlando Sentinel,

" Why did Barack Obama's campaign cancel an interview Jill Biden, wife of Sen. Joe Biden, was going to do with WFTV-Channel 9?
.......
The Obama campaign earlier Friday suggested that future interviews with WFTV were unlikely before Election Day"

Please watch the interview and decide for yourself. Of course, it goes without saying that had Sarah Palin been the person interviewed by Barbara West, this would have made the national media.

Big Brother: Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber

I have stated several times that I am no friend of conspiracy theories. I found it laughable when Naomi Wolf said that the US was in the process of becoming a totalitarian regime because of the anti terror laws enacted after 9/11. That comparison was then insulting to those who really know what a true dictatorship is all about.
Surprisingly, the "US is becoming a dictatorship" in the MSM ended quietly after the November 2006 election that gave the Democrats the control of the US Congress. Which takes me to the the public lynching of Joe the Plumber by the MSM. We've seen public lynching of individuals involved in controversial political issues before. What made this case different until yesterday was that those individuals who were lynched by the MSM were, by their own choosing, public political figures in one way or another. In my 8 years in the US I don't remember the MSM lynching a private citizen "just for" asking a question to a politician.
Adding perilous insult to injury, yesterday we learned from an Ohio newspaper that, "State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."
Note that from the article, it's a given that Joe's private info was accessed from government computers and shortly after he became famous because of his encounter with "The One". Those are facts nobody questions. What the Ohio authorities are investigating is whether that access was illegal. Ms Wolf, don't you think that this is a much more serious invasion of privacy by Big Brother than whatever fantasies you had in your mind before the 2006 election? (That was a rhetorical question). Another rhetorical question: where are the MSM when we need them; how is that this isn't highlighted by them as an issue of more relevance than Sarah Palin's wardrobe?

Friday, October 24, 2008

Michael S. Malone: Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions

I first learned about Michael S. Malone last year when I was recommended his book about Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. I ended up buying the book, getting emotional while reading it and attending one of his talks about his portrayal of Bill and Dave at a Mountain View bookstore.
Since his name was new to me, I did a bit of research about him prior to attending the event; I learned that he was a household name in high tech journalism. A former HP employee like myself, although he had had the privilege to work with both Bill and Dave, he had been a journalist at the San Jose Mercury News before writing for the biggest household names in the news industry such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, ABC News. Further, from his presentation I came under the impression that he was a strong supporter of the media, especially the liberal media. I remember him defending the San Francisco Chronicle existence in the middle of the crisis that has affected newspapers main source of revenue, that is advertising, now that they have to compete with the new Internet media. That's why, I was completely shocked when I was reading this article of his today repudiating the way the media has handled this Presidential campaign.
I have been living in the United States for only eight years. Up until this past September and this, about to end, October I had an overall good impression of the US media. Not that I was convinced that all media were "fair and balanced" but at least I got the impression that when it came to reporting news, most respectable sources tried their best to present both sides of controversial topics. Not anymore. And it worries me a great deal. Nothing of what I saw in the Presidential campaign of 2004 comes close to the systematic lynching and humiliation that I have witnessed this time around regarding anybody who dares challenge, let alone criticize, "The One".
See, for those of us who come from places like Spain where all media have been behaving for years in the same way the MSM have been behaving during this Presidential campaign, it was refreshing to be able to tell the people who still live there that the New York Times mocked Spanish newspapers such as El Pais by calling them "pro-government newspaper". Is the US in the process of becoming a country like Spain?
How the hell did it came to this? While I was thinking these past days about the issue, I said to myself, well, maybe this is the way the US media were before 9/11 and I just didn't see it because of the special circumstances we lived after that horrible tragedy. That's why, reading Michael S Malone's article was so refreshing. After all, it seems that even he thinks that the media has gone too far this time. I'll reproduce some of the most interesting quotes but I really, really encourage everybody to read his article completely.


"The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game.
With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate."

"But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist."

"But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign."

"But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather - not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake - but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election."

"I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage."

"No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so."

"Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?"

It Doesn't Have to Happen!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

A Small Business Perspective on Obama's Tax Plan

An Army of Joe's

TIPP: Dead even race

This must be one of the most weird campaigns in history. Some polls show Obama with double digit gains (and not surprisingly those are the polls that are echoed by the media); yet, the daily tracking polls of several organizations show the race tightening, some within the margin of error (for instance Gallup's traditional model for likely voters shows Obama and McCain within the margin of error). The most surprising of all comes from TIPP. Its daily tracking poll, the poll that got it closest in 2004, shows a dead even race,

"McCain has cut into Obama's lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday. The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point deļ¬cit to a 9-point lead among Catholics."

I am Voting Democrat: The Clueless College Student!

Hope this story makes you laugh as much as it did to me,

"Finally, I asked the troubling question about how Obama will ensure a tax break for 95% of people--despite the fact that about 40% don't pay income taxes. He struggled with that one for a while. Again, it seemed to be a foreign concept to him, like no one had ever raised the subject before.

He stumbled through a series of answers. Obama would "give" the unemployed jobs so that they could pay taxes and get a tax break. When I reminded him that would only account for 6%, he--in a tribute to the American education system--said that Obama was really talking about the 55% difference between 95 and 40. I reminded him that Obama had specified 95%, not 55%. He replied that "Obama didn't really mean that." I asked if he, the caller, was really supporting a candidate who lied about something so important?
He told me to wait while he talked to his supervisor. I could overhear bits of a conversation in which he referred to me, rather politely, as "a difficult one." (At least he didn't call me THAT one.)
When he returned to the phone, he informed me that Obama would reach the 95% figure by initiating taxes on the 40% who don't pay income taxes now, so that he could later give them their promised tax break."

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

It's Official: Coverage of McCain Twice as Negative as Obama

We already knew this, but having it confirmed by the The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism is akin to having it proved. Shame on you, MSM (or should I say Obama's propaganda arm?),

" John McCain received nearly twice as much negative press coverage as did Barack Obama. According to the report, 57% of the stories about John McCain during the period between September 8 and October 16 were "clearly negative in tone," compared to 29% for Obama. Conversely, stories that were "clearly positive in tone" favored Obama over McCain by a factor of more than two to one, 36% for Obama to just 14% for McCain."

Obama's Judgement about Iraq

Obama and Ayers in Their Own Words

New McCain Ad: Sweat Equity (aka the other Joe the Plumbers)

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

CNN interview with Sarah Palin

This is the Sarah Palin we love! Just see the anchor concede at the end that the media is giving a pass to Joe Biden with his comments that Obama, if elected, will be tested by America's enemies!


Jonah Goldberg: The media vs. Joe the Plumber

Follow up on the Tito Munoz story,

"In short, Obama's explanation to Joe the Plumber that we need to "spread the wealth around" is a sincere and significant expression of his worldview, with roots stretching back to his church and his days as a community organizer. Millions of Americans don't share this vision. They don't see the economy as a pie, whereby your slice can only get bigger if someone else's gets smaller. They don't begrudge the wealthy their wealth; they only ask to be given the same opportunities. They look at countries such as France and, rather than envy their socialized medicine and short workweeks, they fear their joblessness and tax policies that punish entrepreneurialism. People like Tito Munoz look at America and see an open path to their own American dream. It would be nice if the media at least tried to understand this point. Instead, they attacked and belittled a citizen who asked a candidate a question. They think he's stupid or a liar for not understanding that a promised check from a President Obama is more valuable than some pipe dream about future success."

Military Men and Women Prefer John McCain Overwhelmingly; Democrats on Iraq

That's right folks,

"Sen. John McCain enjoys overwhelming support from the military’s professional core, a Military Times survey of nearly 4,300 readers, indicates, though career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.
McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.
The results of the Military Times 2008 Election Poll are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The group surveyed is older, more senior in rank and less ethnically diverse than the overall armed services. But as a snapshot of careerists, the results suggest Democrats have gained little ground in their attempts to significantly chip away at a traditionally Republican voting bloc in campaign messages and legislative initiatives, such as the recent expansion of GI Bill benefits, experts said."

Also, I want to remind our viewers the opinion of our dear democrats on the Iraq war, back when their opinion actually mattered,


Why Do Barack Obama Unfounded Rhetoric and Radical Associations Seem Insignificant?

The fact that Obama is ahead in multiple polls really disturbed me. How can someone who has not been truthful about his background and his records be so liked by the American people? How can the people of this FREE country like to hear what this guy has to say? How can the people of this FREE country get eaten up by his empty rhetoric? How can his 'SOCIALIST' like policies resonate so much with the people of this FREE country?
So, I decide to throw out there, some reasons that I can think of. Some other, I found from the internet. Here you go:
1) Americans hate Bush so much that anything that's tied to him is hated too. For the records, I love Bush tax cut policy, but I dislike his uncontrolled spending! And I think that's one of the reasons why our country is in huge debt right now!
2) Americans predominantly watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC, PBS, Comedy Central (yes...I'm not kidding you, I heard my friend telling this to my other friend!) and only listen to NPR for their news source. They should watch C-SPAN once in a while!
3) American are not well informed about Barack Obama's proposed policies vs his records
4) Americans chose to ignore
Barack Obama's records of tax & spending and radical associations AND the true nature of his proposed policies (which is Socialist-like) subconsciously
5)
Americans chose to ignore Barack Obama's records of tax & spending and radical associations AND the true nature of his proposed policies (which is Socialist-like) willingly

Out of all reasons, I found #5 to be the most disturbing. Why? Because if a presidential candidate's records can not be used as non-biased true predictors or indicators of how he or she would lead this country, than what can? Campaign ads, campaign slogans, rhetoric, fluffs?!?
If this is the answer, I would submit to you that we are finished! Let's just start reciting our "Viva Obama" chant!

I found more consolations in reason #1 - #4. Well, they're actually kinda tied together. The hatred for Bush, Americans are not well informed, and
Americans chose to ignore Barack Obama's records of tax & spending and radical associations AND the true nature of his proposed policies (which is Socialist-like) are the results of Americans predominantly watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC, PBS, Comedy Central and only listen to NPR for their news source. Let's see the example below, about Sarah Palin vs Joe Biden debate coverage, the top one is the debate coverage by MSNBC and the bottom one is a coverage by Fox News. Basically they were discussing about all the alleged lies from both sides. Watch and learn!

MSNBC Coverage





Fox News Coverage





Okay, if you know nothing about what each candidate stands for, which coverage makes you feel like this: "this candidate is really a big LIAR and I can't believe he/she is arrogant enough to think that the media is not going to find out"? Exactly. If didn't know any better, I would say Palin is a big LIAR, she's so arrogant to think that the media is not going to find out! Okay...some of us knows who's for who :) Rove's for McCain/Palin, and Olbermann's for Obama. With the advent of Internet, it is really easy to find out whose "lies" are real LIES vs "lies" that are made up for political purpose. For example, one website that I like to go to, to see if any of these candidates' rhetoric are just that, rhetoric, or there's really some truth to them, is OnTheIssues.org. How did I found this site? I just googled "McCain voting records" or "Obama voting records". And voila...it's all right there, in front of the whole world to see. Going back to the lies discussion. I went to the website to check whose lies are real lies and guess what...I don't mean to sound bias here...of course it's Rove's list of lies that are the real LIES...of Biden's!
Again, just go to this website, ontheissues.org, to check out all the candidates' voting records!

I'm sure you have also heard about Obama's radical associations which bunch of people and organizations that are:

1) Anti America (Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright)

Do you honestly and intellectually believe that Obama who has been going to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, doesn't know that his pastor hates America? How about the fact that Obama's 2nd book is titled and based on Wright's sermon "The Audacity of Hope"?
If you watch the video below, Wright gave several sermons at different times and of course the consistent theme is Let's Hate America people, America's no good, America's the source of all evil, well you get the point. My point is, it is so apparent that Wright's shown and heard to have been consistently hating America, and therefore, it is almost impossible for Obama (and dishonest, I might add) to say that he never saw that side of rev. Wright. He said, what's he's seen is the Rev. Wright who preached love, giving, caring for other people, and all the sermon topics that normal Pastors actually gives! Uhumm..and I am Shirley Temple! By the way, in addition to using Wright's sermon as the theme of his 2nd book, Rev. Wright also married Barack and Michelle, and baptized their 2 daughters. Now, if you don't trust that your Reverent, would you ask him to marry you and baptize your children? By the way, this article is really telling about "Who is Barack Obama".
And what about "Hate Speech" towards white people? Boy, this guy, Wright, sure knows how to give it! For some people that think that racism can only go one way, the video below clearly demonstrates that racism can go the other way! I'm not white and yet I am disgusted to see such conspiracy theory about white people being thrown around like that! It's clear that Wright is a race monger that should be distanced away at any cost - even if was going to run for only a PTA leader, I would distance myself away! And Obama is running for a president!
It is not clear to me why and how any sane person would want to associate himself with this guy. Period. Unless...they share the same view!





2) Socialist, Communist, Anti America, and Unrepentant Terrorist (Bill Ayers, all the above; New Party, Obama's socialist association)

I know that McCain has been trying to raise this association in his effort to portray Obama's lack of judgment. My question is, why just Ayers? Why not Wright as well? Anyways, it's beyond me.
And unfortunately, McCain's effort seemed to have failed as a lot of Americans do not resonate with his ad despite the fact that Ayers is a socialist, communist, anti America and an unrepentant terrorist. Why? I really don't know...it's so beyond me, that I decided to do my own research and found this article:
Why Obama's Communist Connections Are Not Headlines. Here's the excerpt:
The leftist intelligentsia that dominates higher education, and which writes the civics texts used in high schools -- I've read and studied these texts -- and which trains the teachers who teach in high schools, is not in the slightest bit notably anti-communist. These liberals do not teach the lessons of communism.

What's more, aside from failing to instruct their students in the crass facts about communism's unprecedented destruction -- its purges, mass famines, show trials, killing fields, concentration camps -- these educators are negligent in failing to teach the essential, non-emotional, but crucial Econ 101 basics that contrast capitalism and communism and, thus, that get at the heart of how and why command economies simply do not work. Each semester in my Comparative Politics course at Grove City College, it takes no more than 50 minutes to matter-of-factly lay out the rudimentary differences. Whereas capitalist systems are based on the market forces of supply and demand, which dictate prices and production levels and targets, communist systems are based on central planning, by which a government bureau attempts to manage such things. Capitalism is based on private ownership; communism on public ownership. Capitalism thrives on small government and taxes; communism on large government and taxes, typically progressive income-tax rates and estate taxes -- both advocated explicitly by Marx -- and much more.

This stuff isn't rocket science. It is easy to teach, if the professor desires. The problem is that it isn't being taught. Consequently, Americans today do not know why communism is such a devastating ideology, at both the level of plain economic theory and in actual historical practice. It is a remarkably hateful system, based on literal hatred and targeted annihilation of entire classes and groups of people. (Nazism sought genocide based on ethnicity; communism sought genocide based on class.)

Most Americans generally know that the USSR was a bad place and that it was good that the Berlin Wall fell; they lived through that. But they know little beyond that, especially young Americans in college today, born around the time the wall fell -- Obama's biggest supporters. Nowhere in America is Barack Obama worshipped as he is on college campuses, by students and professors alike.

What does it all mean for November 2008? It means that millions of modern Americans, when they hear that Barack Obama has deep roots with communist radicals like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, don't care; they don't get it. Moreover, the leftist establishment -- from academia to media to Hollywood -- will not help them get it. To the contrary, the left responds to these accusations by not only downplaying or dismissing them but by ridiculing or even vilifying them, given the left's reflexive anti-anti-communism. The left will create bad guys out of the anti-communists who are legitimately blowing the whistle on the real bad guys.
Based on the article, Americans seemed to be (alarmingly) open to accept someone, Barack Obama, who clearly had (or has?) some associations with people or organization who have socialist, communist agenda. And the cause of this is lack of education on this topic, socialism and communism, academically. What can possibly cause this? I think this is the answer. With close to 4000 professors from various famous universities and colleges show their dear support for Bill Ayers, how can the American people and youth even remotely think that socialism and communism are bad for this country? Unfortunately, it looks like the Gallup poll by education tracking supports my suspicion about the "normalization" of socialism (perhaps not to the extent of communism) in the US academia. Take notice of the percentage of the college level and post graduate level voters who support Obama vs McCain. When I learned about this whole petition and connect it with the Gallup poll results, it seriously made me sick to my stomach, to think of the possibility that my child, when she grew up, will have a good chance of being educated by some of these professors who signed the petition! It saddens me to see that this great country that was founded based on Freedom and Liberty is now being permeated, slowly but sure, by supporters of the socialist ideology. I mean, if they don't support the ideology, why in the world would they support Ayers?

Going back to Obama, there was a new revelation that Obama was a member of the New Party which was formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA.

Okay, let me just put it this way...who are we kidding here...just like what Joe Biden says: Honey, if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, IT'S A DUCK!...I would say, Dear American people, if he thinks like a socialist, if he talks like a socialist, if he governs like a socialist, then..HE IS A SOCIALIST! Seriously, I should just write Palin's campaign speech...I'm sure she would appreciate this!

On serious note, if you are interested in finding out why socialism and communism are bad, please check this website out. Basically, the notion that everything can be taken care of by the benevolent government is a very dreamy and euphoric idea, an idea that can only be exercised by surrendering your basic rights, freedom and liberty, to the government. And what the government gives, it can take away. Watch the video below, it might just open your mind.








I also found this great article detailing how Hitler Won Over The German People. It's so great that it disturbs me even more about this US election because it has a lot of similarities with the German election when the Germans ended up electing Hitler. Here's the excerpt:

It was a manufactured consensus, a propaganda construct, with repression of political opponents, "racial enemies" and other outsiders to the proclaimed "national community" as the other side of the coin. The "superman" image of Hitler amounted to the central component of the fabrication. Already before the "takeover of power" it had been the creation of the most modern, hugely successful, political "marketing" strategy of its time, masterminded by Goebbels. And once the monopoly of state control of propaganda fell into Nazi hands in 1933, there was no obstacle in the mass media to the rapid spread of Hitler's "charismatic" appeal.


Sounds familiar?? And to think that these Leftists always try to associate Bush with Hitler!
And if you think Hitler is not a good example of a socialist, this article may change your mind!


3) Racist (Ayers, Pfegler)
Watch Rev. Wright video above.

4) Corrupt (Rezko)





5) Anti-semite (Rashid Khalidi who worked with PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) in the past)





It is also worth noting that it has been confirmed that there is a video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at a Jew-bashing dinner event to honor Khalidi in 2003. The LA Times has this video but won't release it!

6) Committing Vote Registration (ACORN)

This article (with a picture in it) is pretty much self explanatory.

Even with the numerous amount of evidence about Obama's radical associations, I won't be surprised if some of you will say what's the big deal, it's just guilty by association. No. Guilty by association is one thing. Guilty by participation is another thing. If you take a more detailed look into each of the asociation, Obama was not necessarily a passive associate, i.e. he did not just sit by the sidelines and watch his beloved friends doing all these henious acts. He participated in acts that certainly are in support of their agenda. For example, Ayers. They both sat in the Woods foundation where Ayers, as the chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, appointed Obama to administer $50 million to advance the project agenda of "education reform" not by improving math and science, but by politizing the student body and "radicalizing them". And guess what group that Obama's administered the fund to: ACORN. What a nice coincidence huh?





We must ask ourselves about Obama and his radical associations:
1) Does he actually share the ideology of these radicals that he associated with?
2) Did he just use these radicals to get ahead in his political career and dump them when it's politically inconvenient? Just like when he disowned Rev. Wright when pressed thousand times by the media (i.e. Fox News!)
3) Was he just a clueless and naive young man from Chicago who had a lot of HOPES to CHANGE the world that have blinded him from seeing what these radicals are all about
4) Was he just possessed by the alien that wants to take over the earth? **wink**wink**

Answering YES to any one of the questions above, on top of his lack of experience and supporting records for his campaign rhetoric SHOULD be enough reason to not vote for him and disqualify him to be the President of the United States of America.

Lastly, I truly believe that the Main Stream Media and the penetration of US universities by the leftist (and radical) ideology are the predominant culprits of why Barack Obama unfounded rhetoric and radical Associations seem insignificant. Perhaps...just perhaps...people will start paying attention when things that we take for granted, slowly but surely, perish under Obama's presidency:
a) Walmart, Target
b) Quality Education
c) Quality Healthcare
d) Conservative Talk Radio (see Fairness Doctrine)
e) Competitive Pay for Workers
g) Innovativeness
h) Driving your gas guzzlin' SUVs
i) Freedom NOT to support and fund an ideology that you don't believe in (see Freedom of Choice Act, Obama is a proud supporter of this)
Here's an excerpt of Freedom of Choice Act:
By enacting FOCA, we will establish a federal law guaranteeing reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and an anti‐choice Congress are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting even more restrictions on our right to choose.
With a single stroke of the pen, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would wipe away virtually every state law on abortion nationwide, allowing abortion-on-demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason and without any restrictions. And guess what...since it will become a federal law, it is unavoidable that our taxpayers money will be use for this disgraceful act.