Obama supporter gets first hand experience at redistribution of wealth, doesn’t care for it.

Funny story (also true) a guy goes into a fine restaurant with some friends and orders a large and fairly expensive meal. He learns that the waiter is an Obama supporter and they talk some about the issues. The waiter claims to be all in favor of all of Obama’s ideas, including the redistribution of wealth.

When the meal is over and the check comes, he pays with credit and tells the waiter that he was planning on leaving him a $50 tip. ‘The reason’, he explains ‘that I’m telling you about the tip is because you have earned it, but you cannot have it. See, there is a homeless guy outside who needs the money more than you do. So I’m going to redistribute your wealth to him.’

The homeless guy was very thankful, the waiter was not.

Be careful for what you wish for, you might get it.

FUNNY!

God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael, the archangel,
found him, resting on the seventh day.

He inquired, "Where have you been?"

God smiled deeply and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put life on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a place to test balance."

"Balance?" inquired Michael, "I'm still confused."

God explained, pointing to different parts of earth. "For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over here I've placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of black people. Balance in all things."

God continued pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot, while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel , impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land area and
said, "What's that one?"

"That's Washington State, one of the most glorious places on earth. There are beautiful mountains, rivers and streams, lakes, forests, hills, and plains. The people from Washington State are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous, and they are going to travel the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, carriers of peace, and producers of software."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked, "But what about
balance, God? You said there would be balance."

God smiled, "There's another Washington. Wait until you see the idiots I put there."

Ashamed to be a Conservative?

The conservative party of NY has on issued a Legislative Alert to tell New York Governor Paterson to uphold New York States Law on Cigarette Excise tax on Native Americans.

Not even getting into where the Nation of Native American's should or legally stand on their Reservations, I have a REAL problem with this!

If you take this entire issue down to the basics what the Conservative Party has asked the Governor to do is to insure fairness (i.e. equality) by limiting liberty (i.e. freedom).

Hey guys, is this not a Liberal stance? Why are we not fighting to help the Native American's keep their liberties and limit the control of Government?

The issue that Conservatives should be concerned about is that, once again, New York State has TAXED it's own industries out of a competitive advantage.

How as conservatives can we possibly think the proper course of action is to INCREASE A TAX BURDEN to make things more fair?

This issue has taken us away from our core beliefs as conservatives. Let us refocus on the real issues here and work to limit government and stop taxing ourselves and our industries out of existence!

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? By Orson Scott Card

Check this article out!

Click Here

This is a great editorial, made perhaps even better by the fact that the writer is a democrat!

Media bias has been prevalent for years, I've excepted it for what it is and come to the understanding that they just cannot help themselves. Partisanship is a natural state and it's almost impossible to be un-bias on a subject like politics. Fortunately for us, the media is at last coming right out in the open and admitting it.

OK, not really. Dan Rather DID say straight out when questioned about the recent Biden gaff, that the mainstream media was giving it some coverage as a minor issue but admitted that it would have been front page news on every paper in America if Palin had said the same thing!!!

Even in an interview with Sara Palin when she was asked if she thought Biden was getting pass on his '6 month international incident' comments and she responded with a statement along the lines of 'you guys (speaking to a reporter) would have blow this story sky high rather than bury it', to which the reporter who was conducting the interview for CNBC laughed and AGREED with her!

A study conducted by the media for the media (found on Drudge here) finds that the McCain coverage has been FAR more negative that that of Obama. It does not go as far as to blame media bias (rather it blames McCain himself, go figure), but the fact that they published such a report shows they have no shame!

Obama Test

"Mark my words," said Joe Biden at a Seattle fundraiser on Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy…And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Rush Limbaugh had a field day with Joe Biden today, to the point of even having former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani on for a segment to talk about it. A number of theories as to why on earth Senator Biden would bring this kind of thing up now have already been batted around. I have a different theory than those put forth by others.

Every President is tested, not just John Kennedy. The Obama campaign has already decided that they won the election and are already prepping for their up coming administration. They know that George W. Bush passed the test of 9-11, even if they won’t admit it. They also know that William J. Clinton did not pass the tests of his administration. The Obama camp cannot have their administration ruined by terrorist attack after terrorist attack like occurred during the Clinton administration. Such occurrences would ruin the Obama claim that he is the great unifier. So, they have to adopt the policies of George W. Bush in order to make sure they don’t suffer the same fate as Clinton.

The problem is the Democrats have spent the last 8 years convincing the press and American people that Bush’s policies are wrong! Biden is starting to prepare for the time when Obama is tested and he reacts like Bush with military force.

A Historical Note - 2

Why are the political party symbols the Republican Elephant and Democratic Donkey?

An 1860 issue of Railsplitter and an 1872 cartoon in Harper's Weekly connected elephants with Republicans, but it was Nast who provided the party with its symbol.

Oddly, two unconnected events led to the birth of the Republican Elephant. James Gordon Bennett's New York Herald raised the cry of "Caesarism" in connection with the possibility of a thirdterm try for President Ulysses S. Grant. The issue was taken up by the Democratic politicians in 1874, halfway through Grant's second term and just before the midterm elections, and helped disaffect Republican voters.

While the illustrated journals were depicting Grant wearing a crown, the Herald involved itself in another circulation-builder in an entirely different, nonpolitical area. This was the Central Park Menagerie Scare of 1874, a delightful hoax perpetrated by the Herald. They ran a story, totally untrue, that the animals in the zoo had broken loose and were roaming the wilds of New York's Central Park in search of prey.

Cartoonist Thomas Nast took the two examples of the Herald enterprise and put them together in a cartoon for Harper's Weekly. He showed an ass (symbolizing the Herald) wearing a lion's skin (the scary prospect of Caesarism) frightening away the animals in the forest (Central Park). The caption quoted a familiar fable: "An ass having put on a lion's skin roamed about in the forest and amused himself by frightening all the foolish animals he met within his wanderings."

One of the foolish animals in the cartoon was an elephant, representing the Republican vote - not the party, the Republican vote - which was being frightened away from its normal ties by the phony scare of Caesarism. In a subsequent cartoon on November 21, 1874, after the election in which the Republicans did badly, Nast followed up the idea by showing the elephant in a trap, illustrating the way the Republican vote had been decoyed from its normal allegiance. Other cartoonists picked up the symbol, and the elephant soon ceased to be the vote and became the party itself: the jackass, now referred to as the donkey, made a natural transition from representing the Herald to representing the Democratic party that had frightened the elephant.

--From William Safire's New Language of Politics, Revised edition, Collier Books, New York, 1972

McCain Kills at the Al Smith Dinner

Part One


Part Two

Comrade Obama says he can afford to pay more taxes

During the Presidential debate, comrade Obama said that he, his friend Warren Buffet and other’s like them could afford to pay more in taxes. Now I don’t have comrade Obama’s 2007 tax return, but I did get some information off the Internet.

See, I was wondering, sense there is no reason that you can’t pay more tax than required, just how much more Obama (who clearly feels the government needs more money) overpaid to ‘spread his own wealth around’.

It seems that comrade Obama made $4,238,165 last year and paid $1,396,772 in federal taxes. The highest income tax bracket is 35% for all income over $366,650. Obama paid a total tax of 32.9% on his reported income.

Doesn’t look like he paid any extra. In fact, comrade Obama reported making charitable contributions totaling $240,370. The only reason charitable contributions would show up on a tax return is for the tax deduction you get for them. Why comrade, I thought you could afford to pay more, why would take any tax deductions?

Not to worry, I’m sure your friend Warren Buffet didn’t have a veritable army of tax accountants find him every deduction and loophole possible. I’m sure he paid more than the absolute minimum he could legally get away with.

It made a nice sound bite and sounds good to the voter, I'm willing to share your pain kind of stuff. Not really leading by example though.

Please note, the above image of Barack Obama is photoshopped, I am unaware of any actual photo's of him in a soviet army uniform or of his standing in the communist party.

Reaction to 3rd Debate

I’m sure that all the post-debate polls will call Obama the winner. I respectfully disagree. I thought McCain, despite having the harder positions did a great job! At least McCain did a great job once he got past the socialist massive government bailout portion of the debate and started talking like a conservative.

"We're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around. I want Joe the plumber to spread the wealth around," was McCain’s winning line. I wish he had the time to explain why this is better for our Country, our Capitalist Country, than comrade Obama’s plan, but at least he got it out there. Few things could have expressed the differences between the two better.

Well, McCain’s slip of the tongue calling comrade Obama ‘Senator Government’ might have expressed it just as well, but I have a feeling that will be overlooked. I though it was funny as hell.

McCain attacked and attacked, calling comrade Obama on issue after issue. I believe that strategy achieved results that will really resonate with thinking voters. We know not everybody who votes thinks, but at least some of the undecided out there will now be able to really see the difference between the two.

Thinking voters are important to us. It is unfortunate that some don’t think and really look at the issues, because comrade Obama talks a good game. Hell, he can and did promise that wouldn’t raise taxes on 96% of Americans and to anyone who doesn’t think about that, it sound really good. Of course comrade Obama didn’t explain to those Americans what raising taxes on business that make more than $250,000 would do to the economy, their retirement, their investments or their jobs, but then we couldn’t expect him to. It would have been great if McCain explain it.

I am reminded of a Ronald Regan quote “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

I must say, I'm looking forward to the 'Drive-By' Media tell me I'm wrong and that Obama won and McCain with his cruel attacks put off voters.

Barack ‘Robin Hood’ Obama?

Sunday in Toledo Ohio, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama was questioned by Joe Wurzelbacher a plumber who works 10-12 hours a day and has been working and planning to buy the company he works for. A company that he hopes will make more than $250,000 a year. Wurzelbacher wanted to know if the Obama tax plan would raise the taxes on his small business.

Barack ‘Robin Hood’ Obama said it would and followed up with his tickle-up theory of economics; "It's not that I want to punish your success, I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too… My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Man I don’t know were to start. First Robin Hood is credited with robbing from the rich to give to the poor. A closer view of the Robin Hood myth shows that what Robin Hood did was rob from Nobles, I.E. government, and give to peasants. The reason he did this was because of high taxes. Thus calling Barack Obama Robin Hood doesn’t fit. Please stop insulting a fictional character by comparing him to a tax and spend liberal.

Comrade Obama’s tax plan of equal distribution of wealth DOES punish success! The way he himself describes it, his plan is far from something a capitalist system would tolerate. Hell, it’s not even socialist, this is right from the communist playbook!

Perhaps Comrade Obama feels guilty about his brother who lives in a shack in Kenya on less than a dollar a month while he’s one step away from becoming the most power man in the world. Maybe that’s the reason for his extreme redistribution of wealth tax plan. On thing for sure, he’s spent too much time listening to his spiritual leader Jeremiah Wright. Instead of praying for God to Dam America, Comrade Obama should be on his knees Thanking God he’s lives in America.

The good Reverend Wright may well have his prayers answered, God may well Dam America, we might have Comrade Obama as our President.

You've got to check this website out!

A nice clean resource for the political newbe and vet alike.

http://www.conservative-resources.com/index.html

I added this site to the link section too.

OMG this is too funny.

Check this out! Tim Mahoney Elected to Remove 'Ethical Cloud' of His Disgraced Predecessor, Mark Foley pays $121,000 in hush money to his mistress!

A Historical Note

Why are Conservatives ‘Right-Wing’ and Liberals ‘Left-Wing’. It’s taken from the French. Ick. The left/right terminology in politics appeared during the French Revolution in 1789, as radicals would sit on the left-hand side of the President and moderates on the right-hand side. This practice continues in the French National Assembly to the present day. Kind of makes me what to change the terminology. Think we could get the Libs to agree to ‘Correct-Wing’ and ‘Wrong-Wing’?

Joe Biden's Campaign Advice to John McCain

“It’s not a useful time to be running an ad that says the guy consorts with terrorists,” –Sen. Joe Biden on a recent McCain campaign ad.

Oh really? Perhaps then the Senator could offer us a reasonable explanation as to why someone who wants to be President of the United States of America associates with an unrepentant radical and terrorist like Bill Ayers.

Maybe we should focus on his association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

Nope, can’t do that either according to Biden. The VP hopeful feels that it’s ‘unheathy’.

Question is, unhealthy to whom? It’s not good for Obama, that’s for sure. By the way Joe, it’s also not really healthy to respond to ‘attack ads’ without using facts disprove them. Makes people think you are scared of them…

One last thought Joe, you say that if McCain attacks Obama on his associations with Ayers and Wright during the Wednesday October 15th debate he “will regret for the rest of his life having an incredible career getting cast aside.” I wonder which the American people will regret more; McCain attacking Obama or Obama as President of the United States.

Almost makes you wish for a Clinton.

Criminals For Gun Control

Shining the bright light of Accountablility for House Speaker Pelosi

Kudos’s to Nancy Pelosi on her statement regarding the monster financial bailout, it really is too bad she doesn’t mean any of it.
"The eye now is to the future. To shine the bright light of accountability on what is happening in our financial markets so that it doesn't happen again. That accountability will tell us how we got to this place and ferret out the abuses. That accountability will honor our trust to the American people.” – Nancy Pelosi D-Cal Speaker of the house.
“To shine the bright light of accountability” implies that it is the intention of Congress to figure out what happened, what went wrong and make sure it doesn’t happen again. “ferret out the abuses” implies that Congress wants to know who’s to blame.

Except Congress already knows what happened and who’s to blame. Congress happened and Congress is to blame. Not that they will admit it of course. They will find some Executives who profited during the last few years and ‘failed to warn the American people’ or ‘failed to correct the problem’ throw them to the wolves, make up a bunch of new, even more restrictive rules and pat themselves on the backs while scrambling to take credit for it.
Let’s do a little thinking here…
Who establishes the rules and regulations for the banking industry in this country? Who manages the oversight of these rules and regulation? Congress does. So if the system was broken, whose fault is it?
Now the banking industry is part of the private sector and is responsible for its’ own profit and losses. Banking, in general, doesn’t routinely engage in bad business like making loans to people who won’t be able to pay them back. I'm not saying that banks don’t make loans that end up not being paid back, they have, they just don’t make it policy. So why did banks, and other such money loaning intuitions, make so many loans to so many people that really couldn’t afford them? Answer – because Congress told them to.
Not directly of course. Congress didn’t say to the banks "we want you to give home loans to people who cannot pay them back". What they said was it’s not fair that lower income people or people with poor credit cannot purchase their own home; we need to do something to help them. What they did was to pressure Fannie Mae to ease the credit requirement on loans it purchased from banks and other lenders. The Clinton Administration (in 1999), backed by Congress (sadly, a republican controlled congress), wanted Fannie Mae to buy loans were little or no money was put down and to buy loans where the persons who took out the loan was in a lower income bracket or had poor credit. When Fannie Mae complained that buying up worthless assets like that would hurt their balance sheets and thus their stock prices, Congress changed banking rules and accounting practices so the worthless assets would show-up, on company balance sheets, as worth the full value of the loan when fully paid off, which of course most of them would never be. This is important because the full paid value of the loan is worth a whole lot more than the value of the house the loan is based on thanks to the way mortgages compound interest over the life of the loan.
The effect was exactly what Congress wanted. Banks and other lenders were now loaning money for home mortgages to people they normally wouldn’t, because Fannie Mae was buying these mortgages from the original lenders. And because Fannie Mae, who had a history of making good business decisions and profitability, was buying these loans, other investment groups continued to purchase loans, from Fannie Mae as long-term investments.
So, Congress got to feel good about themselves because they encouraged home ownership and helped lots of low income people get the home of their dreams. The Banks were happy because they could give more and more mortgage to people to buy houses and then sell the mortgage for a profit. Fannie Mae was happy because it could buy and thus sell more mortgages for a profit. The housing market boomed which drove prices up which made both local governments happy (more property taxes) and home-building construction companies happy (more work building new homes).
And all was right with the world. Until oil prices shot-up. Then the price of everything else shot-up. Interest rates went up and adjustable rate mortgages adjusted. The houses that a lot of people bought were now way too expensive for them. Because the monthly payment on the loan went up and the price of necessities (you know, gas, food, that kind of stuff) went up they could no longer afford the monthly payments on their home. They didn’t have a lot of money invested in the house and because the loans weren’t even close to being paid off, and they put no money down, they have no equity in the house. Thus the loan defaults. Suddenly the assist owned by whomever is no longer worth the full value of the loan; it is now worth only the value of the house. A house whose value is falling because the housing market is suddenly over-priced and the poor economy means no one is buying.
Enter $700,000,000,000 of taxpayer money to buy up these loans (not the houses, the value of the now or soon to be defaulted loan). Money that will never be recouped unless the loan is paid or house is resold (hopefully when the housing market is back up and prices are as high as when the house was bought the first time) by the government and they can re-sell the mortgage at full price.
Enter Nancy Pelosi looking for accountability. The question we need to ask is; did the market fail and make bad business decisions or did the government interference in the market cause/force bad business decisions?
Let’s face facts. With the current economic problems, lots of folks have problems making ends meet. The home foreclosure rate would be going up one way or the other (usually does when the economy goes south). Would it be this bad? Well, the market wasn’t making loans that were all but guaranteed to default in hard economic times until the government got involved. So no, not even close to this bad. Once again, we see good government intentions backfire because it didn’t understand the market or the real problem.
So Nancy, you want to know who’s at fault, next time you bang the gavel and call Congress to order, take a look around the chamber, you’ll see all the nice people who abused their power and caused the problem. Is the light bright enough for you?

"545 People" by Charlie Reese

545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.

The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!