|
|
|
|
More Government Does Not Represent "Change"
It’s appalling that a candidate who has reached out to young Americans
with the lifeline of hope and change wants to foster a culture of
dependence, and, even worse, selfishness. Every sacrifice of independence
Obama asks me to make is an appeal to this cardinal sin of youth – the
government owes me health care, the government owes me a share of the fiscal
prosperity others have worked so hard to gain.
Elisabeth Meinecke: From her essay "The Anti-JFK" Posted at
Human
Events Online 10/09/2008.
Rowan Scarborough
on "The
Media's Vendetta Against Sarah Palin"
"Conservatives know by now that the dominant
liberal media is not just out to criticize Gov. Sarah Palin. They are on a
drive to destroy her. But conservatives are missing the reason why...She
went from mom, to mayor, to governor -- an astounding rise to power that
should be applauded by feminists. But because she is a conservative, none of
that matters...
What liberals are after today are not the economic liberalism
of the 1930s or civil rights of the 1960s. They want a complete overhaul of
American social values. They want to redefine marriage, the military, the
work place, religion -- in other words, the nation's values.
The pro-life, pro-gun Palin, age 44, is the first conservative on the scene
since Reagan who can threaten that socialistic agenda with a political
counter-insurgency." Source:
Human Events. |
Trapped
Within the Rhetoric
Sometimes
the past and present are of limited use as guides to the future.
This is surely one of those times. We haven't even begun to understand
the implications and consequences of the financial crisis that has burst
upon us.
Neither of the two men who have been nominated by their
parties for president is perfect for this challenging moment.
But one is
far less imperfect than the other.
One is an orthodox and timid liberal, personally ambitious but
intellectually conventional.
For all his talk of hope and change, when
has Barack Obama ever shown a willingness to break with liberal
orthodoxy or Democratic dogma? What bold decision has he taken, what
idea, unpopular with liberal Democrats, has he embraced?
The odd truth about Obama is that, for
all his unsavory radical associations--and they are unsavory and a
legitimate issue in the campaign--he's not radical enough for the times
and challenges we face. William Kristol...Editor
in Chief of The Weekly Standard
Previous Blog Page |
| The
Mainstream Media is a Subsidiary of the Obama Campaign Amid all the
hype surrounding the presidential campaign, key facts about the origin
of the mortgage crisis that led to the financial meltdown have gotten
lost.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who sought the Democratic Party’s nomination
in the primaries, has acknowledged that “the root cause of this is the
housing foreclosure crisis.”
As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd should know. His
committee passed key legislation in 1999 that deregulated the mortgage
industry under pressure from community organizers such as ACORN, which
was getting federal money to promote affordable housing, and from
free-wheeling mortgage lenders such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who
wanted to expand their lending portfolio and book larger profits.
“Bill Ayers, ACORN, voter fraud,
Obama’s funny money, the subprime implosion, the works. It’s time for
Armageddon.”
The 1999 Graham-Leach-Bliley deregulation
bill, which a majority of Senate Democrats supported, forced mortgage
lenders to make sub-prime loans to families who couldn’t afford to buy
houses by offering them interest-only loans, no income verification, and
teaser adjustable interest rates.
If the banks refused to make the shaky loans, they would have been hit
with big penalties for failing to advance the cause of affordable
housing.
Only eight senators, including McCain, bucked the current
and voted against the 1999 deregulation plan, which even the liberal
Brookings Institution condemned.
In a tally of all congressional
recipients of campaign cash from Fannie and Freddie from 1989 until 2008
compiled by the center-left Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Dodd
comes out No. 1.
Surprisingly, the second-largest-recipient of money from the two
delinquent government-backed mortgage lenders for the same period was
Barack Obama, even though he has been in the U.S. Senate for only three years.
Obama took in $126,349 from Fannie and Freddie since coming to the U.S.
Senate in 2005, while Dodd took in $165,400 since 1989, according to
CRP.
That put Obama’s annual receipts from the failed mortgage lenders at
nearly five times what Dodd took in.
In 2003, President Bush appealed to
Congress to create a new regulatory agency that would oversee Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac.
During hearings the following year, Democrats in Congress, led by Dodd
and Rep. Barney Frank, now the chairman of the House subcommittee in
charge of regulating the industry, vigorously opposed the
administration’s efforts.
Kenneth R.
Timmerman at Newsmax.com
|
Obamanomics
This summer, when oil prices were at
all-time highs at more than $140 a barrel, Sen. Barack Obama bitterly
complained about big oil, oil speculators, and windfall profits and
demanded new taxes on energy. Obama denied the economic principles of
supply and demand had driven prices higher. Obama blamed high prices on
the greed of big corporations and speculators, and he told America that
he alone could fix the problem with new energy taxes and "windfall
profits" taxes.
Obama got it all wrong. It wasn't greed.
It wasn't big oil. It wasn't speculators. There was no need for more
energy taxes or a new "windfall profits tax" which would only be paid by
consumers at the pump and further shackle the economy. Obama could not
have been more simplistic in his analysis or more wrong in his policy
pronouncements. Obama's energy plan
is superficial and naive. He proposes a "windfall profit tax" but fails
to define what such a profit is. How does one distinguish an ordinary
profit from a "windfall profit"? Even at their record highs, oil company
profits are in line with other industrial profit rates -- roughly 9
percent.
So does Obama believe that a 9 percent profit is an "outrageous windfall
profit"? If so, should every company that is successful and earns 9
percent or more have the government confiscate those profits as a
"windfall profit"? In 2007, the chemical industry earned an average
profit of 12.7 percent. The electronics and appliances industry earned
14.5 percent in profits. The computer industry earned profits of 13.7
percent. Are these "windfall profits" that Obama will confiscate?
If failing banks were as successful as
Warren Buffet's gaudy 29 percent profits, we'd all be happy with a
record strong economy.
But not Barack Obama. He would be carping about big chemicals, big
electronics, big computers, or big Buffet. He would be demanding that
government confiscate those profits because, in his own words, profits
in excess of 9 percent are "outrageous."
The past month has shown that we should be pulling for banks, investment
firms and every company to have what Obama calls "outrageous" profits.
Such profits would mean a strong economy, more jobs, and income growth.
That is not greed. And it is not bad. It would be welcome good news.
Barack Obama doesn't understand basic economics. And because he doesn't
understand the economy, he cannot be trusted to "fix" it. You can't fix
something you do not remotely understand. He misunderstood the problem
so he prescribed the wrong medicine. Imagine going to a phony doctor who
knows nothing about medicine. Would you take the prescriptions he gave?
It is no less foolish to trust Obama's economic prescriptions.
George Landrith...is the President of the
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and a graduate of the University of
Virginia School of Law. As an adjunct professor at the George Mason
School of Law, Mr. Landrith has taught constitutional law, appellate
advocacy, and legal writing. Source: Clueless on Economics @
Human Events Online. |
The Blogs
Posted October 28, 2008
Previous Blog Page
One
Week
Two Weeks
Posted October 20, 2008
Two weeks left in the
campaign. As the political "experts" say, anything can happen.
Apparently the liberal mainstream media and various political pundits are
trying their damnedest to communicate to voters that they should "presume"
an Obama victory.
We hope that the Independents
and Undecideds out there will continue to closely analyze the issues and
positions, and come to the ultimate realization of how far left the country
will go if Obama is elected with such a ruthlessly liberal majority in
Congress.
We have posted a variation of this point on
the Florida page via
several other issues.
As the Economist magazine said: "...He
toes the most liberal line on late-term and partial-birth abortion.
Even a highly experienced Democratic president with a record of bucking his
party would find it hard to tame a large Democratic majority in Congress.
A neophyte with a record of going along to get along could find it
impossible."
Being aware of the perception that he
is inexperienced at governing, in repositioning a number of his
extreme left positions during the last time-frame of this campaign, Obama is
trying to present someone who can be "pragmatic" as a requirement for
leadership.
While keeping in mind that his
(minimal - next to nothing at best) repositioning should always be suspected
of being a campaign tactic only ... there are two serious questions for
Independents and Undecideds.
(1) How committed to these
minimal repositions is the candidate? (Rely on your intelligence, not the liberal
mainstream media, to answer that question for you.)
And (2) Even if you believe
Obama is committed to those minimal shifts; Has he ever displayed in
practice the extremely difficult skills of saying "No" to the radical left wing
(represented by Moveon.org, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) of his party as it
would pertain to a policy?
Our stand is: The answer to both those
questions is NO.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell
has, not surprisingly, endorsed Obama and even called the candidate a
"transformational figure."
We understand the historic nature of
Obama being the first black man to be the Presidential nominee of a major
party, and that in itself, is a "transformational" scenario.
Beyond that though, we see no evidence
that Obama's "change" mantra has any basis in reality. In fact, it
appears that Obama's call for "change" is simply asking voters to change
their views of the same old liberal policies simply because he is the first
black man who could potentially be President, and then govern with those same
policies.
We have, since the early days of the
campaign, considered it a troubling duplicity for Obama and his liberal
supporters in the media to presume Obama should get a free political ride regarding his
associations with William Ayers and the reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Obama has been given, graciously, a free ride from the sharp
witted, elder statesman and Senate colleague John McCain regarding the
negative associations Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright call
up in the minds of people because the tactic, in the case of Jeremiah
Wright, has for some reason become defined as "racist."
Continued at "One Week" above.
Read
what one of the world's most widely respected and thoughtful magazines, and
considered more centrist than conservative, has to say about the book
"The Case Against Obama."
|
LightBook productions
C o m m u n i c a t i o n s
The Right Parallels:
McCain's VP Pick
Strategic thought you can
count on!
We
are pleased to report that our 1st quarter of year two publication (ending
June 30, 2008) continued to reflect increases in site visitors. The site was
very active during the quarter with over 4200 visitors and page
views from
50
countries and 121 cities worldwide. You can check out more stat
information and read
other content at
palmerhasty.com
Thank you very
much for your visit
to the site.
|
|
|
In the final debate Wednesday
night Senator Obama reiterated his energy policy plans that mimic those of
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Obama said that as a "President" he would "look into" offshore drilling.
That is dishonest, rhetorical code meaning as a President he will work with
Pelosi and Reid to figure out how many billions of dollars they can "punish"
the oil companies with via taxes and regulation before they will even
consider offshore drilling.
Obama and his
ultra liberal associates in Congress will be using the "existing federal
leases" (where everyone knows there is very little oil to drill for) as a
negative, non-productive negotiating tool which would be at this juncture, a
dangerous waste of time and energy.
As McCain
pointed out in the final debate; think it through and you will find
underneath Obama's smooth and studied rhetoric, on just about every issue there is
a typical socialist mentality unable or unwilling to think outside an
intellect boxed-in by anachronistic socialist policies based on the lowest common denominator.
(See Obamanomics in the
center column to the left.)
It is important: Go to this
link to stay informed as
to the realities of energy security for America and to keep the pressure
on Congress to produce an energy package that includes lifting the
moratorium on off-shore drilling and allows for drilling in ANWR.
Regarding executive
experience...Governor Palin, in structuring that pipeline deal to deliver natural gas into America via Canada is probably more than Congress
has done to improve our energy independence in how long?
Sometimes
experience can be measured, revealed, and trusted not only in how long
someone has done something,
rather sometimes in
how one does it.
As someone like that increases knowledge in a given scenario, you simply
bank your trust on believing they will know what to do with that
knowledge.
|
Lightbookproductions
digitalphotogallery
New
Galleries
"Egret at the Mall"
Copyright ©
LightBookproductions.com
2005-2008
All Rights Reserved.
Photo:
Palmer Hasty:
Clearwater, Florida. 2008
Canon Power Shot 560
From Europe
In the Blogs center column read what one of
the world's most widely respected and thoughtful magazines, and considered
more centrist than conservative, has to say about
the book
"The Case Against Obama."
|
|
Here we post impromptu Blogs on current issues that reflect our