Turnabout is fair play

The funniest line I've read in awhile about The ObaMessiah himself: "When it comes to the economy, Obama can see the Soviet Union from his house."

From the comments of a post on the Hot Air blog.

Pad that resume

Just keep tellin' yourself that Palin is the one who lacks experience…

Obama Undertakes Presidential Internship To Ease Concerns About His Lack Of Experience

What's your clearance, Clarence?

When a childhood friend of mine joined the Marines, I got a call from Uncle Sam. He wanted to know how long I'd known Dan. He wanted to know if Dan had ever espoused any radical beliefs, or if he had associated with any groups that had. He asked if Dan had ever lived overseas, or if he had ever said anything that would indicate disloyalty to the U.S.A. They wanted to make sure that he was qualified to receive security clearance he would need to become an intelligence officer. As I understand it, Dan spent the next few years watching a whole lot of al Jazeera.

The point is, the military takes their security pretty seriously. If you come from a radical background, including associations with people or groups that are less-than-patriotic, you probably won't be granted any meaningful level of security acceess. With this in mind, John Washburn, who is ex-military, makes a great point:

[B]ased on Obama’s prior associations, I can safely say that obtaining an upper-level security clearance would be impossible for him. The minute the Pentagon discovered his Wright association alone – never mind the one with a domestic terrorist – he would be denied access to any significant national security information. If he joined the military, he would not be granted the most basic security clearance. Yet, as President and Commander in Chief, Obama would have access at the highest level. This man wouldn’t be qualified to be a White House staffer, much less President unless, of course, the American people voted to put him in charge. And there are some who believe his associations don’t matter? Yeah, right.

This reminds me of that old saying about the fox guarding the hen house. Use your vote wisely, American.

My Utopia, your dime

Anthony Esolen lays it out like this. We all hate taxes, but on some level everyone pretty much agrees that they are necessary. While we don't like it, most of us are willing to pay up a bit to support a government that can "do some things that we cannot do, or can hardly do, on our own." Everyone pays in, everyone benefits. It's a fair deal all around.

But what happens when taxes are used not for the sake of something we each have a share in, as roads and armies? Then we might see the tax code used, for instance, as a powerful weapon of social control — and examples of this are everywhere to be found in our country; in fact, it's hard for me to determine whether the tax code as it stands is primarily a revenue gathering device for Washington, or a behavior controlling device…. One can collect taxes in order to rig up a vision of what a utopian society would look like, regardless of the fact that the vision is not shared by everyone, or that there is no tangible and immediate good that the taxes would purchase, in whose benefit everyone would share (as is the case with roads, and possibly with schools). And that's no more than state sanctioned theft.

This is what Obama has in mind when he tells a plumber that it's better for everyone when we "spread the wealth around". When the government can take your money by compulsion (pay up or lose your house and go to jail!) in order to support its social engineering agenda, they (not you) get to decide where that money is spent. While it may make you feel good to think that your tax dollars go to support a homeless shelter in some big city somewhere, have you thought about your tax dollars that went to the Planned Parenthood down the street from it? If you think you have a duty to vote for the guy who will help out the homeless, you might also want to think about your duty to not participate in the slaughter, by the millions, of babies who typically are from the same neighborhood as the homeless guy. You can't take credit for one, but not the other.

100 percent false

If you watched or listened to the debate Wednesday night, you'll remember Barry taking McCain to task, saying that 100% of his ads have been negative. McCain refuted this allegation, and BHO asserted that "It absolutely is true."

Sorry, Barack. It isn't. According to politifact.com, your $3,000 pants are on fire. The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that, to date, 73% of McCain's ads have been negative, compared to 61% of Obama's. If you count the nightly news' coverage of McCain as negative ads (how could you not?), I'd say we're about even.

Here's an ad McCain ran during the DNC, on the night when Barry accepted the party's nomination:

Unless "Job well done" is some sort of coded racial slur (and I'm sure many of his zealots would be able to construe it as such), that ad didn't sound negative to me. They say you're not supposed to use words like "always" and "never" during arguments, and I would guess that "100%" is synonymous with "always" in this case. Certainly Barack knew of at least this one ad, meaning that his 100% claim was false.

So, here's a question for the class. Why did Obama say that 100% of McCain's ads had been negative when he knew it wasn't true? Did he think he could just get away with it? Is this the sort of *change* we need in D.C.?

A good luck tax

In a five minute conversation, Obama tells this guy that the government is entitled to a larger cut of the profits from his small business so that they can "spread the wealth" around a little. Sure, he "respects" the guy's hard work over the last fifteen years, but he also mentions that one of the keys to his success is that he's, "frankly, been lucky".

Obama wants to make sure that "everyone who is behind you has a chance at success." You've got to understand, "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Well, everybody except for the people who are actually earning (i.e. producing) the wealth. As this astute plumber noted, he's "being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream." Why buy another truck? Why hire another plumber? In short, why work harder or invest more into this business just so Barry can take it and give it to someone else who hasn't earned it?

BHO's plan sounds all nice and fuzzy. Let's help the little guys on the bottom. I mean, all they need is "a chance at success." But let's define some terms here. What's the best shot at success the poorest among us have? It's called a job. Do some work. Provide a good or a service. Be compensated for your production. Welcome to America.

Where do jobs come from? Small business owners like our plumber friend from the video. Bobby Eberle explains: "Those at the economic bottom DO NOT create jobs. Those at the economic bottom get hired for jobs. When the economy is robust, more jobs are created, thus more people get hired. There's not a business existing in America today that doesn't want to 'do more business.' In order to grow, more workers must be hired, and more capital purchased." It's these small businesses that Obama thinks should be paying more in taxes. This can only mean less money for paying employees, which translates into lower production, which leads to lower profits, and on and on and on.

I won't even mention the LARGE businesses and, *gasp*, the evil corporations that give lots of people jobs. When you hear politicians talking about BIG BUSINESS building their empires on the backs of the little guy, this is what they are talking about: giving people jobs and paying them for their work. Yes, my employer is building its empire on my back. All I get out of the deal is a paycheck twice a month. Sheesh.

Eberle also does a little quick math in his article showing just how this wealth redistribution strategy affects the economy. The long and short of it is that when the government raises taxes, it takes money out of the economy (duh!), while leaving it in the hands of the guy who actually earned it does nothing but help the economy:

The person could save it, thus giving banks more leverage to do business. The person could invest it, thus helping new or established companies grow. The person could donate some to charity, thus helping organizations at the grassroots level do things more efficiently than the federal government could ever hope to. Or, God forbid, the person could simply go out and buy stuff. Two hundred thousand dollars of stuff is a lot of stuff! Imagine all that cash injected into society. Talk about a stimulus package. More goods being purchased, whether it is cars, clothes, furniture, food, or whatever, means that more jobs will be needed to produce those goods. It's as simple as that.

Instead, Obama would prefer to take money from the people who are doing the work, providing the products and services that propel our economy, in order to give it to people who not producing anything. Like many socialist policies (and make no mistake, that's exactly what Obama is espousing here), this all sounds really *nice* and just and merciful. That, I think, is what has attracted so many Christians to this guy. The problem is that it simply won't work, and will actually make things worse. Let's give small business incentives to hire more people, not fewer. Let's give Americans a reason to work harder, not an excuse to sit at home waiting for money taken from someone who earned it.

What's so bad about it?

Maybe you've already seen this, but…

I'll spare you the Hitler Youth comparisons, but it is important to note that ACORN required all of these youngsters to register to vote before they could join the Choir for Change.

After listening to these little cherubs' chorus about what Barry will do once he's Emperor, I had to wonder why he thinks he needs to "change it… and rearrange it"? Because America just sucks, that's why. Incidentally, I think the "rearrange it" line means that he supports Biden's plan to use the government to take money you have earned away from you to give it to someone else who didn't earn it. Kind of like stealing, only not at all different.

Still a little damp

Despite her claims that Democrats would "create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history", Speaker Pelosi may still have a little cleaning up to do. From Fox News:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband's real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the "culture of corruption" when Republicans did it.

It's tough for me to see how funneling a hundred grand into her husband's business is related to her quest to save the planet, but what do I know?

Speaking of saving the planet, the Obamessiah may actually be saving the world. At least you would think so based on the sources of his campaign funding. On Monday, Newsmax.com reported on the influx of funds the Obama campaign is receiving from foreign sources. Obama has received "more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million." Out of these 11,500 contributions, about 1,400 have come from confirmed U.S. diplomats or military personnel, totaling $201,680 of the $33.8 million, or about .6%. Oddly enough, "U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign." According to the Newsmax article, "Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted."

Such laxity has allowed Obama to receive millions of dollars from contributors in places like Iran, North Korea, Libya, Nigeria, and Palestine. I'm sure all of these donors had our best interests in mind as they slid their credit cards Obama's way.

The article also mentions that Obama has received millions of dollars from undisclosed contributors who allegedly fall below the $200/contributor level at which formal disclosure is required. Almost $223 million has come from such sources. That would require just north of 1.1 million contributors at $200 each. Possible, maybe, but probably not likely. Multiple campaign watchdog groups have asked the Obama campaign for a list of these donors but have never received a response. In contrast, the McCain campaign makes this information available online.

In 2006, Pelosi rode into town claiming that her and her Democrat buddies were going to "change" everything. We've seen how well that went. Now, Barack wants us all to think that he's the candidate of "change". Fool the American voters once, shame on you. Fool the American voters twice… I sure hope not.

John Piper is a single issue voter

John Piper is a self-identified "one issue voter", and here's why:

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office….

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.

Piper goes on to say that he has a conviction to never "vote for a person who endorses such an evil [abortion]—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation."

I couldn't agree more. It shouldn't matter if Obama promises to feed the world's population with five loaves and two fish, and to re-plant the rain forests by the power of his voice. Because he clearly and vigilantly endorses and defends the "right" to stab babies in the skull with scissors, every Christian who thinks biblically should be able to see that he is not qualified to hold this office.

The only argument I could see that would change this would be that both of the "mainstream" candidates (i.e. the two that have any chance of winning) are equally disqualified. I have not heard any arguments about McCain that would make me think that this is the case. At any rate, even if you could convince me that John McCain wants to feed the poor into giant furnaces, emitting harmful greenhouse gasses in the process, that still doesn't change the fact that Obama is not qualified (on moral terms) to receive the vote of a sincere Christian.

Just Say No!

From Red Planet Cartoons:

Quoting Robert Robb: Democrat Platform is for Whiners.

The Democrats have titled their party platform, "Renewing America’s Promise."

A more honest and accurate title would be, "We’ll Give You More."

I would also add that for the socially-conscious Obama supporter, concerned about helping the poor and the oppressed, it might also be titled "We'll Do It For You." Ahh, nobody outsources compassion like a concerned Democrat.