Anyway, here are some fun cartoons to send you off into your weekend. Enjoy!
And, finally, in the spirit of Halloween...
Have a great (and safe) weekend!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Fun & Frivolity: Cartoons
I may or may not do some posting over the weekend...I've got a ton of stuff that I'd like to post before election day, but we'll see how much time I have.
Anyway, here are some fun cartoons to send you off into your weekend. Enjoy!
And, finally, in the spirit of Halloween...
Have a great (and safe) weekend!
Anyway, here are some fun cartoons to send you off into your weekend. Enjoy!
And, finally, in the spirit of Halloween...
Have a great (and safe) weekend!
Earth-Shattering News: McCain Takes The Lead!!!
McCain 48%, Obama 47%!!!
Gateway Pundit also posts this great new McCain ad:
Good stuff!
The last four days should be veeeeery interesting to watch...
There's my two cents.
Drudge is reporting:Okay, steady now...it's just one poll, and it's just one point. Still, this should underscore the idea that this race is anything but over. And, despite all the media shielding, all the spinning, all the massive overspending (as much as 4-to-1 or 5-to-1 in some states), the fact that McCain could take the lead in any poll by any margin is earth-shattering! Is this a guarantee of a McCain victory? Of course not. But, it's got to be extremely disheartening for the Obama campaign.ZOGBY SATURDAY: McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday poll. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all...The AP reported today that 1 in 7 voters are still persuadable.
This is NOT good news for the Obama Campaign.
Gateway Pundit also posts this great new McCain ad:
Good stuff!
The last four days should be veeeeery interesting to watch...
There's my two cents.
Negotiating Over The Price
Hot Air posts an excellent way to think about socialism that we need to consider (since that's essentially what we'll get with Obama and a supermajority Dem Congress):
Some wise words from a blog I stumbled across that illustrate this well:
Stop and think about it for a moment: if the government owns a stake in your mortgage, your bank, your job, and your medical care, what else do you have left that is truly yours?
Exactly.
Now do you see why this socialization of America is such a horrendously bad idea? Spread the word, and speak with your vote.
There's my two cents.
This is exactly right! You can't be just partly socialist - you either stand for your principles, or you don't. This again comes back to the creep of liberalism, where each little step down the slope becomes a permanent gain. Each concession from conservative philosophy is one that we won't get back. You can compromise on details and gray areas, but you simply cannot compromise on core principles. Saying you'll accept partial socialism and then haggling over exactly how much you'll accept is exactly like the prostitute haggling over the price of her services. Moving to socialism -- spreading the wealth around -- is not only a compromise, but an outright surrender on conservative principles of freedom and liberty.Charles Krauthammer wrote a definitive piece last week [which can be found here] on why the nation should support John McCain over Barack Obama. At least, it seemed definitive, but apparently Krauthammer had more to add. In what looks like the longest post-script in history, Krauthammer details the similarities and differences between Obama and McCain, and draws at least one important distinction for dispirited conservatives:
A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.
This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary. Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited — $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending — as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.
Of course, this is the point that conservatives opposing the bailout made all along. The government can't be trusted to make these solutions temporary, especially with Congress in the hands of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Allowing the partial nationalization of banking and insurance companies ceded important philosophical and political ground to the statists, and instead the direction of the bailout should have been limited to fixing what government broke in the first place: the mortgage-backed securities that infected the entire system.
Think of it in terms of an old joke. A man approaches a beautiful woman at a bar and asks if she will have sex with him for a million dollars. She says, "For a million dollars? Sure!" The man hands her a $100 bill, and she throws it in his face, saying, "What do you think I am?" He replies, "We've already established what you are. Now we're just negotiating over price."
In other words, one cannot become a temporary statist without giving credibility to statism.
After noting that both candidates have talked about the necessity of bipartisanship, Krauthammer warns that Obama won't need to be bipartisan while Congress is controlled by Reid and Pelosi:
Obama, on the other hand, talks less and less about bipartisanship, his calling card during his earlier messianic stage. He does not need to. If he wins, he will have large Democratic majorities in both houses. And unlike Clinton in 1992, Obama is no centrist.
And Obama has no track record at all of bipartisanship. McCain has a long history of working across the aisle, to the consternation of his party at times, but Obama has none. In an Obama administration with a Democratic Congress, Republicans will become irrelevant for at least the next two years. The only bipartisanship Obama will show will be to name a couple of Republicans as advisers, people who will keep those positions only as long as they can stomach being mouthpieces for policy they won't influence one single degree.
Krauthammer says it won't be the end of the world, and he's right. We survived the Great Society and the Jimmy Carter presidency, too. Unfortunately, we haven't yet gotten past the economic and foreign-policy hangovers of either yet, and we certainly don't need to add to that burden with the sharp left turn we'll get in four years of Barack Obama's leadership.
Some wise words from a blog I stumbled across that illustrate this well:
If a man owns your house, your bank account, your job, and your health care, he owns you. Period.
Stop and think about it for a moment: if the government owns a stake in your mortgage, your bank, your job, and your medical care, what else do you have left that is truly yours?
Exactly.
Now do you see why this socialization of America is such a horrendously bad idea? Spread the word, and speak with your vote.
There's my two cents.
Viva La Racism!
One would think that ushering in the first black President would put racism to bed in this country, right? Not so:
See? The race industry is alive and well, and will not go away just because Obama wins.
Don't accept the narrative that the liberal media has set up. If you don't vote for Obama, you're not a racist. Though the Left may not have the intellectual honesty to accept it, the fact is that people will refuse to vote for Obama for any number of reasons: he's a Democrat, he's a liberal, he's a socialist, he's got too many sketchy friends, etc. Race may have something to do with it for a tiny fraction of the public, but for every one of those I would imagine you'll find at least one who supports Obama purely because of race, too. It's a wash, and it's a ridiculous assertion that's more an intimidation tactic than something that has a basis in fact.
Nevertheless, we can expect some rioting after the election, and it's a safe assumption that it won't be the Quakers throwing the firebombs, if you know what I mean. The media and the Obama campaign have been setting this up as a racial contest for weeks, so the expectation has been set, and we'll probably get it regardless of who wins. Look at what happened when the Phillies won the World Series a couple days ago:
Can you imagine what it will be like if Obama actually loses? Police forces are already preparing for the worst.
The big problem is that this race is very, very tight. Polls show it across the board (except for the die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers), McCain is now leading on the economy and taxes, and they are talking very confidently about a number of states that are supposedly in Obama's win column. Now, we find out that there's an under-the-radar movement in the House that would indicate a surprising lack of the landslide that the Dems are looking for. On a generic ballot, the GOP is looking better than they have in three years.
Why do I bring all this up? Because these race riots will be completely unfounded. They are based on a lie perpetrated by the liberal Left (both the media and the Obama campaign itself), who have been saying this election is over when it is, in reality, a very close call. Sure, Obama may still win. That's no excuse to riot. Even if he loses, it's no excuse to riot.
Either way, if we see violence, destruction, or death on November 5th, let the record show that it will be squarely on the shoulders of the liberal Left for creating and encouraging those conditions.
Viva la racism!
There's my two cents.
We heard in the primaries that the only way Obama could possibly lose to Hillary was if those ignorant rubes in the American public (specifically, Democrats voting in the primary) were racist. Then, we were told that the only possible way Obama could lose against John McCain was if those ignorant rubes in the American public (specifically, everyone) were racist. Now, we're being told that even if we do elect Obama, we're still racist.Even if you vote for Obama, you're still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, in his remarks at recent events like a panel discussion at my alma mater. Ogletree, Obama's top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is "biracial," his election won't prove that racism has receded. White America won't vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama's election is possible only because he's partly white. The ABA Journal predicts that Ogletree, who has long advocated race-based reparations, will be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration.
Legal commentator Walter Olson notes that Ogletree has attracted controversy over his association with Al Sharpton and history of plagiarism.
See? The race industry is alive and well, and will not go away just because Obama wins.
Don't accept the narrative that the liberal media has set up. If you don't vote for Obama, you're not a racist. Though the Left may not have the intellectual honesty to accept it, the fact is that people will refuse to vote for Obama for any number of reasons: he's a Democrat, he's a liberal, he's a socialist, he's got too many sketchy friends, etc. Race may have something to do with it for a tiny fraction of the public, but for every one of those I would imagine you'll find at least one who supports Obama purely because of race, too. It's a wash, and it's a ridiculous assertion that's more an intimidation tactic than something that has a basis in fact.
Nevertheless, we can expect some rioting after the election, and it's a safe assumption that it won't be the Quakers throwing the firebombs, if you know what I mean. The media and the Obama campaign have been setting this up as a racial contest for weeks, so the expectation has been set, and we'll probably get it regardless of who wins. Look at what happened when the Phillies won the World Series a couple days ago:
Philly fans engaged in their usual classy fashion, including robbing a bank to pay for new World Series championship gear. ... Other fans went crazy. Still more Philly fans decided to trash the city; overturning cars, setting fires, rioting, and doing what Philly fans are best known for - acting like a bunch of unruly surly people.
Can you imagine what it will be like if Obama actually loses? Police forces are already preparing for the worst.
The big problem is that this race is very, very tight. Polls show it across the board (except for the die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers), McCain is now leading on the economy and taxes, and they are talking very confidently about a number of states that are supposedly in Obama's win column. Now, we find out that there's an under-the-radar movement in the House that would indicate a surprising lack of the landslide that the Dems are looking for. On a generic ballot, the GOP is looking better than they have in three years.
Why do I bring all this up? Because these race riots will be completely unfounded. They are based on a lie perpetrated by the liberal Left (both the media and the Obama campaign itself), who have been saying this election is over when it is, in reality, a very close call. Sure, Obama may still win. That's no excuse to riot. Even if he loses, it's no excuse to riot.
Either way, if we see violence, destruction, or death on November 5th, let the record show that it will be squarely on the shoulders of the liberal Left for creating and encouraging those conditions.
Viva la racism!
There's my two cents.
Ohio Puzzle Now Complete
A few days ago I blogged about how ACORN has engaged in a serious attempt to steal Ohio for Barack Obama. While it is well known that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is a hyper-partisan who is holding back 200,000 obviously (not just possibly, but obviously) fraudulent voter registrations and votes, she was still maintaining at least the pretense that she was doing her job. Now we have the last piece of the puzzle, via The Jawa Report:
Well, I suppose this could indicate why she's been engaging in illegal activities on behalf of Barack Obama, now, couldn't it?
All you folks in Ohio, you'd better start screaming loud and fast, or your state will be in even worse trouble than it already is. On a related note, here's another story of a Democrat perpetrating voter fraud in Ohio.
You know, I'd just like to pose the obvious question of the day: why is it that literally every single instance of confirmed voter fraud involves Democrats? While I'd guess there would be at least some fraud on the GOP side of things, I cannot recall seeing a single confirmed instance of it. It makes one think, doesn't it? Hmmm...
There's my two cents.
It seems that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is closely tied to the leadership of ACORN.
So our Secretary of State shares a campaign advisor with ACORN, takes direction from ACORN's voter registration arm, and refuses to verify over 200,000 mismatched registrations while claiming there is no voter fraud going on in Ohio...and that attention to such frivolous issues distracts her from doing her job.Typically, one would expect the SecState to investigate allegations of voter fraud and take corrective action. Strangely, it seems that Brunner spends all her time saying that (1) there is no voter fraud or (2) voter fraud is too hard to correct.
Well, I suppose this could indicate why she's been engaging in illegal activities on behalf of Barack Obama, now, couldn't it?
All you folks in Ohio, you'd better start screaming loud and fast, or your state will be in even worse trouble than it already is. On a related note, here's another story of a Democrat perpetrating voter fraud in Ohio.
You know, I'd just like to pose the obvious question of the day: why is it that literally every single instance of confirmed voter fraud involves Democrats? While I'd guess there would be at least some fraud on the GOP side of things, I cannot recall seeing a single confirmed instance of it. It makes one think, doesn't it? Hmmm...
There's my two cents.
Diagnosing Obot-ism
I've often looked on in stunned wonderment at the other-worldly ability of Barack the Obamessiah's followers to ignore facts and reality. Sure, the media is carrying his water, shielding him from negative press and offering a continuous stream of fluffy warm fuzzy pieces to prop up his many deficiencies. But, even the media bias only goes so far, because some things have gotten out on a mass scale despite their best containment efforts. Both the Rev. Wright hate-speech and the spread-the-wealth comment have gotten a lot of play, even in the mainstream media, but Obots have only gotten more rabid in their support of their candidate in such a way that it truly does approach religious zeal (thus the mocking 'Obamessiah' nickname), complete with tears and fainting.
So, what is driving these Obots in their fervor?
Before getting into this, I want to be very clear: when I say Obots, I'm not talking about all Obama supporters or all people who will vote for Obama. There are plenty of people who support Obama because of his positions on the issues. I get that, and respect all of you. You're supposed to support your candidate because of what he or she will do if elected to office - that's how this whole representative republic system works. I disagree with you, but that's okay. That's the color that makes America great. No, when I say 'Obots', I'm talking about the people who are blinders-on, couldn't-tell-you-his-positions, can't-debate-so-resort-to-insults, faint-and-weep people, like these idiots who clearly have no idea what Obama stands for. They're followers rather than supporters. There's a big difference. If you understand that difference, you must be a supporter, and are still in possession of your mind; if you don't, well...keep drinking your Kool-Aid.
Anyway, what drives these Obots? Just for kicks, I wanted to share a couple theories on this. Here's one I find particularly intriguing, from Right Truth:
Now, I've never been a big believer in hypnotism myself. I suspect it's one of those things that can happen to someone who truly believes it can happen, but a skeptic is extremely unlikely to be hypnotized. As such, I don't know how much truth can be found in this explanation, but I do think it's an interesting suggestion. If anyone out there happens to have some real knowledge about this subject, please drop a comment to educate me!
I've also seen a number of places suggest that Obama is the Anti-Christ. That's a pretty incendiary assertion, and perhaps insulting on the face of it, but it's not entirely without merit. I've often thought myself that the zeal and flagrant disregard for truth and fact shown by the Obots seemed so outrageous that it could only be explained by some sort of spiritual blindness. A thoughtful and intelligent person I know (I believe he considers himself an atheist, or at least a non-Christian) poses the following as a thought-provoker:
Allow me to bloviate on what little I know of the subject from my untrained opinion.
First, we need to differentiate those characteristics we can verify from those we can't. The first one is quite verifiable, at least in the case of Obama. Translating "Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks" into modern day locations, I believe that would be Iraq, Iran, and the area around the Mediterranean sea. If we're talking about the Roman Empire, that could also include parts of southern Europe. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, that's quite a stretch, geographically speaking. A Hawaiian birth would make it out of the question.
Some of the other characteristics that pretty obviously appear to rule out Obama:
6./21. --- he has actually said he believes in Jesus Christ; while I suppose you could argue that he's lying, he has publicly stated that belief more than once; while he has made statements that approach the supernatural (i.e. lower the oceans), he has certainly not explicitly claimed to be Christ
16. --- he's married and has kids; again, you could argue that's a false pretense, but the obvious evidence is to the contrary
19. --- one of the big fears about Obama is that he's going to gut the U.S. military
20. --- no news on miracles that I know of
As you probably know, I think Joel Rosenberg really knows what he's talking about. He predicts (this is me condensing an enormous amount of information into a gross oversimplification for the sake of brevity) that the next major world war will be pit an Iranian-Russian-Arab coalition against Israel, with no noticeable participation by the U.S. If I understand things correctly, it is only after that war that the Anti-Christ will come into the world. As the world's only super-power right now, the U.S. would obviously play a major part in any such conflict, were it to happen right now. Of course, if the American economy tanked, plunging us into another depression and thus out of a position of global leadership, that would fit in with Rosenberg's global predictions perfectly...but it would also rule out Obama as the Anti-Christ.
Obama certainly speaks boastfully, does as he pleases, and has already promised to change laws to benefit himself; it's not a stretch to suggest that he will try to define a new era in his own name, especially given his tendencies to create new presidential seals long before becoming President. But that only makes him a narcissistic, arrogant, selfish (normal) politician, not the Anti-Christ. I'm sure a trained theologian would have much greater insight on this than I do. If any are out there reading, please feel free to drop a comment to inform us all!
I think that the most likely explanation for the Obot phenomenon is much more simple: hope. Obama has masterfully conducted his entire political career in such a way that he has taken very few stands on any consequential issues. He has voted present, if you will, whenever possible. His fancy rhetoric has covered over his lack of substance to such a degree that what he says and what he has actually done are two completely different things. He says whatever his audience wants to hear, even if it contradicts something he said the day before to a different audience. He has risen so far so fast that no one has had time to pin him down on his record, either. This is only possible in an atmosphere where the media refuse to perform objective reporting, but that is precisely where we find ourselves today. Obama is a blank slate onto which his followers can project whatever it is that they want him to be. He is, quite simply, a pretty-looking vessel for their individual hopes and dreams, and he sounds great while talking about an illusion of a common struggle and triumph, despite its utter lack of real substance.
He is what people want him to be, what they think he is.
That's why his Obots have ceased thinking. They are convinced that he is exactly who they want. He is everything they could hope for in a President. They are enthralled by the idea of Barack Obama, not by Barack Obama himself. It doesn't matter what he has done, only what he promises to do. It doesn't matter whether he can actually do it or not, but how he makes them feel.
The ramifications of this are, of course, problematic. The President doesn't get the luxury of voting present. When he has to start making real decisions that affect the real lives of real people, those same Obots who truly believed with their heart and soul that Obama understood them and committed to protect them will get a rude awakening. They will discover that he isn't actually what they had hoped for as he raises taxes on them, tanks the economy, and weakens America's defenses and terrorism policies, thus opening us up to more attacks. He will inevitably betray them because no one can follow through on the specific hopes of tens of millions of individual people. It just isn't possible.
All of this is purely a hypothetical exercise, of course, and you're free to take or leave my opinion as you see fit (or form your own and leave a comment). The reality is that, for whatever the reason, there are a lot of Obots out there, and it is clear they are determined to push their Obamessiah into the White House without any rational thought on who he is, what he has done, or what he will do in the future.
And that is a very dangerous thing.
There's my two cents.
So, what is driving these Obots in their fervor?
Before getting into this, I want to be very clear: when I say Obots, I'm not talking about all Obama supporters or all people who will vote for Obama. There are plenty of people who support Obama because of his positions on the issues. I get that, and respect all of you. You're supposed to support your candidate because of what he or she will do if elected to office - that's how this whole representative republic system works. I disagree with you, but that's okay. That's the color that makes America great. No, when I say 'Obots', I'm talking about the people who are blinders-on, couldn't-tell-you-his-positions, can't-debate-so-resort-to-insults, faint-and-weep people, like these idiots who clearly have no idea what Obama stands for. They're followers rather than supporters. There's a big difference. If you understand that difference, you must be a supporter, and are still in possession of your mind; if you don't, well...keep drinking your Kool-Aid.
Anyway, what drives these Obots? Just for kicks, I wanted to share a couple theories on this. Here's one I find particularly intriguing, from Right Truth:
An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches (pdf) (thanks to Right Truth reader Junichi)THE EVIDENCE IS HERE: This document contains over 60 pages of evidence and analysis proving Barack Obama's use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of "hack" hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know.
Barack Obama's speeches contain the hypnosis techniques of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. who developed a form of "conversational" hypnosis that could be hidden in seemingly normal speech and used on patients without their knowledge for therapy purposes. Obama's speeches intentionally contain:
- Trance Inductions
- Hypnotic Anchoring
- Pacing and Leading
- Pacing, Distraction and Utilization
- Critical Factor Bypass
- Stacking Language Patterns
- Pre-programed Response Adaptation
- Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges
- Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded Suggestions
- Emotion Transfer
- Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming
Obama's techniques are the height of deception and psychological manipulation, remaining hidden because one must understand the science behind the language patterns in order to spot them. This document examines Obama's speeches word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients. Obama's mesmerized, cult-like, grade-school-crush-like worship by millions is not because "Obama is the greatest leader of a generation" who simply hasn't accomplished anything, who magically "inspires" by giving speeches. Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history.
Obama is not just using subliminal messages, but textbook covert hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming techniques on audiences that are intentionally designed to sideline rational judgment and implant subconscious commands to think he is wonderful and elect him President. Obama is eloquent. However, Obama's subconscious techniques are shown to elicit powerful emotion from his audience and then transfer those emotions onto him, to sideline rational judgment, and implant hypnotic commands that we are unaware of and can't even consciously question. The polls are misleading because some of Obama's commands are designed to be triggered only in the voting booth on November 4th. Obama is immune to logical arguments like Wright, Ayers, shifting every position, character, and inexperience, because hypnosis
affects us on an unconscious and emotional level. To many people who see this unaccomplished man's unnatural and irrational rise to the highest office in the world as suspicious and frightening and to those who welcome it, this document uncovers, explains, and proves the deceptive tactics behind true "Obama Phenomenon" including why younger people are more easily affected.
EXPOSING OBAMA'S DECEPTION MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT DEMOCRACYSpecific examples of Obama using 14 separate hypnotic pacing statements in his Denver 2008 Convention speech Elementary pacing examples from Obama include, "now is the time", and "as I stand here before you." These statements are undeniably true in the simplest terms and commonly used parts of his pacing techniques, because of course now is the time, and if he is there speaking, of course he is standing before us.
The full article in pdf, pages, is located here and I suggest you read it all.
I found the following of great interest:
These are things the hypnotist says that are verifiably true, and used to lower our critical factor defenses to allow implantation of subconscious messages. Looking at "pacing" statements alone, Obama's 2008 Democratic National Convention Speech in Denver48 uses them throughout. Yet, nobody suspects these language patterns to be anything other than an innocent part of his powerful speech.
Three of Obama's favorite hypnotic paces are "that's why I stand here tonight", "now is the time", and "this moment." Just these three pacing statements are used by Obama a total of fourteen (14) times throughout this single speech.
Now, I've never been a big believer in hypnotism myself. I suspect it's one of those things that can happen to someone who truly believes it can happen, but a skeptic is extremely unlikely to be hypnotized. As such, I don't know how much truth can be found in this explanation, but I do think it's an interesting suggestion. If anyone out there happens to have some real knowledge about this subject, please drop a comment to educate me!
I've also seen a number of places suggest that Obama is the Anti-Christ. That's a pretty incendiary assertion, and perhaps insulting on the face of it, but it's not entirely without merit. I've often thought myself that the zeal and flagrant disregard for truth and fact shown by the Obots seemed so outrageous that it could only be explained by some sort of spiritual blindness. A thoughtful and intelligent person I know (I believe he considers himself an atheist, or at least a non-Christian) poses the following as a thought-provoker:
I freely admit that I haven't studied this in depth. And, of course, this is Biblical prophesy, so it is cryptic by definition. I think one can make a pretty ironclad argument for at least some of these characteristics, a lesser argument for some others, and some of them are future things that we simply can't know until they happen. I think that most people could reasonably match at least a few of these to just about any world leader.27 Characteristics of the Anti-Christ
1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]
2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]
3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]
4. He will rise from obscurity… a "little horn" [Daniel 7:8]
5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]
6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]
7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]
8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]
9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era [Dan 7:25]
10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]
11. He will confirm a covenant with "many", i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27] This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem [see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]
12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]
13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; "He will do as he pleases"[Daniel 11:36]
14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]
15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]
16. He will have "no regard for the desire of women": He will either be asexual or homosexual [Dan 11:37]
17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]
18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]
19. He will only honor a "god" of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]
20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]
21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]
22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave [2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]
23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]
24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]
25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]
26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].
27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]
Allow me to bloviate on what little I know of the subject from my untrained opinion.
First, we need to differentiate those characteristics we can verify from those we can't. The first one is quite verifiable, at least in the case of Obama. Translating "Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks" into modern day locations, I believe that would be Iraq, Iran, and the area around the Mediterranean sea. If we're talking about the Roman Empire, that could also include parts of southern Europe. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, that's quite a stretch, geographically speaking. A Hawaiian birth would make it out of the question.
Some of the other characteristics that pretty obviously appear to rule out Obama:
6./21. --- he has actually said he believes in Jesus Christ; while I suppose you could argue that he's lying, he has publicly stated that belief more than once; while he has made statements that approach the supernatural (i.e. lower the oceans), he has certainly not explicitly claimed to be Christ
16. --- he's married and has kids; again, you could argue that's a false pretense, but the obvious evidence is to the contrary
19. --- one of the big fears about Obama is that he's going to gut the U.S. military
20. --- no news on miracles that I know of
As you probably know, I think Joel Rosenberg really knows what he's talking about. He predicts (this is me condensing an enormous amount of information into a gross oversimplification for the sake of brevity) that the next major world war will be pit an Iranian-Russian-Arab coalition against Israel, with no noticeable participation by the U.S. If I understand things correctly, it is only after that war that the Anti-Christ will come into the world. As the world's only super-power right now, the U.S. would obviously play a major part in any such conflict, were it to happen right now. Of course, if the American economy tanked, plunging us into another depression and thus out of a position of global leadership, that would fit in with Rosenberg's global predictions perfectly...but it would also rule out Obama as the Anti-Christ.
Obama certainly speaks boastfully, does as he pleases, and has already promised to change laws to benefit himself; it's not a stretch to suggest that he will try to define a new era in his own name, especially given his tendencies to create new presidential seals long before becoming President. But that only makes him a narcissistic, arrogant, selfish (normal) politician, not the Anti-Christ. I'm sure a trained theologian would have much greater insight on this than I do. If any are out there reading, please feel free to drop a comment to inform us all!
I think that the most likely explanation for the Obot phenomenon is much more simple: hope. Obama has masterfully conducted his entire political career in such a way that he has taken very few stands on any consequential issues. He has voted present, if you will, whenever possible. His fancy rhetoric has covered over his lack of substance to such a degree that what he says and what he has actually done are two completely different things. He says whatever his audience wants to hear, even if it contradicts something he said the day before to a different audience. He has risen so far so fast that no one has had time to pin him down on his record, either. This is only possible in an atmosphere where the media refuse to perform objective reporting, but that is precisely where we find ourselves today. Obama is a blank slate onto which his followers can project whatever it is that they want him to be. He is, quite simply, a pretty-looking vessel for their individual hopes and dreams, and he sounds great while talking about an illusion of a common struggle and triumph, despite its utter lack of real substance.
He is what people want him to be, what they think he is.
That's why his Obots have ceased thinking. They are convinced that he is exactly who they want. He is everything they could hope for in a President. They are enthralled by the idea of Barack Obama, not by Barack Obama himself. It doesn't matter what he has done, only what he promises to do. It doesn't matter whether he can actually do it or not, but how he makes them feel.
The ramifications of this are, of course, problematic. The President doesn't get the luxury of voting present. When he has to start making real decisions that affect the real lives of real people, those same Obots who truly believed with their heart and soul that Obama understood them and committed to protect them will get a rude awakening. They will discover that he isn't actually what they had hoped for as he raises taxes on them, tanks the economy, and weakens America's defenses and terrorism policies, thus opening us up to more attacks. He will inevitably betray them because no one can follow through on the specific hopes of tens of millions of individual people. It just isn't possible.
All of this is purely a hypothetical exercise, of course, and you're free to take or leave my opinion as you see fit (or form your own and leave a comment). The reality is that, for whatever the reason, there are a lot of Obots out there, and it is clear they are determined to push their Obamessiah into the White House without any rational thought on who he is, what he has done, or what he will do in the future.
And that is a very dangerous thing.
There's my two cents.
Nuke Test In Iran?
I received a blast e-mail from Joel Rosenberg this morning, and it's something to be aware of:
Again, this nuke test suggestion is unconfirmed. I'll post an update if it is confirmed later; I just wanted to make you aware of it as soon as I saw it.
There's my two cents.
(Washington, D.C., October 31, 2008) -- Let me begin by saying I am hesitant to send this to you because it is an unconfirmed report, and I hope it is wrong. But I wanted you to at least be aware and we'll track the story together in the coming days.
An Israeli news service is reporting this morning that an earthquake in Iran last weekend may have been triggered by an Iranian nuclear weapons test, citing an Iranian nuclear scientist working on the project as its source.
"This past Saturday night, southern Iran experienced what was reported as a significant earthquake - a seismic event measuring 5.0 on the Richter scale," reports Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, attributing the story first to the Israel Insider website. "Its epicenter was just north of the strategic Straits of Hormuz, which separates Iran from Abu Dhabi and Oman and which is the gateway to the Persian Gulf. The report quotes an Iranian nuclear scientist who claims to be working in uranium enrichment for the project, and who said that the 'quake' was acutally an undergound nuclear bomb test. Israel Insider adds that the test/quake was actually the second in a series. Nine days ago, a 4.8 Richter scale event occurred, with its epicenter only five kilometers away from the weekend tremor. The Israel Insider source reports that two nuclear rockets are currently ready - and are intended for use against Israel in the coming months. If the report is correct, it would belie previous speculation that Iran would not begin nuclear testing until it had more nuclear-bomb production capability."
Let me stress again that this is an unconfirmed report. While the Associated Press did report a 5.0 earthquake in Iran this past weekend, as of 7:30am eastern on Friday the allegation that the quake was connected to Iranian nuclear testing has not been picked up by other major Israeli news services such as the Jerusalem Post, Ynet, or Haaretz. At the very least, let's keep praying for the peace of Jerusalem, and preparing to care for those in the epicenter who would be severely affected if war is coming soon.
Meanwhile, Israelis will soon head to the polls to choose a new prime minister and a new parliament (Knesset). Kadima leader Tzipi Livni was unable to put together a governing coalition to replace the outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. So Israel will hold national elections on February 10th. Livni, who is currently the country's Foreign Minister, will square off against former Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. Please be praying that the Lord's will would be done in Israel as well as here in the U.S. with our own critically important elections coming next Tuesday. Americans and Israelis desperately need leaders like the "men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do." (I Chronicles 12:32)
Again, this nuke test suggestion is unconfirmed. I'll post an update if it is confirmed later; I just wanted to make you aware of it as soon as I saw it.
There's my two cents.
Hidden Camera Footage Confirming Infanticide At Planned Parenthood
Wow, get a load of this from Hot Air:
Now can we discuss Barack Obama's radical position on infanticide? No, no, not until November 5th.
More here, here, and here.
There's my two cents.
Now can we discuss Barack Obama's radical position on infanticide? No, no, not until November 5th.
More here, here, and here.
There's my two cents.
Obama The Silencer Strikes Again!
Breaking news from Drudge...the pattern continues...
The Obamessiah himself has often pointed to running his campaign as an example of how he would run the country. If that's the case, then take the hint now: President Barack the Obamessiah will not tolerate dissent. This is not the first time he's tried to silence dissent, and it clearly shows his Marxist roots. Given this clear pattern of behavior, we can safely assume this is how it's going to be after he's in office.
The good news is that you get to vote for whether or not you think this is how things should work in America.
There's my two cents.
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.
Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.
After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Developing...
The Obamessiah himself has often pointed to running his campaign as an example of how he would run the country. If that's the case, then take the hint now: President Barack the Obamessiah will not tolerate dissent. This is not the first time he's tried to silence dissent, and it clearly shows his Marxist roots. Given this clear pattern of behavior, we can safely assume this is how it's going to be after he's in office.
The good news is that you get to vote for whether or not you think this is how things should work in America.
There's my two cents.
More Videos To Check Out
From Gateway Pundit:
Funny...but scary because I think the grain of truth that makes it funny is way too big...
Here's a great ad from the RNC:
Funny...but scary because I think the grain of truth that makes it funny is way too big...
Here's a great ad from the RNC:
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Link Roundup
Here's another huge link roundup:
Here in the USofA:
Here in the USofA:
- The dangers of liberal bias.
- Notorious media moments of 2008.
- Here's how you honor a soldier.
- Dodd under investigation for Countrywide sweetheart loan.
- A PETA idiot.
- The second coming of Carter.
- The point of no return.
- Why Krauthammer endorses McCain.
- Pelosi: don't fear Dem control. (she's funny, isn't she?)
- Pelosi: a bigger Dem majority will result in more bipartisanship. (hahahahaha...!)
- Obama and Woods funded questionable groups.
- Another new Obama seal?
- A disturbing look at the near future.
- Obama's redistribution Constitution.
- Fiery Dem backs McCain.
- Obama's own words: I'm not ready.
- How voter fraud happens.
- Obama and the Supreme Court.
- More on Obama's credit card fraud.
- Undecideds should break for McCain.
- More Obama Marxism.
- Dreams from Davis.
- Vote for national survival.
- The crowded Dem agenda.
- Dem playbook is full of dirty plays.
- You can't be half socialist.
- Obama already planning White House changes.
- From Beirut to 9/11.
- Europe's sorry lesson.
- Global warming bill debated...during first October snowstorm since 1922.
Backhand Bill
Ah, good ol' Slick Willy!
Before Hillary dropped out, Clinton had accused Obama of playing the race card against him and suggested Obama was a fairy tale candidate.
Since Obama sewed up the nomination, he's been playing nice...kind of.
First, he complimented Sarah Palin, saying she was an effective candidate with a compelling story. Then, he defended McCain's actions before the bailout debate, and contradicted Obama that the Democrats were, in fact, largely responsible for the Fannie/Freddie meltdown. Now, in a recent campaign stop, Bill Clinton paid another backhanded compliment to Barack Obama:
If nothing else, at least it's entertaining.
There's my two cents.
Before Hillary dropped out, Clinton had accused Obama of playing the race card against him and suggested Obama was a fairy tale candidate.
Since Obama sewed up the nomination, he's been playing nice...kind of.
First, he complimented Sarah Palin, saying she was an effective candidate with a compelling story. Then, he defended McCain's actions before the bailout debate, and contradicted Obama that the Democrats were, in fact, largely responsible for the Fannie/Freddie meltdown. Now, in a recent campaign stop, Bill Clinton paid another backhanded compliment to Barack Obama:
Barack Obama cultivated the image of a cool and collected leader during the height of the economic crisis last month, when lawmakers on Capitol Hill scrambled to draft a workable bailout package after a meltdown on Wall Street.The obvious McCain response came quickly:
And when John McCain suspended his campaign to dive head first into the fray, Obama's campaign accused the Republican of being "unsteady."
But to hear Bill Clinton tell it, the Democratic nominee didn't quite have a handle on the situation himself.
"I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis)," Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. "He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'"
Clinton said when the crisis broke, Obama called his own advisers as well as those of the former two-term president, Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet and others.
"He called those people. You know why? Because he knew it was complicated and before he said anything he wanted to understand," Clinton said. "That's what a president does in a crisis."
"Barack Obama had no idea what the right thing to do is or at least that's Bill Clinton's impression," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said.One almost wonders if Bill Clinton is a stealth opponent for some reason. Hmmm...
"It's disturbing that ... Barack Obama's response to this is 'Tell me what to do and I will sell it,'" Goldfarb added. "That's been Barack Obama's entire campaign -- is one big sales job."
Goldfarb said he can't speculate on the content of the advice Obama solicited in late September but that, "The result was to sit back and do nothing."
If nothing else, at least it's entertaining.
There's my two cents.
More Tax Myths Busted
This is an outstanding article from Randall Hoven that blows away some critical myths about Obama's tax plans and statements:
These are not issues that can be argued, they are facts that are undeniable. Don't let obnoxious Obots or the media browbeat, intimidate, or sucker you with any of these myths. The beauty of the Internet and living in 2008 is that you have the facts at your fingertips and can verify all of this stuff yourself, so you don't have to believe them. Without the economy and tax issues on his side, Obama is finished.
Just focus on the facts, spread the word, and let the truth do the persuading.
There's my two cents.
Taxes are back in the news. Barack Obama promises to raise them, but only on people making more than $250,000, or maybe $200,000, or maybe $150,000. But really, he's going to cut them for 95% of us. Trust him. He's not going to cut them for the super-rich, and only the super-rich, like George W. Bush did.This is a tired subject, but that doesn't stop Democrats from beating the same dead horse. The good news is that we no longer have to depend on "experts" to get at the truth of things. If you are reading this online, you have access to the internet. Yes, you too can be a Fact Checker. Here's what you do:It's also possible to go right to the data in one fell swoop. Go to http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0474.xls or http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0474.pdf.
- (1) Go to the US Statistical Abstract at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/.
- (2) Select "Federal Gov't Finances & Employment".
- (3) Select "Federal Individual Income Tax Returns".
- (4) Click on Table 474, "Individual Income Tax Returns." You have a choice of Excel or PDF format.
If you look at the data in just that one IRS table, you can debunk virtually every myth that Democrats have been propagating about taxes for at least the last eight years. (For reference, AGI is adjusted gross income; it is how much you make before deductions.)Myth 1: Rich people don't pay taxes.Fact: Yes they do. And be glad they do. Those making over $200,000 in 2004, though being only 2.3% of all tax filers, paid 47% of all individual income taxes.Myth 2: But that's only because the rich make so much more money.Fact: That same group of tax filers accounted for only 26% of individual income (AGI). Repeat: they made 26% of the money but paid 47% of the taxes.Myth 3: But the rich don't pay as high a percentage as the rest of us.Fact: Look at the column labeled "Income Tax as a Percent of AGI" and simply look at the numbers. The higher the income, the higher percent paid in taxes. In fact, the disparity is significant. Those making over $200,000 paid an average of at least 21% in income taxes on average, while those making $30,000 or less (over half of all filers) paid 5% or less. Repeat: the "rich" paid tax rates that were at least four times greater (300% more) than the median tax filer.The only exception to this trend is in the very upper reaches of income. Those making between half a million and one million dollars in 2004 paid 24% in taxes, while those making over $1 million paid 23%. I'll let that one half of one percent of all tax filers fight over that 1% difference among themselves. (If you are David Cay Johnston, you can get a book deal out of this dramatic 1% disparity.)Myth 4: Bush's tax cuts helped only the super-rich.Fact: Go to that same column labeled "Income Tax as Percent of AGI." That column shows average tax rates in 2000 (before Bush's tax cuts) and 2004 (after the cuts). Note that the tax went down for every single income group. In fact, the lower the income, the greater the average percentage cut in taxes owed.The lower half of all tax filers (among those even having to file) paid at least 50% less in 2004 than in 2000 for the same income level. That's a 50% tax cut at least. Those making $200,000 or more paid had their taxes cut just 16%, at most.If anyone should be complaining about those tax cuts, it should be those making between $200,000 and $500,000. Their cut was only 13%, but those making over $1 million got a 16% cut. (Paging David Cay Johnston, hero to the half-millionaires.) But let's be clear: every income group below $200,000 received an average cut of at least 21%.Myth 5: We should cut taxes for 95% of the people.Fact: What we "should" do is subjective, but what we "can" do is not. If 95% of people do not even pay income taxes, how can you cut their income tax? Not every one even has to file a tax return. Of those that did, the lowest 18% paid zero income taxes. Zero. By the time you chop off the "rich" (those making over $200,000 in 2004), you have less than 80% to play with.Of course, if you make up negative numbers for tax cuts, you can do anything. If you call giving money to someone a "tax cut" (as opposed to letting him keep more of what he earned) then you can indeed "cut taxes" for those who don't pay them. I think you have to go to Harvard Law to understand that logic.By the way, when George W. Bush cut taxes, he cut them for 100% of the people who paid them. (Check the IRS table.)Myth 6: The really rich know how to get out of paying taxes; they don't show up in these tables.Fact: This is the Dark Matter theory of rich people -- they exist, but no one can detect them, not even the IRS. Even if true, those who made over $100,000 (that they couldn't hide) paid 68% of all income taxes while comprising less than 10% of all tax filers. And if true, then we're even richer than we think we are: the rich are hiding out among the poorer tax filers or non-filers. People we now think are poor, are really rich? That would be good news, wouldn't it?Myth 7: But cutting taxes reduces revenues and therefore increases deficits and our debt load.Fact: Here we'll need a different table from the US Statistical Abstract. Go to Table 455, Federal Budget - Receipts. In 2006, after Bush's tax cuts were in full effect, the federal government took in 18.4% of Gross Domestic Product. Now look at averages prior to 2000. If you start taking the average in 1950, 60, 70 or 80, it doesn't matter; the average is less than 18.4% of GDP, just where it stood in 1989 after Reagan's tax cuts. When President Clinton cut capital gains taxes in 1997, federal revenue went up.As the top marginal rate on individual income varied between 28% and 92% over the last 60 years, the amount of federal revenue has consistently hovered around 18% of GDP that whole time. In fact, revenues were generally less when the top rate was peaking at 91% and 92% (1951-1963).Why would anyone think raising the top marginal rate would raise revenue? Nothing in the last 60 years indicates any such thing would happen. However, raising top marginal rates has been the Democratic Party's policy for the last 40 years. That's something they don't want to change, apparently.Myth 8: The "rich" are somebody else.Fact: Not if the person saying that is a Congressperson. A rank-and-file Congressperson makes $169,300 per year in 2008 in salary alone. Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker, makes $217,400. Even if they and their spouses make no other income, they are still in the top 5% and are all above Joe Biden's threshold of $150,000. In fact, of 435 Congressmen, 123 of them made $1 million or more in 2003 (that is income, not net worth).Myth 9: The Communist Manifesto's second plank is, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."Fact: That's not a myth.
These are not issues that can be argued, they are facts that are undeniable. Don't let obnoxious Obots or the media browbeat, intimidate, or sucker you with any of these myths. The beauty of the Internet and living in 2008 is that you have the facts at your fingertips and can verify all of this stuff yourself, so you don't have to believe them. Without the economy and tax issues on his side, Obama is finished.
Just focus on the facts, spread the word, and let the truth do the persuading.
There's my two cents.
The Obamessiah's Infomercial - Never Mind
Barack Obama spent several million dollars for a 30-minute TV spot on several major networks last night. I watched it, and had some mixed reactions to it. I was planning to post a transcript along with my comments, but I still have not been able to find a full transcript anywhere. Hmmm...was it that bad?
Apparently so. Through the day I've been hearing that it was largely a flop, even from his own people in the media. The AP said:
Anyway, since it was so roundly panned, I don't believe I'm going to waste the time and effort to dissect it; I'm sure it's on YouTube somewhere if you really want to watch it. Instead, I'll offer some general thoughts and move on (for a professional blogger's live reactions, check out Michelle Malkin here).
It was basically a series of stories about struggling families sharing their struggles. Each family got a few minutes of time to describe how rough they had it, and then we were treated to clips from Obama speeches where he addressed their pain, followed by a personal message with 'details' about his plans from Obama in a very Oval Office-like setting. Obama capped it off with a few minutes of live performance that was a retread of previous speeches.
My overall take was that it was just more of what we've seen from Obama for months: America sucks, America is broken, the government is the only thing that can help them. It was basically making the case for socializing (i.e. government contro...I mean, assistance) as much of America as possible.
As far as the policies he talked about, it was just more of the same lies that he has been putting forward in terms of tax cuts, health care, job creation, and so on, with one exception (more on that in a moment). Every single bit of it has been thoroughly debunked by the blog posts in my "Critical Election Information" section at the top right of this site. The only thing I would specifically point out is that Obama suddenly changed his definition of who 'the rich' is. For months, he's been talking about how people earning less than $250,000 would not see a single penny's worth of tax increases. That's a lie all by itself, but we on the Right have been predicting that Obama would not even hold to that number, citing several seemingly off-hand references to lower figures. In his infomercial last night, Obama officially did it, dropping the number to $200,000. How long will it be until he goes down to Joe Biden's figure of $150,000? Even lower than that...? His record shows that he's voted for tax increases for people making just $42,000 a year, so the safe assumption is that everyone will be fair game. All it would take would be a few days in office, and then he can make the statement that Bush left the government in worse shape than he'd ever imagined, so $200,000 just isn't realistic anymore, blah blah blah. Poof! No more campaign promise.
You have been warned.
For me, the biggest thing comes back to the whole idea of this infomercial in the first place. To that end, I want to relate this note from Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt's blog, which really sums it up:
So, bottom line: not only was the whole infomercial lame, but it was probably bought and paid for largely with illegal activities and funds. What a great foreshadowing of an Obama presidency.
One last thing. The McCain campaign put out a very succinct, and, I think, effective response to the multi-million dollar hoopla:
And it didn't cost taxpayers a penny.
There's my two cents.
Apparently so. Through the day I've been hearing that it was largely a flop, even from his own people in the media. The AP said:
In an uncharacteristically accurate fashion, the article goes on to debunk four of the statements made in the infomercial.Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are - beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Anyway, since it was so roundly panned, I don't believe I'm going to waste the time and effort to dissect it; I'm sure it's on YouTube somewhere if you really want to watch it. Instead, I'll offer some general thoughts and move on (for a professional blogger's live reactions, check out Michelle Malkin here).
It was basically a series of stories about struggling families sharing their struggles. Each family got a few minutes of time to describe how rough they had it, and then we were treated to clips from Obama speeches where he addressed their pain, followed by a personal message with 'details' about his plans from Obama in a very Oval Office-like setting. Obama capped it off with a few minutes of live performance that was a retread of previous speeches.
My overall take was that it was just more of what we've seen from Obama for months: America sucks, America is broken, the government is the only thing that can help them. It was basically making the case for socializing (i.e. government contro...I mean, assistance) as much of America as possible.
As far as the policies he talked about, it was just more of the same lies that he has been putting forward in terms of tax cuts, health care, job creation, and so on, with one exception (more on that in a moment). Every single bit of it has been thoroughly debunked by the blog posts in my "Critical Election Information" section at the top right of this site. The only thing I would specifically point out is that Obama suddenly changed his definition of who 'the rich' is. For months, he's been talking about how people earning less than $250,000 would not see a single penny's worth of tax increases. That's a lie all by itself, but we on the Right have been predicting that Obama would not even hold to that number, citing several seemingly off-hand references to lower figures. In his infomercial last night, Obama officially did it, dropping the number to $200,000. How long will it be until he goes down to Joe Biden's figure of $150,000? Even lower than that...? His record shows that he's voted for tax increases for people making just $42,000 a year, so the safe assumption is that everyone will be fair game. All it would take would be a few days in office, and then he can make the statement that Bush left the government in worse shape than he'd ever imagined, so $200,000 just isn't realistic anymore, blah blah blah. Poof! No more campaign promise.
You have been warned.
For me, the biggest thing comes back to the whole idea of this infomercial in the first place. To that end, I want to relate this note from Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt's blog, which really sums it up:
This is important to note, because it's a legitimate concern. The only reason Obama had the money to do this infomercial is because he's flush with cash, and the only reason he's so flush with cash is that he has deliberately and persistently accepted millions of dollars' worth of fraudulent donations (see the proof here, here, here, here, here). The whole 30-minute infomercial is based on a lie and fraud.The McCain-Palin campaign correctly points out that Sen. Barack Obama's "30-minute prime-time address [tonight will be] a 'gauzy, feel-good commercial' that was 'paid for with broken promises.'" But for Obama's undisputed and indisputable violation of his solemn oath to accept public campaign financing, there's no way he could have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, including this hugely expensive cross-network TV buy.
But "paid for with broken promises" is the most charitable characterization. The Obama-Biden campaign deliberately has solicited and received hundreds of thousands of credit card transactions of $250 or less, whose details the campaign won't make available for outside review even though in the aggregate they amount to hundreds of millions of dollars — via a fraud-friendly credit card system (a) which accepts transfers from untraceable pre-paid credit cards, and (b) whose basic anti-fraud measures have been deliberately crippled. The Obama-Biden campaign might just as well have set up dumpsters all over the world into which illegal donors could dump shopping bags full of cash donations made in unmarked small bills.
I suddenly had an epiphany. I know now exactly what happened after that bell over the door tinkled again while the jukebox was playing "Don't Stop Believin'" in the diner, just before the picture cut to black and the sound abruptly stopped: That was Barack Obama walking in the door — coming to hire Tony Soprano and his crew to run his internet finance operations.
If you watch the infomercial, ask yourself: How many minutes of it were bought with illegal money? A third of it? Half?
So, bottom line: not only was the whole infomercial lame, but it was probably bought and paid for largely with illegal activities and funds. What a great foreshadowing of an Obama presidency.
One last thing. The McCain campaign put out a very succinct, and, I think, effective response to the multi-million dollar hoopla:
As anyone who has bought anything from an infomercial knows, the sales-job is always better than the product. Buyer beware.
And it didn't cost taxpayers a penny.
There's my two cents.
A Selective Spreading Of The Wealth
For all of Barack Obama's claims of spreading the wealth around to benefit everyone, he doesn't practice what he preaches. First, we heard about a half-brother of his that was living in a hut in Kenya, with an income of $1 per month. Barack Obama spends more in one family trip to McDonald's -- much less a meal with arugula -- than his half-brother earns in two years, but he didn't spread his own multi-millionaire wealth around to his half-brother, did he?
Now, we are hearing about another relative who lives in dire straits:
And yet, his own charitable giving was less than 1% until he began running for President; even then, it increased only slightly. We know that he has not one but two relatives -- one living just a few miles away -- who are living in abject poverty, but he doesn't nothing to help them! He spreads none of his wealth to them. He doesn't follow his own advice, apparently unwilling to correct what he sees as America's biggest moral failure.
He'd rather spread your wealth, through your tax dollars.
This is Barack Obama - the ultimate liberal, living according to one set of rules, while you the peons of America live by another one that he dictates to you.
Hypocrite, or liar? Maybe both.
People are beginning to figure this out about him, and that's why his campaign has sputtered to a halt, and is beginning to slide backward.
Here's another telling event that sheds light on his views on this subject (emphasis mine):
Spread the word, spread the truth. If you don't, something else will be spread: your money.
There's my two cents.
Now, we are hearing about another relative who lives in dire straits:
So, let's recap. Obama says he wants to spread the wealth. In fact, he even told Rick Warren at the Saddleback forum that America's greatest moral failing is that we don't take care of 'the least of these', in reference to the poor. In his nomination acceptance speech in Denver, he called on Americans to be our brother's keepers and sister's keepers.Barack Obama has lived one version of the American dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.
Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Obama's best-selling memoir "Dreams fFrom My Father," lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.
A second relative believed to be the long-lost "Uncle Omar" described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a "sawed-off rifle" while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom apartment for failing to pay $2,324.20 in bills, according to the Boston Housing Court.
The press has repeatedly rehearsed Obama's extraordinary odyssey, but the other side of the family's American experience has only been revealed in parts. Just across town from where Obama made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, some of his closest blood relatives have confronted the harshness of immigrant life in America.
In his book Obama writes that "Uncle Omar" had gone missing after moving to Boston in the 1960s a quarter-century before Obama first visited his family in Kenya. Aunt Zeituni is now also living in Boston, and recently made a $260 campaign contribution to her nephew's presidential bid from a work address in the city.
Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the "Auntie Zeituni" in Obama's memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election.
And yet, his own charitable giving was less than 1% until he began running for President; even then, it increased only slightly. We know that he has not one but two relatives -- one living just a few miles away -- who are living in abject poverty, but he doesn't nothing to help them! He spreads none of his wealth to them. He doesn't follow his own advice, apparently unwilling to correct what he sees as America's biggest moral failure.
He'd rather spread your wealth, through your tax dollars.
This is Barack Obama - the ultimate liberal, living according to one set of rules, while you the peons of America live by another one that he dictates to you.
Hypocrite, or liar? Maybe both.
People are beginning to figure this out about him, and that's why his campaign has sputtered to a halt, and is beginning to slide backward.
Here's another telling event that sheds light on his views on this subject (emphasis mine):
Shall we follow a hypocrite like this, especially considering the enormous financial impact he will have on our livelihoods?Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain's accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:
McCain has "called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class," Obama said. "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten."
Ha ha.
Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.
Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).
Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.
Spread the word, spread the truth. If you don't, something else will be spread: your money.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)