Where’s the Beef, Obama?

I have heard commentator after commentator say that Obama just says nothing and he says it well. He calls for change, he is the change candidate, and he is the candidate for the future. Apparently all of the other candidates are against “change” and the “future” ?

If you check Obama’s speeches, even though the vast majority of them are vapid (and this is what a politician does when he is winning; he says stuff which is empty and meaningless). However, rest assured that Obama does has a plan and he has revealed his plans for this nation. Sometimes these plans are hidden in code language, because some people, when they run for president, do not want to state specific positions.

Obama: And if I am your nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I support the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it's ok for America to use torture - because it is never ok. That is the choice in this election.

in nearly every speech that Obama makes, he brings up the Iraq war and how he did not vote for it. He also accuses Bush and Cheney of not talking to leaders we do not like (a false accusation, as most of his accusations are). What Barack has said early on is, he will talk to any leader of any country without preconditions. All previous presidents set up preconditions before meeting with our adversaries. Not Barrack; even if a foreign leader denies that the holocaust ever occurred, and has threatened to completely destroy Israel on many occasions, Barrack is more than willing to meet with him, without preconditions, and I believe has said he will do so within the first year of his presidency. This is based upon the false theory that, our enemies are rational and can be reasoned with. I submit that any world leader who thinks that the holocaust probably did not occur and that Israel should be completely destroyed, is not a rational person, and cannot be reasoned with. Obama, apparently, disagrees.

There are a lot of liberals who agree with Obama and think that, strong negotiations and bringing in the UN is going to solve our problems, and tough talks with carrots and sticks will save the day. Allow me to remind you that one of Clinton’s carrots to North Korea was nuclear power, which technology is now being used for nuclear weaponry (one of the biggest blunders of the Clinton administration). Will Obama be as naive?

Obama: The Republicans running for President have already tied themselves to the past. They speak of a hundred year war in Iraq and billions more on tax breaks for the wealthiest few who don't need them and didn't ask for them - tax breaks that mortgage our children's future on a mountain of debt at a time when there are families who can't pay their medical bills and students who can't pay their tuition.

The comment about a 100 year war in Iraq is disingenuous. Barack is a smart man and he certainly understood what McCain was saying. We have had soldiers in South Korea, Japan, and Germany for decades; and the presence of these soldiers have preserved the peace in these areas. McCain was suggesting that the same approach in Iraq is prudent.

I’ve discussed the tax breaks for the wealthy, which is also a phoney, disingenuous slogan. 40% of Americans do not pay federal income tax, so whenever there are tax breaks, they will go to the 60% who are wealthier. In previous issues, I have offered charts which indicate that since Bush’s “tax breaks for the wealthy,” the wealthy now pay a greater share of the taxes. Obama is a smart man and he has to know this. If he understands this, then he is phoney with his rhetoric; if he does not understand this, then he is either stupid or ill-informed. You make the call.

in terms of the debt, I agree with him here, and that the federal government ought to be more parsimonious with our money. Although our national debt as a percentage of the GNP is historically low now, I along with most conservatives believe that Bush spends far too much money. Bear in mind, any federally subsidized health care system will make Bush’s outrageous spending seem like nothing. If we are going to go broke because of Medi-cal and Medi-care, does it make sense that it is fiscally responsible to add more federal medical programs to our budget (ala Hillary-care of Obama-care?). Obama can reasonably point toward Bush as spending too much, and I fully agree with him on this point; but his policies, stated an implied, will not be more fiscally responsible. And for those of you who think ending the war in Iraq is going to provide enough money for either Hillary-care or Obama-care, are simply wrong. Even if we do not engage in another military conflict ever, we are still looking at going bankrupt even without a new health care system piled on top of what we already have.

Obama: ...we will harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.

There are ways we can lessen our oil use—nuclear plants would significantly affect our oil usage; bio-fuels will not, as George Will explained (listed in issue #11). Obama never comes out in favor of nuclear plants and Obama continues to act like most of our oil comes from the Middle East, even though we get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico. He also ignores the fact that, even if we never purchased another drop of oil from the Middle East, other nations would. The Middle East will not suddenly go without if we stop buying their oil.

Obama: I'll be the President who finally brings Democrats and Republicans together to make health care affordable and available for every single American.

Any government-run health care is going to simply bankrupt our nation sooner than Medi-care on its own will.

Obama: We will put a college education within reach of anyone who wants to go, and instead of just talking about how great our teachers are, we will reward them for their greatness, with more pay and better support.

Again and again, every time a new government program is put into place to provide more monies for a college education, the colleges raise their tuition. Our tax dollars given out to educate our youth guarantees higher tuition costs, because they can get it. Furthermore, not every child needs to go to college. The idea that our schools should be preparing every child for college is one of the greatest mistakes our education system is making. It leaves 50% of our students behind.

Merit pay sounds good in speeches; it does not work in real life. I’ve worked under merit pay and I have received merit pay; so I am not speaking as a disenchanted former teacher. You simply cannot reasonably evaluate a teacher and easily determine that he or she is a good teacher. Sounds good; doesn’t work. I wish that it did.

By the way, higher teacher salaries will come from where? From your paycheck or from your local taxes. Most states have doubled the money spent per student over the past few years, with no appreciable results. In fact, our high school graduates know less and less; and more of them are dropping out.

You have to get away from just throwing money at a problem and thinking that will fix it.

Obama: And while Washington is consumed with the same drama and division and distraction, another family puts up a For Sale sign in the front yard. Another factory shuts its doors forever. Another mother declares bankruptcy because she cannot pay her child's medical bills.

This all sounds very nice, but no matter who is in office, there will be people who cannot pay their mortgage and will either sell their house or walk away form it; there will be businesses which fail; there will be unpaid medical bills. You are kidding yourself if you think that any candidate will end all of these problems or most of them. In a free market, sometimes you have to let things play out. As I have pointed out again and again, Congress is one of the primary causes of our current mortgage crisis, and yet they sit on the sidelines and yell nasty things at the mortgage companies, as if they alone caused this semi-crisis.

As a teacher for 29 years, and as a realtor for about 15 years, I noticed that the more that government tinkered with the schools and real estate law, the worse things seemed to become. Obviously, there needs to be laws and regulations with regards to these two institutions. These laws and regs should be reasonable, minimal and made at the local level. If Obama is touting these things as something which government can solve, when often government caused these problems in the first place, then he either misinformed, unintelligent or disingenuous.

Obama: ...we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to get things done. That's how we'll win this election, and that's how we'll change this country when I am President of the United States.

This is George Bush’s original platform, and, having been in Texas while Bush was governor, I can tell you that he worked well with Democrats and Republicans and that he got along well with the news reporters here. That changed dramatically in Washington, as we all know.

Obama: It's a choice between debating John McCain about lobbying reform with a nominee who's taken more money from lobbyists than he has, or doing it with a campaign that hasn't taken a dime of their money because we've been funded by you - the American people.

Obama never mentions earmarks because Hilary has inserted the most earmarks of the presidential candidates still standing and Obama the second most. McCain has inserted no earmarks on any piece of legislation.

Obama: And I won't wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage in this country - I will raise it to keep pace with inflation every single year.

The percentage of families who are headed by one or two minimum wage earners is minuscule. This is a symbolic gesture at best.

Obama: When I called for higher fuel efficiency standards, I didn't do it in front of an environmental group in California - I did it in front of the automakers in Detroit. Now it was pretty quiet - I didn't get a lot of applause. But we need leadership that tells the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know. That's why I will set the goal of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and we will meet it - with higher fuel standards and new investments in renewable fuels that will create millions of new jobs and entire new industries right here in America.

Whether Obama’s guidelines/goals are reasonable and whether than can be actually followed is something that some of us will never know. 2050. Obama will be long gone by this time as will many of us. Sounds great though.

Obama: Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won't do.

Anyone who compares our salaries, buying power, square footage of the homes that we live in, net worth and almost any other measure of economic change, will see that we are far better off today than 8 years ago, and better off than we were 16 years ago and better off than we were 30 years ago. That people struggle and work hard for what they have is not a bad thing; it is a good thing, and the moment the people of the US stop working hard to achieve better is the moment that we will go down as a nation.

Obama: It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk.

In the Democratic party, it has become a bad thing for industry to turn record profits. These profits are a mark of our economic well-being. The more our major companies make, the better off we are economically.

Obama: George Bush won't be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will.

Tax cuts for the wealthy is nothing more than a slogan. If you are paying federal taxes now, those taxes will go up under Obama and under Clinton. If their medical plans kick, you will see the mother of all tax raises, which will probably include those who are not paying taxes right now. Bear in mind, when candidates propose federal programs, those federal programs general cost about 4x more than they suggest.

These quotations come directly from Obama’s speeches taken from his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/speeches/index.php

Barack Takes a Stand!

Hannity’s bit, as of late, is to ask any Obama supporter to name one Obama accomplishment. Since he has not done anything apart from not voting for the war in Iraq (which is not an accomplishment; it is a vote), most of his supporters are dumbfounded.

For those who support Obama and want to be able to name some accomplishment of Obama, we finally have one below. It hasn’t been passed yet.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

Obama as Phoney as Hilary?

Hillary has already been exposed for planting various people in her audiences. Some examples of this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190159.php

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/

 Obama seems to be above this. I am not an Obama supporter by any means, but I must admit that, I would not expect him to be so phoney as to plant people in his audience. He has even told us that he does not plant people in his audience to ask questions.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ti8rWRISDkI

In Seattle, a girl faints and Obama throws her a water bottle, and says she is okay and probably just did not eat lunch. Somehow, he is able to know this from several yards away, and he recognizes that EMT is not needed.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VQeFr8qAXws

Fainting girl in Hartford, CT:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GxeeQdmcudY

Another, EMT is mentioned again; and “if you people can make some space”:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VtnBSLX1aA8

Another:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-dRvKjJ2dS0

In LA:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rpMf1070uW0

Is it possible that these are all read? Are they plants? How many times has this actually happened? These are the ones which made it to youtube.com How does Obama know that they do not need emergency care? Not one time does he say, is there a doctor in the house? He tells people to give these people room, he assures the crowd these people are okay, he throws them a water bottle, and never once does he perceive any one of these instances to be serious or life-threatening.

[Michael Medved mentioned this on his show and I did the youtube research]

Baseball Scandal

Like almost every other conservative commentator, I am wondering, what is Congress doing, interviewing all these baseball players?  Don’t they have some sort of a job to do?

Who’s Going to Win?

There are obviously two minds about the Democratic side: when it comes to sheer force of will, I don’t think Hillary and Bill can be matched. They will do anything and say anything to get elected. I think even many Democrats recognize that.

Hillary has two things in her favor: the super delegates and two states which were not counted among the overall delegates.

It is clear that Obama will probably get the popular vote, and most Republicans recognize that he is going to be a much more formidable opponent than Hillary.

However, I cannot seem to shake that, somehow, in someway, Hillary is going to be the Democratic candidate. Perhaps the final solution will be a Clinton/Obama ticket (in that order). I did not think this paring was even possible, but if they are within spitting distance of one another, that may be the only solution.

Rush: the True Health Care Crisis

RUSH: This is in USA Today: "The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis. That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184. 'We have a health care crisis. We don't have an entitlement crisis,' says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors." What the hell is that? We have a health care crisis, not an entitlement crisis? Here are the numbers for all of you weenies out there, "We need to get out of Iraq, Mr. Limbaugh, so we can spend money on education and on health care for our children." The cost of government benefits for seniors, $27,289 per person in 2007. "The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government." It's the biggest function of the federal government, senior care!

Nothing against you seniors, we're all going to be there someday. But it is what it is. "States chipped in $27 billion more in 2007, mostly for nursing homes." Now, who was it that tried to do something about this back in 2005? It was George W. Bush. He wanted to reform Social Security, and he wanted to do it in the private sector, private accounts and so forth. It was a great, courageous idea. It's going to have to be done at some point but of course there's this word called "security," and people think security means it's always going to be there, Social Security. You couple that, say, "Okay, we're going to have private accounts, let you invest your money." Investment equals what? Not security. To a lot of people it equals risk. Any time you have a market fluctuation, correction, goes down, the opponents of privatization say, "That's your Social Security money that's being lost there if you put it into private accounts." But regardless, this is escalating. This cost to provide benefits of all kinds to senior citizens, most of whom are not working, this expense is rising faster than people know or projected. Something is going to have to be done about it. It is a crisis.

Thirty-five percent of the federal budget is spent on benefits for senior citizens. It was 32% in 2004. Thirty-five percent. The cost, if you're not a seasoned citizen, "The cost of senior benefits is equal to $10,673 for every non-senior household." And this is only going to get worse. The Boomers are just starting to join that group known as the seniors, known as the seasoned citizens on this program, and there are a lot of those Boomers. This is liberalism. This is the result of unchecked, uncontrolled liberalism, which contains many elements. One of the most insidious elements is liberalism poisoning the minds of people into believing that because they are Americans they are entitled to be taken care of by other Americans. This whole entitlement mentality, this dependent mentality -- I know this is angering some of you seniors. I don't mean to be doing that. You were playing along according to the rules when you were growing up, I understand that, but at some point it's just like the automobile companies cannot sustain it anymore. They can't continue to pay health care, retirement, and pensions for people no longer working for them. So what, they look to the government to take it over, the government takes a portion of it over. You talk about the math, they're trying to figure out the delegates in the Democrats, the math of this does not work out unless something about this is changed, because the tax rates necessary to support this kind of thing are going to be so prohibitive, nobody is going to bother to work if nothing happens on this. This is culturally destructive.

Also see:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080214/1a_lede14_dom.art.htm

Rush: Dems Won’t Pull out of Iraq

From the RUSH ARCHIVE: The dirty little secret is, there is no Democrat presidential candidate who is going to saddle himself or herself and their party with defeat in the war in Iraq and the war on terror while they're in the White House. They would love to have been able to pressure Bush. They're not going to be able to do that. They would have loved to have been able to pressure Bush to get the troops out so they can say, "Bush lost the war. Bush admits it was horrible. It's a big mistake." But when they're in power and they're in the White House, I will guarantee you they are not going to pull troops out of there unless they can claim that victory has been had, I guarantee you. So there's no candidate, other than Kucinich -- Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Hillary, Obama -- all five are going to leave troops where they are.

RUSH: And of course you people think I'm nuts and have lost it. Let's go to 60 Minutes last night on CBS. Steve Kroft interviewed Barack Obama, and this is a line buried in this Obama puff piece on 60 Minutes last night. Steve Kroft says, "You will remove all troops by the end of 2009 regardless of the situation, even if there's serious sectarian violence?"

OBAMA: No, I always reserve as commander-in-chief the right to assess the situation.

RUSH: Bingo! Here he had a chance, he's running for the Democrat nomination, the kook fringe cares about this more than anything else. He had a chance to continue to appeal to them. Nope. Because this is 60 Minutes. You can't go on 60 Minutes and not say anything, real well. You gotta say something on 60 Minutes when they ask you questions. So he was asked, you going to get out about 2009, regardless? No. Didn't even hesitate. No. As commander-in-chief, I reserve the right to assess. Translation: Let's say he's elected. Second week in office, first week in office, the fringe kooks of the Democrat Party are demanding, they're marching in the White House, "Out of Iraq now." Obama says, "I hear you. I'm sympathetic. But I didn't know a bunch of stuff until I got here. The Bush administration had not been forthcoming with us. As you know, they tried to hide a bunch of things. And I hope," he will say, "I hope that we can leave soon. My hope is that we will be able to get out of there as soon as possible, but I have assessed the situation, and I am telling you tonight that this is not the best or the right time to do it. But I hope that I will be able to revise this policy in coming months."

Mark my words, folks. So look, don't misunderstand. I don't want a Democrat in charge of foreign policy. I don't want a Democrat liberal in charge of US military. Don't misunderstand. I'm just telling you that the idea that there's only one person out there that's going to do the right thing when it comes to Iraq and the war on terror instinctively is -- you're whistling Dixie.

Rush on Obama’s Dangerous Ignorance

It's a Q&A with Barack Obama December 20th in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage wrote the story. Try this one. This is number five. "Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?" Obama's answer: "No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants." Memo to Obama: It is not the Bush administration's position. The Supreme Court held in 2004 -- this is the famous case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants. Now, I just have to think here -- I don't know what to think. He's either ignorant or he's saying something far more dangerous. If he is saying that he's not bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, liberals would have a stroke if Bush claimed the kind of authority that Obama is claiming in this -- and ignorance.

Liberals are out there going bonkers every day over how stupid Bush is. This Obama interview is just scary. Let's see. Find another one here. He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn't have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM Treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it's irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I'm getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn't stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn't ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them. When's the last time you saw Gorbachev meeting with some senator at Reykjavik or anywhere else? Gorbachev met with Reagan, for crying out loud.

Great Links

Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear’ We are winning militarily in Iraq. No one can deny this, not even Al-Qaeda. Bear in mind, both Democratic candidates are talking about a withdrawal of troops as soon as they get into office, no matter what is actually going on in Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece

No matter what, the Democratic talking points are, Iraq is a failure (so Speaker of the House Pelosi says):

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8422.html

This is an outstanding article entitled “Obama Unplugged” and what he says without a teleprompter:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp

Here’s the actual interview:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

Jobless Claims DECREASE

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jXgIsKXJlO8AhG79r_OKcV6WhHKQD8UQ48P89

You think that all this FISA talk is all about privacy; it’s not; it’s about lawyers and lawsuits:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/13/obama,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash

Bloomberg: Global Warming Greatest Evil

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=71103&v=6531082021

Climate Change to Kill 1000's in UK

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1283826220080212?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Wisconsin Breaking Snow Records

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local//index.php?ntid=271890

One of the reasons we know that global warming is a religion is, no matter how cold it gets, there are going to be adherents to global warming theories for a long time. They will be like those people who oppose nuclear plants. They will find a reason to believe that global warming is a fact and it is man-made; just like those who oppose nuclear plants cannot be convinced no matter what (“What about the nuclear waste?).

Another Bush victory: wiretapping and government rules on eavesdropping quietly passed in the Senate:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080213/D8UP3K000.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12cnd-fisa.html?ei=5065&en=b0d84549bac0a9c1&ex=1203483600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

This has not yet been passed in the House. Like every other victory that Bush has enjoyed during his lame-duck last two years, the House will complain, moan, give some stirring rhetoric to appeal to the troops (the code-pink and moveon.org troops), and then they will pass it (there are enough votes right now to pass it).