Another Problem For Obama

Jack Cashill makes a very compelling argument that Obama's "Dreams Of My Fathers" was not written by Obama, but by Bill Ayers. On the surface it sounds like a stretch, doesn't it? But if you are curious to how he came to this conclusion, check this out right now. He lays out the timeline for how this could be true, but also examines the choice of words used by both men in their memoirs, as well as the cadence and sentence structure. If this proves to be true (it is certainly possible), it tells us even more about "that one". Not only is he not the thoughtful thinker/writer, but he is lying once again about his true relationship with Ayers. The proof isn't there yet to make those kinds of accusations; but Obama is such an unknown commodity that it is easy for me to draw the above conclusions. What has always struck me is the absence of writings from Obama's past. Cashill writes about this to some extent in his article. That in and of itself causes me to distrust anything Obama is now saying.

Guilt By Association

Whenever people bring up questions about Obama's relationships with people like Ayers, Wright, Rezko, and ACORN, the Obama camp cries out about the unfairness of using guilt by association. Maybe it's their way of saying "we know he is guilty, so stop making the association". But I have another guilt by association that a candidate has been and still is using: Bush/Cheney = McCain. I was thinking that the Bush/McCain relationship is probably very similar to the Clinton/Obama relationship. I don't think Bush and McCain particularly like each other. They were pretty fierce opponents back in the 2000 election, just like Clinton and Obama were in this election. Bush and McCain have never come across as being "comrades" or even friends. When pressed into duty, each could put on a good enough face for the sake of the party, but you always had a sense that in private they really had no use for each other. That pretty much describes the Clinton/Obama relationship. The thing is, we all understand what is going on and the distrust these people have for each other. Many of us have similar relationships in our lives. So inside we have to laugh whenever we hear Clinton say how much she respects Obama. And, at least to me, it seems insincere on Obama's part, and more than a stretch on his part, to try and associate McCain with George Bush or Dick Cheney. I know it stirs up that part of the country that hates George Bush, but it is clear that even McCain is not a big fan of George Bush. Sure, for the sake of the party and perhaps even for the sake of the country, McCain has in the past expressed his support for the president in certain areas; and in most if not all of those cases it was the proper thing for him to do. But if Democrats want people to stop associating Obama with radical terrorists and preachers and organizations known for voter fraud, then maybe they should consider stopping their own brand of guilt by association.

What Is McCain Thinking?

John McCain proposed during the second debate a $300 billion mortgage bailout. If I understand this correctly, it goes something like this: a person buys a house for $500,000 in 2005 and secures a mortgage of $450,000. The house is currently valued at $350,000, but the person is still liable for the $450,000 mortgage, and perhaps is unable to now make their payments (or unwilling to continue making payments). So now McCain wants the government to essentially buy that person's $450,000 mortgage, revalue the house at $350,000, and then create a new mortgage based on that $350,000. In other words, the government (taxpayers) will come in and cover the difference. For the homebuyer there was no harm, no risk. For the taxpayer there is the forced collection to cover for people's misfortune and/or mistakes and/or bad investments. Where in this entire scenario does personal responsibility fit? With all these bailouts, what's next. I've lost money on several stock investments. When should I expect my bailout from the government? Is this the essence of capitalism? And where will all of this lead? Once this bailout mentality establishes itself, what will ever stop it? McCain is treading dangerous ground here. We would expect this kind of government intervention, government is everything, kind of strategy from the Democrats; it scares me when the supposed conservative is introducing the same kind of nonsense.

Obama and the New Party

It appears that Barrack Obama really is a socialist. Back in the mid 90's Obama belonged to the New Party, a party reportedly established by the Democratic Socialists of America. The New Party apparently was set up to help socialist minded candidates secure wins in elections that they thought they had a shot at winning. The New Party also had strong ties with ACORN. Obama denies involvement with the now out of business New Party, but someone has dug up old website archives that indicate that Obama was a card carrying member. If all of this is true, and it sure seems to be, then we are about to elect someone as president who at least was (and has shown tendencies to still be) a socialist. I cannot believe we have gotten to that point in our country. And even if people had this information (I doubt the big media will follow up or expose this), it's questionable whether it would make a difference. Too many people have already drunk the Kool-Aid. Check out this article for more information.

Presidential Debate #2

Why have a second debate when all the questions are the same as the first debate? No new ground was covered. We, the American public, learned nothing from this debate. What a waste of time. For me personally, I would like to see the two candidates sit down and debate with each other. Perhaps have two moderators, a liberal one and a conservative one. Let the moderators challenge the candidates and what they are saying on the campaign trail. Get them to answer all the questions that they have been dodging over the past year. This is a job interview, and yet we keep asking them the exact same questions week after week, expecting them to give us some new answer. Instead they keep giving us the same evasive responses. It's like we're in the fourth quarter, the players are tired, they (Obama, the press) are in prevent defense, playing it safe. Tom Brokaw, being in charge of this, did a terrible job, simply because he went conventional. Again, what a waste, and what a bore.

Obama's Aloofness

So often it is the coverup of a potential scandal that ends up bringing a person down, rather than the scandal itself. I'm not sure most Americans are tracking with Barrack Obama's past association with William Ayers, so I'm not sure how effective it has been for the McCain/Palin campaign to now make an issue out of that association. But as of today (Oct. 7), the official Obama response is that when Obama worked with Ayers, Obama never knew of Ayers' past terrorist bombings and radical statements. This is remarkable, and highly, highly doubtful. But let's take it at face value. Let's say that Obama, while serving on boards and panels with Ayers, while letting Ayers host his political launch event for state senator, while writing an endorsement for Ayers' book, while living in the same neighborhood . . let's say that Obama really was unaware of this man's radical statements and views, and his highly publicized past bombings of police stations and the Pentagon. And let's add to that Obama being unaware of Jeremiah Wright's radical anti-American rants during sermons at the church Obama attended for 20 years. What kind of picture does this draw of Obama? Seems to me that we have two choices: 1) he is an extremely aloof person, completely unaware of his surroundings; or 2) he knew exactly what these people where up to, but is now denying (lying) that he knew anything. I'm not sure which of these make him all that attractive to be our next president. For a candidate who promises to be ethical and something different, the fact is we've seen this kind of politician before. They'll say and do anything to get elected. It amazes me how so many people see this guy as representing change. When Obama first ran for senate in Illinois, he ran unopposed. Actually he did have opponents, but he sent out surrogates to destroy those opponents and knock them off the ballot. Again, change that we can believe in.

McCain vs Obama

Barrack Obama and John McCain are two very different people. Obama is young, McCain is older than most candidates we have seen before. Obama is an effective communicator (as long as he has his tele-prompter), McCain is oftentimes painful to listen to. Obama is an evangelist, McCain is the pastoral counselor. Obama has few confidants from his past (what ones there were have been thrown under the bus), McCain seems to have a large number of close friends that have stood by him throughout his life (and have not yet been thrown under the bus). This last point to me seems striking. McCain has many surrogates, among them Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, as well as a number of men who served with him in the military. All of these relationships go back 10, 20, even 40 years. There is a depth and a commitment within these kind of relationships. These are not people who are opportunistic, just hanging around hoping their guy wins the lottery so they might get a windfall. When I look at Obama however, I wonder who are his guys? Who are the people who have stood by him (and he has stood by them) over the years? Can you name one person, beyond his wife? Sure, there are tons of people supporting him now, but all of these people are new friends of Obama. I suspect that many of them have their hands open, hoping to partake of some of the crumbs that fall off his table. But there is no depth to these relationships. Many of them probably don't know Obama well enough to really know what he believes. They just like the thought of what they think he believes. Certainly there is no substance behind it because there is no substance to Obama and his past. Obama is a loner. In his world there is him and . . well, him. Maybe that makes for a good president, someone who is largely detached, unable to take meaningful stands, and has few friends or work associates. Maybe someone like that can withstand the desires to appease people or to become emotionally tied to issues or constituents. It doesn't sound too appealing to me, and I'd rather have someone who is poor at communicating but comes with depth and a lifetime of friends and associates who respect him. Two very different people.

Afghanistan

Senator Obama (and Biden) have a lot invested in Afghanistan. That is where our attention should be, as they see it. We need more troops, more money, and more attention paid to that area. But why? Why do Democrats, who 1) traditionally hate war, 2) continually tell us that money spent in Iraq could be used to improve our schools or pay for health care, and 3) proclaim that America is evil for getting involved in or occupying other countries . . why do they want to fight, spend money, and occupy Afghanistan? And they want to do this without any exit plan. I'm not quite sure I understand this. I'm not disagreeing with them. After the September 11 memorials and reminders, I still believe we need to be over there fighting and disrupting any and all terrorists operations. Presumably that is the thinking of the Democrats. I wonder though how long they could stomach seeing American servicemen and women dying in Afghanistan. How long before they lose interest in being there any longer. Again, what is their exit strategy? For years they demanded one for Iraq. I just don't hear anyone asking them for one in the fight they have chosen.

Palin Won

That's all I wanted to say. Palin won the debate. Joe Biden was so intent on not addressing or attacking her that he looked like he was on some kind of pain medication. Sure, he spouted off a bunch of facts and history which made him appear knowledgeable and experienced, but half of what he said was flat out wrong. It sounded good, but what good is it if the facts and the history he is quickly throwing out is just wrong? Palin looked good, sounded good, and came across with undeniable charm. She connected. Considering all the pressure she was under to perform and show us some depth, I think she showed a lot of courage and confidence. You won't hear the main stream media declare Palin a winner . . they have too much invested in Obama. So the best they will say is that it was a tie. I know better. Palin won.

The Economy Part II

I just read a good article by Matt Mayer about the economy. It's a bit windy and long, but there are some great points in there about the "taxing the rich" mentality, about how taxing one economic class (the rich) excessively while doling out money to another class (non-taxpayers) creates a divided non-productive nation, and the consequences of all that. Here is a sampling:

"[As Scottish Philosopher Alexander] Tytler studied the lifecycles of civilizations and found that they last for roughly 200 years. These civilizations followed a similar pattern. Tytler categorized the pattern as such: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

In conclusion Mayer says: "The American economy is in a very rough patch. The last thing it needs is a president who thinks that the road to prosperity is paved by punishing producers, increasing dependency, over-regulating, and driving up labor costs."