Friday, October 31, 2008

Have A Happy Halloween


And watch out for this guy

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Can The Media Define Sarah Palin?

I heard a comment by one of the commentators on Fox News that once a person (Sarah Palin) has been defined as a caricature, it’s hard to reverse the opinion. So, my question is, is this true?

In thinking about this, I think the obvious parallel is Dan Quayle. The media bent over backwards to define him as a less than smart man and they, to a large extent, succeeded. It has taken him years to finally get some respect back and finally be viewed as a serious political commentator.

This is one of the favorite pastimes of the main stream media, destroy any conservative that doesn’t fit into their definition of intelligence. In other words, doesn’t agree with their talking points.

An opposite example is Al Gore. This is man who has written a book about global warming that was full of factual errors. Did the media work to destroy his career because of this incompetence? No, he was made out to be a genius. The argument is often heard that we should not be questioning the facts he puts forth, we need to listen to his message. Luckily for him, his message jibes with theirs so he is clearly intelligent.

Back to the original question. Can they define Sarah Palin? My thoughts are no.

I think there is one difference between Palin and Quayle, the respect she gets from conservatives. Even though Dan Quayle was actually an intelligent man and a true conservative, he was effectively thrown under the bus by conservatives because he was seen as a liability. This is unfortunate and unfair. It is also typical of conservatives.

There has been a tendency in the Republican party to be weakened with the media in the past. I think this is partly because the media was completely controlled by liberals and they in turn controlled the message disseminated to the public.

With Fox News, talk radio, and the internet now, this has changed. The conservative message is getting out without the main stream media and in fact a large portion of the old main stream media is in decay.

This election has, for the first time really, seen the GOP go after the media for it’s inherent bias against conservatives. Further, this line of attack is starting to show some causalities. There is pretty much a universal decline in the readership and viewer ship of left leaning media in the US and this decline has been offset by the rise of the more balanced and even right of center Fox News.

As I said before, Palin gets significantly more respect and support from the conservatives. There is an almost defiant support for her. It seems as if the more the left and the leftist media attacks her, the more fervent the support is from the right. She also has the advantage of the availability of the more favorable press as stated above. Finally, she may actually be tougher than Dan Quayle. She is not one to hide away and let herself be defined. She is going to fight them head on.

So, I think Sarah Palin will do just fine. I do not think she will be defined by the media. Finally, I think that in four years’ time she will have time to work on her image with moderates and women who do not support her now and will be a force to reckon with. There is the possible added advantage that the left leaning media will no longer be the main dispenser of news by then.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Let's See How This Plays Out In The Media

I'm not under any circumstances going to condone this, I'm not even going to comment on it. I just want to see how the media covers this story Obama Effigies Strung Up in Kentucky and Indiana

Right off the mark, Fox News is showing different pictures.



This is how Fox showed the Sarah Palin effigy:

This is Fox showing the rock below the Barack Obama effigy:

Notice any difference?

The Convenience Of Journalistic Ethics

Fox News is running a discussion panel this morning and one of the topics is the LA Times’ refusal to release the tape of Obama praising Rashid Khalidi at a going away party for Khalidi.

Khalidi was a former speaker for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Even more embarrassing for Obama is that the party appears to have been attended to by Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, both long time far left radicals.

The argument is over whether the LA Times should release the tape, if their refusal is to protect Obama, and if the same standard would be applied if it were a tape damaging to John McCain.

The discussion itself largely fell along ideological lines among the panel in patterns that one would expect.

What’s interesting though is that Julia Baird, Editor for Newsweek, led off the conversation with the media’s ace, journalistic ethics, as an excuse not to release it.

This is an argument that is beyond ridiculous in this campaign. Most of the media shred any remaining semblance of ethics in approximately April or May. Further, Ms Baird’s Newsweek was right there with the worst of the publications as far as journalistic ethics are concerned.

So, excuse me if I’m a little skeptical of this claim to ethics.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

NOBAMA08 BLOG BURST PART V

In this election we have a choice between two men of vastly differing character. I believe that character is tantamount to an effective president. A person cannot lead, cannot negotiaite with foreign leaders, and cannot make just decisions if they do not have strong moral character. For this reason, Chuck Thinks Right is proud to participate with other excellant fellow blogers listed below in Blog Burst Tuesday this Tuesday and every Tuesday until the election.



Presidential Character

Some people argue that domestic issues are of far greater importance than any discussion of character. I could not disagree more. All elections are about character. If we cannot trust the honor, patriotism, and fidelity of our elected representatives, then the issues don’t matter because whatever a candidate of low character shall say about political issues cannot matter.



I believe we each must consider the character of the two men who want us to elect them as our next president. Some may argue “What more is there to know about either candidate?” after a campaign that has lasted far too long. Ordinarily, at this point in the campaign, I would say, “nothing more.” Except in this election, “We the People” have found the press (as guardians of American democracy) seriously deficient. Rather than remaining impartial, the media has fallen head-over-heels in love with one of the candidates; we must excuse them from the jury of the court of public opinion. This year, the American people have not witnessed a fair trial.



Samuel Adams once said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men,” but this was long before the Obama Era. Political correctness and liberal bias have led us to outcries of racism for even asking questions not even remotely related to race.. The press castigated our friend “Joe the Plumber” for daring to ask about income redistribution. According to one radio report, the Secret Service visited a woman because she told an Obama Campaign worker that she would vote for Barack Obama, “over her dead body.” This kind of attention applied to citizens for merely expressing an opinion is patently un-American, but it is also reminiscent of the intimidation used to silence dissent in communist countries. Character matters all right, especially if suppression of the right of expression is what we can expect from an Obama presidency.



In order to assess the character of our presidential contenders, we must decide upon an appropriate exemplar. On the democratic side of the aisle, the obvious notables are Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Jefferson may be too far back in time to serve as our role model. Roosevelt was a patent socialist. Truman left office as one of the most unpopular of all our presidents. Lyndon Johnson gave us too many scars. Mr. Carter was a buffoon and Bill Clinton . . . well, I wonder if we aren’t just a little too tired of hearing about him. Kennedy seems to qualify as the best Democratic Party exemplar, even if he was a womanizer; no one is perfect.



In the twentieth Century, notable Republican presidents have included Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Of these, Roosevelt was impetuous, Eisenhower cautious, Nixon resigned in disgrace, and Reagan was the great communicator. I therefore propose Reagan as our Republican Party exemplar.



In 1961, John Kennedy issued this mandate to the American people: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John Kennedy became the darling of the American people; many around the world shared this view. We called his presidency Camelot. He was young, relatively inexperienced, but he excited the people about America’s future. He believed in the rights of man, a strong national defense, and the protection of liberty throughout the world. He believed that nuclear deterrence was insufficient to maintain peaceful coexistence. He believed the United States should be a beacon of hope, and he argued for increased world trade. He sought to achieve working partnerships with other world leaders to achieve dignity, justice, and liberty for all the people of the world. He sought to attain solidarity among the western (Atlantic) nations; he refuted communism as doomed to failure. He set forth an economic policy of unshackled enterprise, industrial leadership, and vibrant capitalism. He sought to lower interest rates in order to increase the flow of money, reduced government spending, and lower taxes. He also vowed to help small businesses through government loans and fair trade policy. Mr. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative.



Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.” We assume he spoke about the party of John Kennedy, a platform designed to inspire the American people to greatness. This was also the platform of Ronald Reagan. He repudiated the policy of Jimmy Carter; looking forward, he said, “Democratic politicians are without programs or ideas to reverse economic decline and despair. They are divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility.”



Reagan brought the American people a new pride in their country and themselves, their achievements and future possibilities. He wanted the American people to have liberty and freedom of choice, low taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. He repudiated the so-called Great Society because it created low human productivity. He fought for an expansion of private property ownership, committed himself to improved economic opportunities for black Americans, rights and equality for every minority, and equal opportunities for women. He was committed to the rights of unborn children.





Modern Democrats have turned Kennedy’s ideal upside down; now the cry is “Ask what your country can do for you.” Today’s Democrat pursues the politics of dependency, the essential breaking point between civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. King wanted black Americans to realize the reality of equality, while Jackson’s policies pursue racism, separatism, and demands for greater gifts from the government. King wanted black Americans judged according to their character; Jackson views character as secondary concern because the means justifies the end. King fought for unity, Jackson has dedicated his entire life to reverse-segregation.



Modern Republicans have broken faith with the American people. They broke their Contract with America. Much of what has happened since mid-2005 is the result of this failure. As a Republican, I bemoan a Democratically controlled Congress, but I realize that men such as Duke Cunningham brought it to fruition. But, before anyone starts gloating, we should note that the United States Congress today has achieved the low point of popular opinion; it cannot possibly get worse. Or, can it?



It is time to ask ourselves where Barack Obama and John McCain stand with regard to our exemplars of presidential character. We should assume that “Country First” is a sentiment that every patriotic American deeply subscribes; that all of us want to see positive changes for the future. That said, let us dispense with bumper-sticker ideology, and investigate the actual character of each candidate. Let us consider the deeds of these men rather than their words.



Before announcing his candidacy for the highest office, Barack Obama associated himself with socialist organizations, a peculiar philosophy that supports state or collective ownership of all property and the means of production. Since we achieve personal and national wealth through property and the means of production, Mr. Obama apparently believes than an egalitarian society is only possible when the state controls property and wealth. By extension, the State will distribute wealth according to its own priorities, and the State will achieve this through any number of programs, including taxation. Socialist programs relieve individuals of responsibility, for themselves, and for their families. We see this clearly in Mr. Obama’s platform;



Economic Policy



· An immediate energy rebate to American families



· An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy



· Federal assistance to states and localities in education, health care, and infrastructure



· Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending



· Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges



· Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools



· Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs.



· Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity.



· National health care initiatives




We should perhaps note at this point that governments do not create wealth, people do. Governments may facilitate productivity through sound economic policy, but they cannot interfere in a market economy without significant disruption to capitalist investment and diminishing personal and corporate income and profits. Barack Obama’s socialist platform is anathema to Kennedy’s economic philosophy, and may be unparalleled since the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Simply stated, responsible government cannot spend more than anticipated revenues, and it is contrary to American values to redistribute income in a free-market environment.



John McCain is a moderate conservative approximating John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. He believes that the Constitution of the United States limits the role of the federal government, and he strives to work with the Congress within a constitutional framework to improve government efficiency and reduce waste. Like Kennedy and Reagan, McCain believes that lower taxes improve productivity, and that reduced spending is fiscally responsible and economically necessary. While there are some things the federal government must do, other projects constitutionally fall within the purview of the 50 states. National defense and homeland security is something the federal government must do, but the central government must form partnerships with the states on other important human-services programs. Reflected in Mr. McCain’s platform:



Economic Policy



· Implement immediate transparency to the budgeting process



· Evaluate and reduce spending on wasteful and inefficient programs



· Empower states to improve public services



· Implement meaningful (and trustworthy) oversight of government programs



· Make government more efficient and responsive to citizen’s needs



· Prioritize spending to improve and safeguard America’s infrastructure



· Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Programs



· Restore Social Security to a sound financial basis



· Expand opportunities to promote personal and industrial prosperity




Of these two men, which has the greatest character? Which of these candidates maintains faith with our founding principles of Constitutional Federalism, a steady hand on the tiller of state, while allowing individuals to choose for themselves their best course? John McCain is not a perfect man, nor is he without justifiable criticism of his previous positions; but John McCain is an open book. His service to his country and his associations has been honorable, and trustworthy.



Barack Obama has not been honest and forthright with the American people. He has hidden his past associations or played them down. He has defamed religious teaching through adherence to black separatist theology and racism, consorted with known terrorists, and enjoys the backing of organizations harmful to the interests and the people of the United States. As an advocate of socialist/Marxist ideology, Barack Obama is frankly, in our judgment, un-American. He falls far short of exemplars such as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.



Character matters because our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts. If we intend to resolve these problems, we must have the steady hand of true statesmanship. We must have in our president wisdom, experience, honesty, fidelity, and valor. Our president must be a man whose character is consistent with our Nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.



Every presidential election brings forth professional pundits who tell us that this election is the most important of our entire lifetime. This time, they could be right. Our selection of the right man will assure our children, and theirs, of a nation dedicated to individual liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. If we choose the wrong man, we may very well witness an end to the United States as created by our forefathers. We are living in perilous times — there is no room for error in our selection of the 44th President of the United States.



On Election Day, one of these candidates will receive a majority of popular votes. In December, the Electoral College will validate the popular vote and confirm the identity of our next president. But this election is more than a referendum on the ability of the American voter to discern between two well-educated men. This election is rather a test of America’s ability to distinguish and reward personal character and to recognize integrity and statesmanship between one man who possesses these qualities and the other who does not.



We urge Americans to vote for John McCain. There simply is no other choice that is good for the American people, or our great country.



How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" — Ronald Reagan




Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Praesidium Respublicae; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

Monday, October 27, 2008

ACORN “Explained” For Us

Donna Brazile, Democratic campaign advisor, has taken it upon herself to explain the ACORN controversy to us uninformed. While I will get to some details soon, I can sum up her article in a simple synopsis. If you think ACORN is doing anything wrong or if you think we should not have loaned money to people who could not afford to pay it back, you are, my friend, a racist.

Now to the longer version. Story here.

Through its 850 neighborhood chapters in more than 100 cities across the United States, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now organizes the powerless to work together for social justice and stronger communities through affordable housing, quality education and better public services. They are dedicated to looking out for those with little means in our society.

See. ACORN is not a bad group at all.

In the world of some elites, low- and moderate-income families and the organizations that work to empower them are the bad guys. There is all-out class warfare going on here, folks.

Another example of it is how people in the low-income bracket are being blamed for the subprime market crash -- rather than the unscrupulous lenders who redirected them from the fixed 30-year prime rates they could have paid to the subprime and adjustable rate mortgages destined to implode. The victims are revictimized.

It’s not the fault of the people who borrowed money that they could not repay. It’s unscrupulous lenders, who coincidently give a lot of money to Democrats and are in turn given favorable legislation, that are taking advantage of these victims.

And now for the kicker:

It is an unfortunate reality that "poor" and "racial minority" are invariably overlapping circles in a Venn diagram. But the class animosity now being bred is, as it always has been, a cover for racial antipathy. And, make no mistake, this is exactly what's going on here. How pathetic and immoral in the face of the challenges we must confront as a nation.

“Venn” diagram? I’m not very smart so I looked it up. Looks like a chart that can be used to get what results you want.

Now for a statement that is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me.

Experts who have examined the allegations against ACORN have concluded that there is no significant threat of voter fraud. For the fraudulent registration forms to turn into fraudulent votes, they would have had to get through the election officials' vetting systems and make it onto the voter rolls.

We never seem to find out who these “experts” are. I can only assume that they are entirely unbiased, nationally recognized experts on election law who just prefer to remain anonymous. Further, has anyone else noted that ACORN only works in areas in which it is Democrats or Democratic leaning non-partisan officials doing the “vetting” of registrations making it onto the voter rolls?

Next, someone would need to arrive at the assigned polling location with valid identification that lists the same name and address as the fraudulent registration. (This is fairly difficult to do if you're dead or named Mickey Mouse.)

First, the Democrats have been fighting laws requiring ID at polling places, purely coincidental I’m sure. Second, we are not worried about the one registration for Mickey Mouse, we are worried about the 100’s of thousands of registrations for John Smith, Bob Williams, Mary Johnson, etc. Finally, we have had more than a few instances of the dead voting.

Let's look at the facts. ACORN labeled as "suspicious" the fraudulent registration forms a few of its paid volunteers submitted. Moreover, ACORN delivered them to election authorities under that heading. ACORN offered to help election officials pursue prosecutions against those who filled out the fraudulent forms.

The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system.

So, see, ACORN is the real victim in this situation. This statement is actually almost entirely false. In every instance I have heard of so far in which ACORN has claimed to turn in the offending canvassers, the local election officials have said they did not do this. Also, it is not a “few canvassers”. This statement is so patently false it’s laughable. I believe the count is now up 15 states in which the Federal government is investigating ACORN.

We must be vigilant in protecting people's right to vote, not vigilant in suppressing it. We must be vigilant that new voters aren't threatened, harassed or turned away. And we must be vigilant that resources like voting machines and poll workers are distributed appropriately to accommodate the projected influx of new voters.

Notice nothing about being vigilant that all voters are registered properly and are legally allowed to vote? I have yet to hear a Democrat say that they want this.

Lastly, what idiotic liberal voting rant would be complete without this:

Finally, we must be vigilant that this election, unlike 2000 or 2004, doesn't return conspicuous voting irregularities, and that those irregularities aren't left unchallenged.

Again, we never get any actual instances of “voting irregularities” from 2000, unless of course you are talking about not allowing votes that were not cast for Al Gore to be counted by him. As far as 2004, we hear a lot of accusations about voter suppression but never any real examples. Am I the only one that noticed that the Dims cried fraud in the 2004 election but never actually demanded an investigation? I was of a mind then that we should have investigated it, the Dems would not have liked what they found out. ACORN was hard at work in this election also.

The bottom line is we have to stay vigilant and no let these Socialists steal this election.

Yet Another Socialist Remark From Obama

The Drudge Report is calling this a bombshell. For once, he may be right.

The only question now is, can the media keep things like this hidden for 8 more days.

Listen to the audio.

Obama considers it a tragedy that the Supreme Court did not pursue Redistribution of wealth

Sunday, October 26, 2008

The Quote Of The Week

Well, I enjoyed this last week so I decided to do it again.

Joe Biden made it easy by giving us a great one to start the week out on Sunday. This is long but I decided to include the whole thing because it works just like it is. The emphasis is mine. Quote taken from here.

"And here's the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they're made if they work, then they weren't viewed as a crisis. If they don't work, it's viewed as you didn't make the right decision, a little bit like how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that maybe didn't have to lose lives. It's how we made a mistake in Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there's gonna be some tough decisions. They may emanate from the Middle East. They may emanate from the sub-continent. They may emanate from Russia's newly-emboldened position because they're floating in a sea of oil."

It’s hard to pick a favorite part out of such a long statement but this is definitely a good one: If they don't work, it's viewed as you didn't make the right decision…

So for the entire quote and this part in particular, I give Joe Biden…


the Dodo bird.



Saturday, October 25, 2008

Obama Campaign Falls Apart When Spotlight Is Turned On them

Joe Biden, appearing on WFTV Channel 9 in Orlando was asked by Barbara West if Barack Obama was a socialist. Story here.

West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.

"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.


The station's news director said that campaigns pick and choose stations that they know will be friendly and the stations, in return for getting the interview, throw softball questions at the candidates.

The director said they were taking the stance that they would not give softball questions.

Because of the exchange, the Obama campaign cancelled a subsequent interview with Jill Biden, the wife of Joe Biden.

This whole thing is incredible.

It's amazing at the depth of arrogance at this campaign that no media outlet is allowed to run negative remarks about them. I think it would be fair to say this campaign has enjoyed more friendliness from the media than any presidential campaign ever. When they lose that, they fall apart.

Responses range from whining like Obama has done with Fox news, to punishing by withholding access like they are with this station, to out and out fascism as they have exhibited in the harassment of radio stations.

Biden's remarks make it absolutely clear that they do not think they should be questioned.

If this doesn't scare the public yet, it will later when it's too late.

Finally, no mention as to what Biden's answer was.

It's Coming



The weather forecast is saying possible snow Sunday and Monday although it won't look like this yet. I actually like winter though and enjoy the snow. I even like going out and blowing out the driveway.


The flat thing in the picture is a smaller picnic table sticking out of the snow.


I think it was this storm that I drove home from work through 3 foot drifts. It was actually a blast. Fortunately I have a 4 wheel drive truck and it gets used here.


Those little liberal econuts can drive their Prius, I want a truck around me when the yard looks like this.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Obama’s Socialist Ties

We have been speculating for awhile that Barack Obama has socialistic leanings, he will take the country in a socialist direction, etc. Of course conservative bloggers have been viewed by some (especially the liberal media) as a bunch of paranoid nut cases. Funny thing about paranoids is that sometimes they really do have someone out to get them. This may be the case with the bloggers and the Obama socialist story.

World Net Daily is reporting today that Obama was a member of the now defunct New Party. As evidence they have a newsletter, The New Party News, in which Obama is pictured with members, listed as a member, and has quotes from Obama. This article is definitely worth reading. Among some of the excerpts are:

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

Note the association with ACORN, somebody’s been lying about their limited interaction with them.

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.


The Obama campaign has denied that he ever belonged.

Now the next trick is getting this info out. As of this writing, only Fox was carrying the story. A survey of MSNBC, CBS, and ABC shows they are not yet though I have no doubt they will, just as soon as they’ve run that Sarah Palin clothes story long enough.

We need to do our part, spread the word. We need to keep this now certain socialist out of office.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Idle Thought For Today

Is it possible that Barack Obama and the liberal media could cause him the election?

There has been a definite change in the way Obama is approaching the election. He is acting as if he has won already. He’s starting to work on a transition team and post election plans (story here), he’s planning a party in Chicago for the night that he wins, and he’s even backing off on some states that may be closer than polls show.

The media is taking the same approach. The story line is that Obama’s election is inevitable. The stories about McCain are that he is so far behind now that he could never possibly catch up, short a miracle. The polls showing Obama with almost unbelievable leads are reported on and the polls showing him close are ignored. One poll in particular, the IBD/TIPP poll, shows Obama up 1.1%. This lead is down from 3.6 points from yesterday. What is significant about this poll? It was the most accurate poll in the 2004 election, off by 0.4%.

So, back to the original question, could this hurt Obama’s chance of winning?

Democrats have traditionally been fickle voters. Could we have a sense among Obama’s voters that the election is in the bag and their vote is not needed? Obviously we won’t know until November 5th but it is not an impossible scenario.

For the record, I am not hoping for low voter turnout, I do want people to get out and vote. The point is, maybe he needs to stop acting like he’s the president and start acting like he will lose everything if people don’t get out and vote. If he doesn’t, he just might lose everything.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Has America Really Thought About The Barack Obama Economic Plan?

As I have said previously I am not an economist. This is a blessing I am incredibly thankful for. So for people smarter than me reading this, cut my ignorance a little slack. My concern today is the Barack Obama economic plan, at least as I understand it.

First we have the “tax cut” in which Obama plans to take money from people in the top tax bracket and re-distribute it to the 95% below them. A fair portion of this tax cut will go to the large portion of wage earners who don’t pay taxes. This is one those circumstances in which my ignorance hangs me up. I simply cannot understand how you can give a tax cut to someone who does not pay taxes. In short, the plan is to increase the top income tax rate and increase capital gains taxes. But then he’s such a cool guy, who am I to question this?

Then we have increased spending. Oops I’m sorry, I forgot that we call it “investing in America” now. It’s so hard to keep up with all of these euphemisms. I guess if he’s elected I’ll have to see if there’s a book or something. From what I’ve heard, Obama intends to “invest” in socialized health care, clean energy, global warming, housing, foreign aid, among others. Not sure where he’s going to get the money, with a personality like his you don’t have to answer such pedestrian questions.

He’s going to tax gasoline. He hasn’t specifically said it yet but I believe in my heart that he will. We have already had members of Congress push to double the national fuel tax, and this is in an election year, before the election. What will be the increase when they control Congress and the Presidency? Also, when gas prices were above $4 a gallon Obama himself said that the prices weren’t too high, they just went up too fast for people to adjust. Remember, Democrats want high gas prices so we will stop driving our SUV’s and bike to the collective farm. He will give fuel prices an additional hit with increased taxes on the industry. With his Oneness though, how could I dare ask about this? This may be a case of ‘if you have to ask, you can’t afford it’.

So, while I’m embarrassed to even question the Obamessiah, I have to wonder in this depressed economy when investors are skittish and in short supply, why are we going to:

-Take money away from the people who invest in our economy and give it to people who do not

-Punish those who do dare invest by taxing the money they have left over from their income tax that they then use to invest by making them pay increased capital gain taxes

-Take money out of the economy to spend it on foreign economies (he has proposed bail out help for foreign governments)

-Redistribute the wealth to items such as free and inefficient government-run health care, housing for people who make bad decisions, and ambiguous and likely wasteful programs such as global warming and clean energy

-Giving the economy a disastrous hit with increased fuel prices. This is an economy wide drain that does not get it’s proper respect. Increased fuel prices not only take money out of the pockets of consumers at the pump but every time we go to the store, pay our school taxes, health care costs, any services, deliveries, etc. There are very few, if any, aspects of our lives that are untouched by increased fuel costs. It is a problem that is compounded too because every step of the way through the economy are business that are not only paying higher fuel costs that they have to pass on to the consumer but also are paying higher costs from other business and services that are paying higher fuel costs which also have to be passed on to the consumer and so on and so on.

So if there is anyone out there smarter than me that can explain this, give it to me. I’m just a dumb working stiff.

A far left President with the most liberal Congress ever. Yeah, this is going to go well.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Does This Make The Polls Suspect?

I have been a little suspicious of the validity of the Presidential polls we have been seeing. There are several reasons for my skepticism, variance in polls, methods, past inaccuracies, and the fact that a lot of them are run by liberal organizations, among other reasons.

I have another, far less scientific, reason though. The late night ratings.

In the last week John McCain and Sarah Palin have appeared on separate late night shows, both with likely traditionally liberal and young audiences, and gave them both big ratings increases.

Last Thursday McCain appeared on the David Letterman show and gave him his biggest audience in almost three years. His 6.53 million viewers is almost double is nightly average and almost 40% higher than Jay Leno for the night, a show he usually draws fewer viewers than.

Then we have Sarah Palin’s funny appearance on Saturday Night Live. She drew the largest SNL audience in 14 years.

Only time will tell if the 1st annual Chuck Report Presidential Survey Of Late Night Television is a better indicator of presidential elections than all of those fancy polls. I may be on to something here though and if it pans out, you’ll see me interviewed on all of the happening cable news shows in four years. This could be a problem though because I definitely have a face for the radio.

Blog Burst Tuesday

As a country going through uncertain times, now is not the time to elect a candidate who is not only inexperienced but is also potentially detrimental to the security and economic well being of the United States. For this reason, Chuck Thinks Right proudly has joined with other thoughtful blogs listed below in a Blog Burst to run today and every Tuesday until the Presidential election.
An Enigma Named Barack



We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.



Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.



Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):

William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention.



Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years.



Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.



Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader
Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.



Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.



Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the
Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.



Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down
the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)



Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.



Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis
assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.



Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.



Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to
a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground

leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.



Barack Obama is a former director of
The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”




Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for

six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the
Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”



Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.


The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:

The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.



Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).


Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this 1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party



Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).



Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.


From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.



Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled
Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”



Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled,
The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.



Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.



John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.



Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.



Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.



Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.



We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.



We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.




CURRENT LINKS:

Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

Monday, October 20, 2008

Get Over The Powell Endorsement

People have been expressing shock at the Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama. We need to get past it, it’s simply not the end of the world.

In my mind there was no shock, I personally assumed all along Powell would endorse Obama. Partly due to race and partly due to politics.

Colin Powell is not a conservative, he claims to be a Republican but so do Lincoln Chafee (he endorsed Obama also), Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel (also endorsed Obama). In my book, Powell is barely a Rhino.

Also, although I could be wrong, I don’t think the endorsement really matters much. One of the commentators on Fox put it best today in that the endorsement says more about Powell than Obama. I think a lot of voters don’t even really know who Powell is and even fewer care about the endorsement. Keep in mind this previous blog of mine in which Obama supporters thought Sarah Palin was Obama’s running mate, he was pro-life, and advocated keeping the troops in Iraq.

Further, I don’t think he has a reputation as a conservative with voters and therefore the endorsement was not a huge surprise. I think the Joe Lieberman endorsement of McCain probably carried more weight because he has ran on the Democratic ticket. It is sad but likely true that the Ludacris endorsement probably helped Obama more than the Powell endorsement did.

Finally, I am of a mind that very few political endorsements make a big difference in a Presidential campaign. You occasionally get a blockbuster endorsement but they are far and few in between. Endorsements seem to matter more in primaries. In other words, I think a Democrat would care more if Powell endorsed Obama over Clinton than a Republican or independent cares about Powell’s endorsement of Obama over McCain.

I’m not trying to diminish Powell, he has had a career full of honorable service to the country, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for this. I also don’t want to see him demonized like the left has done to Joe Lieberman. I just don’t think the endorsement was a game changer.

I don’t think the endorsement was out of left field, so to speak and we need to just roll with the flow. This wasn’t an October surprise.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

The Quote Of The Week

I am thinking I may start a new series in which I will post quotes from people. Like a lot of people, I have a fascination with quotes, good and bad. We all have times when we are sitting and reading an article or watching TV and we hear something that makes us go YEAH, or, I can’t believe they just said that. I will either give an Eagle, I like this graphic below, or… I will have to figure out an alternative.

Drum roll, please… The quote for today goes to Rush Limbaugh for his comment to Jonathan Martin’s Blog on Politico.com


Rush was talking about the Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama and whether it is suspicious.

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."


For this thought provoking quote, I give Rush Limbaugh the Eagle



Friday, October 17, 2008

Chuck Thinks Right Turns 100

On March 28th I posted my initial blog At The Front Of My Mind because I had this impression, probably horribly misguided, that people may have an interest in what I think about, well, everything. Since then I have made it to 100 and have as yet been exposed as a fraud and ran out of bloggerdom. So I will consider myself lucky and continue writing.

Along the way I have found that I genuinely enjoy doing this. I like to write so this is an easy and convenient way to do it and still live my real life as a father, husband, and a Nurse. I have made some friends along the way and have a great time talking with all of you, even the ones that I disagree with. Finally, doing this is cheaper than therapy. I am very passionate about politics (I know, stunning, I hide it so well) and writing about politics provides an outlet.

My wife, while as conservative as I am, is not much of a political animal. She worries about silly things like the kids, and the bills, and school functions, weird huh. I used to drive her nuts talking to her about politics. I think she may be more grateful I am doing this than I am. I’m leaving her alone, most of the time. Sometimes she comes too near and gets snagged into a discussion. So blogging gives me, and her, an out.

The thing I appreciate though is the visitors. I would likely have not continued doing this if not for all of you. The writing is fun but the interaction is what I get the satisfaction from. So thank all of you and I look forward to doing 100’s more.

On that note, I am taking the weekend off and going to visit my parents. I am putting myself on moderation because I have had one less than cooperative friend. Please feel free to comment and I will catch up when I get home.

Thank You,

Chuck

Chuck Thinks Right

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Wizard of Chicago

Note: I actually have to give partial credit for this blog to Cube at The Blog. It was while I was reading the blog Ghost Writer? on whether Barack Obama’s book was actually written by someone else that I came up with the idea for this blog. While reading it, the Wizard of Oz came to mind…

It was a typical day in Wasilla, Alaska when the former Mayor and current Governor, Sarah, was whisked far far away to a strange land in a whirlwind with her pet Moose, Toto.

The whirlwind dropped her onto something hard and cold. Looking down, she realized she was sitting on a woman. At this moment, a man in strange dress (actually, a skirt of some sort) approached her and told her she landed on Hillary, the Wicked Witch of the East.

Jumping up and brushing glass shards from her clothes, Sarah exclaimed “I didn’t mean to do that, I’m not even sure where I am.”

The man giggled and exclaimed in a high pitched voice, “Let me explain. You are in the Village of Greenwich in the region of New York. Hillary has ruled this area for some time now, spending her time most recently putting 18 million cracks into the glass ceiling you just crashed through…”

His explanation was suddenly interrupted by the crash of a door flying open. Walking through the door was a severe, unpleasant looking woman.

“This is the Wicked Witch of the West, Nancy, from the village of San Francisco. She’s mean.” Whispers the man to Sarah.

“Who is this and what is going on here?” Screeched Nancy, glaring at Sarah.

Sarah, refusing to fear this woman, stood her ground and said “I am Sarah from the land of Alaska, who are you?”

Glancing again at Sarah, the Witch let out a horrifying scream when she saw her sister, Hillary lying on the ground under a pile of glass, moaning.

At this moment, Sarah and the Witch Nancy realized that Sarah was wearing a strange cloak. “What are you doing with that on?” Demanded Nancy.

Sarah looked down at the garment and said “I don’t what this is but it does seem to fit me nicely, almost if I were born to wear it.”

“That is the Mantle of Feminism, that has been worn up until now by Hillary. How dare you take that from her?” spat Nancy. At that moment they could hear the shrieks of Hillary’s Harpies from throughout the land at the notion that Sarah had appeared to take the Cloak from Hillary. The Harpies had believed that it was Hillary’s birthright to wear the Cloak and the notion of another wearing it was too much for them to bear. “Give the Cloak to me.” Demanded Nancy.

“No” said Sarah, “I think I’m going to wear it from now on.”

Nancy started towards Sarah menacingly in an apparent attempt to remove the Cloak forcibly. Just at that moment, another door crashed open and through it walked a tall, fair skinned woman. This one appeared to be much kinder than Nancy. “Cindy, the Good Witch of the Southwest.” Whispered the man in the skirt.

“Stop” commanded Cindy to Nancy “do not attempt to harm this woman.” To Sarah, Cindy said “Wear the Mantle proudly, it suits you well. Sadly though, there is danger from the Wicked Witch sisters and their Harpies if you continue to wear it. I feel you should go to the Village of Chicago to speak to the Wizard. The Wicked Witch sisters and their Harpies revere the Wizard. The word from the scribes is that he is a kind and even Messianic man, though I suspect this is not true. If you could expose him for what he is, it may keep you safe from the forces of dark.”

Sarah says to Cindy “I am new to this land, how do I get to the Village of Chicago?”

Cindy smiled kindly and said “Why, you follow the yellow brick road”.

Looking down, Sarah saw she did indeed appear to be standing on a yellow brick road.

Just then six strange men, each dressed differently, a sailor, an Indian chief, a construction worker, a policeman, a biker, and a cowboy, began to dance and sing “follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road, follow, follow, follow, follow the yellow brick road.”

Walking away quickly and nervously, Sarah and Toto indeed began to follow the yellow brick road. Sarah saying “What a strange group of people, I think it’s safe to say we’re not in Alaska anymore.”

Walking down the road a little later, Sarah came across a man standing in an apple orchard. The man was stiff and emotionless and appeared to have been waiting there for at least eight years. As Sarah joined the man, he appeared to come to life a little, though he would forever remain unexcitable. Introducing herself, Sarah found out the man’s name was John.

Sarah asked John if he would like to accompany her to the Village of Chicago to meet the Wizard. She had read in the paper that morning that the Wizard had a dynamic, rock star persona and she was thinking that if they could show that this isn’t true, it may help both of them get what they want. He agreed and off they went.

After a day and a night, they came to a large, sort of grimy village with a huge gate at it’s entrance. Upon Sarah knocking on the door, a window opened and a grumpy man peered out. “What do you want?” said the man who we come to find is named Joe.

“We’ve come to see the Wizard” exclaimed Sarah and John in unison.

“Impossible” growled the man, “the Wizard is too busy and important to be bothered by common people”

“We’ve been sent by Cindy, the Good Witch of the Southwest” stated Sarah, “I have the Mantle of Feminism.”

After approximately an hour and a half debate in which Joe gave several (14 actually) questionable reasons as to why they couldn’t enter, Joe relented and opened the door.

Upon entering the city, Sarah and John were a little taken aback at the apparent decay and corruption they saw about them. These thoughts were interrupted by Joe telling them about the village. He described it as a near fantasy land-type collective where everything is provided for them. Life is good in their own isolated little land. The Wizard has told them that there is nothing to worry about in the world past their borders. Though Joe or the other inhabitants of Chicago have never seen the true Wizard, they could not question his power because he is a benevolent ruler who just by his being keeps the people safe, healthy, and well taken care of. When asked, Joe said they don’t question the fact that they have not seen the real man because he is the Wizard and who would question the Wizard? He seemed very puzzled by all of this.

Joe’s reverent accounting of the Wizard was still ongoing as they approached a great door. As Joe opened the door, Sarah and John peered inside and saw a long gilded hallway stretching into the distance.

At the end of this hallway they came to a smaller, ornate door which Joe opened. As Sarah and John approached the door, Joe bowed and averted his eyes. Sarah looked at John, they both shrugged, and Sarah, John, and Toto walked through the door.

Just as their eyes were adjusting to the dimly lit room, a large, indistinct head appeared and a voice boomed “who dares to disturb the Wizard”

“It is I, Sarah, I have a few questions.”

“Proceed” said the Wizard “I can answer all”.

Sarah questioned the Wizard: What was his stance on the crisis in the Village of Wall? Did he really think he could cut taxes and yet pay for a growth in government spending? How can you possibly give tax breaks to people who do not pay taxes? Just who are these men you have running your Village, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Franklin Raines?

The more Sarah questioned the Wizard, the more he appeared to stammer and become less and less able to answer the questions. Just as she was becoming certain that the Wizard was not all the masses thought he was, Toto walked over and pulled a curtain aside exposing a small, skinny man working levers and controls.

“Ignore that man behind the curtain” roared the voice.

“Why your not a Wizard at all,” exclaimed Sarah “your just a ordinary man.”

“Shh” said the now exposed Wizard. “No, I am not a Wizard, I’m Barack Obama. Your messing up my gig here. Now go away.”

“Well, God Bless you.” said Sarah “We can’t let you continue to fool the people. We have to break the spell you have over the scribes and let the public see you for what you are.”

Before Obama could answer, Cindy the Good Witch of the Southwest appeared before them. “Barack, you have been exposed for what you are. It’s time to return to your homeland of Kenya and free these good people of America to live their lives in prosperity.”

Epilogue. The singing men from the Village of Greenwich developed a band called The Village People and had a couple of small hits, one of which cursed the people of America to have to listen and dance to it at every wedding and baseball game for all time. Nancy, the Wicked Witch of the West continued her reign of terror in the Village of House for two more years until she was vanquished. Hillary, the Wicked Witch of the East was last seen walking away muttering to herself something along the lines “I will get that Mantle back one day.” Cindy, the Good Witch of the Southwest married John and they lived in a used White House for four years until John gave the house to Sarah and they returned to the region of Arizona to live out their lives. Obama, the exposed Wizard, is rumored to still be living somewhere in a house outside of the Village of Chicago although there were some questions as to how he bought the house. Toto is living in Alaska and is doing well. Sarah lived in the VP Manor in the Village of DC for four years until moving into John’s White House when he moved out. The last we heard from her she was saying “There’s no place like home, you betcha.”

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Obama's Supporters Are OK With Palin As His VP

A hat tip to Fort Hard Knox for this find. I personally can't stand Howard Stern but this is a video you have to listen to.

Blogburst Tuesday

It seems all Presidential elections are the "most important ever". One can argue whether this is true of this one or not. The reality is though that a person would be hard pressed to find an election that has had more at stake for the American public not only in national security but also for the economic health of the United States. In a time of uncertain economic times and continuing threats to our security from abroad, Barack Obama is a dangerous choice for both of these issues. For this reason Chuck Thinks Right is honored to join with other excellent blogs listed below in this Blogburst Tuesday and every Tuesday until the November 4 election.




OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD




The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week we will address that issue; and we’ll do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?


We don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.


With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what we found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:


Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.



Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.


In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”


Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.


He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.


Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:


Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.


Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”


Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.



Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.


To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?



To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.





(click chart for larger image)


NOBAMA!





Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.



None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.


Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.




Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH;

Monday, October 13, 2008

What If This Was A Minority?

In yet another example of lack of any pretense of evenness at ABC News, this is the headline about Bristol Palin’s fiancĂ© and the father of her baby “Palin's Baby Daddy Drops Out of School”. Story here.

While this seems unimportant, put it in the context of days of stories questioning McCain on his comments. He has been called racist for using the phrases “That One” or “I’m going to whip Obama’s ass” (at the debate). Being attacked by Obama supporters for “sowing the seeds of hatred” and compared to segregationist Governor George Wallace for having the audacity to question Obama’s character.

After McCain having his racial tolerance questioned every time he opens his mouth, and ABC gladly spreading the “news”, we have this from the network itself.

Using the term ‘baby’s daddy’ has racial undertones to it, if it’s not used on a white daughter of the Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency that is. I could just see the Hell raised if Fox News ran a story about a minority teenager with this headline.

Now before anyone thinks I have lost my mind, this was written tongue in cheek. I do not take offense to it and do not think anyone else should. What it does do is highlight the ignorance of the left on the race issue. I’m sick to death of the double standard and could not sit still and not be psuedo-outraged. I feel this speaks to a need for racial sensitivity training in the ABC newsroom. I’m going to e-mail them as soon as I run my daughter’s baby’s daddy home.

Just A Casual Thinking Exercise?

Joe Biden is in a commercial now trying to blunt some of the damage to the Obama campaign over the connections the McCain/Palin campaign is making between him and some very shady characters. He says that these are not the people that Obama would name to the Supreme Court or let work in the White House.

First, it’s good of him to clear this up. I, for one, was concerned that William Ayers would be on the SCOTUS. I’m not concerned that he is a terrorist and Obama has been connected to him for years leaving a lot of questions about Obama’s character unanswered.

Second, what was most memorable about the commercial was what was missing. He didn’t actually mention what type of people Obama would appoint.

The task for you, should you choose to undertake it, is this. See how many Obama supporters and/or friends you can list that have not been connected to any wrong doing. Now obviously I am not talking about everybody he knows. None of us could possibly know these people. I’m talking about the public figures who have supported him and the friends we know about.

Now we can obviously exclude any politicians from this list, they are by definition corrupt so they are automatically off the list. And yes, this does go for John McCain’s political supporters too.

I’m talking about the ACORN’s, the William Ayers, the Tony Rezko’s, the Rev Wright’s, the Franklin Raines’, the Jamie Gorelick’s.

This is not an idle question really because these are the people Obama will put on the Supreme Court, in the White House, in ambassadorships. Political appointments, especially to the White House and ambassadorships, are given as paybacks to friends, supporters, and donors.

So who are we going to see in the Obama administration. For anyone on the fence about him or anyone thinking about casting a protest vote against McCain, start making your lists. For most of the rest of you, what are your thoughts? Share them with me.