Cranky-D

It’s kind of odd that I have posted all these pictures lately. I don’t normally do that.

Eh, it’s not like I am using up all my bandwidth with my provider. I have plenty to spare.

I really like this comic, from here. I don’t think he’ll mind, I didn’t hot link it.

What? It’s unbelievable, I know, but Obama is lying when he says he will not increase taxes. There’s a lot of good stuff at the link, so go there. I have excerpted a few choice bits.

Senator Obama doesn’t “count” allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse — allowing the rates to return to a higher levels — is not actually a “tax increase.” It’s just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

Snap! You must remember that Obama equivocates like a master. I happen to be good at telling misleading “truths” for my own amusement, and I can spot his a mile away. If you tell a partial truth, are you telling the truth, or are you lying? Your call.

Here’s something else I have been telling people whenever they will listen, which except for my friends and family isn’t often.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses — and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 — and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don’t “pay” taxes — they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation’s own taxes go up, you don’t see it — its automatic — but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product’s price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices — those pass-through taxes — when corporate taxes go up.

This is something that drives me nuts. Everyone says we have to nail those darn oil companies and tax the bejeezus out of them. How can these people not realize that taxing them is just taxing ourselves? Oil companies will make a profit (usually around 7-8 percent, which is not in the evil territory by any means) no matter what. And you know what? Our elected officials know this, and choose to keep the people in the dark. Wankers.

Jim Treacher posted some Obama comics here, here, here, and last one is here, but I have posted it below. Hopefully they won’t sue me.

Michael S. Malone and Orson Scott Card discuss possible bias in the media.

I kid with the “possible” appellation.

According to American Thinker, the signs are pointing to a McCain victory. I can only hope that this is true. Right now the polls point to a McCain loss, but the only poll that counts is the one on November 4th. If you’re a McCain supporter, don’t give up yet. Make sure you vote. If you’re an Obama supporter, well, feel free to give up if you want to. Or, better yet, scoff at this article and be so sure Obama will win that you really don’t need to vote.

Update: another post on polls

Article was found in a comment at protein wisdom.

Most of us realize that experienced politicians tend to tell us what they think we want to hear, rather than what they truly think or believe. A politician that is on script is one that is most likely supplying as much rhetoric and as little actual information as possible. That means that if you want to know what they really think, you need to catch them off-script or in a situation in which they think people aren’t actually listening.

One gaffe that has followed Obama around in the Republican community is the “… they [rural Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion… ,” which I covered at the time. This remark was made at a private event among people who would be quite sympathetic to such a statement. It is also very similar to ideas out of a book by Saul Alinsky. In any case, this does give one an idea of what Obama really thinks about rural Americans. The aftermath on conservative-leaning blogs has many of the commenters referencing their own “bitter clinging” quite often. As a Christian and a gun owner, I am clinging to G-d and guns right now, at least in spirit.

Continuing the idea of guns, Obama has stated that he is not going to try to take guns from law-abiding citizens. His voting record is of course completely against gun ownership and even manufacture in his home state of Illinois (also see here). Disregarding that, when he was once asked about outlawing guns, he said “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress.” To me, that seems to be an admission that he would still rather take them away, but cannot unless he has a congress that is sympathetic to his cause. A mild gaffe, I suppose. Or not.

The latest and perhaps greatest off-script moment was his conversation with Joe the Plumber, where he stated that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Really? Wow. That was a direct admission that he thinks taking money from people who have more and giving it to people who have less, apparently regardless of need, is a good thing. I can only think of a similar quotation, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This appears to be a pretty big increase in welfare, which will now be welfare for all who make less than whatever Obama thinks you should be allowed to make without being penalized. Fascinating.

These off-script moments are telling. What are they telling you?

By other people, the case against Obama as president in long and short forms. They offer comprehensive linkage to support their assertions. I don’t remember where I found them, but it was probably at either Ace’s or protein wisdom, as those are the only blogs I read regularly.

Rather than repeat what they have said, I will instead concentrate on what I consider to be salient points that are easily digested.

Normally we would like to judge a man on his actions, as that is usually the best way to determine what kind of person he is. However, in the case of Obama, he has done so little beyond voting “present” that it’s difficult to judge by his actions (he has done a few notable things, I won’t get into that here). Without much in the way of actions, the next step to determine what kind of man he is requires that we look at the company he keeps. I will look at only two instances, Bill Ayers and the church Obama attended for twenty years.

Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that was involved in a series of bombings in the sixties. He never went to trial as there was a problem with the evidence gathering and the case was thrown out. He has been referred to in the press as a “former radical” but “former terrorist” would be a better description as he still holds his radical beliefs. He has since said he is not sorry for what he did, and wished he had done more. Obama has known Ayers a long time. They have worked together on some boards that distributed money. The Ayers family has babysat Obama’s kids, which to me says that they are fairly close, no matter what the official story has been.

Obama went to TUCC, a Black Liberation Theology church (if you don’t know what that entails, please click on the link) for twenty years. He was married there. His children were baptized there. The pastor of that church has famously promoted anti-American and anti-white rhetoric, with his famous “G-d damn America” speech and also the one where he said white people created AIDS to kill black people. I don’t think that it makes sense that Obama missed every Sunday that things like this were said, so he must have heard some of it, unless he slept through the sermons.

Would you associate with such people? I would not. At best, I would tolerate the existence of a man like Ayers and do my best to keep away from him. Would you let him babysit your kids? Please. The only way I would let someone with that kind of radical ideology near my kids is if I had the same ideology or were at least sympathetic to it. Would you attend a church that elevated your “race” above all others, and blamed others for your problems? I would not. To me that is not a church at all, and is certainly not Christian. The very first time I heard a sermon like that, I would leave and never come back. The only logical conclusion I have is that Obama either agrees with what pastor Wright said, or at a minimum doesn’t have a problem with it.

I have heard people giving Obama a pass for his associations because “He knows a lot of people.” I am sure he probably knows many people who are not controversial, but that does not excuse anything. Another argument is that these associations were chosen for political expediency. Okay, fine. If the candidate in question were a white man who went to a white supremist church, would that be excusable? If a Republican candidate had similarly controversial associates, woutl that be excused? No, those associations would not be excused at all, in either case.

So, is he to be excused for these associations because he is a black Democrat? Apparently so. What does that say about people willing to vote for him? To me it either means they have blinders on, or they are willing to hold him to a different standard because he isn’t white. I try to hold everyone to the same standard, because anything less is condescending.

To my mind, these associations are enough to make one want to know more about this man before I would vote for him. I have more to say on the subject of the Obama candidacy, and will continue it with further posts very soon.

I sent the following message to the McCain Campaign. I only had a choice from a small set of subjects, so I chose “Inform about an event,” or something like that.

The event in question is John McCain not fighting back hard enough on the Dems pinning the financial crisis on Republicans. This is an issue everyone can understand, and has been put clearly in the ad sponsored by
“Let Freedom Ring.” It rated higher than any negative ad that has been played. Then again, I don’t see that it’s negative to tell the truth about candidates for office.

I was elated at the choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, and as a result donated to the McCain campaign, the first time I have ever donated to any political campaign. However, today I just sent money to “Let Freedom Ring” and to the “American Issues Project,” since they don’t seem to be afraid to tell the truth about who is responsible for this economic mess. This is another first.

This election is too important to worry about appearing like a bad person. The Obama campaign will paint John McCain with the “racist” brush no matter what John McCain does. I hope he is going to hit harder on this issue, and I hope he will allow Sarah Palin to do the same.

Regards,

Dr. [My real name]

I only break out the “Dr.” on special occasions. I’m hoping it will separate me from the other wackos concerned citizens.

I donated to American Issues Project and Let Freedom Ring because they are the two 527 groups that seem to have the best ads hitting on the Democrats for the Fannie/Freddie mess. John McCain seems incapable of hitting Obama on this stuff, so someone else has to do it. I think it’s the issue closest to many Americans. The Democrats have been trying to blame the crisis they caused on the Republicans, and so far it’s working because any failures in the economy are blamed on the incumbents, justified or not.

You can see the ads at Ace’s site, just click and scroll down. He has the big money to afford the kind of bandwidth this stuff generates. Plus, I’m too lazy to upload them to my site. If you feel as strongly as I do about the danger we a sliding towards, think about sending a few dollars their way.

Read this article and, if you are voting against Obama like I am, feel better. We cannot give up hope, though it seems we are in dark days. If you’re the activist type, read this and do something. More about this later, maybe.