The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US and leader of the free world has brought out the truth that racism is still out there. Around the world and in this country, it has become a greatly reduced problem over the years, but the idiots still remain.
The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, implied that Russia's President Medvedev would have an easy time dealing with Obama because "He's young, handsome, and even tanned." When confronted by those upset by the comment, he called them "imbeciles without any sense of humor". I don't think that anyone is laughing but him.
Austrian TV anchor, Klaus Emmerich, called Americans racist, and "it must be going very badly for them that they so convincingly... Send a black man, and a very good-looking woman into the White House." In a Murtha-like moment, he clarified his statement by saying that "blacks aren't as politically civilized" and that Obama has a "devil-like talent to present his rhetoric so effectively."
A Moscow real estate agent told Fox News that Obama's race could be an issue when dealing with the East. She said that he won't be able to play a leading role in the eastern hemisphere.
The fact that he was elected shows that the racism is not as prevalent in this country as it used to be. We have come a long way in a relatively short time, but there are some examples of such lunacy.
In a suburb of Newark, New Jersey, a homemade Obama sign was stolen and returned the next night attached to a burning cross on the front lawn of one family tuesday night. According to Gary Grewal, the homeowner, his 8-year-old daughter saw it and has been afraid to sleep in her room since that night. Why must we have to explain hate to an eight-year-old?
In Staten Island, New York, Ali Kamara, 17-year-old black teen, was assaulted by four white men with baseball bats chanting "Obama". Ali was on his way home after the election on tuesday night.
In Austin, Texas, the University of Texas lineman Buck Burnette got canned by Coach Mack Brown for writing "hunters gather up, we have a n***** in whitehouse" on his facebook page. (Note to self: What's written on facebook doesn't ever stay on facebook.) Duh!
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be very proud of the progress that this country has made, but he would also say that we still have some work to do. There has been a lot said from various black leaders that a new page has been turned in the civil right movement.
According to Rev. Eugene Rivers of Boston, "Racism is no longer the primary obstacle to black progress. With the election of a black man whose middle name is Hussein, the rhetoric of white racism is off the table...The old school is over." "Old school" is the worldview proclaimed by civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson that asks for people to denounce inequality and blame white racism for all of the problems of black people.
Kevin Patterson, a community activist, says, "The notion that black people need to employ racially polarizing stances is now extinct. There are more effective ways to get things done for our communities than being accusatory."
This election has been talked about in barbershops all across the country. "I think the mentality will change," said Timmigo Burnett, 47, owner of Phase II Barber Shop in Spartanburg, S Carolina. "Seeing a black man make it that far is the ultimate. (Young people) see hope. That's going to help us as mentors." The buzz around other barbershops has been that this is a signal to young black people everywhere that they don't have any excuse when it comes to whether they succeed or not anymore. They also say that young people cannot blame their fathers leaving when they were babies. Obama met his father only once in his life, and he became the President of America. Dan Quailes, owner of a barbershop in Pharr, Texas, said that young people can now "reach for the stars".
I'm not saying there aren't more minorities incarcerated than non-whites. Also, the gap of the average income and education is major, but the gap can be bridged. Rev. Mark Scott based out of Boston said it best. "You can't say it's because of racism. You can't just say, 'Pull your pants up.' You have to ask, 'What work are we going to do to close the gaps?' "
Showing posts with label Election 08. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 08. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama
I just want to congratulate Obama. This is truly a historical moment. The election of our first black president is a great moment in our nation's history and our lifetime. It was a hard fought campaign. We may have differences ideologically, but I greatly admire him.
I will be taking a week off from the blog to give the other side some time to enjoy their victory. I will be back to fight for my views and the views of the silent majority.
I will be taking a week off from the blog to give the other side some time to enjoy their victory. I will be back to fight for my views and the views of the silent majority.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
My Love Affair With Barack Obama
From the beginning of the year, I have been looking at who I believe that would be the best for this country.
During the primaries earlier in the year, my top democrat was Barack Obama. I was no different than the rest of America. I fell in love with him. His John F Kennedy good looks, warm smile, and calm demeanor intrigued me. His eloquence, his post-racial and post-partisianship rhetoric made me fall in love. It was as if I was a teenage girl swayed by the star high school quarterback's cheesy lines into "giving it up". Eventually, the power of his words wore off. After a brief and passionate relationship, I woke up one day realizing that he was not the man I thought he was.
What made me see the truth? It wasn't one thing in particular. One by one the qualities that made me fall in love with him started eroding away. His actions were speaking louder that his rhetoric.
His claim of being post-racial came under fire starting with his attack on Pres. Bill Clinton and his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
How can he be "post-racial" when he throws around the race card like an ace in the hole? It has become a strategy to make the opposition, whether it be Hillary ot McCain, overly cautious and reluctant to say anything negative about Obama in fear of being called racist by the Obama campaign. In the case of McCain, Obama started crying racism before McCain could even bring up the subject. He repeatedly told people that the GOP candidate would try to scare voters by saying that "he has a funny name", "he doesn't look like the other people on the dollar bills", "and by the he's black".
What can I say about Rev. Wright that hasn't already been said? I could understand if Obama was there for only a few months and didn't know the true nature of man at first, but he stayed there 20 yrs. You don't stay in the pew of a church for two decades when you don't share at least most of their beliefs. Most people would never come back to a church after the head preacher said "G D America" or called this country we love the "US of the KKK".
It wasn't as if he was only there on Easter and Christmas. According to what he told Bill O'Reilly, he went to the church about twice a month. That is about 500 times he attended the church, if what he said is accurate. I highly doubt that he never heard such things. The law of probability says that over 500 sundays he would had to have heard that kind of sermon several times. He wants us to assume that he dodged that racial mine field for over 20 years of going to that church, and he never heard anything like Wright's belief that the US government put AIDS into the low income areas to kill off blacks.
Let's say that for the sake of argument, he didn't hear these kind of comments on one of those hundreds of sundays that he was there. They sell tapes of his previous sermons in the lobby just like any other church. He would have had to have never saw anything racially divisive in one of those tapes. We would also have to assume that he doesn't talk to any of the other fellow parishioners about the church and any of Wright's previous sermons. Did anyone ever tell him about what he missed when he wasn't there? That is a lot of assuming. You know what is said that happens when you assume a lot. It makes an ass out of you and me.
Let's also look at his claim of being post-partisan. He votes for 97% of the time with the democratic leaders. He has not had any real experience with reaching across the aisle. He has a 100 rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization. He even voted against the born alive bill. This was the bill that would make abortion clinics try and keep babies alive that survived botched abortion attempts. According to the National Journal, Barack Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. He is so far to the left that he is about to fall off the face of the earth. What happened to his ability to build bridges?
He was "the One". The one who would mend the wounds that separated us as a nation. He was the personification of the Martin Luther King's dream. He was the man that history has waited to come. He was the one to show the world that America has moved past our racist past. Obama was the man that transcended politics.
Everything that he claimed to be, post-racial and post-partisan, he wasn't. He broke my heart. I had faith in the "new kind of politician". I was going to be part of history. Instead, I found a man who would say or do anything to get elected. He would lie about his previous friendships and beliefs just to get my vote. Just like a fling with the good looking star quarterback, I would have regretted the morning after.
During the primaries earlier in the year, my top democrat was Barack Obama. I was no different than the rest of America. I fell in love with him. His John F Kennedy good looks, warm smile, and calm demeanor intrigued me. His eloquence, his post-racial and post-partisianship rhetoric made me fall in love. It was as if I was a teenage girl swayed by the star high school quarterback's cheesy lines into "giving it up". Eventually, the power of his words wore off. After a brief and passionate relationship, I woke up one day realizing that he was not the man I thought he was.
What made me see the truth? It wasn't one thing in particular. One by one the qualities that made me fall in love with him started eroding away. His actions were speaking louder that his rhetoric.
His claim of being post-racial came under fire starting with his attack on Pres. Bill Clinton and his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
How can he be "post-racial" when he throws around the race card like an ace in the hole? It has become a strategy to make the opposition, whether it be Hillary ot McCain, overly cautious and reluctant to say anything negative about Obama in fear of being called racist by the Obama campaign. In the case of McCain, Obama started crying racism before McCain could even bring up the subject. He repeatedly told people that the GOP candidate would try to scare voters by saying that "he has a funny name", "he doesn't look like the other people on the dollar bills", "and by the he's black".
What can I say about Rev. Wright that hasn't already been said? I could understand if Obama was there for only a few months and didn't know the true nature of man at first, but he stayed there 20 yrs. You don't stay in the pew of a church for two decades when you don't share at least most of their beliefs. Most people would never come back to a church after the head preacher said "G D America" or called this country we love the "US of the KKK".
It wasn't as if he was only there on Easter and Christmas. According to what he told Bill O'Reilly, he went to the church about twice a month. That is about 500 times he attended the church, if what he said is accurate. I highly doubt that he never heard such things. The law of probability says that over 500 sundays he would had to have heard that kind of sermon several times. He wants us to assume that he dodged that racial mine field for over 20 years of going to that church, and he never heard anything like Wright's belief that the US government put AIDS into the low income areas to kill off blacks.
Let's say that for the sake of argument, he didn't hear these kind of comments on one of those hundreds of sundays that he was there. They sell tapes of his previous sermons in the lobby just like any other church. He would have had to have never saw anything racially divisive in one of those tapes. We would also have to assume that he doesn't talk to any of the other fellow parishioners about the church and any of Wright's previous sermons. Did anyone ever tell him about what he missed when he wasn't there? That is a lot of assuming. You know what is said that happens when you assume a lot. It makes an ass out of you and me.
Let's also look at his claim of being post-partisan. He votes for 97% of the time with the democratic leaders. He has not had any real experience with reaching across the aisle. He has a 100 rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization. He even voted against the born alive bill. This was the bill that would make abortion clinics try and keep babies alive that survived botched abortion attempts. According to the National Journal, Barack Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. He is so far to the left that he is about to fall off the face of the earth. What happened to his ability to build bridges?
He was "the One". The one who would mend the wounds that separated us as a nation. He was the personification of the Martin Luther King's dream. He was the man that history has waited to come. He was the one to show the world that America has moved past our racist past. Obama was the man that transcended politics.
Everything that he claimed to be, post-racial and post-partisan, he wasn't. He broke my heart. I had faith in the "new kind of politician". I was going to be part of history. Instead, I found a man who would say or do anything to get elected. He would lie about his previous friendships and beliefs just to get my vote. Just like a fling with the good looking star quarterback, I would have regretted the morning after.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Democrats Play Middle Class Limbo
Obama and the democrats are preparing for a luau on the White House lawn and Capital Hill. The party supplies are being bought. Sen Barack Obama brought the leis from his home in Hawaii. Michelle Obama is getting the hula skirts. Sen. Joe Biden is bringing those fashionable shirts. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid are coming together to bring the pua'a pig (with lipstick) complete with an apple in her mouth.
There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.
The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.
-------------------------------------------------
Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.
Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.
Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.
The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.
Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.
Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to Factcheck.org, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.
In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of taxfoundation.org, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?
What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.
There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.
The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.
-------------------------------------------------
Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.
Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.
Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.
The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.
Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.
Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to Factcheck.org, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.
In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of taxfoundation.org, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?
What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Dueling Effigies Warrant Double Standards
The passion that is felt for this election is unprecedented. We have the first black nominee for president ever, and the other ticket has the first woman VP pick for that party, second overall. This comes after the after a primary that almost produced the first female nominee for president ever. In addition, there is the dynamic of having a candidate that can win with a party that can't and the other party that can't lose with a candidate that can. To say this is a historical election is an understatement of gigantic proportions. Either way, a glass ceiling will be broken.
When emotions run this high, people do stupid things and lines are crossed. This past halloween season has brought up two good examples of this. In West Hollywood, California, a mannequin, with a Gov. Palin likeness, is found hanging from a rope attached to a chimney that has John McCain burning in it. In retaliation of the Palin effigy, two University of Kentucky students set up a halloween display featuring a dummy with an Obama mask hanging from a tree by a rope in Lexington. Both displays are reprehensible, yet only the Kentucky pinheads have been arrested or charged with anything. The UK student and resident were arrested for disorderly conduct in reaction to the display earlier today. These two need to have repercussions for their stupidity. However, where is the same outrage and consequences for the pinheads in Hollywood?
If Palin would've been black, the Hollywood men who put up the Palin display would have been charged with a hate crime. Instead, the authorities can't do anything to them. It is considered part of their right to free speech.
What about her race makes the act any different? Nothing should make it any different. It doesn't matter about which race or gender one is. Hate is hate. I understand that there is more of a sensitive history with lynching and black males, but the hatred for Gov. Palin is just as real and strong.
Why is it criminal to have a display of Obama hanging and not Palin? If there is a hate crime law enacted, why does it only apply to certain segments of society? If hate crime legislation is passed, it needs to cover everyone or none at all. "Separate but equal" laws are what got us into the problem of segregation in the first place.
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be equally as appalled by both effigies. He taught us to judge each other not by the color of our skin, but that is exactly what the law is doing. They are treating one act worse than the other just because one is black and the other is white. We will never be post-racial until we make the law equal to all of Americans.
When emotions run this high, people do stupid things and lines are crossed. This past halloween season has brought up two good examples of this. In West Hollywood, California, a mannequin, with a Gov. Palin likeness, is found hanging from a rope attached to a chimney that has John McCain burning in it. In retaliation of the Palin effigy, two University of Kentucky students set up a halloween display featuring a dummy with an Obama mask hanging from a tree by a rope in Lexington. Both displays are reprehensible, yet only the Kentucky pinheads have been arrested or charged with anything. The UK student and resident were arrested for disorderly conduct in reaction to the display earlier today. These two need to have repercussions for their stupidity. However, where is the same outrage and consequences for the pinheads in Hollywood?
If Palin would've been black, the Hollywood men who put up the Palin display would have been charged with a hate crime. Instead, the authorities can't do anything to them. It is considered part of their right to free speech.
What about her race makes the act any different? Nothing should make it any different. It doesn't matter about which race or gender one is. Hate is hate. I understand that there is more of a sensitive history with lynching and black males, but the hatred for Gov. Palin is just as real and strong.
Why is it criminal to have a display of Obama hanging and not Palin? If there is a hate crime law enacted, why does it only apply to certain segments of society? If hate crime legislation is passed, it needs to cover everyone or none at all. "Separate but equal" laws are what got us into the problem of segregation in the first place.
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be equally as appalled by both effigies. He taught us to judge each other not by the color of our skin, but that is exactly what the law is doing. They are treating one act worse than the other just because one is black and the other is white. We will never be post-racial until we make the law equal to all of Americans.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama's Six Month Exam
"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. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. He's going to have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you that it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen." Joe Biden-10/19/08-Seattle
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama Invents New Math
This week the economy has come to the full attention of the entire country. With the fall of Fannie and Freddie, the rest of the credit industry of this country came down as if someone took away a card from the bottom of a pyramid of cards. McCain and Obama have been pointing the finger of blame at each other, but neither have come up with anything concrete. McCain has not really come up with anything of importance. At least he's trying. Obama had to get with his team to discuss what he would do for this crisis. After all of the discussion and planning, his big solution was that he needs more time. Apparently, he is voting present again. Maybe this is above his pay grade too.
From both economic plans that the candidates as they have been presented, we will have deficits no matter who we elect. The real question who will be able to trust to control the amount of spending the best.
Palin has had experience in cutting budgets. McCain has already been against the overuse of earmark pork spending. Obama has made campaign promises that, if kept, will put the deficit of into astronomical amounts. He is chastising the Bush administration for increasing the national deficit, but his plans will raise it even more. He wants to add more spending to the federal budget. His health care plan will cost at least about 50-60 billion. Last week, he also pledged at least another 50 billion to fight worldwide poverty. Many believe that the final amount to both will be substantially higher, possibly in the hundreds of billions. Other than getting out of Iraq, he has not proposed any other spending cuts. He still going to fight in Afghanistan. Even though he chastises the Bush administration for the leap in the amount of the deficit, he has not come up with anything that will cut it. So far, it will seem to only increase under his administration. His tax increases to the wealthy isn't going to be enough to cover his ambitious aspirations.
Apparently, he has found out that if he spends more, we will get a surplus. He seems to believe that if you subtract money from the budget, it will actually add money to our budget. My elementary math teachers were wrong all of this time.
I want to go into the topic of the probable spending of hundreds of billions for worldwide poverty. Donating money to the poor is a very noble thing to do, but shouldn't we use that money to take care of our own poor. Recently there have been tent cities or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression, have been popping up accross the nation. From Reno to Seattle to Athens, Ga. they are growing at alarming rates. Many inhabitants of those "cities", whose homes were foreclosed on, have nowhere to go, and the shelters are full. With the amount of growing homeless population and economic insecurity, shouldn't we focus our limited financial resources on our own poor before we focus so much on other countries?
From both economic plans that the candidates as they have been presented, we will have deficits no matter who we elect. The real question who will be able to trust to control the amount of spending the best.
Palin has had experience in cutting budgets. McCain has already been against the overuse of earmark pork spending. Obama has made campaign promises that, if kept, will put the deficit of into astronomical amounts. He is chastising the Bush administration for increasing the national deficit, but his plans will raise it even more. He wants to add more spending to the federal budget. His health care plan will cost at least about 50-60 billion. Last week, he also pledged at least another 50 billion to fight worldwide poverty. Many believe that the final amount to both will be substantially higher, possibly in the hundreds of billions. Other than getting out of Iraq, he has not proposed any other spending cuts. He still going to fight in Afghanistan. Even though he chastises the Bush administration for the leap in the amount of the deficit, he has not come up with anything that will cut it. So far, it will seem to only increase under his administration. His tax increases to the wealthy isn't going to be enough to cover his ambitious aspirations.
Apparently, he has found out that if he spends more, we will get a surplus. He seems to believe that if you subtract money from the budget, it will actually add money to our budget. My elementary math teachers were wrong all of this time.
I want to go into the topic of the probable spending of hundreds of billions for worldwide poverty. Donating money to the poor is a very noble thing to do, but shouldn't we use that money to take care of our own poor. Recently there have been tent cities or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression, have been popping up accross the nation. From Reno to Seattle to Athens, Ga. they are growing at alarming rates. Many inhabitants of those "cities", whose homes were foreclosed on, have nowhere to go, and the shelters are full. With the amount of growing homeless population and economic insecurity, shouldn't we focus our limited financial resources on our own poor before we focus so much on other countries?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
RNC "Changes" the Game
The RNC this past week revealed their attack on Obama's change platform. This moves the campaign in a whole new direction. I believe that McCain thinks that he has experience locked. The left are attacking Palin's experience, but there one important difference. Obama is the #1, and Palin is the #2. I will get to Palin and the experience issue in a later article. Obama has left the change window open.
Everyone knows that McCain has often bucked his own party. He has often voted with Democrats on environmental issues. He has been apart of most of the bipartisan "gangs" to reach compromises on tough issues. He had gone after Bush for his mismanagement of the war early. He went up against both Republicans, including Bush, and Democrats in going for the surge. He picked Sarah Palin, a reformer governor from Alaska and Washington outsider, as VP. She went after the corruption in Alaska including Republicans.
Obama has opened the door by promoting himself as the personification of bipartisan and post-race America. One of the main reasons for his victory over Clinton was his ability to energize younger voters by being "different". That support has dwindled, since he has lost a lot of that "new" look.
His bipartisan and post-racial claims has taken a hit because of his antics. His use of McCain's "5 million" joke, that he made at Saddleback, as proof of McCain's beliefs reeks of same old politics. His flip-flops on public financing isn't new politics. His love for the small-town America and the middle class in Scranton and disdain for them in San Francisco with the charge of them clinging to Bibles and guns shows that he will say what he has to say, depending on who he is talking with, to get their support. That is not anything new but the oldest of political ploys. His charge that the right will try to scare people cause he "doesn't look like the rest of the people on the dollar bills" or because "he's black" before anyone brought up race shows that he doesn't really transcend race. He embraced the Wright church and the Chicago political machine to help him get ahead. Then, he throws them aside when it hurts him politically is not new. His constant changing of positions on Russia's invasion of Georgia shows that he is only saying what he feels is more politically beneficial to his win. All of this has cost him support, especially among younger voters.
Will McCain be able to steal this advantage? Possibly. He will definitely blunt it at least. Obama has left himself vulnerable on this issue lately. McCain's pick of Palin and previous bipartisan record will help take advantage of Obama's vulnerability on it. His pick of Palin could re-energize some of those younger voters especially women except this time in favor of McCain/Palin.
Everyone knows that McCain has often bucked his own party. He has often voted with Democrats on environmental issues. He has been apart of most of the bipartisan "gangs" to reach compromises on tough issues. He had gone after Bush for his mismanagement of the war early. He went up against both Republicans, including Bush, and Democrats in going for the surge. He picked Sarah Palin, a reformer governor from Alaska and Washington outsider, as VP. She went after the corruption in Alaska including Republicans.
Obama has opened the door by promoting himself as the personification of bipartisan and post-race America. One of the main reasons for his victory over Clinton was his ability to energize younger voters by being "different". That support has dwindled, since he has lost a lot of that "new" look.
His bipartisan and post-racial claims has taken a hit because of his antics. His use of McCain's "5 million" joke, that he made at Saddleback, as proof of McCain's beliefs reeks of same old politics. His flip-flops on public financing isn't new politics. His love for the small-town America and the middle class in Scranton and disdain for them in San Francisco with the charge of them clinging to Bibles and guns shows that he will say what he has to say, depending on who he is talking with, to get their support. That is not anything new but the oldest of political ploys. His charge that the right will try to scare people cause he "doesn't look like the rest of the people on the dollar bills" or because "he's black" before anyone brought up race shows that he doesn't really transcend race. He embraced the Wright church and the Chicago political machine to help him get ahead. Then, he throws them aside when it hurts him politically is not new. His constant changing of positions on Russia's invasion of Georgia shows that he is only saying what he feels is more politically beneficial to his win. All of this has cost him support, especially among younger voters.
Will McCain be able to steal this advantage? Possibly. He will definitely blunt it at least. Obama has left himself vulnerable on this issue lately. McCain's pick of Palin and previous bipartisan record will help take advantage of Obama's vulnerability on it. His pick of Palin could re-energize some of those younger voters especially women except this time in favor of McCain/Palin.
Monday, September 1, 2008
DNC goes Hollywood
First of all, let me congratulate Obama for becoming the party's nominee. It is a historic moment for America. I watched the DNC and read many of the speech transcripts more than once. It was an impressive spectacle and a great show. It just had some major flaws in their arguments. I am going to go over some of the major themes going thru most of their speeches.
The economy was one of the big topics. Now the economy has taken a hit. Even though technically we are not in a recession, we are definitely in a stalemate. They want to blame the republicans for all of it. That is unfair considering two of the main reasons for this stalemate are just as much the Dems fault. The reasons are 9/11 and the energy crisis.
Let's first talk about 9/11. It did happen under Bush's watch. So, he does deserve some blame, but it happened only 9 months after he took office. The plot was not planned for only months. This was a plot that was cooked up over years. Al Queda hit us 3 times during Clinton's presidency: WTC, embassies in Africa, and USS Cole. Terrorism also hit us in Oklahoma City. OKC wasn't Al Queda but it should have helped wake us up to the threat of all kinds of terrorism. Clinton was our leader. He should have helped build our defenses against our enemies. All he did was throw missiles at him after calling them and warning him giving them time to get out. Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights twice. He let him go twice. Sudan offered him up to us gift-wrapped with an apple in his mouth. He refused to extradite him even though he had already been indicted in the first WTC bombing in 93. Could his arrest have stopped 9/11 before it happened? Why do they give him a pass for his role in the attack?
Secondly, the energy crisis is the fault of both parties. The dems have been influenced by environmentalists and republicans have been influenced by the oil industry. What we need is all the above. We need offshore drilling, better conservation, alternative fuels, nuclear, etc. They can't put all of the blame on the GOP.
With Gustav approaching, we are reminded of Katrina. They gave themselves all of the credit for rebuilding New Orleans and none of the blame for the botched handling of the storm. They want to give all of the blame to Bush (which he was man enough to admit) and FEMA. They do deserve it, but let's not forget Dems Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin. The bulk of the responsibility of dealing with and preparing for disasters has been the job of the local govts not federal.
Iraq was another big issue that was beat to death. Obama was said to have been right about not going into Iraq and a time line of getting out. I happen to believe that if we would have known that there were no WMDs, we wouldn't have gone in. However, most of the democrats thought he did too including Biden. I've got to wonder was his stance against the war because of military reasons or appeasement. It was too soon to go into Iraq, but hindsight is always 20/20. They give him credit for setting a time line of withdrawal. He was for a time line when we were losing. Basically, he wanted to cut and run. He wanted to make the same mistake that Bush 41 made. The only reason a time line is being accepted by the administration isn't because of Obama's influence but the success of the surge that McCain fought for and Obama spoke out against. People need to realize that the two main jobs of a president is foreign relations and commander-in-chief, the two biggest weakness' of Sen Obama.
Hillary made a great speech. However, did anyone else realize that she didn't say once during the speech that Obama was ready or that he would be a good president. She just implied that we should vote for him because he was a dem. It was a "put your name here" speech. The speech could've fit any generic democrat. There wasn't anything good in it specific to Obama.
Bill's speech was much better and beneficial to Obama. Although, he said that they were on the right side of the history. Obama was wrong about the surge, and at the timeline he first brought it up, he was wrong about the time line.
Here are some various misinformation that was thrown out there by some speakers. Biden claimed that McCain was against raising minimum wage. He didn't mention that McCain voted for the last time it was raised. Sen Kerry said that N Korea had nuclear bombs. Bush has kept that from happening. Kerry chastised McCain for flip-flops he had over the years, but he doesn't mention Obama's flops over the past few months. He implied that Bush did little for AIDS research. Bush spent over $15 billion on fighting AIDS worldwide in 07. That is much more than any other administration before him including two "champions" of AIDS research like Clinton and Carter. What is wrong that picture?
Finally, let me get to the superstar himself. Obama had a very good speech. It was a huge celebration. I almost thought he just won the Super Bowl for the Broncos with all of the fireworks. It was almost as much as China did for the opening ceremony for the Olympics. I half expected him to start telling reporters that he was going to Disneyworld. Maybe we will see him on a Wheaties box in a couple weeks shooting a basketball with that sweet jumpshot he has.
It was mostly platitudes no specific ideas on how he was going to accomplish what he said he would do. How is he going to pay for it? He has not given any specific plan. If he says wants to debate McCain anytime, why is he avoiding it?
The economy was one of the big topics. Now the economy has taken a hit. Even though technically we are not in a recession, we are definitely in a stalemate. They want to blame the republicans for all of it. That is unfair considering two of the main reasons for this stalemate are just as much the Dems fault. The reasons are 9/11 and the energy crisis.
Let's first talk about 9/11. It did happen under Bush's watch. So, he does deserve some blame, but it happened only 9 months after he took office. The plot was not planned for only months. This was a plot that was cooked up over years. Al Queda hit us 3 times during Clinton's presidency: WTC, embassies in Africa, and USS Cole. Terrorism also hit us in Oklahoma City. OKC wasn't Al Queda but it should have helped wake us up to the threat of all kinds of terrorism. Clinton was our leader. He should have helped build our defenses against our enemies. All he did was throw missiles at him after calling them and warning him giving them time to get out. Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights twice. He let him go twice. Sudan offered him up to us gift-wrapped with an apple in his mouth. He refused to extradite him even though he had already been indicted in the first WTC bombing in 93. Could his arrest have stopped 9/11 before it happened? Why do they give him a pass for his role in the attack?
Secondly, the energy crisis is the fault of both parties. The dems have been influenced by environmentalists and republicans have been influenced by the oil industry. What we need is all the above. We need offshore drilling, better conservation, alternative fuels, nuclear, etc. They can't put all of the blame on the GOP.
With Gustav approaching, we are reminded of Katrina. They gave themselves all of the credit for rebuilding New Orleans and none of the blame for the botched handling of the storm. They want to give all of the blame to Bush (which he was man enough to admit) and FEMA. They do deserve it, but let's not forget Dems Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin. The bulk of the responsibility of dealing with and preparing for disasters has been the job of the local govts not federal.
Iraq was another big issue that was beat to death. Obama was said to have been right about not going into Iraq and a time line of getting out. I happen to believe that if we would have known that there were no WMDs, we wouldn't have gone in. However, most of the democrats thought he did too including Biden. I've got to wonder was his stance against the war because of military reasons or appeasement. It was too soon to go into Iraq, but hindsight is always 20/20. They give him credit for setting a time line of withdrawal. He was for a time line when we were losing. Basically, he wanted to cut and run. He wanted to make the same mistake that Bush 41 made. The only reason a time line is being accepted by the administration isn't because of Obama's influence but the success of the surge that McCain fought for and Obama spoke out against. People need to realize that the two main jobs of a president is foreign relations and commander-in-chief, the two biggest weakness' of Sen Obama.
Hillary made a great speech. However, did anyone else realize that she didn't say once during the speech that Obama was ready or that he would be a good president. She just implied that we should vote for him because he was a dem. It was a "put your name here" speech. The speech could've fit any generic democrat. There wasn't anything good in it specific to Obama.
Bill's speech was much better and beneficial to Obama. Although, he said that they were on the right side of the history. Obama was wrong about the surge, and at the timeline he first brought it up, he was wrong about the time line.
Here are some various misinformation that was thrown out there by some speakers. Biden claimed that McCain was against raising minimum wage. He didn't mention that McCain voted for the last time it was raised. Sen Kerry said that N Korea had nuclear bombs. Bush has kept that from happening. Kerry chastised McCain for flip-flops he had over the years, but he doesn't mention Obama's flops over the past few months. He implied that Bush did little for AIDS research. Bush spent over $15 billion on fighting AIDS worldwide in 07. That is much more than any other administration before him including two "champions" of AIDS research like Clinton and Carter. What is wrong that picture?
Finally, let me get to the superstar himself. Obama had a very good speech. It was a huge celebration. I almost thought he just won the Super Bowl for the Broncos with all of the fireworks. It was almost as much as China did for the opening ceremony for the Olympics. I half expected him to start telling reporters that he was going to Disneyworld. Maybe we will see him on a Wheaties box in a couple weeks shooting a basketball with that sweet jumpshot he has.
It was mostly platitudes no specific ideas on how he was going to accomplish what he said he would do. How is he going to pay for it? He has not given any specific plan. If he says wants to debate McCain anytime, why is he avoiding it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
