I just thought about something regarding Obama’s stimulus plan.  In particular, I am thinking about the proposal to allow money-losing businesses to seek refunds of taxes paid in the preceding five years.

If a business is losing money now, weren’t they marginal and destined to fail anyway?

If a business is losing money, they are basically failing.  Will a refund of taxes paid in prior years keep businesses that are now failing afloat?  Perhaps. Perhaps not.

What Obama’s plan could end up being is a huge cash windfall for managers and owners of failing businesses.  If you have a business that is failing and losing money, you could apply for a refund of taxes paid in prior years.  You could distribute that money in the form of bonuses for management and dividends to the owners.  Then you could just go out of business as you were planning to do.

In the normal scenario, a failing business would close and go out of business.  In the Obama scenario, a failing business could get money from the government, pay it out to managers and owners, then go out of business.

I wonder if Barack Obama considered this angle when his stimulus plan was formulated.  I doubt it.  Obama is not a smart man.  He’s an idiot who says what he is told to say by others.

Obama’s Stimulus Plan

I read the news this morning and was taken aback by Obama’s stimulus plan that includes $100 billion in tax cuts for businesses.  It sounds Republican.

Whenever George Bush wanted tax cuts for businesses–the entities that actually create jobs in our economy–mindless Democrats shouted “tax cuts for the rich!”

Now we have Barack Obama who wants to create $100 billion in tax incentives for businesses.  All of a sudden, Democrats think that is a good idea.  What an amazing about-face.

When Republicans wanted to cut taxes, Democrats said it was a bad thing to do.  When a Democrat steals Republican ideas and wants to cut taxes, all of a sudden Democrats jump on board.

These Democrats are such massive frauds sometimes it is sickening to think about them.  They are willing to sabotage the economy, the war, and anything else when a Republican proposes an idea.  But when a Democrat steals a Republican plan, they throw their support behind it.

Obama’s Stimulus Plan

Obama’s proposal includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion — $500 for most workers at an overall price of $150 billion — and more than $100 billion in tax incentives for business. Businesses could apply current losses to taxes paid back as far as five years ago, reaping an immediate cash windfall. And they would receive a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create or preserve.

How does that not sound like a Republican plan?  Why didn’t Democrats support business tax cuts when he wanted them last year?

What is most striking about Obama’s plan is that it would allow businesses that are losing money to seek refunds of taxes paid up to five years prior.

Obama’s Business Tax Refund Proposal

President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed stimulus package would provide businesses with billions of dollars in refunds on taxes they paid several years ago.

The refund provision would enable some companies posting losses last year to get refunds for taxes paid as far back as five years earlier. The businesses could refile their old tax returns, using the losses suffered last year to offset profits made when times were good.

So not only is Obama going to borrow from our children to fund his massive, socialist stimulus plan, but he is going to erase prior years’ tax receipts to give big businesses cash.

How can the Democrats not be criticizing this when it embodies everything they have railed against for years?  I forgot:  in order to be a Democrat you have to be a humongous hypocrite.

Barack Obama is sounding a lot like George Bush.  First, Obama demanded immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  Then he shifted his position to that of keeping soldiers in Iraq to assist with security and training of Iraqi forces which, as you may know, was Bush’s plan all along.  Now, in order to stimulate the economy, Obama is pushing for tax incentives for businesses, which is what Bush wanted to do.

Personally, I think all of this is unnecessary.  I think the worst is over regarding the economy.  The Democrats are just looking for an excuse for more welfare spending.  There is plenty of that in Obama’s stimulus plan, too.

President-elect Barack Obama’s pick for commerce secretary, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, withdrew himself from consideration for the post in light of an on-going corruption investigation involving the Democrat.

The grand jury investigation involving Richardson has to do with contributions from a California company to his political action committees (PAC) and whether or not the governor or any other state employees pressured the New Mexico Finance Authority to award the contract to CDR Financial Products, the contributor.

CRD made $1.48 million advising the finance authority on interest rate swaps and bond refinancing. David Rubin, President of CDR, and the firm gave $100,000 to Si Se Puede and Moving America Forward, both PACs started by Governor Richardson, shortly before the contract was awarded.

The FBI has been investigating “pay-for-play” practices in state and local governments in which financial firms donate large sums of money to politicians in exchange for lucrative contracts.

The President of CDR is a big Democratic Party donor, according to the Federal Election Commission website which lists political contributions.  Among David Rubin’s contributions are:

• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 07/31/1997: $5,000;
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 10/22/1997: $5,000;
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 04/07/1998: $10,000;
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 01/19/1999: $2,500;
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 12/16/1999: $25,000;
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 06/28/2006: $2,000;
• DNC Non-Federal Individual 10/11/2000: $20,000;
• DNC Non-Federal Unincorporated Association Account 10/26/2000: $20,000;
• Hillary Clinton (D-NY) 01/07/2008: $1,000;
• Ken Salazar (D-CO) 06/30/2004: $4,000;
• Tom Lantos (D-CA) 06/09/2003: $500;
• Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) 11/30/2005: $2,000;
• Tennessee Democratic Party 06/21/2001: $1,000;
• Friends Of Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN) 07/21/1998: $5,000;
• Bill Nelson (D-FL) 09/30/2005: $2,000;
• Zach Wamp (R-TN) 06/19/2001: $2,000;
• Lois Capps (D-CA) 12/18/1997: $2,000;
• Lois Capps (D-CA) 03/07/1998: $1,000;
• Lois Capps (D-CA) 11/29/1999: $200;
• Max Baucus (D-MT) 03/20/2002: $1,000;
• Christopher Dodd (D-CT) 11/16/1997: $1,000;
• Martin Frost (D-TX) 07/27/1998: $250;
• Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) 12/15/1998: $2,000;
• Matthew Fong (R-CA) 09/30/1998: $1,000;
• Bob Clement (D-TN) 08/26/2002: $1,000;
• Richard Gephardt (D-MO) 11/25/1997: $2,000;
• Lincoln Davis (D-TN) 06/11/2001: $2,000;
• Barack Obama (D-IL) 02/13/2008: $1,000;
• Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 01/19/2000: $2,000;
• Tennessee Democratic Victory 2000 07/12/2000: $5,000;
• Rudolph Giuliani (R-NY) 05/14/1999: $2,000.

I listed all the contributions I could find for David Rubin.  Fortunately, he used his office address on Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, for most of his contributions and his home address for just a few.  He also made a small number of contributions to non-party affiliated committees.  I did not include those.

As you can plainly see, David Rubin is a hardcore Democrat.  He appears to know the Democrat pay-for-play game well.  Of his political donations, only $9,000 out of $130,000 went to Republicans.  All the rest, or 93%, went to Democrat candidates or Democrat committees.

Some Democrats will say, “Well, he donated to Republicans, too.”  When 93% of your contributions go to Democrats, you are a Democrat.  David Rubin is a Democrat.

The Democrat culture of corruption continues.

Washington Post Article

The media continues its nauseating love-fest with Barack Obama. Left-wing news journalists are trying to portray Obama as a great leader–before he even has become President.

A couple of weeks ago, it was widely reported that a poll suggested that Obama’s transition was rated very highly by the American people. Really? What is there to rate? All he was doing is picking people for his cabinet and other posts, most of whom are completely unknown by the American people. There isn’t much to disagree about.

Then yesterday a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll concluded that 76% of the American people feel that Obama is a “strong and decisive leader”.

“The public’s rating of his leadership skills is already as high as George W. Bush’s was after 9/11 and easily beats the numbers that both Bush and Bill Clinton got at the start of their first terms in office,” said Keating Holland, CNN’s Polling Director.

Now why would that be? Why would Barack Obama be rated highly on leadership before he has the power to do anything? Is it Obama’s brilliant powers of insight such as we have to learn to “disagree without being disagreeable?” If anything, that statement shows Obama to be indecisive.

The CNN story says that Obama rates as highly as President Bush did immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The difference, of course, is that Bush actually did something to deserve that level of respect, Obama has not.

We can look at Barack Obama’s accomplishments in the Senate and see that he produced not one significant piece of legislation during his tenure. He did nothing for three years. On the campaign trail, he made promises about things he was going to do if he was elected President that he could have done as Senator, but did not. If he was true leader, he would have used his position in the Senate to at least attempt to make the kind of changes he discussed on the stump.

How in the world can anyone say that Obama is a “strong and decisive leader” when his record shows absolutely no examples of such leadership?

I’ll tell you how: the media is portraying him as a strong leader and people are accepting it at face value. Much, if not most, of what we think about the world comes from what we see in the news media. If the news media says the economy is rotten, as they did all during 2006 and 2007 when unemployment was at historical lows, many people are going to believe it. If the news media reports something with enough frequency, people are going to start accepting it as fact, regardless of whether it is or not.

We live in a world of intellectual laziness that mankind has never seen before. People are unwilling to spend a few minutes to do the research to discover the truth themselves. They won’t search the internet for Democrats’ positions about Iraq before the war started, instead believing the lie perpetuated by the liberal media that Bush–and he alone–completely fabricated the reasons for going to war. As untrue as that is, many people believe it, just as they believe that Obama is the greatest leader the world has ever known.

More highlights from the CNN poll:

• 76% of Americans say Barack Obama is a “strong and decisive leader” despite him never having accomplished a thing;
• 80% of Americans think that Obama “inspires confidence, can get things done and is tough enough to be president” despite him never having gotten anything done and flip-flopping repeatedly on issues crucial to American safety such as the Iraq War;
• Obama scores higher than Bush did in 2001 on “honesty, values, issues, management abilities and compassion” despite his prior granting of political favors to financial backers, his relationships with anti-American Jeremiah Wright and domestic terrorist William Ayers, his non-existent managerial achievements, and his puny charitable contributions even though he is multi-millionaire.

Barack Obama is a marketing creation. Nothing more.

Please check out our political forum that we have been working on. There’s not much activity yet, but we are hoping that intelligent people will stop by and make a few posts to debate the issues of the day and share information with others. So if you have a few minutes, please stop by, register a free account, and make a few comments. Thank you.

The LA Times ran a story on Christmas day, when few people are paying attention to political news, about Barack Obama’s upcoming inauguration party. Being a man of the people in touch with average Americans like you and me, as he was marketed to the mindless, Obama and his team are desperately scrambling to raise enough money to put on a $40 million inaugural bash in January.

LA Times Article

Forty million dollars for a party when people are losing their jobs? Absolutely. Forty million bucks when people are hungry and losing their homes and can’t afford medicine? Most definitely. This is the type of outrageous hypocrisy we have come to expect from limousine liberals like Obama. But that isn’t the worst of it. You see, Barack Obama is offering perks and special access to his greatness to the rich and famous. Those with big money to give will get some serious preferential treatment not available to the common man.

It isn’t like Barack Obama has never offered special benefits to those with money to give him before. He has a long history of taking money from people he would then repay by using his political influence to get them grants of taxpayer money. Tony Rezko comes to mind, but he isn’t the only one who has been rewarded by Obama over the years.

Obama has also granted special access to Hollywood celebrities for no apparent reason other than their fame. Some actors and actresses were so tight with Obama that they would exchange text messages with him several times a day. Do average Americans get to send text messages directly to Obama? No, of course not. They aren’t famous celebrities.

It seems that wealthy Democrats are quite eager to shower Obama with money in return for VIP status, up-front seating, admission to special events, and even the opportunity to have dinner with the messiah—if they can cough up enough cash. And Barack Obama is more than happy to rub elbows with them, provided they have the money to give. Obama is strictly pay-for-play. According to the article, the Obama team may not be able to deliver everything that some big-money-but-not-big-enough donors were expecting.

The demand for special treatment has been so great that the inauguration committee faced the possibility of well-heeled supporters being turned away from some of the most sought-after events–a fundraiser’s nightmare.

“There is frustration because individuals in some cases still do not know what they are getting for their donations,” said one fundraiser who is bundling money from several wealthy families and helping to coordinate their travel to the inauguration.

How sad for them.

People raising $300,000 or more are to be granted the title of “trustee” and will be allotted four tickets to every event, seats to the swearing-in ceremony, and prime placement at the ensuing parade.

All that for only $300,000? What a deal! Nothing beats a good bargain during an economic recession.

That Obama is such a man of the people. He has a great big heart and is always looking out for the little guy, isn’t he? This inaugural shindig proves where his heart truly is, and it isn’t with the poor and downtrodden.

How many poor people could be fed, clothed, or given housing and medical care with the money Obama is spending for one party? Doesn’t Barack Obama care about the poor he says he cares about?

It’s a shame that the media didn’t widely report more of Obama’s hypocrisy and favors-for-cash activities before the election, not that it would have made much difference. Democrat voters aren’t the brightest and most rational people you will find.

Barack Obama is one of the dirtiest, most crooked, and most hypocritical politicians of the modern era. Sadly, no matter what Obama does, the media is going to rationalize it as being a good thing.

Liberal journalists and bloggers criticized John McCain during the presidential campaign for wearing a $500 pair of Ferragamo shoes. “He’s out of touch with average Americans,” they said. What are they going to say about Barack Obama’s $40 million inauguration party? I bet nothing. Liberals tend to turn a blind eye toward hypocrisy among their heroes because hypocrisy is a requirement to be a liberal in the first place.

Can I have dinner with Obama, get close seats to his swearing-in, and good seats for his parade? No. Well, not unless I can come up with $300,000 in cash. If I’ve got the money, I’m in. Maybe that’s what Obama means when he talks about the “green economy”.

Now that Barack Obama has been elected President, one must wonder if he will pardon his former longtime friend Tony Rezko.

Rezko, a Chicago developer of welfare housing, was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering, and abetting bribery.  He is awaiting sentencing.  Rezko is currently talking to federal prosecutors in hopes of getting a reduced sentence.  What could he possibly have to say?

There is speculation that Rezko is dishing dirt on disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) who has been under investigation by federal authorities for the past three years and was recently charged with several counts of corruption related to the attempted sale of Barack Obama’s Senate seat.  But there is a possibility, and a hope of millions, that Rezko will detail his relationship with Barack Obama.

Syrian-born Rezko was one of Barack Obama’s first backers.  He took Obama under his wing and helped him navigate the maze of Chicago politics.  Rezko was instrumental in raising money, the lifeblood of Chicago politics, for Obama, giving the newly minted politician his first campaign contributions.  Rezko got a lot from Obama in return.  On several occasions, Obama used his influence as state Senator in letters he wrote urging grants of taxpayer money to Rezko’s company.

There is absolutely no question that Barack Obama did political favors for his financial backer Tony Rezko.  None at all.  The question at hand is whether or not these favors were illegal and corrupt.

All it would take for Obama to be charged with corruption is for Tony Rezko to say that he raised money for Obama in exchange for favors.  Whether or not that occurred is unknown.  And if it did occur, we don’t know if Tony Rezko would be willing to roll over on his former buddy Obama.  But there is a clear financial relationship between the two men and clear evidence that Obama used his influence to get taxpayer money for Rezko.

The simplest way to keep Rezko’s mouth shut would be for Obama to pardon him.  The political damage from a pardon would be insignificant compared to criminal charges alleging corruption.  But, this is all dependent on what Tony Rezko says and, to a lesser extent, on what actually transpired between the two.

Here are a few sentences from an article from Obama’s hometown newspaper detailing the favors Obama did for Rezko.

Sun Times Article About Obama’s Favors For Tony Rezko

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko’s successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama’s former boss…

Obama’s letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko…

There you have it.  There is no question that Obama did favors for Rezko.  The question is whether or not they were illegal and if Rezko will talk about it.

Here’s another article about President-elect Obama’s ties to Tony Rezko:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

I was taken aback when I read the following headline from CNN’s website a few minutes ago:

CNN Story

Dow up more than 300 points on Obama comments on economy, hopes for automakers

So I read the story, then checked with Google News to verify CNN’s claim that Obama’s comments sent the market soaring.  The CNN story is as misleading as a headline can possibly get.  The story opens with this:

Stocks surged Monday on signs that the automakers will be able to avoid bankruptcy and President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed stimulus plan.

According to a Reuters news story, the White House stated this morning that a deal aiding the auto industry was “very likely” today.  So, which bit of news is responsible for moving the market?  Is Obama’s “plan”, which is nothing more than socialism and centralized planning, responsible for sending the stock market higher today, or is President Bush’s release that a bailout was likely the cause of the jump in the market?

Let’s look at the facts.  President-elect Obama’s (oh, God, how I hate saying that) plan isn’t new.  He’s been talking about it for weeks now.  Not only that, but it isn’t much different than what he said on the campaign trail.  This is from November 25th, 2008:

WSJ Article

(Obama) ticked off a list of priorities that included: creating 2.5 million jobs, and spending on roads, bridges, schools and clean-energy programs.

That is pretty much the exact same thing Obama said this past weekend.  This isn’t news, it was already known.  Thus, it is highly unlikely that Obama’s comments moved the market today.

So we are left with the other bit of news that an auto industry bailout deal was likely.  Is it big news?  Yes, absolutely.  Is it big enough to cause the stock market to jump?  Yes.  Is the Obama economic plan discussed this weekend, which we already knew about long ago, big news?  No.  We already knew about it.  Is it likely to be responsible for moving the market this morning?  Since we already knew about it weeks, if not months, ago, no, it is not likely.

This is just another sickening example of the media in Obama’s corner promoting him and his socialist economic plan.  I did not read a single news story mentioning the fact that the stock market dropped for two consequtive days starting the day after Obama was elected.  But, I’ve read several stories trying to link any increase in the stock market to Obama and his plans.  The news media is not being honest.

It is true that the market jumped immediately after Obama announced that Timothy Geithner was his pick for Secretary of the Treasury.  But that is the only time that anything Obama said has moved the market.  The only time.

Every time the market goes up, liberal journalists will portray Obama as being responsible.  Even if he didn’t do or say anything, the media will link every daily increase in the stock market to Obama and his “glorious plans”.  But when the market goes down as a result of something Obama does or says, they won’t dare link him to the decline.  The last thing they want you to know is the truth.

The stock market has fallen once again after the election of Barack Obama.  He portrayed himself as the savior who was going to rescue the economy that he said was wrecked by Bush.

The fact of the matter is that stock values are based on future expectations.  If the market had viewed the election of Barack Obama as a positive, the market would have went up.  But the market did not go up;  the two days after the election the market went down, losing almost 10% of its value.

Let’s look at the Obama Effect on the stock market.  Below are daily closing values for the two most well-known stock market indexes, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and the S&P 500.

11/04/2008 (Election Day)

• DJIA: 9625.28
• S&P 500: 1005.75

11/05/2008

• DJIA: 9139.27
• S&P 500: 952.77

11/06/2008

• DJIA: 8695.79
• S&P 500: 904.88

Closing values as of 11/12/2008:

• DJIA: 8282.66
• S&P 500: 852.3

Since the day Barack Hussein Obama was elected president by millions of idiots, the economy has lost trillions of dollars of wealth. Almost $2.5 trillion in wealth evaporated after the election of Obama.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 14% and the S&P 500 is down 15.26% in the week following the presidential election.  This is despite oil dropping from $70.53 on election day to about $55 on 11/12/2008.  The per barrel price of crude oil dropped 22% and still the American stock market went down.

Maybe Barack Hussein Obama put some African voodoo curse on the market or something.  Obama stinks.  Literally.  It’s been said that 100 million Americans own stock directly or indirectly via retirement investments.  All those people have seen 15% of their wealth disappear in the week since Obama defeated John McCain.

I hope those people who voted for Obama and lost wealth are happy they are now poorer.

Feel free to verify the data for yourself:

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/historical/

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama is asking for advice on how to revive the ailing economy.  You want some advice, Obama, here’s some:

• Do not raise income taxes on anyone.  Rich people are a critical component of spending and investment.  Less money for them means less of both, and poor people do not create jobs.  To create jobs, somebody has to invest money and others have to spend it.
• Do not raise investment taxes.  Investing is risky enough without you Democrat morons reducing the rate of return from investments.  Without tax credits, investment in wind power drops by 90%.  That is proof positive that existing taxes are punitively high to the point where investment in some industries will not occur without effectively lower taxation.  It would be incredibly stupid to raise taxes higher as the Democrats want to do, especially in a weak economy.
• Do not impose carbon taxes.  Carbon taxes mean higher costs for manufacturers, utility companies, and ordinary Americans–everyone without exception.  Taking money out of anyone’s pocket is going to reduce economic activity and hurt job creation.

This advice is no-brainer stuff.  This is something that any first semester college Economics student would know.  Obama portrayed himself as having all the answers during the presidential campaign.  Obama promised that he–and he alone–was going to create millions of new jobs.  He ridiculed John McCain for not knowing enough about the economy.  Now the truth is out:  Obama doesn’t know anything.  He has to seek guidance from others about what to do about the economy because he himself is clueless.

If the stock market thought that Obama would be good for the economy, the market wouldn’t have lost 10% of its value the prior two trading days.  If Obama was the savior he promoted himself to be, the market would have rallied strongly.

The dumbest of the dumb elected Barack Hussein Obama.  We will all pay the price for their stupidity.

USA Today News Story

It was reported that Barack Obama refused to release his college transcripts showing his grades.  Odds are that Obama got into college as a result of affirmative action and not his intellect.  If he was proud of his grades and mental ability, he would have released those transcripts.

Last night Democrat Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States and this morning the stock market drops.  Gee, who could have ever predicted that would happen?  How about anyone with a brain…

When Bush was re-elected back in 2004, the stock market rallied.  Not just in the USA, but stock markets all over the globe rallied.  As a matter of fact, and you can verify this yourself, back in 2004 the stock market dropped as John Kerry climbed in the polls.  As Kerry got closer and closer to Bush in the polls, the market dropped more and more until it finally rallied after Bush was elected for a second term.

Now, we have further empirical proof that Democrats are bad for the economy.  As of this writing the market is down 350 points, or 3.6%, (Dow Jones Industrial Average) and the S&P 500 is down the same percentage.  From the article:

A case of postelection nerves sent stocks plunging Wednesday as investors again anxious about recession began questioning what impact a Barack Obama presidency will have on business and the overall economy. The Dow Jones industrials dropped more than 350 points and the major indexes all fell more than 3 percent.

But the selling picked up momentum as the market worried anew about the weakness of the economy and pondered what an Obama administration might do.

Obama’s victory means that industries such as oil and gas producers, utilities and pharmaceuticals may face greater regulation and even taxes, while labor unions and automakers are expected to benefit.

Obama and the Democrats promised to raise taxes on the “rich”.  It is the rich who do the investing and job creation in this country.  So, when you raise taxes on them, they have less money to invest in projects.  Obviously, that is going to drag the market down.

Obama and the Democrats also promised to raise taxes on investments.  An investment such as a stock is worth the discounted present value of its future returns.  Higher taxes means lower returns on investment.  So, it only makes sense, mathematically, that the value of investments such as stocks would drop.

Obama and the Democrats plan to take money from those who earn it and risk their own money investing so they can redistribute it to those who don’t build factories, don’t buy stocks, and don’t do much of anything except sit around and collect a welfare check.

Less money to spend for anyone–even the rich–means less economic activity.  Less economic activity means lower tax revenue.  Why?  Because income derived from economic activity is what is taxed in this country.

See how simple that logic is?  Too bad Democrats aren’t smart enough to figure it out.  We are now living in a nation run by morons.  Democrat morons.

Try looking at the academic achievement in Democrat-voting strongholds sometime.  The average high school graduate reads at an 8th grade level, and half the students drop out before graduation!  These are the dolts who elected Obama.

UPDATE:

After the above was posted the market tanked.  With 20 minutes left of trading the DJIA is down 450 points, or 4.65%.  That’s attrocious!  Billions of dollars of value have evaporated thanks to the dimwits who elected Barack Obama.

UPDATE II:

We heard that Obama is going to do all these great things.  Why, he’s going to stop global warming!  Obama is going to restore our standing in the world!  Obama’s going to create millions of jobs?  Hell, the day after he gets elected the stock market tanks.  The DJIA finished down 486 points, or 5.05%.  The S&P 500 was down 5.27%.  That’s a significant one-day loss.

The changing face of America is changing America, for better or for worse.  Here is an analysis of the racial composition of support for Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain for the 2008 Presidential election as revealed by exit polls.  There can be no doubt that the support of racial minorities, who now comprise over 30% of the population and growing fast, played the pivotal role in Obama’s victory on November 4th.

Below is a comparison of the 2008 election with the 2004 election using CNN 2008 and 2004 exit poll data (MSNBC data). We will compare the racial exit polling data between Republicans John McCain and George Bush with Democrats Barack Obama and John Kerry and look at the change that occurred between the elections.

The support from whites for the Republican candidate was largely unchanged.  McCain dropped 3% from Bush in 2004 and Obama picked up 2% over Kerry.  But with every poll there is a margin of error, typically 3% to 4%, and this small amount would be within it.  So, factoring in the margin of error, it is possible that there was no difference in white support for the Republican candidates between the 2004 and 2008 elections.

But the support of ethnic minorities paints the true picture of the 2008 election and the fact that it was indeed all about race.

John McCain dropped beyond any margin of error in every single non-white racial category and Obama picked them up.  I can’t tell you how many interviews I read or saw on TV with minorities gushing about their support of Obama mainly because he “understands what it is like to be a minority.”  Here’s an example of one:

Article

Many languages were being spoken by the diverse crowd at the rally, with several minority groups besides African-Americans feeling pride in Obama’s candidacy.

Arturo Carrillo, 26, of Chicago’s Southeast Side, said it was a great moment for Latinos too.  “With Democrats in Congress and Obama as president, we hope there will be a push for immigration reform,” he said. “This is a turning point.”

Carrillo spoke Spanish with a buddy as he watched results come in at Butler Field. He said Latinos welcome a multi-racial president who knows what it feels like to be a minority in this country.

Make no mistake:  race played a crucial role in the 2008 election.  It wasn’t anti-black racism like many people were expecting.  It was anti-white racism.  It was a case of millions of ethnic minorities voting for a man largely because he, too, is an ethnic minority, like them.  Many of these minorities didn’t vote for Obama because they thought he was the best candidate, although I’m sure some did. Many voted for Obama not because of what he is, but because of what he isn’t:  white.

The 2008 election was just one example of many to come where minorities “stick it to the man”.  Or, at least, they will stick it to the white man, much like they did to all the DFL presidential contenders.  Factor in the large numbers of non-white immigrants, both legal and illegal, and you can see which direction the country is heading.  White males will soon become an endangered species in the Democratic Party.  These minorities are going to toss white liberals out like the trash that they are.

And I won’t even mention the massive voter fraud the Democrats and their operatives like ACORN were engaging in.  Nope.  Not going to mention it.

In the end, John McCain deserved to lose.  Not because he wasn’t the best candidate, because he was.  He deserved to lose because he made tactical errors every step of the way.  From his initial intent to run a clean campaign (which he didn’t) to his pick of Sarah Palin to his refusual to use Barack Obama’s middle name of Hussein, every step McCain made was a mistake.  In fact, him even running in the first place was a huge mistake.  McCain was never well liked by the Republican base to begin with.  He should have learned his lesson in 2000 and given up on the presidency.  We would all be better off today if he had.

Hey Johnny Boy, don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

Barack Obama has flip-flopped once again.  Previously, Obama was adamant on increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  Now, he is suggesting that he would delay increasing taxes because of the weakening economy.

Story

Whether you want to admit it or not, it is the wealthiest Americans who create jobs.  Whether it is done with their investment or with their spending on luxuries, rich people create jobs and poor people do not.

Have you ever worked for a poor person?  No.  Nobody has.  Poor people don’t create jobs.  Poor people don’t build factories and hire workers.  But that won’t stop the Democrats from their goal of buying votes by redistributing wealth from the people who earn it to those who didn’t.

Seriously, what else can you call it but vote buying when the Democrats take money from one group and give it to another?  “Vote for us Democrats and we’ll take money from that guy and give it to you!”

Taking money away from people who create jobs–the rich–during an economic downturn is just stupid.  Stupidity is the hallmark of the Democratic Party.  In many inner-city, Democrat-voting neighborhoods, half the students drop out of high school and the half that do graduate read at an eighth grade level.  No wonder they support the Democratic Party.  Stupid is as stupid does.

Millions of hearts are aflutter as Barack Hussein Obama nears the announcement of his running mate.  Who will be Obama’a pick for Vice President?  My guess is Hillary Clinton.

Why Hillary?  Barack Obama is above everything else an egomaniac.  He will do or say anything to win.  It was reported the other day that a full 25% of Hillary supporters have not thrown their support behind Obama.  To win, he needs those votes.  So what better way to get those votes than to offer the VP slot to someone who trashed you mercilessly during the primary campaign?

We all know that Hillary Clinton has no dignity and no self respect.  Look at how she stood by her rapist husband all these years while he cheated on her time and time again.  It would not be beneath Hillary to accept the VP slot on the ticket of a relatively unknown newcomer like Barack Obama.  She has been treated like garbage by her husband for years and more recently by her party that tossed her aside.  She is as low as you can go.

Inside Edition reported yesterday that Barack Obama sneezed during several campaign appearances.

That’s right, the leftists in the media think so highly of Barack Obama that it is newsworthy when he sneezes.

Barack Hussein Obama appears to have made another flip-flop.  Before, he was vehemently opposed to offshore oil drilling (and drilling anywhere else, for that matter).  Now, he appears to have changed his tune.  Sort of…  It’s hard to tell with Barack Obama.  Because if he isn’t flip-flopping, he’s purposefully vague so as to avoid taking a real stand on an issue and angering his liberal base.

New York Times Article

But why would Obama change his position when one week ago he was opposed to offshore drilling?  Probably because polls indicate that a majority of Americans want more drilling.  And we all know how Democrats forumulate their positions not based on their core beliefs, but on polling data.

Frauds and liars, each and every one of those Democrats.

Barack Obama has a huge lead over John McCain among Latino voters. Obama has 66% support of Latinos versus 23% for McCain.

The people, such as Rush Limbaugh, who said that Latinos would not vote for a black man were wrong. Very wrong.

In the 2006 elections Democrats captured around 70% of the Latino vote; in 2004, Democrats got 60%. Obama is hovering right around that 2006 figure.

In the end, Latinos are going to vote for whoever is going to promise them the most welfare freebies. That’s all there is to it. That is the main reason people vote for Democrats. It’s the “what you going to give me” factor that Republicans cannot match.

CNN Story

Presumptive DFL presidential nominee Barack Obama is in Germany today to give a speech pandering to euro liberals.  According to news reports, Obama is very popular in Germany, with 74% of poll respondents saying they would vote for them if they could largely based on his youthfulness, John F. Kennedy-like charisma, and his skin color.

None of those are valid reasons to vote for someone to be the leader of the USA and the free world. That’s just pure idiocy from people who can’t think beyond a manufactured public image created by political consultants.

Obama’s speech will be focused on US-Europe relations.  Liberals have been pounding away on the theory that the image of the United States has been damaged in recent years by the actions of President George W. Bush.  For some irrational reason, lefties believe that liberating 25 million Iraqi civilians from that cruel and ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein was unjust.  So that is why Obama decided on this topic for his speech which, undoubtedly, was written by Obama’s hired speech writers.

Several weeks ago Ralph Nader said that Obama was capitalizing on white guilt.  One must wonder if white guilt is the reason Obama is so popular in Germany.  Remember, this is a nation that tried to exterminate the Jewish race.  What other possible reason could there be for Obama’s popularity with a foreign nation that can’t vote for him and likely is largely unaware of his true character and his associations (Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William “Bill” Ayers).

In the end, it doesn’t matter what Germans think, because they can’t vote in American elections.  And that’s a good thing, because this is the nation that put Adolf Hitler into power because of his charisma and public speaking prowess, the same basis as their support for Barack Obama. Germans were wrong once, and they are again.

It is really sickening the way the American media is drawing parallels between Obama and the German visits by JFK and Ronald Reagan. The difference between those two and Obama is that they were presidents at the times of their visits and they actually discussed issues of substance, not pap like Obama is doing.

Violence in Iraq is down substantially.  Despite the success in Iraq, Barack Obama still opposes the surge.

Doesn’t Obama realize that the accomplishments against terrorists in Iraq would not have been possible without the surge?

Fox News Article

Barack Obama is on the wrong side of every issue, even after the fact.  How can you possibly be opposed to something successful?  It’s mind-boggling idiocy.

Inside Edition, the tabloid TV show, is reporting that Fox News did not release all of the video of Rev. Jesse Jackson in which the “man of God” said that he wanted to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off.

Rumors are circulating that the Rev. Jackson may have called Obama the n-word.  Conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly says that there are more harsh words from Rev. Jackson which have not yet been released, and may not be.

Does what the Rev. Jackson said sound like the words of a man of God?  No.  They are the words of a hypocrite and a man filled with hate, not the words of a man of religion or peace.  Jesse Jackson revealed his true character for all the world to see.  He is just another dirty fraud and liar.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat, a supposed man of God, said that he wanted to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off.  That’s right, this man of God is nothing more than a typical violent Democrat voter.  Watch the Youtube video:

Rev. Jackson Youtube Video

Jesse Jackson says the following:

See, Barack been, um, talkin’ down to black people on this faith based… I wanna cut his nuts off.

Barack…he’s talkin’ down to black people.

The Rev. Jackson, after making the statement that he wants to cut Obama’s nuts off, makes a slicing motion with his hand.  Apparently, the reverend didn’t realize he was on a hot mic and didn’t think anyone else would hear what he said.

How sweet, how typically Democrat!

Is anyone surprised that Barack Obama would change his position on withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

Obama rallied liberals by demanding that troops be pulled out.  When?  As soon as possible–immediately, in fact.  But here is what Obama said last week in an interview with Military Times:

Look, I’ve said this repeatedly from the start, and so I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.  (See Obama’s quote from Sept. 2007 below.) What I have repeatedly said from the start, when I introduced my first piece of legislation on this issue in January of 2007 is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. That we should send a clear message to Iraqi leadership that we are not going to engage in a permanent occupation in Iraq and that we are not going to have permanent bases there. That we want to bring a gradual withdrawal of our combat forces, that we would maintain a counterterrorism force in the region that could continue to keep al-Qaida on the run. That we would continue to have a protective force for our embassy, our civilian and humanitarian forces and that we would continue to train Iraqis both army and police, so long as those who are being trained were not falling back into sectarian patterns. And I have always said that as commander in chief I will absolutely seek the advice and counsel of our generals and our commanders on the field, not just our generals, but our mid-level officers and those who are on the ground doing the fighting.

So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground.

How is that any different that what President Bush is doing right now?  It is no different.  What Obama basically said is that conditions on the ground will dictate when troops leave and any decision to withdraw troops will be made in consultation with Iraqi leaders.  Not only that, but Obama also plans to leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

This is what President Bush said in November, 2006:

I believe it is very important, though, for people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground.

And this is what President Bush said in November, 2005:

As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

As the Iraqi forces grow more capable, they are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists. Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight against the terrorists.

Democrats are toning down their surrender rhetoric now that we have actually turned the corner in Iraq.  Why?  Maybe because they realize how wrong they were?  Afterall, it was the Democrats who said that the surge would never work.  Not only has it worked, but it has worked very well.

Barack Obama previously demanded immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  This is what Obama said in September, 2007, just ten months ago:

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was.

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

Too bad Obama doesn’t realize that almost everything he has said is archived for our effortless retrieval.  Remember this Obama quote from above:

This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.

Bullshit!  Obama himself demanded immediate withdrawal, and now he claims he never said it!

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?  The man is an absolute fraud.  Liberals are dumb enough to believe what he says, no matter what he says, just because he says it.

Looks like Obama has been caught in another lie, doesn’t it?  That’s not just another flip-flop, though Obama is a huge flip-flopper, that is an outright lie.

That’s why we call Democrats “dirty frauds and liars”.

Murders are up significantly in the city of Chicago.  For the first five months of 2008 murders are up almost 13% compared to the same time period in 2007.  From January through the end of May there have been 177 people murdered in the city of Chicago.

Isn’t Barack Obama from Chicago?  Yes he is.  It’s where he lives.

It is always funny to watch these Democrats talk about the loss of life in Iraq while they never mention the slaughter going on in their own backyards.  About 16,500 people are murdered in the United States every year, give or take a few hundred.  The vast majority of these murders occur in Democrat voting strongholds.

Try challenging a Democrat to name one DFL stronghold that isn’t a hellhole of crime and violence sometime.  They can’t.  The DFL destroys everything it gets its hands on.  It’s an irrefutable fact.

Why isn’t Barack Obama doing anything about this?

Story

Independent candidate Ralph Nader accused Barack Obama of using white guilt in his quest for the presidency.  Nader also said that Obama is talking white so as not to appear threatening to white people.

Ralph Nader said:

There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson?

He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

No, not all of us whites are eating up Obama’s dreck.

Nader is right about Obama not speaking out about the “plight” of blacks.  But to be fair, Obama hasn’t done much of anything.  He has no track record and no real accomplishments; his resume is as thin as can be.  Obama has produced no significant legislation and has not articulated a single original idea that isn’t a rehash of failed liberal and socialist policies of decades ago.

Do you really think Obama needs to address issues of concern to the black community?  He’s already got their vote for no other reason than the color of his skin.  He doesn’t need to.  What Obama needs is the white vote.  He isn’t going to get it by trying to bring pity on the black community when most of their problems (crime, violence, dismal academic performance, welfare dependence, etc.) are of their own making.

As for Nader’s criticism that Obama is talking white, Obama’s chief speech writer, Jon Favreau, is a white guy.  So what do you expect when a white guy is writing the words and thoughts of a candidate?  He’s going to sound like the speech writer.  Right?

NY Times Article About Obama’s Chief Speech Writer With Picture

Obama replied to Nader’s comments by saying:

First of all, what’s clear is that Ralph Nader hasn’t been paying attention to my speeches.

Maybe Nader has been listening to Obama’s speeches.  See the comments about Obama’s speech writer above.

According to a new LA Times-Bloomberg poll, Barack Obama is way ahead of John McCain among registered voters.

In a head-to-head matchup Obama leads McCain 49% to 37%.  Factoring Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Independent Ralph Nader into the race, Obama leads McCain 48% to 33%.

Of course, it is still early with over four months left to go and things will change.  Unless McCain gets into gear pointing out Barack Obama’s weaknesses and hypocrisy, he is going to lose.  There is no doubt about it that McCain will not win this race by playing the nice guy.  There is a lot of ammunition McCain could use to point out that Obama is not who he and his liberal journalist backers say he is.  McCain should seize on this now instead of letting Obama gain momentum.

McCain probably thought that his decision to use public financing when Barack Obama went back on his word would give him an advantage.  But it didn’t.  Most people couldn’t care less.  They may say they want a clean race, the truth is they want to know why they should choose one candidate over the other.  Refusing to criticize your candidate because you want to play the nice guy or you are afraid of charges of racism isn’t going to give the voters what they need to vote your way.

John McCain is like a stale fart that just won’t go away.  He should have learned his lesson in 2000.  Instead, he had to get back into this race and muck up Mitt Romney’s chance.  That’s not to say that McCain isn’t qualified to be president, because he surely is.  In fact, McCain is probably one of the most qualified people to ever run for the office.  But people aren’t looking for qualifications.  They are looking for a reason to rally behind someone.  McCain is offering nothing.

In this election I will not be voting for John McCain because I support him.  I will be voting for him because I know how dangerous, inexperienced, and unknown Obama truly is.

Yes he did it.  Barack Obama has played the race card against the Republicans.  This is what Obama said:

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Yes, Obama, you are inexperienced.  You are also a giant hypocrite who engages in everything he claims to be against from earmarks to grant requests for political contributors to crooked real estate deals.

It has nothing to do with you being black, Barack Hussein.  Our opposition to you is because you have no experience, you want to raise taxes and further block domestic oil drilling, you are weak on terrorists, and you have no track record to speak of other than your hypocritical behavior such as granting favors to contributors.  You are an absolute fraud.

Had people known more about Obama prior to his early victories in the primary season he would have never made it as far as he’s gotten.  The office of the presidency is the most important job in the world.  A relative  unknown like Obama with no experience is not suitable.

Barack Obama has character flaws so big you could drive a cement truck through them.  This is John McCain’s race to lose and if he doesn’t get out there and start criticizing Obama, he will lose.  Playing nice is not going to cut it when you’ve got the vast majority of the journalists and news media vigorously hyping your opponent. The news is nothing but a constant stream of pro-Obama propaganda.

At least Obama admitted that he is inexperienced. That’s one of the few truthful things that has ever come out of his mouth.

Don’t forget this crucial fact, Obama:  the Democratic Party is the party of slavery.  It’s true.  It was the Republican party that ended slavery.  The Democratic Party wanted slavery to continue.

Reuters article