Search This Blog

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Two Part Post - The Obama Questions and the Issues

Cartoon courtesy of Gary McCoy

My next column will deal with the issues. Not charges or innuendoes or that kind of junk. This post is going to finish up pointing out some of that stuff...and there is a lot to point out. There are some things I want to get out of my craw and pass out to the readers. The primary reason I feel I need to do this is because the major news media won't do it.

So I am get some of this out there today and then tomorrow I can sit down and tell you why I am voting for John McCain and go over the issues. It will be a positive and informative post and hopefully one that inspires thought and discussion.

This post is designed to open the eyes of those who are blindly following after a candidate who has consistently hidden his past life and associations and continues do do so. It is about a news media who is in the back pocket of the Democratic Party to an alarming degree. I want to be sure you see this stuff and then I dare you to check it out for yourself. Don't be lemmings.

Are Democratic Party hacks investigating "Joe the plumber" illegally using government computers? Looks that way.

"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher became part of the national political lexicon Oct. 15 when Republican presidential candidate John McCain mentioned him frequently during his final debate with Democrat Barack Obama.

The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department..."

.,Did you know the Obama campaign is selling access to his election night coverage? The charges are amazing and are arrogant in the extreme. Charging news media for the right to cover his possible victory party (or loss funeral) in lumps of hundreds and even thousands of dollars!!!!

Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden

You tube version here.

WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. What do you think?

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

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

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

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

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."

Here's a link to the interview:

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."

Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."

What did you think of the interview?
The Obama campaign has already told it's followers to flood radio programs who they do not life with phone calls and emails and have asked the Justice Department to investigate a critic. They have cut off this TV station. Will they pull a Hugo Chavez and shut down dissident media once in office?

When John Murtha is allowed to call our soldiers war criminals and get away with not apologizing when he is proven to be a liar, when he says his own constituency are a bunch of prejudiced rednecks, MSM says little or nothing. When Joe Biden says that a new President Obama would be tested by the bad guys of the world, thus possibly endangering our very existence, NBC News doesn't even report on it. Why? They are too busy complaining that the Republican Party bought Sarah Palin a campaign wardrobe. Seems Palin, unlike the usual rich folks who run for office, doesn't have a closet full of pricey clothing. WOW, hard and important breaking news!!! I bet the Obama campaign spends more on flags to throw away than the Republicans spent on Palin clothing. They spend four or five dollars for every one the McCain campaign can spend, because, unlike Obama, McCain kept his pledge to adhere to the Campaign Finance matching funds. Yet another promise Obama has broken.

Four former secretaries of state have declared their support for McCain. Have you even heard about that? Or have you only heard about Colin Powell coming out for Obama after getting a promise of a place in the Obama administration?

John Stephenson let me know about an employee of the LA Times who is sitting on a video that would be explosive in nature if released. Jim Hoft has the scoop:

Excerpt: LA Times writer Peter Wallsten wrote about Barack Obama's close association with former Palestinian operative Rashid Khalidi back in April.Wallsten discussed a dinner held back in 2003 in honor of Khalidi, a critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights.Barack Obama has denied his close association with Khalidi, too.According to Wallsten the evening not surprisingly turned into a classic Jew-bash:

"During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."Barack Obama also praised the former PLO operative during the event.And, Obama confessed that his family often shared dinner with the Khalidis:
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Here is a video explaining his ties to Obama.

Allow me to say that small dead animals has gotten ahold of Barry's scrapbook, so here I give him a chance to tell you about himself. Click and see!

Last, I will quote Scott Swett on his take of the Obama Questions:

The puzzle pieces are falling into place, and a chilling picture is emerging:

Barack Obama’s mentor and long-time minister Jeremiah Wright called upon God to “damn America.” Wright also preached that America deserved the 9/11 attacks, and claimed that the US government created AIDS in order to kill black people.

Obama worked closely for several years with the former Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers. Ayers hosted the fundraiser that launched Obama’s political career with his wife Bernardine Dohrn, also a communist and a former terrorist.

As an attorney in Illinois, Obama represented ACORN, the radical community organizing group that set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis by pressuring banks to make high-risk mortgage loans. Obama later sent millions of dollars to ACORN while working with Bill Ayers at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In 2007 Obama promised ACORN members that if elected, he would be “calling all of you in” during the post-election transition “to help us shape the agenda.” His presidential campaign paid the group more than $800,000 in 2008. ACORN is currently being investigated for election fraud in more than a dozen states.

Obama’s primary financial backer in Chicago, political fixer Tony Rezko, was convicted of 16 felonies including fraud, money laundering and abetting bribery.

Archived documents of the Marxist Chicago “New Party” show that Obama was a member in the 1990’s. His campaign had previously denied any connection.

In 2006, Obama spent six days in Kenya campaigning for Marxist presidential candidate Raila Odinga. His Senate staff coordinated donations to Odinga’s campaign totaling nearly $1 million. Obama declared at numerous rallies that Kenyans “are now yearning for change.” Meanwhile, Odinga signed a declaration of understanding with Muslim leaders recognizing Islam as Kenya’s “only true religion.” After Odinga’s defeat, his thugs started riots that killed at least 1,000 people and destroyed or damaged 800 Christian churches. More than 50 people, mostly women and children, were burned to death in a single church while men with machetes attacked anyone who tried to escape. Kenya’s elected government was then forced to accept a “power-sharing” agreement with Odinga’s party.

Obama has been praised by Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and the terrorist group Hamas. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan says Obama is “the Messiah.”

America’s “mainstream” media organizations have gone out of their way to ignore or dismiss these disturbing facts, protecting the flawed candidate they favor – a man who could not pass the background check required to obtain a basic security clearance.

Instead, they spend their time investigating the life of “Joe the Plumber,” to deflect attention away from Barack Obama’s revealing promise to “spread the wealth around.”


Anonymous said...

Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered in a local newspaper...

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA..............or just a fools game !!


Anonymous said...



radar said...

lava, too bad you cannot make an intelligent response to a host of major issues and concerns.

Anonymous said...

Should The top management of the Public listed company be responsible for the company performance, eg company nearly get wind up?
Are you a Partisan?

Should they give their view......? If any party did not give their views, send it to their supporter to question them....
use it as a last min topics to support your supporters on this view points...

Anonymous said...


The analogy anonymous posted is ludicrous. I didn't think I had to explain why.

What I'd like to know, how do you/anonymous/other conservatives define wealth redistribution? Until you state that, there is no point in really having any discussion on this. Any taxing and spending by the government is a form of wealth redistribution. Are you completely against taxing and spending? If not, where is the line drawn? Where does some spending become "socialist"?

Until this can be made clear and you or others can give more concrete examples why Obama's tax plan impermissibly redistributes wealth and why McCain's plan doesn't, there is no point in posting anything substantive and I'll post extremely stupid comments in response to other extremely stupid comments.


radar said...


After all the long dissertations I have linked to and excerpted, if you cannot understand then you are incapable of understanding and what is the point of trying? Your charge is so ludicrous I cannot imagine anyone of intelligence who really cares about the issues would make it. I have made what wealth redistribution looks like abundantly clear and with the support of several supporting voices.

I don't think you are stupid, therefore the only other conclusion is that you cannot argue the point so you pretend to be unable to comprehend it.

Either step up and defend wealth distribution or stand down and disagree with it, quit pretending to be dumb!

Anonymous said...

OK radar, I’ve reread your posts. My basic contention is Obama is not a Socialist. Obama making a statement about “spreading the wealth” does not make him a socialist.

Your first post on socialism from the 18th describes socialism as:

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!

Obama does not want a centrally planned economy without market prices and he does not want all property to be owned by the state. If you have evidence otherwise, I’d love to see it.

On the 22nd you posted an article, part of which says:

The main tenets of Socialism are:

1. Abolition of private property

2. Equality of income (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx)

3. Class interests oppose each other (class struggle)

4. Government is, or should be the progressive representation of the interests of the working class"

Please, if you wish to call Obama a socialist, tell me how he fits in with these 4 main tenets of socialism.

The article goes on to define neo-socialism. The main tenants of neo-socialism, from the article, are:


Relativism/Multi-Culturalism/ Racism/ Homophobia/ Xenophobia



Anti (Judeo-Christian) Religion-ism

“Peace” Activism


This isn’t socialism. Please know, this is a made up list by the author. Some of these terms (like anti-business, oppression, and anti-globalization) are so much more open to interpretation than the tenants of socialism above, that you can argue most anyone fits into one or more of these categories and, as such, is to some degree a neo-socialist. But, as far as I can tell, this guy you quoted just made all this up.

These are the posts I’ve found that deal with socialism. Nowhere that I could see did you lay out how Obama is actually a socialist based on his platform and comparing them to the main tenants of socialism. All you do is post an article and then say “See, Obama is a socialist!”

Obama saying “spread the wealth” does not mean he is for the abolition of property or equality of income. That would be a pretty ludicrous argument.

You can make the argument(and really, what I outline here really kind of stupid…I’m not saying I believe in this argument) that there is a continuum ranging from libertarianism (or anarchism where there is no government controls over society) to socialism and everyone lies somewhere on that continuum. You are either an anarchist or to some degree a socialist. If you want to say that, then fine. Then anyone who believes in the government providing social security, Medicaid, building roads, or doing anything else has some degree of socialist belief. Under this argument, you could then say Obama has more socialist belief than McCain--- but again, this requires more than the bald assertion that Obama is a socialist.

If I’m missing some post you made where you laid this out, just let me know.


radar said...

Quoting Barack Obama from a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote."

(Note: Obama's right to vote was established long before he was born and almost entirely brought about by the work of Republicans. But let's let him go on...)

"I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k."

(Again, primarily Republicans fighting the southern Democrats over Jim Crow Laws.)

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

The bolding was my doing. Could he be more clear? He wants to try to frustrate the intention of the Constitution and impose wealth redistribution and "economic justice" which is a nice Marxist term.

Obama hasn't really said much of anything about point one of the four socialist main points but he supports the other three:

, 2. Equality of income (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx)

Yep, he just proclaimed that in that quote and in other places.

, 3. Class interests oppose each other (class struggle)

He is constantly talking about "big corporations and the rich" as the boogeyman.

, 4. Government is, or should be the progressive representation of the interests of the working class"

His entire radio comment as listed addresses that. I can link to John Stephenson for that and put it in a post if you doubt me. In fact, I'll link it in this post by means of the editing tool.

Anonymous said...

The "socialist" angle is just another tired attack used by right-wingers on those to the left of them on the political spectrum. But don't take my word for it...

Anonymous said...

I'm going to go point by point the evidence you provided for the 4 facets of socialism:

1. Was this quote placed there for the proposition that Obama is for the abolition of private property? Because it doesn't stand for this in any way.

Also, the context of this quote is completely unclear. It sound like this is a backwards looking assessment of the civil rights movement and the Warren court. He does not say, I want a redistribution of wealth.

Frankly, I still don't know what you define "redistribution of wealth" as.

2. Equality of Income. No. In the quote you posted, he did not advocate for the equality of income. Saying "spread the wealth" does not mean he advocates for the equality of income.

3. I don't even want to get into this because it actually requires more knowledge of socialism than the links you provided have. Yes, you'll probably harp on this as me ducking out, but since you haven't even addressed the other three, the point is pretty moot. Obama is not a socialist.

4. No! The quote did not say this!!! Where does it say this!!! And read the entire sentence!!!!

Let's look at what you bolded, including the words around it.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

Does Obama say he wished they did? Did he say they should have?

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution,...

Hmmm... essential constraints...doesn't sound too much like he was advocating for the propositions you believe this quote stands for.

Radar, I'll assume this was just laziness and not ignorance on your part for pasting an quote from an interview that has NOTHING to do with what we were talking about.


radar said...

Lava, there are other sound bites of Obama saying similar things. If you cannot hear his support for points 2-4 in this I cannot say more. It is quite obvious to me. I mentioned elsewhere that you might check out "The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek to understand what I am saying about socialism and Obama's policies...

Hayek won the Nobel for economics and Friedman, another Nobel winner for economics, wrote the forward to the latest (I think) printing. This book inspired people like Churchill and Reagan and Thatcher to fight collectivism and communism/socialism both within and without their societies.

radar said...