It's a Bird! It's a Plane!! It's Obaman!!! No, not yet......

View All Recent Meet the Real Sarah Palin Blog Posts:

Click on Share button to send to your favorite sites

Loose Change

View All Recent Meet the Real Sarah Palin Blog Posts:

We Still Don't Know Who Obama Is......

"Only the Democrats would pay $610,000,000 for an empty suit!!!"

The Obama Enigma

Change . . . from what to what?


By Victor Davis Hanson

Why is the charismatic Barack Obama not quite yet a shoo-in?

Easy. Voters apparently still don’t know who Obama is, or what he wants to do — and so are still not altogether sure that Obama is the proper antidote to George W. Bush. After more than a year of campaigning, he still remains an enigma.Obama promised to be the post-racial candidate who would bring us together.


But when asked in March 2004 whether he attended regularly Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama boasted, “Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service.”The healer Obama further characterized the racist Wright as “certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.”


And Obama described the even more venomous father Michael Pfleger as “a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.”Obama can dismiss his past associations with Bill Ayers as perfunctory and now irrelevant. But why then did an Obama campaign spokesman say Obama hadn’t e-mailed with or spoken by phone to Ayers since January 2005, suggesting more than three years of communications — in a post-9/11 climate — after Ayers said publicly he had not done enough bombing?


Obama’s campaign shrugged when legal doubts were raised about the sloppy voter registration practices of ACORN — an organization that Obama himself has both helped and praised.


Yet Obama once was a stickler for proper voter documents. In 1996, he had all of his Democratic rivals removed from the ballot in an Illinois state primary election on the basis of sloppy voter petitions.


Many of Obama’s surrogates — from congressional leaders like Rep. John Lewis to his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden — have suggested that the McCain and Palin candidacies have heightened racial tensions. Do such preemptory warnings mean that one cannot worry about Obama’s 20-year relationship with Rev. Wright or long association with Father Pfleger?


And change? Obama himself has changed positions on FISA, NAFTA, public campaign financing, town-hall meetings with McCain, offshore drilling, nuclear and coal power, capital punishment and gun control, his characterization of Iran, the surge in Iraq, and the future of Jerusalem. So change from what to what?

cont. here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTM5OGQwOTMxZjVhOWEzMjAxN2Q0MjZlZjAzN2NiZmM=#more

View All Recent Meet the Real Sarah Palin Blog Posts:

Obama's Plans for Your Money

Millions of illegal aliens in the U.S.

Barack Obama’s plan gives a driver’s license to any illegal who wants one.

But that’s not all.

Obama’s plan gives illegals social security benefits and raises taxes for his health care plan to cover them.

Who pays? You do.

Driver’s licenses and government benefits for illegals.

Higher taxes for us. That’s Obama’s plan.

Obama. Too radical. Too risky.



Donate Now



http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.com/video_ss4illegals_eg.html



View All Recent Meet the Real Sarah Palin Blog Posts:

AP-GFK poll shows McCain, Obama in virtual tie

By STEVEN R. HURSTAssociated Press 2008-10-23 08:11 AM

Republican John McCain is accusing Democrat Barack Obama of seeking a socialist redistribution of wealth as a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds the candidates running nearly dead-even less than two weeks before the presidential election.

The poll results were released Wednesday and found Obama at 44 percent to 43 percent for McCain, a possible indication that conservative voters were drifting back to the Republican candidate. The same poll three weeks ago found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead, lifted by Americans' anxiety over the slumping U.S. economy _ the top issue gripping voters in the 2008 race for the White House.

With the contest still volatile, the new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama up by 9 percentage points, while a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll had the margin at 11 points and a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama leading by 14.

State-by-state polling shows Obama within a few electors of the 270 need to win. The nationwide popular vote does not count for victory in the U.S. system, that depends instead on the electoral college, with members apportioned according to state population.
McCain has been pounding the Obama tax plan, which proposes a reversal of President George W. Bush's tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy. The additional revenue, Obama contends, would offset tax breaks he wants to give to the 95 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 annually.

"Apparently, as my opponent sees it, there's a strict limit to your earnings as well, and it's for the politicians to decide. The proper amount of wealth is not what you can earn, but what government will let you keep," McCain told supporters in New Hampshire, a traditionally anti-tax state he hopes to woo to his side.
McCain was joined by his running mate Sarah Palin at a rally later in the battleground state of Ohio, where the Alaska governor derided Obama as "Barack the Wealth Spreader" and said: "You have to really listen to our opponent's words, because he's hiding his real agenda of redistributing your hard-earned money."

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=770169


View All Recent Meet the Real Sarah Palin Blog Posts:

Repeating History

by David Limbaugh

In certain unscripted moments, Barack Obama has given us a glimpse of his socialist inclinations, but I wonder what percentage would vote for him if they truly understood the extent of his radicalism.

Yet the financial crisis has created a climate of fear and uncertainty and unleashed an unprecedented tolerance for large-scale government intervention, which is playing perfectly into Obama's hands. People are blaming this largely Democratic-spawned mess on Republicans because Bush is still president.

Maybe I'm being too much of an alarmist, but I'm worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. Just listen to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama's socialism, such is their angst at the subprime mortgage mess.

Already some 38 percent of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. How ironic that he and other Democrats pretend to be targeting their message to "working-class" people when many of their constituents aren't working. But such is class warfare that the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living.

Do you suppose it has registered with class warfare-receptive Obama voters that Obama is deliberately turning the American dream on its head? Could it be any clearer that his message to the middle class is: Don't aspire to achievement, success and wealth because a) it is immoral to have more than others, b) the government will take your wealth away from you and give it to others, and c) why bother to bust your rear end to make more when you can vote yourselves money from the public trough?

Obama let slip his socialist proclivities to Joe the plumber when he denied he wanted to punish wealth and insisted he just wanted to spread the wealth around. Joe was justifiably repulsed by Obama's cavalier attitude toward the American dream.

Democratic commentator Bob Beckel was dismissive of the significance of Obama's outright nod to socialism, saying we've had a progressive tax system since the income tax was initiated. Yes, Bob, and we've had socialists in America since then, too.

But what Beckel did not explain is that at least in those days, the stated purpose of the income tax system was to fund government services, not to redistribute wealth.

It's one thing to say that higher income earners should pay a higher percentage for government services. But Obama makes no pretense of stopping there. He told Joe that he wants to use the tax code to confiscate money from higher income earners and give it to others. But he hasn't been so open about that in the presentation of his fraudulent tax plan.

When Obama says he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is dissembling. If 38 percent are already not paying, his tax credits to them amount to transfer payments from higher income earners, which are actually spending increases, not tax cuts, as The Wall Street Journal editors have noted.

(snipped)

Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they've been tried in the world, yet die-hard socialists, such as William Ayers, still smarter than God, insist on cramming them down our throats in the name of "fairness."
Unreconstructed radicals always say that true socialism hasn't been given a real chance.

Well, if Obama is elected, we may get that chance.

Full Article Here:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=290462

View All Recent Blog Posts:

America is at risk of taxing herself out of a democracy

Posted by Tod A. Wacker, West Salem October 09, 2008 04:56AM

In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, noticed a continuing pattern in the advance and decline of the world's democracies. He stated that a democracy can continue to exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. From that point on, the majority proceeds to vote for the candidate who promises the most benefits from that treasury. The end result is that, every single time, in a period of about 200 years, democracies collapse due to a loose fiscal policy.

He also noted that the progression of a democracy is a simple one. It transforms from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; and finally from dependence back into bondage.

As we listen to candidates campaigning, whether they are running for town council, United States president, or somewhere in between, are we voting ourselves one step closer to the bondage of socialism? Or, even more extreme, communism?

Our model of democracy has been in existence 232 years. It's our generation's turn to guard it. How far will we let it slip on our watch?

Regardless of which political party we choose to affiliate ourselves with, we are all Americans. We all have issues and agendas that are important to us. But a government is not a business. It is an organization that does not produce anything to generate an income. The only money it receives is what it takes from its people. Our government cannot and should not fund all of the issues and agendas that come its way.

Think about this: If less of our income went out in taxes, we could individually give more money to the causes, charities and organizations we feel are worthy.
Don't misunderstand my point. It is a wonderful responsibility to pay taxes. But how far can we let this go? When we go to the polls in November, let's further the words of Alexis de Tocqueville:

"The American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2008/10/america_is_at_risk_of_taxing_h.html

View All Recent Blog Posts:

Can't Believe Its Not Earned!!!

The Peopleʼs Cube, The Stalinist Version of the Onion

While canvassing neighborhoods in Ohio this Sunday, Barack Obama advised a tax-burdened plumber not to worry about money because under his presidency money will disappear since it will no longer have any meaning anyway. Instead, all Americans will be living off Obama's highly nutritive WealthSpread™ formula that is surprisingly low in effort and is being promoted by a group of leading nutritionists known as the Cook Fringe of the Democrat Party under the brand name "I Can't Believe It's Not Earned!"

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."



"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama responded. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
"So instead of cutting taxes with a kitchen knife we'll butter it up with wealth and spread it around like we earned it," the Democratic candidate continued. "It's a patented foreign blend that is guaranteed to help improve my standing in the polls, but it's made with 100% pure American taxpayer sweat, which once again shows how taxes can be patriotic."

When asked to clarify how exactly this plan was going to work, Obama, who is currently ahead in the polls, explained that it was "quite simple: everyone will be contributing according to his abilities and consuming according to his needs, while special observers will be making sure that a worker's contribution does not go above or below the approved list of his abilities. Special distributors will also be making sure that a worker's needs do not exceed the quota based on the availability of the WealthSpread™ formula."

"And, of course, there will also be watchers who will watch these watchers, and the watchers who will watch those watchers, and so on - leading to a full guaranteed employment for everybody."

"What's not to vote for?" Obama finished as he was cheered on by a group of supporters wearing blue pins with the Obama logo and the words "Journalists for Obama."



When the inquiring plumber, in turn, was confronted with a question whether he would like to be in charge of determining his neighbor's needs and WealthSpread™ rations in his community, he lowered his eyes and admitted in a hushed voice that it sounded like an offer he couldn't refuse.

Obama frequently rails against what he calls an immoral Republican concept of tax breaks that somehow "trickle down" to the rest of Americans, contrasting it with the beneficial effects his own low-effort WealthSpread™ formula that he claims has nothing in common with what his opponents label as "wealth redistribution.

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=2417

View All Recent Blog Posts:

Obama's 95% Illusion

Wall Street Journal

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

View All Recent Blog Posts:

Bad Economy May Hurt Obama

By Dick Morris

The conventional wisdom has it down pat: A bad economy works against the candidate from the party in power as voters take out their rage and fear on the president’s party and back the challenger, just like they did in 1992. But this is not a normal economic slowdown (or recession) and Obama is not a normal challenger. I think the conventional wisdom may be dead wrong.

It is not so much that unemployment is so high (5.7 percent) or that the economy is in the tank (1 percent growth this quarter) as it is that everything seems to be falling apart. Banks are under assault; mortgages are in default; quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need bailouts; financial institutions go hat in hand to foreign sovereign wealth funds peddling shares of their equity in return for desperately needed cash; the cost of filling a gas tank has tripled. It is not the present circumstances that have voters freaked, it is the threats that seem to loom on the horizon.

And Obama is no ordinary challenger. Not like Bill Clinton, for example. In 1992, from the moment the campaign started, Clinton billed himself as the expert who could solve the economy’s problems. His promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the recession won him big points throughout the campaign. His 10-year record as a governor and his chairmanship of the National Governors Association bolstered his credentials. But we first met Barack Obama as an advocate of racial and partisan healing and then as an opponent of the war in Iraq. When he tried to morph into an economic expert in time for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, voters didn’t buy it and voted for Hillary.

So the question that hangs over the election is: Are we prepared to trust a new candidate with almost no experience and no claim to economic expertise in the middle of one of the most threatening economic situations we have ever faced?
Add to this backdrop Obama’s pledge to raise taxes and you have a combustible situation that could frighten American voters en masse. When, amid relative prosperity, Obama said he would restore fairness by raising taxes on the rich, it was well-received, particularly in the Democratic primary.

Raising the top bracket to 40 percent seemed a no-brainer. Applying the Social Security tax to more earned income, not just to the first $100,000, seemed like elemental fairness and a good way to save the pension system. Restoring the capital gains tax to 28 percent appeared to comport with the notion that those whose income derives from investment should pay a tax closer to that paid on earned income (despite the argument that it is after-tax money that they invested in the first place).

But now, with massive capital outflows crippling the public and private sectors, doubling the tax on capital seems like a very, very bad idea. And a sharp increase in taxes on the entrepreneurial class seems like a risky proposition.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/bad_economy_may_hurt_obama.html

View All Recent Blog Posts:

Obama: Hope, Change and Hype

Obama's tax plans 'just plain dumb : McCain

6 hours ago
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AFP) — Republican White House candidate John McCain on Thursday branded Barack Obama's tax policies as "just plain dumb" after new global finance shocks rocked the presidential race.

McCain said here that he would fire the head of the US Securities and Exchange Commission for turning Wall Street into a "casino" and proposed a new trust to rescue troubled companies before they become insolvent.

"Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story," McCain said here, in a speech interrupted by an anti-war protestor.

The Republican said his Democratic rival had failed to do anything to avert the crisis with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two giant organizations which guarantee billions of dollars in mortgages which were taken over by the government on September 7.

"He didn't lift a hand to avert this crisis," McCain said, accusing Obama of remaining silent in Congress as the mortgage crisis was building.

McCain also pounced on a comment by Obama's vice presidential running mate Senator Joseph Biden that it would be "patriotic" for wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes at a time of economic need.

"Raising taxes in a tough economy isn't patriotic," McCain said. "It's not a badge of honor, it's just plain dumb."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUr87oeOS_u3od2CqlbKy5yds-Gw