Archive for July, 2009

Obama Vs Mc Cain Who Will Win?

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
JOHN MOKEMBE NYAOSI asked:


bama loses unfairly?

By John Nyaosi TEL. nairobi, +254 734 603 184

Barring a last minute jolt or an unforeseen sudden vicissitude , come November 4, Illinois senator Barrack Obama,47, is poised to amass enough votes to enable him step into the Oval office, after triumphing in a political duel fraught with all sorts of impediments and logistical nightmares.

In any contest whether small or big there must be a winner and a loser. As it often happens the winner may be boastful or magnanimous in victory even as the loser cries foul. Often you will hear claims and counter claims of an uneven playing field and advance rigging et cetera et cetera. Right now world attention is glued to the titanic tussle pitting John McCain,72, against Barrack Obama for the US presidential elections slated for November 4.2008. Much as he has been derided a “terrorist”, the US press, the Clintons and no lesser a person than former Secretary of State have endorsed his candidature. And now he can be said to be a heart beat away from presidency of a leading superpower.

The fact that his paternal roots are Kenyan and by dint of the blood flowing in his veins, Democractic candidate Barrack Obama is regarded a son of Kenya. The air in the country of his dad is right now pregnant with expectation on how this son whose father hailed from down at Kogelo Villabe in Siaya will fare on in the final polls on November 4. Will he triumph or will he flop? That is the question on many Kenyan fans’ lips about this denizen to of the world who after beating all odds is poised to embody in a special way not only the American dream but our own Kenyan dream too. He is as much a US citizen as a Kenyan one. Even the bird down at a thicket in Kogelo village can probably be heard chirping about this special son of Kenya who is suddenly poised for greater things. For us if there is anything in our potential to give for him to win the race we will spare no effort in doing so to ensure Obama finally triumphs. If it is money

, the contribution of a shilling from every Kenya would in no time net a whopping Shs 36 million from the 36 million Kenyans! But Obama is not desperate for campaign funds , having in the month of September alone amassed a cool $150 million dollars that has seen him enjoy a wide berth in expenditure.

What Obama needs is our moral support and goodwill and nothing more.

However, there is this thing called the Bradley’s Effect which threatens to deny our son the victory he has so relentlessly and courageously fought for and that which he so much deserves. For although in successive opinion polls by reputable and not so reputable pollsters Obama is widening the gap with a recent one putting him in the lead by 50 per cent to John McCain’s 44 per cent only a few days to D-Day in November, due to what in election parlance is known as Bradley’s Effect he could well lose. The Bradley Effect got its name from what befell one, Bradley ,who lost a poll despite pollsters having pointed to a sure win. All those polled who favour Obama could change on polling day, God forbid , by behaving in their true colours and of course goaded by racism reject him on basis of the colour his skin and not ability. If this happens , it means they may have been paying lip service about their support for Obama to please him

or so as not to be labelled ****** while deep down in their heart of hearts they and never were for him as they are ****** to the core. This is the main reason we can’t even start celebrating even as all opinon polls point clearly to an Obama victory.

Should Obama lose fairly we his fans are prepared to accept the results but should be lose through rigging of any sort, we will not resort to catching the next plane to Washington to uproot the railway. Having learnt the bitter way , and particularly with hind sight and both the Kriegler report and Waki’s recommendations on the perpetrators of post-election violence, we of course accept defeat with cool heads. Nobody is prepared to be hauled to the International Court of Justice at the Hague to answer charges of alleged crimes against humanity and genocide. So Michael Ranneburger the US ambassador to Kenya should rest assured that his citizens will be safe even when racists like writer Jerome Corse who sought to discredit Obama in the book titled: The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality are hell bent to discredit our son.

For Obama fans his triumph is an embodiment of the American dream of , as it were, whereby an immigrant arriving at a city empty –handed and walks off after hard work as a success story. Obama’s success will have vindicated the believers of the American dream .Nontheless, his detractors claims are as confounding and as they are despicable.

In the event of an Obama defeat (which is highly unlikely), what should we do? We should lobby the American envoy in Nairobi to a repeat of the poll on a level playing field. Of course we are alive to the fact that the financial turmoil caused by credit crunch on Wall Street in spite of what Alan Greenspan describes as “ irrational exuberance”, the post 9/11 repercussions , the unfinished war on the so called Axis of Evil grouping Iran and North Korea as sponsors of terrorism and all the other problems that emerged as consequences of a unipolar world that led to the Iraq war , the Middle East ,that cauldron of endless conflict will have a bearing on the outcome of the polls. These are the challenges which any winner in the November poll will have to face a new.

But in the event that we end up getting a raw deal through a rigged poll we want to , of course with tongue firmly in cheek , to propose the following measures as a fitting remedy to the problem.

Through Michael Ranneburger we will propose that the setting up a coalition government modeled on the Kenyan one immediately to share power between the two principals John McCain and our brother Barrck Obama. All political appointment must be vetted with both prior to postings. A Committee of Eminent Persons of the World must also expeditiously broker an amicable deal to share power and the over 200-year old American Constitution must be overhauled with input from Wanjiku or preferably a representative in this case the interested parties like Kenyans with a view to coming up with a document that will always ensure fair play in future US polls On top of this denizens of this part of the world will demand reparations for Slave trade and the loss of Black kinsmen who perished in the cotton plantations as they build America.



Caffeinated Content for WordPress

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

The Democratic Dream Team? a Look at Obama’s Picks for the Coming Administration

Monday, July 20th, 2009
talkobama asked:


r/>
Even before the inauguration, President Elect (though that may already be the most overused term of 2009) Obama’s already gained both praise and controversy, mostly for his administrative picks. Given the hype surrounding his win, not to mention the fact that the last eight years have made the Dems power-starved, Obama pretty much had free reign to choose anyone he wanted for his administration. And it looks like he did pretty much that, picking the most prominent Democrats to run his cabinet. Indeed, if the Obama administration were a baseball team, they’d be the Yankees (as opposed to the more Red Sox like team Clinton picked back in 92, when his cabinet had a surprisingly large number of unknown stars). Obama’s picks also give optimism that this President will truly build on his campaign promise of bridging the gap between Republicans and Democrats. Compared to the way the GOP has been hoarding power for the last eight years, though, Obama seems like Mother Theresa in comparison. This is great news, because liberal social values with conservative economic policies (the real kind, not the Bush chicaneries that created the current crisis) are the only way to go. Obviously though, the cabinet leans more toward the Dem, but that should be expected. Some of his calls, though, are questionable, including probably his most important pick, Treasury Secretary Geithner.

Chief of Staff – Rahm Emanuel: Even though he may be Ari Gold’s brother, this man is no joke. Rahm Emanuel has a serious reputation as being tough, even-handed and somewhat hot headed, which means he’s just the guy to kick some ***** around should the new administration decide to pick some of the bad habits left over from the old one (such as criminal negligence bordering on complicity). Obama basically gave this guy the top spot, which is good news for those of us who were wondering what his policy would be on the Middle East (Emanuel’s a staunch advocate for Israel). This man is also full of ideas (in case you couldn’t tell from his book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America), though many of them are undeniably liberal (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Things like universal health care for children, universal college access and universal citizen service to balance it all out are not bad ideas, though they may not be feasible given the current deficit. Though he advocates full disclosure in all government spending, it’s hard to account for dollars you don’t even have. Yup, Emanuel is the super Dem, a bull dog for liberal values, costs be damned. This is kind of a good thing though, because he’s genuinely trying to help people. Thankfully, the rest of Obama’s picks, as well as the man himself, appear more even-handed, which means they’ll help balance Emanuel’s optimism and transfer it to feasible plans that can be accomplished given our current fiscal situation. Oh, and for those of you that didn’t get the Ari Gold thing, the Entourage character of super agent Ari Gold is based on Emanuel’s brother, Ari. I guess they make ‘em tough in the Emanuel house.

Secretary of State – Hilary Clinton: By far his most notable pick, Obama’s choice of Hilary Clinton for Secretary of State shows that the man definitely does not hold a grudge. I mean, six months ago she said he was too inexperienced to run for president. Now, she has to call him sir and confer on all statements. However, Clinton brings with her a wealth of experience, as well as an effective communicative style that will help her when dealing with foreign leaders. Even though she is the third woman to hold the position, after Condalliza Rice and Maddeline Albright, some feel that foreign leaders, particularly in the Muslim states, may not be as likely to listen to a woman in foreign negotiations. In fact, some of the more chauvinistic voters even admitted that this was one of the reasons they preferred Obama to be president over Hilary. Nonetheless, her wealth of experience, not to mention extensive contact list (which she no doubt owes to Bill and his questionable line of donors) will make her an undeniable asset in terms of crafting and delivering solid foreign policy that brings the US out of the international leper colony and back into the top spot as the world’s lifeguard.

Treasury Secretary – Timothy Geithner: This has to be Obama’s worst call by far. I mean, who elects a tax evader as treasury secretary? Okay, okay, so Obama may not have known about it when he appointed the man. Fine. And ya, we all **** paying taxes. But we’re not all running for treasury secretary. If Geithner didn’t have the foresight to know that tax evasion would hurt his chances of being an effective treasury secretary, then he doesn’t have the foresight to know anything about the economy. Given the volatility of the economy, as well as the fact that crooks have already ransacked the government’s coffers, passing an IRS audit should be the minimum requirement to hold this position. Also, his support for the Lehman Brothers and the Bear Sterns bailouts shows he cares more about keeping the old financial guard on life support than spurring new innovations and actual progress in the financial world, which has degenerated into a speculative game of sport. I fear his election may have more to do with the fact that he and Obama share certain characteristics, such as an international upbringing, a wonderkind reputation, and an inexplicable belief that the government should bail out dying investment companies and even purchase major insurance companies (AIG). Bail outs create artificial pressures on the market and serve to correct mistakes that should be learned from, but will instead by erased. Instead of tightening lending policies, creating opportunities for investment, and promoting more transparency in the market, financial institutions will learn that the stock market is a roulette wheel, and that Daddy’s always there to bankroll you. Geitner used to describe himself as a moderate Republican, but his moves are decidedly anti-market, even if he claims otherwise. And his association with the NY Federal Resereve will surely fuel conspiracy theorists that major banking interests are controlling the economy (see Zeitgeist). Obama needs to do what’s right here, and replace this man.

Secretary of Defense – Robert Gates: And here Obama demonstrates his generosity, giving Robert Gates, a classic Republican, another shot at being Defense Secretary. This was a pretty strong pick, considering this man managed to clean up Donald Rumsfeld’s mess in Iraq and create a somewhat cohesive military operation. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (if they’re even still calling it that) has certainly improved, in that American body bags are no longer flying home daily. As the man behind the surge (along with the ubiquitous General Patrias), Gates is to be commended on understanding that foreign operations require more than a handful of soldiers and some Black Hawks, and that victory requires more than toppling over a statue of a government figurehead. Dems may be complaining that the move makes them look weak in terms of the military, but I think Obama is to be commended on being a pragmatist. After all, the Dems really are weak when it comes to the military.

I’ll be back with my calls for the rest of Obama’s picks in a few days.



Caffeinated Content for WordPress

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Obama Chia Pet

Sunday, July 19th, 2009
Jason DeLancey asked:


The Obama Chia Pet Controversy



So, have you heard about the Barack Obama Chia pet head? It’s the HOTTEST product to be released in years from the creators of the world famous Original Chia Pet.

It’s also turned out to be very controversial as well and has been pulled from retail chains afraid of offending their customers.

So lets take a look at this crazy product that like Barack Obama himself, could “Only Happen in America”……

Although you will usually hear this product referred to as the “Obama Chia Pet”, officially this product is referred to as the “Chia Obama Handmade Decorative Planter”.  It doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it?

The Obama Chia was created by Joseph Enterprises, Inc, the same company who created the Original Chia Pet in 1977. This also the same company that brought us “The Clapper”, which was famous for it’s old “Clap on, Clap Off – The Clapper!” jingle.

The Obama Chia Head is a handmade pottery planter and comes with a Chia seed packet with enough for 3 plantings, a plastic drip tray and planting & care instructions.

The Obama Chia Pet was licensed exclusively to Walgreens to sell at their nationwide retail /convenience outlets. Their company policy allows stores to choose their own merchandise so they can better serve their individual locations. In the case of the Obama Chia though, once company management received some complaints that the product was “offensive”, Walgreens ordered stores to remove the Obama Chia headfrom the shelves.

The controversy around the Obama Chia and the it’s subsequent removal from stores has created an incredible demand for the Chia Obama head planter. The only other major retailer to stock the collectible was Amazon.com, and they have sold out of the Obama Chia. Now the Obama Chia has become a hard to find collectors item. Only in America!



Caffeinated Content

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Gifts | No Comments »

American History in Obama’s Inauguration Speech

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009
Nate Gillespie asked:


As anyone who saw a campaign poster in 2008 could surely tell you, Barack Obama is all about change. Change in the White House, most profoundly in the simple, yet stunning, fact that we now have our first black president. Change in the tenor of politics, in an effort to step back from the ferocious partisanship of the past decade. And change in the direction of the country, in the form of a dramatic shift in the priorities and policies of the government.

Yet change, Obama also knows, can be frightening. Too much change can seem radical, threatening, dangerous. During the campaign, Obama had to overcome the deep-seated fears of many Americans that his particular brand of change would only mean change for the worse.

So Obama has always made a conscious effort to balance his calls for change with equal references to the timeless continuities of American history, seeking to cast his own political movement as nothing more than the culmination of the work of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, Kennedy, and the other great leaders of our past. (Obama deliberately began his campaign, for example, in the same place that Lincoln began his own run for the White House, and ended it by taking the oath of office on Lincoln’s bible.)

Obama’s best speeches have all been peppered with historical allusions and quotations. Over the course of the campaign, Obama breathed fresh life into some of the most moving phrases offered in the past by Lincoln (“a new birth of freedom”), Martin Luther King (“the fierce urgency of now”), and Cesar Chavez (“yes we can”).

This morning’s inaugural was no exception to Obama’s tradition of using the past to frame the present, as the inaugural address was full of historical allusions—some obvious, some not so obvious.

So what exactly was Obama referring to with each of his invocations of the past? Let Shmoop be your guide…

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

Actually, only 43 presidents have taken the oath. (Grover Cleveland, who won the presidency in 1884, lost it in 1888, and won it back again in 1892, counts as both President #22 and President #24… so while there have been 44 distinct presidencies, there have only been 43 different presidents.) Aside from that bit of random trivia, the new president’s point here is to emphasize the continuity of the presidential transfer of power, in times good and bad, as prescribed in the Constitution (that’s what Obama’s invoking in his references to “We The People” and “our founding documents”).

Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted—for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things—some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

Here Obama invokes the experiences of a wide variety of Americans, from all walks of life, in triumphing over adversity. Those who “packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life” would include both the first European settlers of America—the rugged colonists of Jamestown and the Puritan refugees of Plymouth Rock—but also the later generations of immigrants who poured into the country through most of the 19th and 20th centuries. Those who “toiled in sweatshops and settled the West” were the factory workers of America’s industrial revolution and the pioneers of Manifest Destiny. The “the lash of the whip” is both an obvious reference to slavery and, perhaps, a sly reference to a line in Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural (“every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword”). Concord and Gettysburg and Normandy and Khe Sanh were momentous battles of the Revolutionary War, The Civil War, World War II , and Vietnam War, respectively.

…As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Obama’s reference to a false “choice between our safety and our ideals” is almost certainly meant to echo Benjamin Franklin’s famous dictum that those who “give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The main peril faced by our Founding Fathers—Franklin among them, of course—was defeat and punishment at the hands of the British. The “charter” they drafted, the “charter expanded by the blood of generations” throughout American history, is the Constitution of the United States.

…Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.

Here Obama refers to American victories in World War 2 (over fascism) and the Cold War (over communism), both of which were achieved not only through force of arms but also through effective diplomacy—the Grand Alliance with Britain, the Soviet Union, China and France in World War 2, and the NATO alliance of Western powers against the Soviet bloc in the Cold War.

…This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed—why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

These words were perhaps Obama’s most direct (yet still fairly subtle) reference to the profound racial significance of his election as President of the United States. Throughout the Jim Crow era, Washington, DC was essentially a Southern city—which is to say a segregated city. As late as the early 1960s, when Martin Luther King came to the city leading the March on Washington, the most admired black man in America was still only able to stay and eat in certain establishments inside the city’s African-American districts.

…So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Obama closed his speech by invoking the bitter winter of 1776, which George Washington and his soldiers spent in camp at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. American prospects in the Revolutionary War at the time looked bleak, as Washington’s men shivered and starved through the long winter knowing that they would soon have to go into battle against a fearsome British Army that regarded each and every one of them as a traitor to the crown.

The most famous quotation to emerge from the ordeal at Valley Forge was, interestingly, one that Obama chose not to use—Thomas Paine’s declaration that “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” While our own predicament as Americans facing difficult circumstances in early 2009 can hardly compare to the hardships endured at Valley Forge, Obama’s choice to end his inauguration by invoking the nation-making struggles of our forebears was almost certainly offered in the hopes of restoring a sense of national unity and purpose similar to that fostered by George Washington two centuries ago. If Obama succeeds in that, he will surely join Washington in the pantheon of great American presidents.



Caffeinated Content for WordPress

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Education | No Comments »

Barack Obama – Myths, Facts, and Obfuscating (bloggers Beware)

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009
APRPEH asked:


Is guilt by association fair?  Many blogs and websites, including APRPEH have made an argument that Barry Obama’s true feelings towards Jews and Israel can be measured by his associations.  Undeniable facts about Obama, many of them posed as questions left unanswered or not answered in a credible or believeable fashion have formed the core of the No-Bama effort.  These questions remain legitimate campaign issues and concerns.  Obama DID indeed maintain a 20+ year relationship as a member of TUCC in the Jeremiah Wright flock, listening to what is undeniably anti-US and antiJew rhetoric only distancing himself when his crusade for the Presidency was jeopardized. 

Who are Obama’s friends and associates for which he should be measured? Let’s take a closer look using easy to find world wide web references.

(See the LATimes story from April 10, 2008 – Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama) Obama’s special friend, Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the scumbag Yasir Arafat who held fundraisers for Obama, was honored with a speech by State Sen. Barack Obama in a 2003 going away party. Khalidi, according to the LA Times story is described as “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. 

Then there is Ali Abunimah, described in the same LA Times article as ” a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, and quoted as saying:

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

Now, lets add to the mix the Obama foreign policy advisors who have come and gone.  I am not even sure I remember them all.  Please feel free to add to the list in the comments:

Simple web searches on the following Obama advisors is telling.

Samantha Powers – (see National Review Online Monday, February 11, 2008 – Obama Adviser Samantha Power on Israel, “Jenin Massacre” )

Joseph Cirincione - (see World Net Daily May 01, 2008 -Obama adviser: Israel must give up its nukes)

Robert Malley -  (see Yid With Lid blog post February 5, 2008 Obamas Israel Hating Advisor Robert Malley)

Merrill Tony McPeak -   (see YNETnews March 26, 2008 – US Jews Hinder Peace)

Zbigniew Bzrezinski – (see American Thinker – January 16, 2008 – Barack Obama and Israel)

Ed Lasko at American Thinker adds:

The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world.

Financial support from not very friendly to Israel, George Soros can be added to the equation as well even though Obama has attempted to distance himself from the billionaire contributer. If Obama really wants to distance himself from the tens of thousands of dollars contributed through   Soros connections has he offered to return any recent donations and asked Soros and his Moveon.org friends to stop supporting his campaign? (see American Thinker article from April 30, 2007 – Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception and june 11, 2008 article George Soros and Obama’s veep also from American Thinker)

And while it is not necessarily Jewish related, how can we forget Syrian born friend Tony Rezko, former donor and fundraiser for Obama, convicted recently on corruption related charges. (Tony Rezko – Wikipedia article.)

Obama’s relationship with terrorist and political indoctrination specialist William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (William Ayers wikipedia article along with former “Weatherman” and wife Bernadine Dorhn) is well documented and factual. 

 

So what is the point of going through this exercise, re-hashing the well published reports you might ask?  The Obama fans and possibly Obama campaign are behind an effort to obfuscate.  

 (see PostBulletin June 25, 2008 Can Obama fight Web-driven lies?)   and

 (see Jpost – June 19, 2008 -Snap Judgment: Have you read the latest Obama e-mail? Unbelievable!)

ob·fus·cate (bf-skt, b-fskt)   (The Free Dictionary)

tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates

1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth” Robert Conquest.

2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

It is true that a considerable amount of email and internet garbage is floating around alleging all sorts of BS about Obama.  It is also true that email based urban myth is one of the downsides of the electronic world.  Our email boxes are flooded with Nigerian scam email, phishing, and urban myths begging the reader to perpetuate the falsity. 

In fact, call it reverse guilt by association.  It is with this understanding that the agenda of the Obama camp to label every blog post, every email, every warning about Obama as driven by crazies with a **** filled, anti-Muslim or ****** agenda is underway.  Some, they may say are just plain crazy.  But all of them, all criticism is illegitimate (according to this strategy) because it is someone’s opinion, not the truth – just another one of those “myths”. 

This policy must be confronted strongly and clearly.  The list above is composed of undeniable fact. The effort to re-cast the past of Obama as something else, something different, something sweet and innocent is a fraud and should be called a fraud. 

Obama cannot reasonably claim that he had no knowledge of the offensive, disgusting, and criminal aspects of his friends in the past as he cannot claim that he has no knowledge of or doesn’t agree with the antiJew and anti-Israel opinions of his foreign policy team.  If he really had no knowledge, he is the most ignorant man who has ever run for the Presidency. 

Of course, some Obama staffer can just say all of this is campaign rhetoric and to take it as a grain of salt. Afterall, it IS the internet. Or readers and concerned, thoughtful Americans can expose the truth, continue writing to the newspapers, calling talk radio, writing blogs, responding to blogs and talking to their friends who may be on the fence. Freedom is not free and free speech is under assault by the Obama people, a telling foretaste of an Obama administration.



obama

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

The Tax Lady Roni Deutch Compares the Tax Views of Presidential Hopefuls Obama and Mccain

Friday, July 3rd, 2009
Roni Deutch asked:


1. Mortgage Crisis

Obama

The ongoing mortgage crisis is a problem that is affecting more and more American families every day. To help protect home ownership and fight mortgage fraud, Obama has presented a multi-tiered plan designed to help families facing foreclosure and also monitor the mortgage industry better to avoid future problems.

Obama supports the Stop Fraud Act that provides a definition of mortgage fraud and rules and regulations to help stop the problem. The act also requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate lending practices and report their findings to congress.

The final component of Obama’s mortgage relief plan is to create a universal mortgage credit. Currently, the United States tax code only encourages families to purchase a home with a tax deduction. However, it is currently only available to taxpayers that itemize their returns. This leaves out about 2/3 of Americans who elect to take the standard deduction. Obama would like to create a universal mortgage credit that he claims will benefit an additional 10 million homeowners.

McCain

Senator McCain also has is own take on the mortgage crisis. His plan is called the new “Home Plan,” which aims to provide help to those hurt by the housing crisis. McCain claims that his plan will allow every deserving homeowner the opportunity to trade in a burdensome mortgage for a more manageable one that will reflect his or her home’s current value.

However, exactly “who” is deserving? According to McCain’s website, eligible individuals include those Americans that hold a non-conventional mortgage taken after 2005. The house will need to serve as the home owner’s primary place of residence and he or she will need to be able prove they cannot meet current payments, but would be able to comply with a new 30 year fixed rate mortgage.

The Difference

Although Obama’s plan seems more substantive than McCain’s, they both attempt to help solve the countries mortgage problem. However, as with many other issues Obama’s seems to target lower income families namely those that do not itemize which typically correlates to families that make under $50,000. I think it is also interesting to note that they both propose the creation of a government agency to monitor the mortgage industry, but they propose them for different branches of the government.

2. Lower Income Americans

Obama

Sen. Obama’s tax plan seems in line with his redistribution of wealth ideals. His economic plans surround the idea of giving every lower-income American an opportunity to better themselves. The centerpiece is his “Make Work Pay” tax credit that would encourage Americans to take control of their lives, while providing tax relief to both low and middle income taxes. The credit would offset federal taxes on the first $8,100 of a taxpayers earnings and would essentially generate a credit of up to $500 for single persons or $1,000 per family. According to Obama, this credit would eliminate income taxes for at least 10 million low-income Americans.

Another of Obama’s more popular tax views is to help make higher education more affordable. He would do this through creating a credit to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of obtaining a college education. According to his plan, the credit would reimburse taxpayers on the first $4,000 they spend on a college education. Obama’s campaign claims that it will cover two-thirds of the cost of attending a public college or university.

McCain

As with most Republicans, McCain’s tax plan is more geared to middle and upper income Americans. However, one major component of his campaign has been “Immediate Help for American Families.” In this plan, he claims to target policies that will provide relief to American taxpayers facing rising gas and food prices and record foreclosures. However, it is unclear how McCain’s actual proposals will do that. Specifically, McCain target opaque issues like corn and sugar subsidies, trade barriers, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). While we all know that nothing happens over night, it is even more unclear how these changes in these policies will immediately help the American taxpayer as McCain claims.

One of the tax cuts McCain supports is raising the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000. This would help any working taxpayer with dependents they have to provide for, regardless of income level.

The Difference

Obama’s tax plan is much more favorable to lower income Americans than McCain’s. He supports programs like the “Make Work Pay” credit that will not only help lower income Americans, but also encourage them to work. It is also interesting to note that both candidates support tax credits designed to help families or anyone taking care of dependents.

3. Higher Income Americans

Obama

Senator Obama is a big believer in our progressive tax system – and he is not afraid to hide that. So one of the first things Obama is set to do is letting President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to selectively expire. By “selectively expire”, Obama endorses extending those tax cuts on the rates for all but the top two income tax brackets. In addition, Obama also advocates increasing the income cap on payroll taxes. This would essentially be a huge tax increase for taxpayers earning between $97,000 and $250,000, which goes against Obama’s prior commitment to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $250,000.

Although Obama voted “nay” on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), he does support a revamp of the tax. The specific details of his plan are a bit hazy, but Obama has claimed he would like to index the tax according to inflation so that it does not affect middle-income Americans.

McCain

McCain is a strong supporter of lowering taxes to encourage economic growth, which is the dominant economic stance of the Republican Party. Not only does he support renewing the Bush tax cuts, but he also favors numerous tax cuts. McCain hopes to reduce taxes on Capital Gains, Interest, Dividend, Investment income, and even corporate tax rates.

McCain is a strong supporter of repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which would be a tax cut for the upper middle income taxpayers. However, if McCain wants this tax fully repealed, then he is going to have to strike a deal with Congress, and it seems highly unlikely that he would get enough support to make this drastic and costly change.

Although McCain had originally voted against the Bush tax cuts, he now claims to support an extension of the plan. “I voted to extend them because it would have the effect of having a tax increase,” claimed McCain when asked about his flip-flop. “The tax cuts have increased revenues enormously. They’ve been very beneficial. The problem is that spending has lurched completely out of control. My proposal was to restrain spending. I do not support tax increases. And the effect of not making them permanent would have the effect of a tax increase.”

The Difference

It is no surprise that McCain’s tax views favor the upper income Americans, as he supports the full extension of President Bush’s tax cut. On the other hand, he does support the repeal of the AMT, which is being levied on more of middle income Americans each year. Although Obama does support other tax breaks for the middle class, he does not want to repeal the AMT.

4. Capital Gains

Obama

One of the more controversial aspects of Obama’s tax proposal is his hope to nearly double the taxes levied on Capital Gains. The current tax rate on Capital Gains is 15%, and Obama hopes to raise it to 28%. “At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we’re taxing gains for investors,” Obama claims. “We’ve lost the balance between work and wealth.”

When questioned about his plan’s to nearly double the rate, Obama claims that he wants to raise the tax for fairness, not for revenue. One of his arguments is that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, but paid lower tax rates then their secretaries did. Obama wants to restore the rate back to what it was in the Clinton era. Although the rate is much lower today than it was a decade ago, it is being levied on a lot more people. Investing is not only for the rich any more – millions of middle income America invests in stocks, retirement accounts, and mutual funds.

Additionally, Obama also fails to mention that the 28% Capital Gains rate was dropped to 20% during President Clinton’s time in office and studies show that the federal government’s revenue from Capital Gains actually increased. Then, when President Bush dropped the rate down to 15% the revenue increased yet again.

McCain

McCain plans to keep the current Capital Gains tax rates. He claims that since these taxes are voluntary, they should not be taxes as ordinary income. In order to make a profit, someone must sell a stock. Further taxes could distort decision-making, increase the use of tax shelters, and even lower the federal government’s revenue. Additionally, McCain claims that this tax policy actually helps lower income Americans, as half of all capital gains end up benefiting persons earning less than $50,000 a year.

The Difference

The differences between McCain’s and Obama’s views on Capital Gains are quite simple. Obama favors doubling the tax rate and McCain wants to keep it at current levels. Although it may seem unfair for Capital Gains to be taxed at lower rates than income, there is some evidence that supports the belief that it encourages economic growth. The federal government’s revenue from Capital Gains has increased since the rate was lowered. You cannot argue against facts. Finally, raising a tax for fairness and not for revenue is not a sound economic policy.



Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Taxes | No Comments »