Americans Might Want To Heed the Admonitions of The Past Regarding Election

Americans Might Want To Heed the Admonitions of The Past

We are quickly approaching the day when the direction of America will be decided. Will America follow a course steeped in ideology tempered by history or will she follow a course steeped mainly in ideology? Will the electorate be aware that these are America’s choices? Probably not, looking at the current polls, it appears that this election will be based mostly on faith and hope for change. If informed reason were being applied, the poll results would most likely be different.

One can easily draw the distinction between Senators McCain and Obama based on ideology tempered by history verses ideology alone by looking closely at their lives.

A person I admire, Oprah Winfrey, once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” I think this is sound advice that proves true 99 percent of the time. America has seen Sen. McCain through many years and he has remained a consistent and dedicated public servant. Early in his career in the military he probably held strongly to some sort of ideology that grew out of the cold war. Maybe it involved the concepts of good forces prevailing over unjust forces. Just as the Vietnam War grew out of the cold war and threw light on the realities of conflict; the Vietnam War experience threw light on Sen. McCain’s own view of life.

When I look at Sen. McCain, I see a man who understands that core principles are what you are and they must not change simply because a situation changes. A severely battered John McCain had had an opportunity to leave his prison in Vietnam before other prisoners who were more senior, but he refused. Sen. McCain looked the immigration issue in America with compassion and tried to find a practical solution, an action that brought him condemnation by many. Sen. McCain warned of the financial nightmare that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac abuses were causing; but the Democrats in charge chose to ignore his advice. Many times Sen. McCain has reached across the aisle, pragmatically, to try to find solutions to America’s problems.

Sen. John McCain is a man of core principles and the one he holds most dear is “Country First”. I believe him because as Oprah said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Whatever ideology Sen. McCain may have held as a younger man has been tempered by his own history and America’s history into a commitment to put the interests of America above his own. This is the America voter’s choice of ideology tempered by history.

When I look at Sen. Obama, I see a man who has burst on the scene and captured the imaginations of millions. Surprisingly, supporters seem to have developed an incredibly strong attachment to the idea of Obama and what they perceive that means; so strong, in fact, that it boarders on religious faith. Many issues that would have sunk any other politician have disappeared in the mist. The Senator’s backers appear more preoccupied with his rhetoric of the future than anything about the past, any past, including Sen. Obama’s. The past is cliché, boring, out of date, damaged goods with no place in today’s world. However, Albert Einstein might have a little different view of the past. He has said, “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”. I think Albert Einstein would consider Sen. Obama’s past just as important as the man being presented today.

Given the relative lack of leadership experience of Sen. Obama, reason would seem to dictate that his past should be even more important as a predictor of his future actions. However, in the politics of the day, the Media has assumed the role of advocate and obscurer for Sen. Obama’s campaign. Americans, who are trying to make a reasoned decision, are therefore having a very difficult time discerning what information is truthful and accurate; and what is not. What are the facts? This is a very real question in the minds of many voters. Quills drawn, the Media’s theory is that Obama is the one who must lead America. To support their vision, the Media does as Einstein, in a different context, counseled; “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

Sen. Obama has been relentlessly pounding the theme that McCain equal four more years of George Bush, a narrative that has been sold in lockstep with the Press and Democratic Party leadership. One would think that common sense could see through the sales pitch, but it hasn’t. The Press has been constantly bashing President Bush for going on eight years. (I suspect mostly because they think he’s stupid, inarticulate and beneath them.)

Many of the America’s newly registered voters are younger; and therefore, they may be more susceptible to the myths of the Media. Apparently, their minimal life experience hasn’t given most of them much of an accurate barometer or enough common sense to judge fact from fiction. “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen” another truism from Einstein’s repertoire that is at play here. The anti-Bush prejudice is raging, gathering steam, and Sen. McCain has been unjustly caught up in it web.

One other fact that the Media has attempted to distort is that somehow the current financial crisis was the result of the mean old Republican attempts to deregulate everything in sight. This is just another collection of prejudice reinforced by the Media that it is untrue, especially for Sen. McCain. He was one of the leaders in the efforts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac; unfortunately, his efforts were blocked by the Chris Dodds and Barney Franks of the Democratic Party.

Where does Sen. Obama stand on the economy? He has stated and restated a desire to redistribute the wealth in America. This is exactly the wrong approach. Even a basic level of understanding about economics would act as a bar against trying to tax our way out of the current financial crisis. You don’t damage (over tax) those who are creating jobs and wealth for America and Americans. Regrettably, somehow too many Americans today have become accepting of the notion that the world (well the Federal Government) owes them a living and that wealth should be redistributed more ‘fairly’ to them.

The history of the ‘Great’ Depression clearly reveals that the measures implemented by government to overcome it were the reasons that the Depression became ‘Great’. Almost everyone recognizes that a thorough knowledge of the past is critical if we are not to repeat the mistakes of yesterday. However, I don’t think Sen. Obama understands it quite that way. Higher taxes and too much Federal intervention are not what the American economy needs today. As much as he hates to hear it, Sen. Obama’s economic ideas reek of socialism. We need to get back to the ideas of American innovation and personal responsibility.

Sen. Obama has been hailed as a superior intellect and amazing orator. But, who is he? What is his past? Who were those that stimulated and helped to form his thinking and beliefs? Sal Alinsky? Is he the same person today that he has been for the past 20 years?

A man is known by the company his mind keeps.
Thomas Bailey Aldrich

How much has the media allowed us to know about the depth of the relationships Sen. Obama had with William Ayers? Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in his neighborhood.

How much has the media allowed us to know about the depth of the relationship with Frank Davis? Andy Martin raises some interesting questions about this relationship.

How much has the Media allowed us to know about the depth of the relationships with Father Michael Pfleger, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and Rev. Wright? Aren’t these all company Obama’s mind kept? Are the ideologies encapsulated by many of Sen. Obama’s past associates very far from those espoused by Socialists and Marxists?

A man is known by the company his mind keeps.
Thomas Bailey Aldrich

How much has the Media allowed us to know about the relationship with Tony Rezko and his associates? Are the ideologies encapsulated by Tony Rezko’s actions those of corrupt politics?

A man is known by the company his mind keeps.
Thomas Bailey Aldrich

How much has the Media allowed us to know about the alleged relationship with Larry Sinclair?

To date, Sen. Obama has disavowed most of these people and/or their statements and actions. How much weight should Americans give to such a disavowal?

Should we accept the revelation of Rev. Wright?

“He’s a politician. I’m a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do, he does what politicians do.”

Or should we follow Oprah’s direction?

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

Common sense and reason tell me to listen to both Oprah and Rev. Wright in Sen. Obama’s case. Sen. Obama, at the very least, has shown an incredible naiveté concerning his past associations and their impact on his reputation.

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.
George Washington

Common sense and reason also implies that if Sen. Obama were the man he is portrayed as, there would be a line of people from his past standing, waiting to tell his story. The story of how Sen. Obama became such a partisan divide bridge builder, such a healer, such a patriot, such a reconciler, such an economist, such a negotiator, such a defense strategist would all be stories I would like to hear.

Who from Sen. Obama’s past is standing or waiting to tell his story?

What is the Media not telling America about Sen. Obama’s relationship to ACORN?

How many other scandals and allegations are there just from our view? Are there some yet unknown scandals being hidden by the Media? What about the Berg v. Obama lawsuit that is challenging Sen. Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency? What about the other lawsuits is several states? What about the validity of Sen. Obama’s birth certificate? What about all the allegations set forth in Berg v. Obama? What about the allegations that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya? Why is that not news? What would happen should he win the election and then be found to be ineligible to hold office? What about the questions about the allegations about Obama’s past and/or current Indonesian citizenship? What about Sen. Obama’s alleged membership in a Socialist organization, New Party? What about Sen. Obama’s extreme views on abortion? What about the allegations that Sen. Obama violated provisions of the Logan Act during his last trip to Iraq and during the run-up to the Kenyan elections?

There is so much about Sen. Obama that Americans don’t know. Some people are choosing to ignore the reasonable inferences from Sen. Obama’s past, some people don’t care and some people are not informed or misled by Obama’s campaign and the Media. The mainstream Media has done a grave disservice to America in 2008. The full consequences of Sen. Obama becoming President, under so many clouds as are set forth above, cannot be fully predicted or prepared for.

Therefore, it is critical that Americans take this election seriously and start considering the numerous allegations facing Sen. Obama before November 4^th.

Nine-tenths of wisdom is being wise in time.
Theodore Roosevelt

In conclusion, America needs to take a breath and give another American voice a few moments of consideration.

The words spoken by Benjamin Franklin:

To follow by faith alone is to follow blindly

&

Hear reason, or she’ll make you feel her

The End

zachjonesishome.wordpress.com

Voter’s, Obama, Will o’ The Wisp, Change, Confounding Voter’s Perceptions

America’s Attachment to the Idea

of Change is the Perilous

“Will o’ The Wisp” That’s

Confounding Voter’s Perceptions

The phrase will o’ the wisp has be used to describe one, metaphorically speaking, who is holding so tightly to a goal that they doggedly follow any hints of it, oblivious to what lies unnoticed right under their noses. One of many descriptors is the image of a peasant farmer following a lantern light off in the distance, held by a mythical creature, whereupon the farmer winds up deep in the marsh. The farmer’s focus on the light is such that he becomes unaware of his surroundings; and waiting in the darkness, the consequences of blindly following the creature’s light stand ready to appear.

This is what seems to be happening in the 2008 Presidential election. Many voters are so attached to the idea of “change” or “change from” that they are not noticing information that is critical for sound decision making concerning their votes. It’s the information that gives hints of what consequences lay in the darkness and for the future. For these voters, the election is about solely about change; and therefore, thoroughly analyzing new information as it comes available is not necessary. “Change” is the goal, the lantern light, the treasure and they can see it just there.

This year Sen. Obama has been ordained by the media as the only way to that goal. Normally most voters would be constantly reviewing and searching for information about an unknown candidate; but not this year. Normally the media would be diligently searching for information that would give voters a glimpse of a unknown candidate’s character; but not this year. Unfortunately, the media has relinquished their traditional role as the source of reliable (true) information this year. This year, the media has assumed the role of advocate and protector. (Consider what has happened when an average citizen confronted Sen. Obama. The media immediately circled the wagons and brought their resources to bear in an effort to destroy Joe the Plumber’s credibility.)

When it comes to recognizing truth, I believe half of what I see and very, very little of what I read. With today’s media so clearly taking sides regarding this election and regarding most issues, what I read must be scrutinized to discover what facts are facts, what’s the real context, what facts are omitted, where opinion is stated as fact, what is implied as fact, what is credible, what is the author’s bias. As a voter, I’m not willing to blindly follow a party’s or a newscaster’s version of truth. It’s difficult and time consuming work. The critical questions for me are: Am I as fully informed as I can be? Am I putting my country first and my own self-interests second?

Regarding Sen. Obama, instead of providing real information for voters to use to judge Senator Obama’s character, intentions, believes, and actions; the media continues to feed voters a ‘fairy tale’ that paints the Senator as new, pure, wise, a messiah, the bringer of Hope and Change. I know the media won’t like this, but they ARE the peasant farmer blindly following the mythical creature who carries the lantern into the marsh because they too have lost their objectivity.

I can’t just blame the media for this phenomenon. It IS the responsibility of every voter to investigate and try to find out as much as they can about the candidates. The will o’ the wisp is the mantra of “change” this year. Change is the goal for voters. I do agree that Sen. Obama will bring the most change if he is elected; however, the change he brings has the possibility of seriously damaging America’s economy and future. Regrettably, many voters appear to be looking for a type of change that changes how much they can take from the government. The federal budget ballooning, the degradation of the concept of personal responsibility, the effect on others as the economy sputters doesn’t seem to matter to those who would vote on the basis of what they might get. These voters are not considering what consequences might be in the darkness on the marsh.

Obama’s wanting to “spread the wealth around” is textbook socialist economic policy. It does have a strong appeal to those Americans who would rather take from others and not earn for themselves. Unfortunately, it does seem as though American is becoming a “what’s in it for me” country. History has shown us over and over that raising taxes on businesses and those who create jobs (especially during an economic downturn) results in less revenue for government, less growth in the economy, fewer jobs being created, less incentive to take risks that lead to innovative solutions for problems. Why would we want to go there? Senator Obama’s change would not result in any betterment of the situations of American families. Obama’s change would result in a further slowing of our economy and the concurrent lost of jobs and benefits. The “what’s in it for me” voters would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

When I pull the lever on Election Day, I will be fully aware of what voting means. It means that I have tried to best of my abilities to ascertain who my selectee is, what they believe, where they will take the country, what their character is, and what will be the likely consequences if my candidate prevails. In the end, I believe that America will deserve the consequences of this election, good and bad. If America, an informed America, wants to go down the road of socialism with an inexperienced, minimally vetted candidate; so be it. I however will not voluntarily be on board for such a journey.

If voters and the media were not so intoxicated by the idea of change, change they have to have, they would likely be paying attention to all of the skeletons in Sen. Obama’s closet.

They would be looking closely at Sen. Obama’s past associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Pastor Michael Pfleger, Bernadine Dorn, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and William Ayers. They would be looking into Sen. Obama’s connection to ACORN, the organization that is up to its ears in voter fraud. They would be looking into Sen. Obama’s connections to the crisis in the U.S. financial system through the actions, policies and political contributions regarding Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They would be looking into the allegations of Larry Sinclair, who says that he and Sen. Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999. They would be looking into allegations concerning Sen. Obama’s campaign’s involvement with censorship and intimidation against those who oppose Sen. Obama – (Stanley Kurtz for example). They would be looking into Sen. Obama’s extreme views concerning abortion, some would say infanticide. They would be looking into the allegations set forth in Berg v. Obama that challenge whether Sen. Obama is even eligible to hold the Office of President of the United States. They would be looking into the allegations that Sen. Obama violated the Logan Act during his last trip to Iraq and during the elections in Kenya that left more than a thousand people dead.

In conclusion, it is my belief that this is the most important election in my lifetime. It will hurt me deeply if America is destroyed by such a naïve and short sighted phenomenon as is the “Will o’ the Wisp” that the bumper sticker of “Change We Can Believe In” has set in motion.

Obama’s Community Development Work and Social Engineering Caused Financial Crisis

Excellent Article in The Jamestown Sun: (Emphasis Added)

Social engineering derailed our economy

Diana West, The Jamestown Sun
Published Wednesday, October 08, 2008

…Obama is up in the polls not because of the economic crisis, but because the reason for the economic crisis, the festering root of it all that has twisted the U.S. financial system beyond recognition, is being ignored in our narrative…

…Obama can only stay up in the polls as long as this all-important reason remains an unspoken, murky kind of secret…

…if American citizens become too widely acquainted with the fact that race-based social engineering virtually created the sub-prime mortgage industry that has transformed the U.S. economy into The Titanic, Obama will sink in the polls. That’s because race-based social engineering is what Obama both advanced as a so-called community organizer, and later funded as an official of Chicago’s Woods Fund, where he served alongside unrepentant terrorist and political ally William Ayers — another phantom political fact citizens now pondering their presidential votes are not supposed to consider.

… how exactly did the government overlay of race-based goals onto the real estate marketplace help create the sub-prime mortgage industry, which, having imploded, triggered the current economic crisis, and what did Obama have to do with it?

The answer goes back to one of those totalitarian drawing boards where social engineers draft their human havoc. Not “enough” minorities owned homes, the social engineers decided, because not “enough” minorities were eligible for mortgages, the social engineers concluded. Therefore, in the bean-counting name of what “should” be, the social engineers effectively junked all bottom-line, non-racial markers of mortgage eligibility, from steady employment and clean credit to the all-important down payment, that banks have traditionally relied on to determine the difference between a good and a bad credit risk. This paved the way for increasingly unconventional “sub prime” loans for all (including rubber-check-writing deadbeats, speculators and novices-in-over-their-heads of all races). The social engineers claimed victory for what they called “affordable housing” -which also paradoxically created a vast market of extremely unaffordable housing -but it was just a house of cards. The real estate bubble popped, the bad loans came crashing down, and the world markets came tumbling after.

…Stanley Kurtz described some of the techniques community organizers use to intimidate banks into making bad loans: “In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes -and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.”

He continued: “In other words, community organizers help to undermine the U.S. economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.”

Kurtz went on to detail the nature of that training and funding in concert with ACORN … an essential component in the drive to force banks “kicking and screaming” … into the risky loan business. At one point, Kurtz reported, “Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott’s drive against Chicago’s banks.”

Will America elect someone this far left wing to take charge of the Federal Reserve Bank? Terrifying thought. To be sure, it wasn’t just community shakedown artists who brought our current crisis about. They had massive help along the way, as “affirmative action lending” practices were foisted on the banking industry at the national level, particularly during the presidencies of Carter, Clinton and, yes, George W. Bush. These lending practices were further institutionalized once government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the astronomically well-paid leadership of Fannie CEO James A. Johnson, began snapping up high-risk loans and repackaging them for sale on the world market. Johnson, whom Obama, of course, chose to lead his vice-presidential selection committee (until financial shenanigans over a sweetheart housing loan forced him out) even set a goal for Fannie Mae to buy up $1 trillion in low-income loans to ensure that, as CNSNews.com quoted him as saying, “every American who wants to get a mortgage will have their loan approved.”

Well, they did. And it didn’t work out so well, did it? Such is the human cost of social engineering, whether on Wall Street, Main Street or Red Square. No wonder Obama doesn’t seem to want to discuss the pesky details. “The main thing is to just move away from this hyper-political environment and recognize the house is on fire,” he recently said.

That’s the main thing? “Let’s put out the fire first,” he added, “and we can figure out what caused it.”

Later, he means. A lot later. Like after Election Day when it’s too late to vote for the other guy. Because what voters in their right minds would expect the man who likes to set the fires to put them out?

Diana West is a columnist for The Washington Times. Read Complete Article

End of Article

Where is the rest of the media on this? AWOL

The Media’s behavior is shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999? Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations? Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act?