« September 2008 | Main | November 2008 »
What's the difference between this story in Lexington, KY, and this story in West Hollywood, CA? If one is considered racist, why is the other one considered "a harmless Halloween work of art" and is NOT considered sexist?
Best explanation: the bad one is against a liberal, the good one is against a conservative.
-Colonel Steve
I've discussed before about the fraudulent credit card donations that the Obama campaign is currently receiving. Ed Morrissey at hotair.com puts it bluntly:
There is only one reason to deliberately choose to bypass those security processes, and that’s to facilitate fraud. Team Obama claims that they vet the donations after the fact, but that’s hogwash. It costs far more to do that than to screen for security codes and address verification up front, and everyone knows it. Obama counts on the fact that most of the fraud will fly under the radar of its victims, and the only cost they’ll incur is when they have to process refunds after getting a specific complaint.
This is a key, revelatory moment about Obama and his team. They have deliberately chosen to make it easier for people to defraud the public so that they can ring up millions more in a campaign that has already broken records for fundraising. It’s unethical, dishonest, and dangerous — especially since these will be the same people with their hands on tax records if Obama wins this election.
Anyone in a business that uses credit cards knows the dependency they have on credit card agencies doing their job. That business may be the store down the street or the person selling on ebay and using paypal. They depend heavily on credit cards weeding out the fraud.
Anyone with any business sense at all sees through this. Sure, the Obama campaign will return the money.....when they get caught red handed. But a) not checking addresses and security codes, and b) not listing their donors online like McCain does only adds 2 good reasons why the Obama campaign is in it for the money and the money alone.
Remember this desire for money as he talks about raising taxes. That raising of taxes won't stop at $250,000 of income....no, wait, now it's $200,000.....no, wait again, Biden says it's $150,000. I think I finally see a trend here......
-Colonel Steve
Gina Cobb makes a fantastic observation concerning Barack Obama's idea of taking election day off from work.
It doesn't take all day to vote.
If you're only casting one ballot, that is.
Of course, "the one" asks for this day off is so one could "help" his campaign that day. Help. Since liberals think everything is a code word, wonder what "help" could mean? Cast more ballots? Ferry in out-of-staters (to Ohio, Florida, etc.)? Stand-in for the underrepresented voter (2nd graders, those deceased)?
-Colonel Steve
John Edward's wife Elizabeth isn't so crazy about Obama's healthcare plan. Although she's not towing the line for the Democrats on this subject, she at least Democratic-like in her view of McCain's plan:
Remember folks, Democrats think our economic decisions are stupid. Remember that the next time you consider spending that paycheck on the minivan to cart your children around, or on the wedding dress for your daughter's wedding. Or on anything else you spend it on. Their decisions are so much wiser than yours. Let them make those decisions.
This helps us to understand Biden's comment about being patriotic and paying more taxes. Pay them more, so the experts can spend it for us.
-Colonel Steve
Think about it.
If you are a supporter of Obama and you don’t see there is anything wrong with him, answer these questions.
Question one: Do you
believe in the historic magnificence of the making of the USA US
Question two: Do you
believe in socialism? Do you believe
that Europe, China Russia US
If you believe, like me, that the US
If you wanted to turn this country into another type of country and wanted to change the way our government works, how would you do it? Would you come in from another country and take it over through military action? I don’t think so. Our military and citizens would never allow it.
The only way to change our government to a radical socialist/Marxist government is from the inside. You change the minds of people through education and inside the government a little at a time.
Enter Barrack Obama.
Enter a news media that is so biased they don’t report anything bad on a candidate that could make that change and fool people into complacency. Remember the media that thought it was important for the public to know about the whereabouts of George W. for two weeks of National Guard time? Why do they not want to know about Rezco, Flager, Wright, Ayers, Rashid Khalid. This man has the possibility of making huge changes in the way our country operates. We deserve to know about the connections to the above people. It will tell a lot more about who Obama is and how he will lead than speeches to the masses.
Will people across our country be dubbed into thinking they are voting for one person and really voting for someone totally different? If Obama wins the election, and a gain is realized in the House and Senate along with appointments to the Supreme Court, where will any accountability be?
-Lady Colonel
Pete Du Pont, at the Wall Street Journal, describes how under Obama America will become more and more like Europe. His 7 points are as follows:
We want to be like Europe for what reason? So we can be taken care of by the nanny state? So we can lose our hard earned freedoms, for security?
Those who love Europe so much have a great freedom now, called travel. Head on over, while the borders are still open.
-Colonel Steve
Mark Steyn has comments about the New York Times story concerning the Obama's campaign shutdown of credit card security checks. Basically, there have been multiple documented cases of fake credit card donations being made to the Obama campaign. No checks are made to verify names with addresses on file for the card used.
It was at least noted that the McCain campaign lists donors on their website. A move not copied by the Obama campaign. This list at the McCain site has noted a few discrepences in the donation list. But there is NO public way of knowing this from the Obama site. Just a history of folks like those listed at Powerline, that made multiple fictitious donations for the likes of Saddam Huessein and Osama Bin Laden.
The Obama campaign's ignoring of prudent financial security checks is telling. We really want the head of this campaign to handle the financial mess we're currently in?
-Colonel Steve
Barbara West at Orlando station WFTV 9 interviewed Joe Biden recently. Fantastic interview! She was gracious and lady-like in asking the tough questions to ol' Joe.
Since that interview, the Obama campaign has nixed a WFTV interview with ol' Joe's wife Jill.
Exactly what we'd expect from the Obama campaign when someone in their marketing department starts asking tough questions. This goes to show exactly why Barack Obama himself ran and ran fast from townhall style debates.
(HT: Michell Malkin)
-Colonel Steve
Why not vote for Obama, you ask? I would have to first answer that question with a question: Why vote for Obama?
That said, a great place to start looking at the "Why nots" is the Guy Benson, Mary Katherine Ham, and Ed Morrissey written post entitled "The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama".
Now, to my summarized list:
-Colonel Steve
"It actually upsets me. I am a plumber, and just a plumber, and here Barack Obama or John
McCain, I mean these guys are going to deal with some serious issues
coming up shortly. The media's worried about whether I paid my taxes,
they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to
do with America. They really don't. I asked a question. When you can't
ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers
me." - "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbache, on Fox New Channel's Huckabee show.
Reminds me of a story....maybe you've heard it. A candidate for president goes campaigning door-to-door. He stops by one house, where the owner is out front. He starts up a conversation with the homeowner. The homeowner asks a question. The candidate answers it.
That, simply put, is the whole story here. Nothing earth shattering here. Happens in every election across America, in any year. But because of the specifics of the question and the answer, now the liberal side of America is demonizing the questioner.
The important thing to get out of this dialogue is the candidate's answer:
Mr. Obama said, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Any thoughts as to how that is going to happen? Can you say "higher taxes"? Consider, also, that this makes not the American people but the American government as the referee as to how much income is too much. A whole new beauracracy dedicated to channeling money from one group of people to another.
So just how much income is too much? If this is put in place, what incentive does anyone have to go out and work harder to make more money? Just sit back in your recliner and let "the one" take care of you.
-Colonel Steve
Stumble It!
Recent Comments