Obama Campaign Now Admitting Their Lies

Finally, something worth talking about.

The Obama Campaign is now working furiously to develop a plan to lower the expectations of his supporters once he is elected. Knowing that he cannot deliver on his wildly exaggerated promises, they have to find a way to excuse his failures should he be elected.

Here's the article:

Obama Lays Plans to Kill Expectations After Election Victory

Confident in an Election Day win, the campaign looks to lower supporters' expectations on concerns their hopes of 'change' are unrealistic, a senior aide says

By Tim Reid, The Times of London

Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of "hope" and "change" are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, "so there's not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair."

The aide said that Obama himself was the first to realize that expectations risked being inflated.

In an interview with a Colorado radio station, Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering. Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care reform, global warming and Iraq.

What's that you say, unrealistic hopes? From the campaign of "Hope?" Noooo! You don't say?

You mean to tell me that Obama can't live up to the expectations he himself instilled in his supporters? Isn't that...umm...err...LYING? Seems to me that some of us have been saying these things for quite some time. I guess the idiots who are supporting Obama based on his empty rhetoric are in for a very rude awakening.

What's he going to say? "OOPS! I'm sorry, it was all just campaign rhetoric. I didn't really mean what I said. Or maybe, like Emily Latella on the original Saturday Night Live (you know, back when it was funny) after one of her mindless rants, "Oh! Nevermind."

Barack Hussein Obama is a Liberal, which is to say he's a liar of the first order. He belongs to that cadre of Leftist politicians who, long ago, took the political advice of Machiavelli, at their most cynical level, to heart.

Machiavelli advised that the new prince must appear outwardly to be vituous and beyond reproach, thus endearing himself to his subjects, thus ensuring their continued support. While doing so, he must secretly be ruthless in destroying those who oppose him. Further boiled down, Machiavelli's advise has been distilled to its essence, the well known consequentalist adage "The ends justify the means."

For Democrats, the noble "ends" is wresting control of the United States Government from the hands of Republicans. The means have included lying about what Obama stands for and what he can accomplish, defaming any who dare to question Obama's character, qualifications, honesty, ability, experience, or his ability to achieve that which he has promised.

One must wonder now if the smear machine of the Obama campaign will now turn its guns upon their own people.

It is sad but amusing to see so many people so easily deceived by this huckster. Once again he has proven that far too many people believe what the wish was true rather than what is true.

Obama is a socialist, he is a believer in high taxes and a large intrusive government. He believes in censorship of those who oppose him and will pursue with vigor the laughingly labled "Fairness doctrine."

And of course, as we are now beginning to see, he will break every promise he has made once he achieves office.

Well, I won't say, "I told you so," I just won't...at least not too many times.

Still, I have a strong feeling that McCain will win the election. Of course I promised myself that I would never be shocked by the foolishness of the American voter when Bill Clinton was re-elected, so I won't be surprised if this Marxist becomes our next president. but I won't like it.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF statement on Gov. Rick Perry’s suspension of Texas’ information technology contract

Statement by Justin Keener, Vice President of Policy and Communications:

"Gov. Perry's action today highlights a major advantage of privatizing government services. When a function performed by government goes wrong, bureaucratic rules often protect the personnel or programs at fault. But when a private vendor is involved, the state can hold it accountable to its contract and ultimately seek competition from other vendors."

"Unions and political opportunists will try to seize on today's announcement to create even more layers of bureaucracy throughout government, but these would only serve to further restrict the state's ability to demand accountability, restitution, and service improvements."

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. More information can be found on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas consumers to pay steep price for rush to wind energy

Foundation report looks at costs, challenges of harnessing wind for electricity

AUSTIN – Texas’ efforts to make it the nation’s leading wind energy state have come at a cost – at least $60 billion between now and 2025 – that will be borne by consumers and taxpayers, according to a report released today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“The combined cost of subsidies, tax breaks, market disruptions, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy in Texas could top out at more than $4 billion per year, and total at least $60 billion through 2025,” according to Bill Peacock, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom.

The report, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future,” examines the growth of wind energy in Texas over the last decade. While many policymakers and business leaders foresee wind as a major contributor to America’s electricity supply, the report identifies several practical obstacles that stand in the way of achieving that vision.

“Wind power is, and will continue to be, part of Texas’ energy supply,” said Drew Thornley, the report’s author. “However, Texas’ policymakers must thoroughly examine both the benefits and limitations of wind energy, particularly the issues of reliability, transmission, and cost.”

The Public Utility Commission’s recent approval of a $5 billion plan to connect proposed West Texas wind farms to Texas’ metropolitan centers is just the beginning of the costs to Texas’ electric ratepayers. “These costs do not include escalating labor and material costs or financing costs during construction,” Thornley said. “Thus, the installed costs, which will be used to establish future transmission rates, should be considerably higher. The total cost of transmission construction should increase electricity prices by about $17.1 billion through 2025.”

Texas wind energy will be subsidized to the tune of $28.3 billion through 2025. Besides transmission costs, the subsidies include Texas’ program for mandating production of wind energy through the renewable portfolio standard and renewable energy credits ($1.4 billion) and the federal production tax credit ($9 billion). Texas consumers and taxpayers should expect to bear more than $20 billion of this directly, with the rest paid by U.S. taxpayers. The remainder of the $60 billion cost of Texas wind energy comes from increased generation and system management costs, economic costs from disruptions of service due to unreliability, and from additional tax breaks.

In addition to the cost, Thornley identified the three major challenges to the expansion of Texas wind energy as the intermittent nature of wind, the inability to store electricity on a large scale, and the limitations on electric transmission infrastructure.

“The greatest impediment to wind’s large-scale contribution to our energy supply is its intermittent nature,” Thornley said. “The wind must blow in order for wind turbines to produce power. In Texas, however, wind blows the least during the summer months when we need power the most.” He added that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas relies on a mere 8.7 percent of wind power’s installed capacity during peak summer hours.

Thornley debunked the notion that wind could replace natural gas as a fuel source for electricity. “Because there is presently no adequate wind-power storage system, wind-generating units must be backed up by units that generate electricity from traditional fuels,” Thornley said. “In Texas’ case, that has most often meant natural gas.”

“Wind power is not an energy-supply panacea,” Thornley said, “but rather a supplement with the potential to play a beneficial role in Texas’ energy mix for years to come.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. The report, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future” is available online at http://www.TexasPolicy.com.

Bill Peacock is Director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Drew Thornley is a natural resources and economic freedom policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas PolicyCast: Measuring performance in the juvenile justice system

The Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission are among the state agencies currently going through the Sunset Advisory Commission review process. This week, Marc Levin, Director of the Foundation's Center for Effective Justice, published a Policy Perspective that recommends that these agencies' performance measures be enhanced to focus more on results than volume. Marc discusses his report with us this week.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Dangerous Assumptions: Obama "Calm" "Measured" "Tempered"

As the Democrat gaff machines, Biden, Frank, and Albright, give more and more ammunition to the McCain campaign, the Obama damaged control team have sprung into action.

Like Madeleine Albright claimed in her explanation of why Obama is the right man to face foreign power who are going to test his mettle, they keep using words like "measured," "calm," and "tempered" to describe his response to any crisis that might arise.

How do they know? What has Barack Obama done to prove that he would exhibit any of those characteristics when faced with a crisis comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis?

When has Barack Obama's mettle ever been tested? When has he ever faced a life and death decision? When has he ever had to choose between two exceptionally difficult options. What evidence do any of these people have that what they claim for Barack Obama is true?

The fact is, they have none. They are guessing. They are assuming. They are making a judgment based on their own biases.

John McCain has been tested and he has passed the test. With John McCain, there is no doubt. He can handle the situation.

Dennis Miller was asked once to explain why he changed from a Liberal to a Conservative. His answer was as profound as it was simple. He said:

"I’m not as sure of my guesswork anymore. To be on the Left, you have to be amazingly certain about things you’re guessing at, and I felt like a phony."

What an amazingly concise description of Liberal thinking. What all of these people are giving us as an explanation of why Obama should be trusted with this nation's future is guesswork.

A mature mind is a mind that can divorce itself from most of its own biases and prejudices and make a decision on facts alone. Mature people try to make judgments based on a rational evaluation of the evidence. They don't guess and then assume they are right. They are open to being wrong. They are willing to test their logic and when confronted with the facts, they will change their opinions.

This process is what lies behind the old adage, sometimes attributed to Sir Winston Churchill, that "a young man who is not Liberal has no heart; an older man who is not a Conservative has no brain."

Liberals, judging by all the evidence and the words of these Obama Campaign damage control spokesmen, have no brain. They remain driven by their emotions. They remain immature in their thinking processes.

It may be perfectly true that Obama would be "Calm," "Measured," and "Tempered" in his reaction to a major crisis, but we won't know that until he has faced a crisis. Until that time all of these claims are, as Dennis Miller said, "guesswork."

I for one do not choose to place the might, safety, and welfare of this nation and its people in the hands of a man based simply on guesswork.

It is for this reason that I have nothing but absolute and utter contempt for those who choose to vote for Barack Obama. Either they are ill-informed, stupid, or they agree with his pacifist, Marxist beliefs. In all three cases they are unworthy of my respect.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Albright Agrees with Biden: Terrorists Will Test Obama

Wow, Madeleine Albright confirms Democrat Vice-Presidential Candidate Joe Biden's warning that an Obama administration will invite our enemies to test our nation's mettle.

Once more we will face a crisis from outside our borders. Will it be another Cuban Missile Crisis situation?

Will the election of Obama threaten, not just our financial freedom, but our very existence?

Both Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright think it is not only possible, but definite.

Elect a Democrat, fight a war. Most of the wars we have fought have been started during a Democrat Administration. Why? Because they are perceived as weak by our enemies.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Elect John McCain!!! Joe Biden and Madeleine Albright both believe we will be safer.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Barney Frank Spills the Beans: Big Spending Liberals Licking Their Chops at Obama Presidency

Now you Democrats out there have got to stop this. You're making my job too easy. All I have to do is let Obama's close friends and supporters talk and they make my Conservative arguments for me.

The latest Democrat Leader to rain on Senator Government err...Obama's parade is none other than the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank.

In one fell swoop, Congressman Frank destroyed the Democrat Party's stand on budget deficits, deficit spending, and tax relief...Well, I say destroyed the Party's stand...I should have written destroyed the Democrat Party's claimed stand, because no one with an ounce of intellectual discernment believes that the Democrats stand for anything other than increased spending, larger deficits, and huge increases in taxes.

Here's what Ol' Barn said yesterday:

"...I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat. I do think this is a time for a very important kind of dose of Keynesianism.

Yes I believe later on their should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money, but I do think right now if we do not do this kind of stimulus, the deficit will get even worse than if we do it, because the resulting lack of activity will cause a lack of tax revenue that will seriously damage us..."

"Damage us," Barney? You mean restrict you and your fellow "Tax and Spend Democrats" ability to buy elections by giving away tax-payer's money to those who don't pay taxes, don't work, and of course let's not forget those precious Pork-Barrel projects you guys love.

Ah, I get it now. It's not "The Audacity of Hope," it's "The Audacity of Pork and Welfare"...also known as "The Audacity of Socialism."

I love it when these arogant S.O.B.'s screw up and tell the truth...the truth that Conservatives have been telling you for decades and that Democrats have been denying for decades and especially during Barack Hussein Obama's run for the White House.

Obama can try to run from his long history of Marxist beliefs, but he can't hide the truth forever. It's hard to be patient sometimes, but there are always arrogant Liberals out there who will be unable to contain their egos and their enthusiasm for Liberal ideals.

As a result, we get glimpses of the truth from people like Joe Biden and Barney Frank.

By the way Barney, wasn't it you and your fellow Democrats who repeatedly blocked regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aimed at preventing the very crisis you now want we taxpayers to trust you to fix.

Give me a break! You're nothing but a Marxist, a Robin[g] Hood[lum]!

Long Live Our American Republic (not Socialist Republic, Barney, just Republic)!!!!

Here's a link to the entire CNBC video.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Biden Confesses What Conservatives Have Been Saying: Obama Presidency Risky

I don't have to add much to this, Joe Biden says it all:

Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables"

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

I'm not making this stuff up folks, Obama's choice for Vice-President actually said this.

An Obama Presidency immediately places Americans at greater risk from our nation's adversaries. If he responds as well as Jack Kennedy did, we may find ourselves in, as G.H.W. Bush used to say, "deep doo-doo."

It was Kennedy's naivete and lack of experience that led Kruschev to believe he could put nuclear missiles in Cuba...it was the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Jack Kennedy's lack of experience brought the world closer to the brink of global nuclear war than at any other time in history, including when Liberals were shaking in their boots at President Ronald Reagan's declaration that the Soviet Union was an "Evil Empire."

In fact it was Reagan's experience and toughness that directly led to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Even Joe Biden knows that Barack Obama's inexperience is an invitation to our enemies to attack us.

Do we really need another 9-11 simply because our President lacks the knowledge, experience and toughness to defend our nation against our enemies.

This is the absolute fundamental truth and it was first stated by former Democrat Party Vice-Presidential candidate Geralding Ferraro:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Joe Biden, when he was running against Obama said much the same thing:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean-cut and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man,”

The truth that the MSM and most American's are afraid to say, the elephant in the room that frightens most pundits to death is:

If Barack Hussein Obama wasn't black, clean and articulate, he never would have been considered for candidacy.

He would be nothing more than another exceptionally Liberal, unaccomplished, inexperienced back bencher in the Senate relegated to minor status and probably relegated to relative obscurity.

His views are so far out of the mainstream of political thought in America that he would have been the darling of the extreme Left as are other non-entities like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich; a fringe candidate at best.

Yet through clever marketing and a slick, clever delivery in speeches, he is now poised to ascend to the most powerful position in the world.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Fed Ownership of Bank Stock - "Temporary and Non-voting?"

Alright, here's one for all of you who can still think past all the glitz and glamour of Barack Hussein Obama's campaign.

Barack has been schooled, from early in his youth,in Marxist Economics. In his reply to "Joe the Plumber," what stands out is his dedication to the concept of the redistribution of wealth. His basic economic tenet is, as was Hillary's, "shared prosperity."

Also known as "economic justice," or simply "fairness," in reality, it is just repackaged Marxism.

So, here's the question for all you folks out there:

Today, in his adress to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Bush attempted to reassure the American people, those of us who vehemently disagree with the "bailout package," and Conservative economists that the U.S. Government's ownership of Bank mortgaged property and non-voting (a.k.a. "Preferred") stock was going to be so structured as to encourage those private institutions to buy back their assets as quickly as the become financially solvent enough to do so.

Here is the relevent portion of his address:

"...Some have viewed this temporary measure as a step toward nationalizing banks. This is simply not the case. This program is designed with strong protections to ensure the government's involvement in individual banks is limited in size, limited in scope, and limited in duration.

The government's involvement is limited in size. The government will only buy a small percentage of shares in banks that choose to participate, so that private investors retain majority ownership.

The government's involvement is limited in scope. The government will not exercise control over any private firm. Federal officers will not have a seat around your local bank's boardroom table. The shares owned by the government will have voting rights that can be used only to protect the taxpayers' investment, not to direct the firm's operations.

The government's involvement is limited in duration. It includes provisions to encourage banks to buy their shares back from the government when markets stabilize, and they can raise money from private investors. This will ensure that banks have an incentive to find private capital to replace the taxpayers' investment, and to do so quickly.

For those worried about the long-term consequences of the actions, our history offers some comfort. On several occasions over the past century, the government has taken partial ownership of private companies in the banking industry during times of great financial challenge -- most recently during the savings and loans failures of the 1980s and 1990s. In every case, the government relinquished its ownership stakes after the crisis ended. And we will do so again. The government intervention is not a government takeover -- its purpose is not to weaken the free market; it is to preserve the free market."

Wow, I guess we should all quit worrying, right?

Well beyond the obvious point that during the bailout of the Federal Savings and Loans of the late 80's and Early 90's, we had a Republican in the White House. Yes at the end of the Resolution Trust Corporation's life, Democrat Bill Clinton was the president, but at least he was part of the more moderate Democrat Leadership Council and besides that, he was less of a Leftist ideologue and more of a narcissist.

In Barack Obama, we have a dedicated Marxist. He is a true believer and is determined to fundamentally re-align the American economy in line with his Liberal upbringing.

So...How many people out there are actually gullible enough to believe that, should Barack Hussein Obama be elected with a supermajority of Democrats in the Senate and a Pelosi led majority in the House, federal ownership in those banks will remain "temporary and non-paticipatory?"

If you do, you are one of those people con-men just love to run into.

By the way...exactly how many bridges have you bought in your life?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas PolicyCast: Paying for results

Teacher incentive pay programs in Texas school districts have produced higher test scores, higher state accountability rankings, improved teacher morale, and less teacher turnover. This according to a new report released this week by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, with generous support from the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. On this edition of Texas PolicyCast, we talk with the report's author, Texas Public Policy Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Terry, about the history and role of incentive pay in Texas public schools.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: A tale of two states

We didn’t know the half of it, perhaps, when Arthur Laffer cut loose a few weeks back concerning Texas’ superiority over California as a place to do business.

We knew enough to shake our heads – yes – as Laffer, in a report for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, listed tax and regulatory policies as elements that tilt businessmen’s viewpoints on where they can make it and where they can’t.

There followed shortly the climax of the California budget battle, nearly three months long at the end: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. the Legislature, a deficit of $15.2 billion yawning between them; endless wrangling; finally, a monster budget of $144.5 billion duly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor; no one happy; everyone edgy over what to expect next year.

Then came Schwarzenegger’s blissfully brief flirtation with the idea of asking the federal government for a loan. The depths to which fiscal irresponsibility can drive a political entity!

If Texans were watching, and there was time, the Wall Street crisis not having yet burst upon us, they could see some of the consequences of 1) spending too much state money, 2) without taking proper thought for business’ ability to create jobs and pay taxes.

There’s an intimate relationship here that bears constant scrutiny; namely, without healthy businesses, government can’t function. Consider the hole California’s spendthrift lawmakers dug for themselves.

The $15.2 billion deficit in a budget of $140 billion-plus left the state unable to pay medical clinics, nursing home, day care centers, and contract vendors. By early September, students had ceased to receive state grants for tuition and books. School districts, community colleges, and local government were owed $4.2 billion. All 176,000 state workers had taken pay cuts to minimum wage level.

No disaster, no piece of good fortune, deserves over-simplification at the hands of interpreters. A lot of factors need factoring in, such as the national real estate slump. Yet the California crisis – this isn’t said for gloating purposes – has no parallel in Texas, which last May projected a budgetary surplus of $10.7 billion.

Again: no over-simplifications. The oil and natural gas boom has greatly helped Texas. Real estate values here have held up better than those of just about any other state.

It has to be added, nevertheless, that Texas government has the all-but-explicit policy of relying on business growth and expansion to provide revenues rather than demanding, through income taxes, that business and everyone else fork over. Texas is business-friendly, which means, for most businessmen, that it’s a pleasure to do business here. In fact, a number who operate here left California specifically to avoid a tax and regulatory environment they saw as discouraging investment and profit-making.

Laffer calls California’s present problems the direct result of its approach to tax and regulatory matters. For instance (though he didn’t say this specifically) if the state weren’t making outsize payments to day care centers and medical clinics, to say nothing of subsidies for textbooks, there wouldn’t be the budgetary drag there is. With less budgetary drag, a lower level of taxes would be feasible. With lower taxes, business might feel energized enough to open invest more and hire more and create more jobs.

You want more of something, you reward it; you want less, you penalize it. If that something is work and investment, be careful always to shape an economic environment of which the enterprising hunger to be part.

California, land of the gold rush and Silicon Valley, ought to have absorbed that lesson. The truth is, Texans should hope it does. A strong California is better for America than a weak one. Moreover, there’s nothing like intelligent competition to keep a state – any state – going strong; staying healthily nervous at the prospect of losing to some place with a better idea.

We need a chastened and revived California almost as much as California itself does.

William Murchison is a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Obama Threat - Descent Into A Socialist Depression - Pray for America

Far from being irrelevent Barack Obama's close associations with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Pfleger are seminal to his socio-economic philosophy and his fundamental belief that America is evil and racist at its core.

National Review On-line's Stanley Kurtz has done his homework on Obama's past affiliations among the elitist, Marxist, Black Liberationist establishment in Chicago.

There is a reason that Obama doesn't want these people investigated. It is the same reason that time and again, he has been forced to denounce and distance himself from everyone with whom he has affiliated himself in the past. They are "looney-tunes," "psycho-killer," Left-wing "moonbat" extremists of the extreme Left-wing of the American political spectrum.

These people hate America and all for which she stands. They detest capitalism as oppressive and unequal. They detest our culture, our morals, and our constitution. They view our forefathers as evil and have spent their lives working against everything those historical giants worked to establish...self-reliance, free enterprise, restricted government, and maximum individual freedom.

They seek to install a regime of governmental intervention, governmental control, and governmentally imposed equality of outcome. In one of his most glaring slips, Barack Obama admitted as much in his response to "Joe the Plumber" when he complained at an Obama campaign event that Obama's tax plan would punish him and prevent him from pursuing his dream of buying the business he works for.

Obama doesn't want Joe the Plumber, or anyone else, pursuing dreams of success. He wants government to be the source and thus the controller of all Americans' aspirations.

Who is Joe the Plumber and what did he tell Obama that caused him to slip up and reveal his true, Marxist, nature? Here is the Times Online report from last night's debate:

Joe the plumber is real hero of the debate

Times Online
October 16, 2008

Anne Barrowclough

They clashed on the economy and scored points off each other on negative campaigning.

But in the end, the real star of the third and final presidential debate was neither John McCain nor Barack Obama but a small town plumber called Joe.

Joe Wurzelbacher from Toledo, Ohio, has become an unlikely media star after finding himself the focus of the debate between the two White House rivals.

He is a tradesman who has worked 12-hour shifts for years and now plans to buy his own small plumbing business. The trouble for Joe the plumber is that this would take his earnings to more than $250,000 - making him a target of Obama’s plan to tax the wealthy.

The New York Post has the response from Obama to Joe's query:

OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT

By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.

---here's the money shot---

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Folks, that's Marxism described about as well as old Karl could have expressed it. In fact Obama's remarks eerily echo Karl's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

This is the man that Americans, if polls are correct, are planning to elect to the highest office in the land. He is a man who has tried to distance himself from every political position and vote he has ever made in his attempt to deceive his way into the White House.

Obama lacks the wisdom and knowledge to lead our military. Obama lacks the any understanding of and dedication to our nation's founding principles. He is a black racist, steeped for the bulk of his life in the teachings of Asa Hilliard, Jacob Carruthers, and of course Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

Obama has proven to be, far from the fresh newcomer rejecting "the old politics as usual," the consumate "say anything to get elected" lying politician we have come to expect from the Democrat Party and the Left.

He is more Machiavellian than Bill Clinton ever could have imagined himself to be. His campaign motto should be "The End Justifies the Means."

Obama has broken every pledge he has made, changed every stand he has taken, and lied about himself and his opponents at every opportunity, yet has the temerity to accuse John McCain of being "erratic."

The American people are going to elect a man of no moral principal because they like him and he speaks well over a man who, while thoroughly un-likable, exemplifies moral consistency and authority.

Given the lack of moral authority in the Democrat Party led Congress, I fear that this election, should Obama win, will be the end of "The Great Experiment."

Obama will raise taxes on all Americans, thus destroying the economy. He will increase federal spending to record levels, further destroying our economy. He will then, with the aid of his Liberal controlled Congress, turn this nation, perhaps irrevocably, toward socialism/communism. This destruction/rebirth has been the goal of the Left and the Democrat Party for over 50 years. It now seems very likely, if not inevitable.

P.T. Barnham once famously observed, "You can some of the people all of the time and all of the people, some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time." It would appear that this moment in history will Obama's "some of the time."

I hate being so pessimistic, but I have to call it the way I see it. For his part, John McCain could not have run a worse campaign. His intransigence on attacking Barack Obama's character and associations and his insistance on civility smacks of a man fighting to lose with grace rather than one who is willing to fight for what he believes in.

There is nothing "dirty" in telling the truth and the truth is Barack is unfit for the office he seeks; unfit by policy, unfit by association, and unfit by lack of experience.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!???

Articles referenced for this editorial:

1. Wright 101 by Stanley Kurtz
2. Jeremiah Wright's 'Trumpet' by Stanley Kurtz
3. What Makes Obama Run? by Hank de Zutter
4. Inside Obama’s Acorn by Stanley Kurtz
5. The Rise of the Religious Left by Steven Malanga
6. Acorn Squash by Steve Malanga
   
   

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below