The Top 10 Reasons Obama Could Be A Great President

We have summarized here the top ten reasons we feel could make Obama a stellar President for America.

We are impressed by America’s solidarity in this election event.  America was brilliant and convicted as they made their selection.  There were no issues with falling chads or other nonsense that could have clouded the result.  America made its voice heard loud and clear to the entire world.  Those that voted for Obama should commend themselves for having the insight and hope America needs.

It is our intention to follow each reason we list here with an article that sums up our explanation.  If you feel you have more positive reasons you would like to add to our list, please submit them in your comments.  We would be happy to incorporate them if they aren’t something redundant or negative.

If you agree that Obama could be a great president and choose to respond to our poll, please also DIGG the article so others can find it.

[poll id=”55″]

This article has moved to its new home, The Lie Politic. Please continue reading by clicking here and you will be directed to the new site. Thank you!

Muammar Gadhafi Cites Terrorist Contributions To Obama Campaign, Watch Here!

Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, with proven terrorist ties, stated recently “There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama.”

Muammar went on. “All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.”

“We are hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs”.

A Youtube video of Muammar, a known enemy of America and with known affiliations with terrorists is here, specifically referencing contributions made to Obama from the nations of terror.

Interesting Trivia:

Muammar Gadhafi, Moammar El-Gadhafi, Muammar al-Gaddafi What’s in a name?

For our articles we follow on The Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News use of the spelling of his last name as Gadhafi.

According to Wikepedia:

“Due to the inherent difficulties of transliterating written and regionally-pronounced Arabic, Gaddafi’s name can be transliterated in many different ways. An article published in the London Evening Standard in 2004 lists a total of 37 spellings; a 1986 column by The Straight Dope quotes a list of 32 spellings known at the Library of Congress Muammar al-Gaddafi, used in this article, is the spelling used by Time magazine and the BBC. The Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News use the spelling Moammar Gadhafi, Al-Jazeera uses Muammar al-Qadhafi (Al-Jazeera English uses Muammar Gaddafi the Edinburgh Middle East Report uses Mu’ammar Qaddafi and the U.S. Department of State uses Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi. In 1986, Gaddafi reportedly responded to a Minnesota school’s letter in English using the spelling Moammar El-Gadhafi.”

Is A Large Portion of Obama’s Fundraising Illegal?

Statistically, it is difficult to determine if fund raising has been the direct determination of the outcome of past Presidential elections. We have not been able to find a definitive study that makes the statistical correlation between campaign contributions and victory. But it is apparent in Indiana that money talks. Indiana has primarily been a Republican state. The difference. Obama, with his seemingly infinite reserves, has been able to make 48 appearances in Indiana to McCain’s 2 or 3. This has brought that state into contention. In some states, due to money issues, McCain has had to back away from states, leaving them to Palin to stump for him or severely limiting his campaign in those states. Money is exposure. Exposure translates into votes. It is that simple.

This year, the numbers are significant not only because of the extreme amount of money received, but because of the large number of contributions under $200, the sources of which do not have to be disclosed. Candidates are not required to reveal those contribution sources, and Obama has chosen to not let the American people know where his money is coming from. McCain, on the other hand, has fully disclosed the sources of his contributions.

What is it that Obama is hiding? We cannot get the statistics or demographics of the contributions because Obama won’t tell. Certainly, the average contributor that would send in $100 would not demand nondisclosure. It also is certainly not a constitutional right. Apparently, some contributors to Obama’s campaign have such ridiculous names as Adolfe Hitler.

Barack Obama: Elitism or the Condemnation of Intellect?

During this remarkable U.S. election season, talking points, laced with politically jargoned rhetoric have entered our ears and appeared before our eyes- thanks to the reporting of today’s numerous media sources and user blogs.

Anyone who has attempted to keep stride with the ever morphing events, within and between the presidential campaigns, has by now become acquainted with such keywords and phrases as, “earmarks,” “energy independence,” and “reform.” Additionally, another phrase has become a staple within mostly conservative circles and used as a rhetorical weapon against the opposition- “elitism.”

For the record, a rough definition of a person who embodies elitism is one who believes that he or she is of superior distinction and thus entitled to be treated and considered favorably.

Specifically, elitism is the word that has been pinned to the backside of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. And that pesky little tail has been left to dangle in the minds of voters.

However, this election will not make the first time that many conservative politicians, and citizens alike, have labeled their more liberal counterparts as “elite.” Although ironically, it was Hillary Clinton who first pegged Barack Obama as “elite,” following a speech in San Francisco where he referred to people living in rural America as, “bitter, and clinging to guns and religion.”

The Full Quote:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate, and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” – Barack Obama – 4/6/08

It is obvious to understand why many Americans felt incensed by the above speech. On the surface, it appeared to be judgmental and divisive. However, is it possible that some Americans were upset by Obama’s remark because it hit too close to home?

Art Imitates Life – when in doubt, expound with a movie reference…

Entertainment notwithstanding, all we would need to do is watch the biographical movie, “Boys Don’t Cry,” to witness art imitating life. “Reel” life: where intolerant and disenfranchised communities, such as Richardson County, Nebraska, depicted in the movie, do exist. Of course, the movie in question is an extreme example, perhaps even a controversial one when used in this context, but still relevant.

Barack Obama has been called a rockstar, a snob, and most outrageously, “The Messiah.” Such accusations stem from Obama’s education, to his capacious and reflective oratory style, and popularity.

In May, John McCain urged Barack Obama to take a trip with him to Iraq. The objective would have been for McCain to prove to Obama that U.S. efforts have helped to stabilize Iraq. Obama declined the invitation, but in July, took a trip of his own to several countries in the Middle East, Including Iraq, and Europe.

Due to his popularity overseas, Barack Obama was notably depicted as the “biggest celebrity in the world,” by the McCain campaign. The message was relayed in an ad that aired after his trip to Europe, where he delivered a speech before a crowd of 200,000, in Berlin, Germany.

In August, while Barack Obama and family were on vacation in Hawaii, the RNC sent copies of what was called the “Barack Obama’s Hawaii Travel Guide,” to reporters. In the mock travel guide, a spotlight was focused on the Punahou School, the college preparatory institution that Obama attended in his youth. Conclusions were drawn, indicating that the RNC lampooned Obama’s education in its parody travel guide.

On a side note, Barack Obama attended the aforementioned college preparatory school from grade 5, until he graduated from high school. As a young adult, he attended Columbia and Harvard Law School, where he rose to be president of The Harvard Law Review.

Undoubtedly, the life of Barack Obama represents a classic case of the ever romanticized “American Dream,” no?

We should be comfortable asserting that most every American who was raised by responsible parents, regardless of class, was encouraged to study and do well in school. We should be willing to further assert that those same American children were also encouraged to attend college with goals of absorbing the relevant academia necessary for achieving their personal “American Dream.”

If we are honest with ourselves and subscribe to the above, we will fail to understand how conservatives, the RNC, some of our personal acquaintances, as well as our fellow late-night message board warriors have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is indeed, an “elitist.”

Many Republicans and conservatives have reveled in the pick of Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential Candidate on the Republican ticket. Numerous reasons account for the support Palin has received from conservatives and the GOP. One reason Sarah Palin admirers give to explain their support for her is her “everyday people” appeal. These voters prefer the simple talk of Sarah Palin and John McCain to the poignant speech of Barack Obama- which is of course, their choice. However, much of the McCain/Palin supporters’ beliefs travel beyond the realm of preference- many of those supporters actually condemn the intellect of Barack Obama. This is evident with such statements as, “He (Obama) has so much to say but I just can’t be bothered to try to understand it.” Or, “He (Obama) can’t just say what he needs to without blathering about.” These are actual quotes from everyday people.

Since when has being a highly educated person become something to look down upon in America?

Is it because some of us feel inferior when faced with the apparent intellect of others?

How could this attitude affect how our children view education?

Curiously, a contour of conservative values is self-reliant independence, yet many conservatives demonize education- the fundamental vessel for success in America. How sad and unfortunate it is that so many would rather elevate their egos with the illusion of “relating” to their “neighborly-like” presidential pick, instead of embracing a fine product of education- Barack Obama.

Should Republicans and conservatives support Barack Obama for president? No. They should also cease insulting their own personal intellect and patriotism by condemning a genuine manifestation of the “American Dream,” which is Barack Obama.

The Questionable Sources of Obama’s Campaign Contributions Cloud America’s Future

In the primaries, despite being the underdog, Barrack Obama raised more money in campaign contributions than Hillary Clinton, a much more seasoned veteran with a much more household name. Hillary was forced to contribute monies of her own in the millions to just keep up, but consequently lost both the race for cash, and eventually, for the Democratic nomination itself.

Obama has repeated this feat and will now be in the Guinness World Book of Records for the Presidential candidate that raised the most during a Presidential campaign. According to Newsweek, “The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less.” That is an old quote. More recent statistics show this number to be an astounding 600 million dollars.

Statistically, it is difficult to determine if fund raising has been the direct determination of the outcome of past Presidential elections. We have not been able to find a definitive study that makes the statistical correlation between campaign contributions and victory. But it is apparent in Indiana that money talks. Indiana has primarily been a Republican state. The difference. Obama, with his seemingly infinite reserves, has been able to make 48 appearances in Indiana to McCain’s 2 or 3. This has brought that state into contention. In some states, due to money issues, McCain has had to back away from states, leaving them to Palin to stump for him or severely limiting his campaign in those states. Money is exposure. Exposure translates into votes. It is that simple.

This year, the numbers are significant not only because of the extreme amount of money received, but because of the large number of contributions under $200, the sources of which do not have to be disclosed. Candidates are not required to reveal those contribution sources, and Obama has chosen to not let the American people know where his money is coming from. McCain, on the other hand, has fully disclosed the sources of his contributions.

What is it that Obama is hiding? We cannot get the statistics or demographics of the contributions because Obama won’t tell. Certainly, the average contributor that would send in $100 would not demand nondisclosure. It also is certainly not a constitutional right. Apparently, some contributors to Obama’s campaign have such ridiculous names as Adolfe Hitler.

Where is the money coming from?

These huge sums of money beg the question, could Obama’s contributions be coming from sources other than US citizens?  Obama is receiving a huge number of international contributions. Major sources are said to include Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran certainly has a lot to gain if Obama can force an Iraq withdrawal of our troops so Iran can take control of the country. The Shiites love to kill their brethren with weapons provided by Iran.

In some cases contributions have been made as though they come from contributors that have no knowledge of the source of the contribution. One abused individual used by a fraudulent donor or donors, Diane Beardsley, was quoted as saying, “I have never heard of such an individual”. She worked for Doodad’s Boutique and is the mother of one of the owners. She further stated, “Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute.” As it turns out, Doodad’s Boutique had closed a year ago before the fraudulent donations were made.

In another case of fraud, according again to Newsweek, “the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign’s online store.” The Obama camp tried to claim the men were American citizens, but research later showed the men lived in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp. Once exposed, the campaign returned the funds, but who is to say how many undisclosed funds, undisclosed at Obama’s request, are from such possible terrorist sources?

The Presidential Election is not the first time; Obama has been associated with questionable campaign contributions in his past. According to the Chicago Sun Times, Obama accepted a $10,000 donation from a friend with whom he had executed real estate transactions.  That friend was facing a trial for fraud regarding the acquisition of those contributed funds. According to the Times, Tony Rezko who “was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing ‘at least one other individual’ to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual, in possible violation of federal election law.” Apparently, Obama is familiar with laundering money to hide the sources of his political contributions. The following articles clearly demonstrate a criminal fund raising policy from untraceable sources. One from the Washington Post and the other.

In another contradiction of the Obama group’s lying claims that McCain’s camp has been dishonest, when watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about their small donors, the McCain camp agreed; the Obama campaign did not. “They could’ve done themselves a service” said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics. In all due respect, if such contributions are coming from Iran, Palestinians and Muslim terrorists, it would not have done Obama a service. It would have disclosed Obama for what he is. It does not comfort us that Hamas has publicly endorsed Obama.

Some very enlightening examples of laundering of contribution monies have been exposed by this website.

How is it the man that speaks of only taxing the rich to distribute it to the poor can raise well over $600 million dollars, when the supposedly richer and well connected McCain with vastly more experience can only raise a bit more than half that amount? And how did he also accomplish this same feat against Hillary? Some say it is Obama’s ability to exploit the Internet, but the Internet is also an excellent way to facilitate fraud.

Continue on next page…

Obama’s Tax Plan Exposed, The Destruction of Small Business And Why McCain Won the Presidential Debate October 15, 2008

In this third and final debate, the key issue was the economy, primarily the clarification of the tax plan of each candidate.  The key was not those impacted among individual employees, but how businesses would be impacted, specifically small businesses.

Obama, while saying he will only increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year, includes American business in his cross hairs.  And while $250K seems like a large sum, most small businesses operate well in excess of that amount and will be severely impacted.  The distribution of the tax will be uneven and specifically unfair to those businesses that are more capital intensive and have more employees.

In response to our original article, many expressed concern because Obama did not state clearly whether he was speaking of taxing gross or net business income in the debate. Some believe Obama is trying to be intentionally misleading on the issue, so we decided to clarify.

What we have found in our research is that Obama does say, buried deeply on his website, that the amount to be taxed would be the business’ net profit, not the gross receipts.  If it had been gross receipts, that would have shut the doors on many small businesses in America overnight.

Still, there is a major concern with his plan, because what Obama qualifies as a small business is totally suspect. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration, have average incomes in the millions of dollars and can employ hundreds. This site provides a summary.

So, if the Small Business Administration data is correct, how can Obama claim that 90-98% of American small businesses would be excluded from his tax increase?  The lie in Obama’s plan is that he is including sole proprietorships which aren’t really businesses; they are just individuals filing taxes that are not on a W2. That includes the maid, a lone painter, etc. These are businesses by tax qualifications only, not true businesses in any sense of the word.  They do not employ anyone, and they do not provide the same benefits to the nation as real businesses which employ people that also contribute to the tax base.

Let’s examine this.

First, Obama attempts to delude people that make less than $250,000 that they will benefit under his tax plan.  The plan, at first, does seem beneficial for the person in a normal job working for a US-based company.  It is true that most of those people do not make more than $250K, so they would get a tax cut.  Great plan, right?  Think again.  How many of these people work for small businesses?  If you do, you definitely should consider how Obama’s plan to increase your employer’s taxes could cost you a raise or even your job.

Second, and most importantly, when Obama speaks of taxing only those that make more than $250,000, he groups in what he claims are small businesses that have a net profit of over $250,000.  He has often referenced statistics stating how this applies to small businesses in America.  These statistics are not only misleading, they are an outright lie and the cornerstone of Obama’s campaign.

Obama states that at least 90% of small businesses make less than $250K, but the huge flaw in that statistic is it includes the sole proprietor.   These people are not making more than $250K on average any more than the average person does in any other job in America.  They are not considered a “business” for any other reason than they do not get paid via a W2 (with automatic deductions).  They do not operate as a true business, they do not employ others, and they essentially are not a business at all in any real sense of the word.

Joe the Plumber and Small Businesses

What we are most interested in are small businesses that provide jobs, and how those businesses will be impacted.  We want statistics that isolate small businesses that employ people, genuine small businesses.

The expert on small business in America is the Small Business Administration.  This SBA does a great job at summarizing the incomes and employment limits for many businesses to qualify as a “small business”.  None are as low as $250,000, some employ hundreds, and all would pay significantly higher taxes under Obama’s plan.

Obama claims that the companies, even though their taxes will rise sharply, will pay lower taxes than under Reagan.  That is a lie as well.  The rate could potentially be well north of 50% if you count Social Security contributions (a point that Obama conveniently glosses over).  Then consider the added expense of health plans (which Obama wants to force upon all businesses).  It is the highest tax rate since the Carter years, and we all know how that turned out…record unemployment.  Tack on the cost of health care and you have a small business disaster waiting to happen.

Why is this dangerous and why is it easy for Obama to mislead the average citizen?  The concept of taxing a business based on its net income sounds good to the average American when you throw out what seems like a large number to most of them.  Most don’t earn that much money, so we are just taxing the rich, right?

Wrong, a company’s net income is not what the proprietors take home.  It is extremely different from earned wages.  It is the money left after expenses for the prior business year, such as salaries paid, equipment depreciated, etc.  Most businesses reinvest large portions of their profits to grow the business, or in some cases, to just keep up with inflation.   If there are no profits, there is no money to invest.

In addition, the distribution of the tax does not take into consideration that businesses are vastly different from one to the next.  Some are more capital intensive, some employ more than others and others operate in areas with a significantly higher cost of living (New York versus Mississippi for example).

Continue on next page…

McCain Says It To Obama’s Face, And Wins Final Presidential Debate 3, October 15 2008

During the past two weeks, Obama made a wish, he said McCain should “say it to his face”.

The format of this third debate gave Obama his wish, and it was clearly a case where Obama will remember the adage, “Be careful what you wish for”, because he got exactly that. This format allowed more of the type of interaction between the candidates we favor. McCain was able to attack Obama face to face. And instead of Obama’s usual calm smile, he wore a nervous smirk through much of the debate.

McCain was able to unnerve Obama by attacking him on the issues. He hit Obama on the spending that he constantly promises without defining clearly how to pay for it. He confronted Obama about his associations with ACORN and Ayers, the terrorist in Obama’s past. And he clearly had Obama retreating on issues about his tax increases, CAFTA and energy independence. He even got Obama to say he was considering off shore drilling.

Obama was not the calm, “promise the world” candidate he had been prior to this debate. He could not attack the issues the same way, which had been to just promise more than his opponent. In this debate, on each promise he made, McCain called him on the issues. One clear example is the promise to only tax those that make more than $250,000 while promising health care for everyone even with pre-existing conditions. Something we know does not work from real life experience in Massachusetts.

McCain nailed Obama on a quote he made about “spreading the wealth around”. Obama tried to defend it, but came across as an errant Robin Hood. He once again threw out his intentionally misleading statistic that 98% (It was 98% this week, it was 95% last) of all businesses make less than $250,000. That statistic includes self-employed individuals, so it is a complete lie.

Most businesses that have more than two employees would be in the category that sees their taxes increase under Obama’s plan. And McCain was able to call Obama on this, using a plumber wishing to purchase a small business as an example of a man that would lose in Obama’s plan.  Obama tried to say that the business would not be taxed because he only would tax the “rich”. And McCain’s response was to congratulate the plumber on being “rich”. It was a subtle and superb comeback and it cut Obama to the quick. Obama’s qualification of “rich” includes many that no one would consider “rich”

Liberals will try to find the bright moments for Obama to attempt to declare him the winner, but in this debate, there weren’t many. His promises didn’t add up and McCain was nailing him on it. Obama did have one bright spot on health care, but it was once again using his usual tactic of promising the world to everyone.  McCain was quick to point out that tax increases on small businesses while forcing them to add health care benefits they cannot afford isn’t going to add up on a calculator.

Both candidates have cuts they promise, but Obama’s plans just have no compromise. They are all based on welfare programs and investing in our future. It is a great concept to invest in your future, but you “invest” when you have the money to invest. “Invest”ing money you do not have is gambling, on margin. The US here needs to stabilize its costs before it can “invest”. And there is not a fast solution in government that will reduce those costs that adds the types of expensive programs Obama endorses. It was plain in this debate, McCain was not going to roll over, and just let Obama go unanswered and unquestioned.

“That one”

This time “That One” had to stand up and answer some hard questions, and he was nowhere near as effective or believable in the process.

Obama and McCain were very close in the first debate. Obama clearly won the second. McCain clearly won the finale. It is our opinion, however, from what we have seen discussing the issues with people, the debates do not shape the election much. The candidates can confirm your opinion, but sway few. If Obama had won this debate, it may have swung more neutral voters his way, but he did not. So, we don’t believe he gains anything.

We believe McCain will gain 2 points or so in the polls, but it won’t be enough to swing the final vote Republican. This debate did, however, finally show the kink in the Obama armor. When hit point blank with the questions about how he will pay for his programs without hurting small business, he crumbled. That proves he is not the guardian of the middle class he claims to be. He is the defender of the public programs like welfare that have proven so very costly for America in the past.

We will be back to cover the issues in more detail after we get a chance to fully review the transcript of the debate.

They Say McCain’s Life Expectency Is Short, But What About Obama’s? Joe Biden For President?

In discussing the election with people we know lately, including liberals, the discussion has occasionally turned ugly. A troubling topic has come up many times, so we realized that this was more than just a passing thought.  Many people honestly believe Obama will be assassinated if he wins the Presidency. Our first reaction was, “Yeah, right”. This is the 21st century not the 1960s. The color of your skin doesn’t matter anymore.

But as we dwell on the thought a bit, we got frightened by the implications. Then, we decided to see if there were any details about such opinions on the Web.

The first article we stumbled on was this blog on which a young black woman states that there is fear in the black community that Barrack could be murdered.  Her statements bring home that there is a fear in the black community for Obama’s life.

Now, we do not believe the color of Obama’s skin would be the sole reason for such an attack, but after our research, we do believe assassination attempts could be possible. Associations between Obama and terrorists are easy to make. His name sounds eerily familiar to Osama’s. And his middle name is Hussein. His overall name sounds more like the name of a man identified in the 9/11 attacks than a man running for President of the United States. We realize that this is just coincidence, but we would not put it past some to make the associations.

This article has moved to its new home, The Lie Politic. Please continue reading by clicking here and you will be redirected to the new site. Thank you!