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.

Part II: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position

A Strong Military in a Dangerous World

In a dangerous world, protecting America’s national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

While we agree Senator, how many more billions do you think we have to spend on the military and Iraq? Have you thought about asking the Iraqi’s for financial assistance, cuz we are broke guy.

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth – and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

We hope you have a bigger wallet than we do Senator. Darn it, wished I married a beer magnate’s daughter. Great tasting and less filling. Whoops, wrong beer, sorry.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is clearly talking the talk, and you do have a background in the military, so certainly we can respect your opinion on the matter much more than that of Obama. But these are all things we know and we are going broke defending ourselves.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values – and to keep the peace – America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.

We agree to a degree Senator, but the primary reason we need the strongest military in the world is because our national interests are way too dispersed because we don’t use our own resources. We can’t go to war with the entire world every single time our national interest is threatened. We have to make it our national interest to not have to.

John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation’s obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

This sounds like spending John. Big spending. If you are worried about the spending by Obama, we wouldn’t be talking about a military expansion.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America’s weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

We are figuring this worked Senator along with other policies because we have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since. We think you should bring that up clearly in the debate, although we are thinking you may not want to because it might be seen as taunting the terrorists.

We admire your experience in this area and endorse a continuation of a plan that appears to be working.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

But how do you address Guantanamo and what do you want to do with captured terrorists? Our legal system isn’t going to address terrorism. It will just make lawyers defending them rich.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong – an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

The battleground of ideas is getting pretty sparse right about now. We would like to see a few.

Effective Missile Defense

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

We don’t think Russia and China will be nuking us any time soon. Korea maybe, but we think we have enough deterrents against them, considering several of our missiles could blow away their entire population.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the “balance of terror” to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

With all due respect Senator. We have enough missiles.

Continue on next page…

Part I: Obama Versus McCain on National Security, Obama’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Since 9/11, there has been much political talk about national security. There is much talk by the Democrats about the failings of the Bush administration and much talk from the Republicans accusing the Democrats of being soft on security issues.

Before we begin discussing the issue, we would like to make one salient point, we have had no significant terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. We consider that, regardless of what either side claims or says, a very important statistic.

The positions on both sides are lengthy. Unlike some issues, where the two sides seem to avoid the issue entirely or only gloss over it, this issue appears to draw major attention.

Obama’s Position is the most lengthy, here it is dispersed with our comments.

“After 9/11, our calling was to devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad,” Barack said. “Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won.”

How does the President misrepresent our enemies? Would it be to affiliate with terrorist organizations like the Weather Underground?

“Obama declared that the war in Iraq and Bush’s failed foreign policy had made us less safe than we were before 9/11, and outlined a new, comprehensive strategy to fight global terrorism:

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences…

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

If Bush is giving terrorists what they want, why have there been no major terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

“The Senator’s plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.”

Mind giving us one that isn’t a Democrat supporting your candidacy or one of your advisors?

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

Did you expect a top Democrat to support McCain, or were you hoping we wouldn’t look it up?

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.

Isn’t Gration one of your political advisors? Would you expect him to speak negatively of your plan acting in that position?

Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military’s pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

A clearly liberal author? Wow, we would not expect her to support a liberal agenda.

Do you have anyone of any consequence at all that is not completely biased towards your campaign backing your strategy?

Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home.

Aren’t you just following the dozens of calls for her release since her initial detention?

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland. Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

And you were just ending your tenure with a radical group working alongside terrorists.


Continue on next page…

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!

Obama, “Say It To My Face”. If You Do, You are Covered Under Obama’s Plan

By S Daniel Miller, Guest Writer

Obama attacked John McCain in a recent TV interview, saying “Say It To My Face”. What is amusing about Obama’s response is that it is, in and of itself, an attack. Obama has been running a negative attack on McCain from day one. For him to criticize the McCain camp for any negative comment is laughable.

Obama has attacked every facet of the current administration and made every attempt to link McCain and the Bush Administration, no matter how different those policies are and no matter how different they are from the past. Obama started this dirty campaign during the primaries, and now he whines and cries wolf when McCain strikes back.

One of Obama’s best quotes ever.

“I am surprised that, you know, we’ve been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn’t willing to say it to my face. But I guess we’ve got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.”

Maybe McCain should, but then again why give Obama any chance to defend his radical positions. Should we give his nonsensical attacks equal time to the real issues. The Republicans should take a new tack. The Obama campaign is brilliant at promising America nirvana by spending money they do not have.  With the economy getting flushed down the toilet, neither man has the ability to deliver on any of the promises, so McCain may as well follow Obama’s lying lead and promise planetariums in every house, free real estate for every citizen, new appliances for every home owner.

As an example of the foolishness of the Democratic camp, one should consider heavily the promise of the Obama Health Plan. It is insane. He promises to cover pre-existing conditions, for anyone. In Massachusetts, they instituted the exact same plan last year. IDENTICAL. And after JUST ONE YEAR, premiums on most plans are up 40% in the state as healthy people are forced to pay for the sick. It is just another TAX people!! Welfare for the ill. They are just finding another way to tax you without your knowledge!!

In Massachusetts, and nationally, if Obama gets his way, your best bet is to just pay the tax penalties; they are vastly cheaper than the exorbitant price of insurance that has now exploded to about $20000 to $24000 a year for a decent plan. Then, just pay the doctor out of pocket. It is way cheaper for a person of normal health. And then, if you get sick, sign up!! You can be on the plan by the 1st of the ensuing month. GREAT PLAN!!

Massachusetts is obtuse in pursuing this kind of plan, and Obama is using it as a model. The result will be everyone will be forced to pay ridiculous medical premiums to support people that jump on the train just as they get seriously ill.

I am pregnant, honey, sign up for insurance.

I was just diagnosed with cancer, sign up for insurance.

I just had blood in my stool, sign up for insurance.

Our tax dollars at work.  Democrats need more of them.  Lots more.

Who Won The Presidential Debate 2? Obama versus McCain. There is a Rainbow! Obama Wins

Rainbows have been a sign of hope in fable from the Bible to legends of magic and leprechauns. There is always a hope that the person we elect will make a difference, and that the achievements of these great men will touch and benefit us all as a nation.

What was clearly evident in this debate was that McCain is not good at projecting that rainbow. Obama painted one with dozens of colors, and McCain painted reality in a somber brown. McCain has the inherent trait that he does not want to promise what he cannot deliver. Obama has the inherent trait that he will promise anything whether he can deliver it or not. There are many more colors in Obama’s palette, but that is because he makes you imagine the paint instead of actually having to apply any of it.

The latter technique wins debates, because it paints that colored arch of promise. It leads Americans, especially those less educated, to believe that there is a pot of gold to be found at the end of the election.

Here is the reality. At the end of Obama’s rainbow, there is no pot of gold. All there is at the end of Obama’s rainbow is an inexperienced man that would be President.

When Obama speaks of health care, he speaks of covering people with pre-existing conditions, but he does not say how he will pay for it. He challenges McCain on his tax cuts. But anyone with third grade math skills can easily understand that 300 billion in tax cuts is only 1/3 of the government spending that Obama incorporates into his plan. The questions that had to be asked by McCain weren’t. McCain just plain was not aggressive enough. It may have to do with the platform, which did not allow enough challenge of the other’s positions, but these are the questions that McCain missed.

1. If Obama is going to cover pre-existing conditions for health care, where does that money come from? Does it come from those that are healthy in America? You bet. Will people with health problems just be able to jump on the train now at everyone else’s expense? How could that possibly be paid for? Get some numbers and pin the man down.
2. Senator Obama, you say Republican tax cuts will total 300 billion dollars, but you are also offering tax cuts. How much will those cost and how could you possibly believe that will be made up by only taxing people that earn over $250,000 without destroying small enterprises. Someone has to pin this man down on the costs of his programs. Where does the money come from?
3. On every topic Obama speaks to, he talks of spending. We will need money for education, health care, Social Security, Medicare, foreign aid, energy independence, blah blah blah. But he has no way to pay for any of it other than some absurd idea that taxing people making more than $250,000 will make any difference at all. He sounds like he has his wallet open to help America, but what he has open is America’s wallet, and it is empty.

On the McCain Front:

McCain is easy to debate. He is just too much of a straight shooter. He doesn’t want to tell you there is a rainbow if there isn’t one. He doesn’t speak of spending for everything in creation while promising a pot of gold.

Problem is, if you don’t promise the pot of gold, and your opponent is, you have to challenge the other man’s pot by calling his bluff. McCain was challenged on how he would fund his tax cut, but didn’t take the opportunity to drill Obama on his tax cut or his spending programs. A simple response, “You promise a tax cut plus all 900 billion dollars in new spending. Specifically how much will your tax cut cost, then add on your 900 billion dollars in spending and tell America how you will pay for that? Here is a piece of graph paper and a pencil, show us.”

It is sad to see McCain being weak in the debates because we have no faith in Obama. We believe he is the same hollow promise campaigner we have seen many, many times in our past. And we also believe that if he wins this election, all we will hear for years as his policies fail, is that the Republicans made it worse than he thought. He has built up the perfect excuse and continues to make promises he knows he can never hope to meet.

We believe that America wants that pot of gold. They will follow the candidate that calmly promises it to them. And for that reason, we believe Obama won this debate. He won it with false promises and false hopes that Americans want to hear. And McCain failed to challenge him appropriately to bust the concept of the Obama Fantasy Island.

While McCain is a poor debater, we also believe the formats being chosen for these debates, especially this debate, clearly favor Obama. He overstays his welcome, overruns his time frequently, and leaves little time for the other side. He also gets to answer questions from people that have no chance to challenge him on his response. They ask a question, he answers and it is done.

We would prefer a face to face debate. One in which each man confronts the other, one in which the promises of one can be clearly challenged by the other. This debate clearly did not cater to that and we do not think that an accident.

Obama comes across as confident and cool. McCain comes across as uncomfortable and stressed. As long as that is true, it is like listening to a story at bedtime. As you doze off to sleep, there is just the story. It takes you over as you gradually doze off to your slumber. It wishes you happy dreams as you hear of the characters of the story (in this case us) living happily ever after. Obama tells that story well, but we believe that under Obama’s leadership, our cradle will rock, the bow will break, and down will come America, cradle and all.

Obama Coverup, Affiliation With Known Terrorists Questions Candidate’s Ideology

During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton became aware of an association between a known terrorist, Bill Ayers, and Senator Barrack Obama.  She stated that this association could be used by the Republican party to discredit Obama if he became the Democratic nominee for President. As more news on this relationship comes to light, it appears she may well have been correct.

Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were known terrorists for a group called the Weather Underground. Ayers claims to have set bombs at the US Capitol and the group was involved in the bombing of government buildings in the 60s and 70s.   Among those bombings was an attack on the Pentagon in 1972. Ayers has been repeatedly unrepentant about the attacks.  In 2001, this article appeared with Ayers standing on the American Flag as it lies in the dirt.

There are reasons to be concerned, primarily because Obama has made sincere efforts to conceal or downgrade his relationship with Ayers.  Obama, when asked about his relationship with Ayers in one of the debates during the Democratic Primary responded,

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.”

Obama left it at that, but as it turns out, that was hardly the entire story.  We find it amazing that Obama could brush off bombing of the US Capitol and the Pentagon so lightly!!! And this was much more than a casual acquaintance between the two, according to this article in the Wall Street Journal,

“From 1995 to 1999, he (Obama) led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.”

This demonstrates a  5 year relationship between Obama and Ayers, who was one of the original grantees of the CAC and was co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of the two operational arms of the CAC.”

Obama obviously had not been forthcoming in the debate and has not answered to his affiliations to Ayers, and, according to this article, looks to be attempting to cover up that relationship.

Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor that led the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing when asked about Ayers had this to say, “Of all the people that have ever bombed the Pentagon, the State Department and a New York City Police Department headquarters, I am certain he is one of the best”.

We are disturbed with these allegations and would like a clear explanation from Senator Obama regarding his affiliation with CAC.  We do not wish to have the President of our nation, especially after 9/11, affiliated in any way with terrorists.  Such a tie would be a disgrace to America and endorse terrorist activities world-wide.

Beyond the implied associations with terrorism, it also brings into question Obama’s ideology.  Certainly such an affiliation implies Obama’s leanings are much more radical than they would otherwise appear.