All is not what it appears to be

Obama isn’t what he has claimed to be to his spell-bound audiences. His denouncement of Rev Wright has been cautious, careful and now showing anger comes too late. Obama claimed only a month ago that he never heard the kind of rhetoric that Wright was shown saying in the many video clips of his Sunday Sermons. That Obama must not have been in church that Sunday, he says, and his public bought that excuse. Then Obama mildly denounced Wright.
Well B.S.
As late as this Monday, in front of the National Press Club the Reverend re-affirmed his racist beliefs and now finally Obama get mad. Why, because he can’t make light of his poor choice of pastor, mentor, and friend any more. Now Obama has to put on a show of anger with this man like many sensible American’s have.
Only now when his run for the highest office in the land is jeopardized by Wright does he renounce his friend with anger, a friend that is a blatant racist.
Again, if Obama didn’t know that his friend was a racist for the past 30 years and that his friends, Farrakhan and associates weren’t also racist, than how can we trust Obama’s selection process and judgment of people that will stand by is side during his term in office.

I believe that his wife Michele, reflected Wright’s negative racial influence when she announced that because her husband received huge support to run for President that she was finally proud to be an American. What happens if and when he loses, will she go back to not being proud to be an American like Reverend Wright? What about Wright’s followers, will they be unable to find a reason to be proud Americans too?

I think this whole dirty race issue is shameful in America society in 2008. Eeveryone thought, including me, that Obama had emerged as a new breed of black Presidential candidate, abeit a left leaning one. One who had shed the old sixties black vs. white, and white vs. black issues and moved on. But no, despite all Obama’s denouncements of Reverend Wright, I just don’t believe him anymore. I think Obama was and still is more influenced by Reverend Jeremiah Wright and friends than we care to know.

Obama-Immigration-Hillary

Obama

Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Reverend Wright of Chicago have for years sucked the lifeblood from the blacks. They pretend to champion a cause that is no longer valid. They spew bitterness, hatred and anger to anyone who will listen.
Everyone has had it tough at sometime or other adapting to America starting with the Indians, the Chinese, Jews, Vietnamese, and Japanese, Germans and many others. All originally huddled together for security, language and custom reasons, some for generations while adapting to this country. They all faced discrimination. Eventually, like the Borg, they assimilated into the everyday fabric of American life. African American have no exclusivity on discrimination in fact the promotion of Black separatism needs to end for their own welfare like ending Black Entertainment Television and all black colleges, Black Caucasus in Washington and. It’s time for the parasite black leaders of the sixties to go by way of the dinosaurs and let their people go have a life.
It is an issue in today’s political arena because we have a Black Presidential candidate whose spiritual advisor is a hate monger from the Sixties. Obama’s friend of twenty years says things like, “God Damn America.” Does that sound like a minister trying to spread Gods word in a church, or a radical trying to cause trouble?
I would also like to see Obama address another issue during his campaign. How can one man garner nine out of ten black voters to his election. Question, are nine out of ten black voters against the war, and do ninety percent want to raise taxes, is that vast majority against McCain and Hillary because they are so on the other side of the issues than Obama is? Or are they a herd to follow blindly after their new black leader?

Immigration

Building a wall along our southern border seems to be the only way to stop illegal immigration. Some say walls don’t work and that building them goes against the spirit of the Statue of Liberty and what this country stands for.
We have caught a very high percentage of undesirable illegal immigrants bringing in drugs, weapons and people that want to do harm to this country.
American has never refused legal immigration. We have laws that all citizens must obey so the law must apply to everyone.
Try entering any civilized country in the world and you will be arrested and deported.
Never before were controls and fences necessary, now they are.

Hillary

Hillary won 55% of the Pennsylvania primary vote to 45% for Obama. She campaigned by telling her voters that she will end the war, bring home the troops and end the Bush tax cuts. She pushed again for Universal Government run Health Care. Obama essentially did the same but he was carrying some baggage like the Rev. Wright issue, and his blunder on rural Pennsylvanians clinging to there guns and religion because they are bitter over the condition of their lives. Oh, they both bashed Bush along the way, naturally.

The major overriding argument from the beginning of both campaigns has been change. They both offer change. What change? Congress is Democratically controlled now and it wants to end the Bush tax cuts, end the war, have national health care, doens't it? Bush hasn't vetoed any proposals of Congress. So what change can Hillary or Obama bring to a Congress that will not cut off funding for the war, hasn't stopped the Bush tax cuts, and has not put forward a univerasal health care plan. Hillary and Obama are both Senators, they could put forward bills that do the things they say they want right now or could have put those bills forward any time in the past seven years for Hillary or three years for Obama.

Bush’s approval numbers are the lowest all time, although Carter’s numbers compete well.
Congress’s approval numbers are the lowest all time too. Why?
I offer this reason for why this campaign slogan of change is ridiculous and insulting.
We all know our government has become dysfunctional and that Americans are and impatient people. We want instant gratification in every thing we do in life. We have not known real hardship in in over sixty years. American of today wants instant promotions, instant stock appreciation, goodies like, Plasma TV’s, iPods, and Play Stations, low interest rates, double digit home appreciation and Hummers. We want a war against terrorism and if we don’t instantly win we say, screw it, blame Bush and we change direction. We want the border closed overnight and when it is not we blame someone, Bush most likely. We did have a solid economy but when we suddenly did not we wanted and instant bail out from our financial problems so it would not hurt so bad. And we blamed Bush. We are lazy in that we are so into ourselves we have no time for boring goings on in the Capital. We have politicians in Washington that are more interested in retaining power and office while placating the lazy apathetic public than cooperating with each other as and efficient functional body.

We can’t change Washington any more, forget it. We have ourselves to blame for we are a polarized nation of two very entrenched and opposite mine sets.
One of old fashioned ideals, Republicans, the other of unrealistic idealism, Democrats.

Real change in politics (Washington) is a slogan, not a reality.

Democrats believe corporations don’t pay enough taxes and are selling that idea right now on the campaign trail!

The U.S. corporation is the second highest taxed in the world. No wonder they are setting up home offices, registering their corporations, and setting up factories off shore.

Every large foreign competitor that U.S. corporations compete with pays only a consumption tax, a tax on the materials they use, in other words their profits are not taxed only the raw materials they buy. Their incentive isn’t taxed only the stuff they use. Local consumers pay a value added tax at the time of purchase for the stuff made in their country, but foreign consumers are exempted. While our corporations are mired in an outdated tax code that penalizes success, profits, and innovation our competitors have a huge advantage over us.

Bush and the Republican controlled Congress in Bush’s first term were not innovative enough to change the corporate tax code. There have been many advocates for tax code changes including Gov Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and other Republicans, but none have been successful in bringing about change in the tax code.

There is a great debate world wide on a way to tax corporations to level the playing field. All have agreed that taxing profits hurts the corporations, but this seems too complicated for our Washington politicians. They don’t even offer the debate to its citizens. The media seems reluctant to tackle the subject because it is either too boring or they would rather report that there are hundreds of major US corporations headquartered in a four story building in the Cayman Islands trying to beat the system.

Our clever Congress has not devised a way to tax profits made by U.S. Corporations in foreign countries unless the U.S. corporations bring the actual profits into the U.S. If corporations leave their profits off shore it’s not taxed. In fact, it’s illegal to tax such profits. It’s dead money. Do you know how many billions and billions American corporations are holding in profits off shore?

If Congress can somehow change the Corporate Tax Code American corporations would let the money enter the U.S. and spend it. This was quietly debated in Congress for a time and just as quietly shelved.

Can you imagine what that influx of American dollars would do for our economy? It would make Katrina bail out dollars look like pocket change.

Do you know how much better off America and American corporations would be if they could use those profits to build more of what they build and build it right here in the good old USA?

"No legal line to United States citizenship"for aliens as touted by GWB and Sean Hannity

"Non-preference" (open) immigration to the United States was ended in 1965 with immigration law proposed by JFK before his assassination and implemented by LBJ. Since 1965 an alien can only immigrate to the US if the alien has an "immediate relative" in the US or a "skill we need." (An additional small number of aliens are admitted to the US each year as refugees or diversity lottery winners.)

An immediate relative is the mother, father, sister, brother, or spouse of a United States citizen or the spouse or child of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) alien. A "skill we need" is skill certified by the Department of Labor as not being readily available in defined places by defined employers in the US. An example would be a nurse in Burlington, Vermont. Unskilled labor such as farm field workers is not considered a "skill we need."

This means that there is "no legal line to US citizenship" that an alien inside or outside the US can get on to become a US citizen, or even an LPR.

Of the 6.2 billion people in the world outside the US it is safe to say that "non-preference" (open) immigration would result in at least a billion immigrants to the US. This would be more than 3 times the present US population of about 300 million.

Right now the only "preference" for immigration to the US is walking (or running) across the US/Mexico border. Aliens from Africa, The Middle East, South America, India, China, Europe, Russia, and elsewhere cannot just get on a plane and upon arrival at a US airport simply walk (or run) past Immigration Inspectors into the US. This is true even if these illegal immigrants are "good people, who would pay their taxes, and would do work that Americans don't want to do."

The difficult to accept answer to illegal immigration is that there must be a penalty for violation of immigration law just as there is a penalty for robbing a bank of $5,000. The penalty must be arrest, detention, and removal from the US of the illegal alien who has "stolen" something more valuable than $5,000, namely, the precious opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the United States of America.

Norman Henry, guest contributor

Bits and Pieces,

Michele Obama yells, “More white people, we need more white people.”
This quote was caught just before her speech, and while she was in the midst of staging the background audience that would be seen on camera during her talk.

Hillary wants a timetable to get out of Iraq and said that troops will begin coming home immediately after she’s in office.
Question; Will she consult the Pentagon first?

McCain says that we need to keep a presence in Iraq for as long as necessary.

Obama vacillates on what he would do about Iraq troop levels.

General Petreaus and Ambassador Crockett were grilled for the second day and instead of insightful questions there was camera posturing and speeches by the politicians of both parties. The public did learn that progress is being made, they should have learned a lot more.

Iran is the owner of 3000 new centrifuges. Why? Duh--they want a nuclear bomb. Does anybody know what they plan to do with it, or why they want it? Is Bush the only one that believes Iran is a terrorist state exporting and campaigning for upheaval and domination in Iraq? Was Ambassador Crockett asked that? He should have been. What is Hillary or Obama going to do about it?

Hillary says we just leave Iraq to fend for themselves like we did in Viet Nam. Results; Thousands died in reprisal after we left Viet Nam and Iran takes Iraq over with the bomb in hand. Lesson learned? I don't think so.

Oil at $112 a barrel, gas is over $3.35 a gallon on average, houses falling in value,
mortgages becoming scarce, foreclosures left and right, the dollar buys forty percent less than a few years ago and food prices rising incredibly fast. Obama and Hillary solution is to tax the oil companies and terminate the Bush tax cuts. Naturally.

Obama’s twenty year association with pastor Wright brings his judgment into question, again.

Condi Rice as Vice President? Not gonna happen. She's had enough of Washington.

China’s Olympic Torch should be burning for Tibetan freedom, instead it burns as a symbol of repression.

Security or Challenge

Security or Challenge

The appeal of the Democratic Party to 80 per cent of journalists and academia has always intrigued me. Democrats foster and vigorously promote the idea that all Republicans are rich, selfish and don’t care about those that are less fortunate. That propaganda has been selling well for the Democrats ever since FDR’s promise of a ‘chicken in every pot’ speech in the 1930’s. Problem, who pays for the chicken and who decides who pays for the chicken?

In the coming months Americans will be asked by presidential and congressional candidates in a round about way, whether they prefer the government to expand to better direct their future, or you be left with the challenge to fend for yourselves. Choose Democrats and you will not have to fend for yourselves.

For hundreds of years people across the world have hoped and prayed for the all powerful benevolent king, or dictator, or president to provide financial security with freedom from want and worry. As desirable as that wish is, it’s a wonder all the past failures of kingly benevolence aren’t a required course in eight grade classrooms.

The Soviet Union tried to make a benevolent socialist dream work for eighty years. It failed miserably. Putin is now allowing the challenge of capitalism to flourish. China is following the same course. Result, vibrant economies.

On the other hand, and purely for the sake of power, liberal democracies are currently targeting capitalism, creativity, and ambition for unintended destruction. When governments choose professed benevolence at the expense of a vibrant economy by over taxing, over regulating, and otherwise dictating personal and business policy they undermine the chance of ever achieving their goals.

Security is capitalism’s end product.
Kill capitalism and you kill security.
China and Russia have learned this, why can’t America’s liberal left?

As for compassion and benevolence? Take that job away from the ineffective, inefficient central government. Let the private professionals, like insurance companies, clergy, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and cities and towns etc., do the job that they do so well, supported by the federal government.

Another lesson learned by the Russians.