[Rhodes22-list] Brad raises questions... [political sources of course]

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

Here's the article on O Force One-

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/03/politics/fromtheroad/entry4317827.shtml

The reference to 700 aides in Europe is from the attached article.  I'm off
to work and will find you a news source when I return.

Brad

-----------------------

Yes, We Can. But Do We Want To?

August 7, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver

*Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with
the approval of their own conscience.*

— C.S. Lewis

*Can we* adopt a more socialist approach to government and transform America
into a state not of equal opportunity for individuals to create their own
happiness, but a state where a nanny bureaucracy operates for the supposed
"good" of its citizens?

*Can we* accept tyranny by a rainbow proletariat of minorities and special
interest groups who wish to mandate permanent entitlements for themselves?

*Can we*, as Americans, vote to hand over a huge chunk of our national
sovereignty to international consensus and global taxation?

*Can we* adopt the Marxist cause of the class struggle, the utopian fix for
all that ills us, and become part of a unified coalition of socialist
countries around the world, in the *hope* that mankind can find Obama's
"collective redemption"?

*Can we? *

That's not the question.

We're Americans. We are our own government, and we, the electorate, decide
what course we will take. No *change* whatsoever is necessary to effect our
own national will. Our Constitution guarantees us this right through the
ballot.

We are a government *of the people, by the people, and for the
people.*Always have been. Since the beginning.

Obama answers the wrong question with his now banal statement: *Yes, we can.
*

Because the question before Americans has never been, *Can we become
socialists?*

The real question, therefore, is: *Do we want to?*

And America's answer, it would seem, is completely up for grabs at the
moment, without a single ounce of certainty.

*Media wants Barack-style change; voters are uncertain*

Despite the [1] bubble of
inevitability<http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_bubble_of_obama_supremacy.html>that
the Obama campaign and its in-the-tank media have blown around this
candidate, he is slipping now in the polls. He was holding onto a scant lead
prior to his grand foreign tour, but now even that is slipping away.

The *inevitable *candidate is anything but.

*USA Today* published a [2]
poll<http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/gains-for-mccai.html>last
week that showed Barack Obama actually trailing John McCain by four
points, among [3] *likely
voters*<http://www.gallup.com/poll/109135/Who-Likely-Voters-When-They-Matter.aspx>.
Obama still has a slight lead among all registered voters, but on most polls
it's within statistical-tie territory. In early June Obama had a nine-point
lead. Now he's ever so slightly up, statistically tied, or down, depending
upon one's choice of poll and how much additional error margin one allows
for what pollsters are calling the [4] Bradley
Effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect>
.

Not only is Obama slipping in the national polls, but he received no
discernible [5]
bounce<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/wheres-the-bounce/>from
his highfalutin,
*very* expensive trip abroad. Candidate Obama used campaign funds to take
himself, the press, and a retinue of 700 — count them, *700* — campaign
aides, first class all the way, on a trip that was luxurious by any
standard, and at a time when many Americans could not even afford a small
summer vacation due to very high gas prices. Even the most cursory observer
might wonder whether reliable American campaign contributors aren't just a
bit resentful over their hard-earned dollars being spent to rally Europeans,
when Europeans cannot even vote here.

[6] Rasmussen polling
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11912.html>now indicates
that half the American electorate sees press bias in favor of
Obama, and a quarter of us have stopped trusting the media to paint a clear
picture of the candidates. The press may indeed want Obama elected, but
their overly favorable coverage, which may have aided Obama's claim to the
Democratic Party nomination, has now become a negative in the home-stretch
general election. Viewers will now discount nearly every positive they hear
regarding Obama, while giving extra weight to every good thing reported
about McCain. That's what bias does; it negatively influences weight given
to its arguments.

*Do we want a foreign policy rookie in wartime?*

Despite the underreported fact that we have now all but won the Iraq War —
the war Democrats prematurely declared *lost* — we are still at war. And,
unfortunately, the stakes in our war against Islamo-fascism rise daily as
Iran continues unabatedly defiant in its pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

We Americans can and do bicker interminably over domestic issues and
sometimes get equally riled over foreign events, but on one thing we have a
history of coming together in a unified spirit. That "thing," of course, is
a war against an aggressive enemy. When it comes to our national security,
we are historically wont to give our wartime votes to experience, rather
than face possible annihilation because of a leader who has not *proven* his
ability to keep our children safe.

So, even though we certainly *can* choose Obama, the novice, to lead us
through the perilous days ahead in this war, we may resoundingly choose not
to do so.

*Do we want to pay the UN-imposed global poverty tax?*

Barack Obama's *single* piece of signature legislation in his
less-than-200-day tenure as a United States senator is quite revealing.
Obama's Global Poverty Act, which shows every sign of passing now, amply
demonstrates this candidate's ultimate priority issue.

At a time when real Americans are experiencing inflated gas prices, upsurges
in food prices, record numbers of mortgage foreclosures, and an
already-out-of-control national debt, which serves to drive the confidence
in our currency down worldwide, the Democrat Congress quickly advances the
Global Poverty Act and practically shoves it defiantly in taxpayers' faces,
so that their presidential candidate can claim he did *something* as a
senator.

Basically, this law if enacted will force all future presidents to oversee
and commit a full 0.7 percent of our national GDP to fighting global
poverty, in keeping with United Nations expectations of prosperous countries
— Western Europe and the United States.

Who is against helping the poor?

Certainly not Americans. The problem with the Global Poverty Act is that it
utterly fails to take into account the actual amounts already contributed by
Americans to fight poverty, not only abroad, but in our own country, where
sadly some poverty does still exist.

In his groundbreaking and myth-defying book, [7] *Who Really
Cares*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FWho-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism%2Fdp%2F0465008216&tag=pajamasmedia-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325>,
Arthur C. Brooks explains why press attacks on American refusal to cave to
the UN on this tax are based on flat-out lies and, therefore, *wrong*:

It is true that U.S. official development assistance (ODA), at about $10
billion, is only about a tenth of 1 percent of [American] GDP. However, this
amount is accompanied annually by about $13 billion in other types of
government assistance, and about $50 billion in remittances from private
sources, including foundations, religious congregations, voluntary
organizations, universities, corporations, and individuals. All in all,
total American international aid comes to about 0.5 percent of GDP —
approximately $200 per year/per American.

European charitable giving is practically nonexistent, according to Brooks'
exhaustive research on the subject, which he presumes is the reason
Europeans fail to comprehend our national resistance to forced government
taxation in this regard. Not only that, but Brooks also takes note of the
fact that the $50 billion we *voluntarily* contribute to good deeds abroad
represents a mere *two percent* of our overall charitable giving. We give
the bulk of our charity to Americans.

So, can we fight global poverty? Of course, we can and already do. The
question, then, is whether we want to be *forcefully taxed* to do it, or
whether we wish to continue to do it our own way.

*Do we want Obama's the-government-always-does-it-better approach to federal
governing?*

As in many other Obama policy proposals, this man seems to believe that no
matter what the issue, *government does it better* than individuals.

Whether it's a politician telling a general how to fight a war, or telling a
mother and father how to educate their children, or telling doctors how to
treat illness, or telling businesses how to hire, Barack Obama favors the
old socialist do-gooder model of trusting government over individuals.

As for me and my vote, we will steer clear of a candidate who favors this
kind of "well-intentioned" tyranny. We already have too much of this for my
taste. And I, like C.S. Lewis, consider this the very worst kind of tyranny
there is, the kind that glorifies itself in self-congratulatory accolades
for blatant busybody interloping.

And when it comes to electing a wartime president, there are three — *and
only three* — genuine issues:

   1. Foreign policy strength,
   2. Foreign policy strength, and
   3. Foreign policy strength.

Can we elect Obama as our wartime president and nanny-state overseer?

Yes, we can, but I sure don't want to. Do you?



On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:

>
> Brad:
>
> You posted the URL of Brett's announcement, but not of the article about
> the
> chairs and his club 700.
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> attachment:
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p18870998/Chuck%2BShummer.jpg Chuck+Shummer.jpg
>
>
>
> Ed,
>
> There must not be anything going on in the world, here's todays headline on
> the MS Gulf Coast - Bret, Bret, Bret!
>
> http://www.sunherald.com/newsupdates/story/731674.html
>
> Speaking of fellow travelers, I probably told you of our visit with one of
> my wife's old college classmates at his government office (a minor one in
> my
> opinion but don't tell him that).  You can always spot the government
> buildings in one party states, they're the lavish ones.  We sat for hours
> in
> a rooftop atrium with a stream running through it and surrounded by lush
> plants.  Life is good if you're a kingpin (even a minor one).  The free
> beer
> was nice too.
>
> Have you read the stories or seen the photos inside of O-Force-One?  Seems
> young Barry couldn't wait for his coronation, er, I mean election to
> surround himself with the trappings of high office.  He's got four plush
> chairs just like AirForceOne with "President" embroidered on the back
> cushions.  The Obambi camp only took 700, thats SEVEN HUNDRED aides to
> Europe for their World Tour.  Wow, this kid is a faster learner than we've
> been giving him credit for.  Maybe I should call some of my commie
> acquaintances in China and let them know that Chinese communism is falling
> behind good 'ole American Obamunism.  Good thing "The Chosen One" spurned
> public financing and is out fundraising his opponent 3 to 1.  He'll need
> that and more to cover the cost of his carbon footprint.
>
> BTW, I sent $100 to the Senator Obama school in Kenya - looks like a good
> cause to me.
>
> Brad
>
> Brad
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > And the headlines are... Favre to the Jets!
> >
> > Have you posted pictures of your lauch yet?  Look at this post for a clue
> > how:
> >
> > http://www.rhodes22.org/pipermail/rhodes22-list/2008-August/052898.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Political reply to Ben C.'s reply to Brad a short time back follows:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now are you going to call the jets acquisition of a quarterback a blue
> > state
> > victory?  Understand why the national media selected blue for its
> > pictures.
> > It did not select 'red' because of its association with communism.  So
> the
> > new communist did not want to attract a truthful association and chose
> the
> > big lie of using a color that represented the opposite.  Understand that
> > the
> > color blue now represents 'new' or neo communist, aka, socialist,
> > progressives, etc. so use your imagination and when you see a hammer and
> > sickle in red, it is now blue.
> >
> > How was this achieved?  It is estimated that more than 80 of the U. S.
> > national media (and a higher percentage by some) is left leaning.  That
> > today's world means in current jargon communist, socialist, progressive
> > sympathizers.  So the got behind and pushed the obvious falsehood.  So
> now
> > we have the 'blues', which are still Marxist.
> >
> > Let us understand that notwithstanding all the media attention, Obama has
> > reiterated that he is a 'Progressive'.  Understand that until Obama won
> > his
> > first primary, the church that he was affiliated with for the last 20
> > years
> > promulgated the teaching of W.E.B. Dubois.  Those recommended teachings
> > were
> > only removed from the church web site after Obama's first primary
> victory.
> > Take time to read some of Dubois's writings and those who further
> > embellished his ideas.
> >
> > And the church has cleaned up the website to remove another whose
> concepts
> > until recently were promulgated, specifically James H. Cone.  To get an
> > idea
> > or quick summary of what Obama accepted as theology until the first
> > primary
> > listen to this commentary:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXjiV6UukiQ&feature=related
> >
> > You replied to Brad that Obama was a Christian community organizer.  Is
> > this
> > accepted New Jersey Christian theology?  You mentioned that Obama was
> > somehow affiliated with a Catholic community group. Here is a discussion
> > of
> > a Catholic Priest at Obama's church while he still was a member:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/05/panel_discusses_obama_and_rev.html
> >
> > Amen,
> > Ed K
> > Greenville, SC, USA
> >
> >
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p18870998/Chuck%2BShummer.jpg Chuck+Shummer.jpg
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Benjamin-Cittadino%3A-Jets%2C-posting-pictures---Politics-a-reply-tp18869098p18870998.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>