Friday, October 31, 2008

"I Won't Have to Pay My Mortgage if Obama Wins!":

The Messiah has them all worked up. Just listen to this true believer after hearing "The One's" speech at a recent rally:

"I never thought that day would ever happen when I wouldn't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage, you know; if I help him, he's going to help me."

Wow, the Messiah is going to finally deliver us from our responsibilities. He's going to take from others and give to me! Is this poor lady just:
1)"Misunderstanding" the Messiah?
2) Did the Messiah giver her this impression?

Ahh, I'm going with #2.

Meanwhile: Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’. Got that? You don't want to pay higher taxes? You are "selfish". Now its comes down to the Democrat candidate calling you names.


  1. If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:

    1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
    2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
    3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
    4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
    5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
    6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
    7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
    8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.

    Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.

    Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.

    So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.

    Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?

    Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.

    What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.

    So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable “real world” experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?

  2. Obama’s support is falling fast. The polls have him BEHIND McCain and Obama is DOWN from one to several points.

    All McCain ads are FULL STEAM AHEAD: Check-out the new ads from LET FREEDOM RING at


  3. The only person to blame for a McCain loss is McCain, support of illegal aliens, McCain-Feingold assault on the First Amendment, Glowbull warming adherant ... have all led to the most lackluster candidate the Republicans could possibly endorse short of Ron Paul.
    All other consideration are because he failed to energize the Conservative base to donate time and monies to his canpaign or to the Repub national committee because of the fore mentioned.
    What should have been a rout of a Socialist has been instead a shame filled denouncement of the sitting President, apologist for attacks on the Socialist, calling the Socialist "honorable" .....

  4. Good crowd you've got here ;-)

    Two things:

    1) What did the woman mean by '[Thanks to Obama] I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage'? Neither of the above. You are using a combination of semantics and an overdetermination of Obama's messiah complex. What she means is 'he will fix things so that I am able to afford to pay my mortgage'. Whether this proves to be so or not, it is a far cry from your reading.

    2)the tax cuts that Bush provided were entirely unsustainable and mainly advantaging the rich (like pretty much everything else on his platform)so it has become the irksome duty of the next president to reverse this irresponsible act and look at reining in spending and reducing the deficit. Anyone opposing this - especially the very rich - could quite justifiably be accused of being 'selfish'. You don't have a magic economy. I thought you'd well and truly realise that by now!

  5. "I never thought that day would ever happen when I wouldn't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage, you know; if I help him, he's going to help me."

    That's a direct quote. I appreciate 'berko wills' doing some hocus pocus voodoo mindreading to help us with “what she really means”. I personally will just go with her words as they were said.

  6. Mind reading doesn't come into it. I was arguing with your logic.

    Applying the principle of charity, President Bush's statement "She's a good old girl from Texas and so am I" is read as a stumble over syntax rather than some suggestion that he sees himself as a 'good old girl from Texas'.

    Now if it's possible to see a statement like this - where there is only one literal interpretation (the wrong one) - how much more do you have to concede to the speaker here. I agree with your portrayal of them as the 'starry eyed voter' and don't object to your characterisation of a certain gullibility.

    I am arguing for the logic of her set of statements (just watch me now):

    'Never thought I'd see the day when I wouldn't have to worry about [x] and [y]' + 'There will be a time when I won't have to worry about [x] and [y]' + [implied]'that time will be when Obama becomes President' + 'If I help him, he's going to help me'

    Now, notice that last condition statement - a classic 'if' 'then' scenario - is not linked (by logic at least) to the first three. The first proposition requires a great leap of faith (which is your point) to imagine that something no President or Administration in her lifetime has apparently been able to address, will be capable of being solved by the Democrat candidate in this election.

    Still, that falls in the normal province of Party followers on either side. They know the magic bullet sits in their chamber alone.

    It's the next two propositions that knock your argument into the dust and take its lunch money.

    'I won't have to worry about [x]' and 'I won't have to worry about [y]' Because those who are struggling base their allegiance on who is going to help them most with their concerns.

    For a typical right wing blog, this could be 'I won't have to worry about socialism' or 'I won't have to worry about new age thinking' but for most of the folk out in the heartland it is such mundane items as 'putting gas in my car' and 'paying my mortgage'. It's not (necessarily) that they want someone to hand them a gerry can of petrol for every twenty-five kilometres, just get us out of a situation where we can't afford to travel to the next county because the price of gas has gone up again. It's not free housing that the blue collar worker wants, it's a chance to be able to own the house she lives in and eat out occasionally.

    Until and unless you ground your analysis in reality, it is conservatives who are seeing 'messiahs' where they don't exist.

    Oh, the conditional statement. Standard fodder really 'If I wave the pennant for my guy, he'll help me when I get him elected'. Business-like to the point of being boring.

    It's too late now but that's the crowd: the Great Unwashed, if you will, that needed to be brought onside.

  7. I'm gonna get me religion,
    I'm gonna join the Obama Church.
    Yes I'm gonna get me religion,
    I'm gonna join the Obama Church.
    You know I wanna be an Obama preacher,
    just so I won't have to work.

    (with my apologies to Son House)

  8. I just tried to send a buddy the "I Won't Have to Pay My Mortgage" video from YouTube and it has been removed due to a "terms of use violation." Is this video located elsewhere on the web and why do you think it was removed?




Please keep it clean. Comments do not reflect the opinion of this blog and are the sole opinion of the commenter. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Of course, opposing views are welcomed.

Auto-flagged and monitored IP addresses:
Teksavvy - IP 76.10.141, Onterio, Canada.
Charter Communications - IP 68.188.68. Ballwin, Missouri