Obama wants to destroy agriculture too
Not content with destroying the coal industry, Obama is also targeting our agricultural sector, Red State notes:
Obama has it in for another industry: agriculture. Check out these statements from an interview he gave with Time’s Joe Klein:
As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That’s just one sector of the economy.
He is blaming our agriculture policy for global warming, obesity, stroke, heart disease, etc. If he is willing to “bankrupt” the coal industry over global warming, what’s he going to do to the agriculture sector which “actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector”?
It’s only failing businesses he likes apparently.
Posted at 09:00 AM | Email | Permalink |
Say Goodbye to America
By Noel Sheppard
No matter who wins Tuesday America is going to be a different country.
When the sun rises on November 5, regardless of who the president-elect is, a more un-United States than has existed since the Civil War will wake to dispute the results of the disgusting campaign that has mercifully come to an end.
Whoever the losers, they will believe they were cheated, and will point fingers at those they believe responsible. Almost half the nation will view the winner as illegitimate, and will do everything in their power to undermine his authority as long as he’s in the White House.
With this animosity will come a new level of hatred between those of differing political persuasions like nothing our country has experienced in the modern era.
Putting it bluntly, and without sounding too much like Rev. Jeremiah “G-d Damn America” Wright, there will be no such thing as Americans anymore.
Instead, there’ll be Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, and encounters between the members of these groups will for years nay decades be at best unfriendly, and at worst quite hostile if not downright violent.
Think this an overstatement? Consider first what Wednesday will look like if John McCain pulls off the upset.
To begin with, let’s be very clear about one thing: Democrats believe that if they lose an election it’s because their opponent cheated. It’s never their fault. It’s never because they ran a poor campaign. It’s never because their opponent ran a better one.
It’s always about voter fraud, disenfranchisement, not enough ballots, faulty machinery, hanging chads, negative advertising, intimidation tactics, campaign finance abuses, you name it.
Such is the legacy of Al Sore Loser Gore: regardless of how many news outlets went to Florida in January 2001 and found that if the counting had continued Bush still would have won, the overwhelming majority of Democrats think that election was stolen.
To make clear the level of victimhood and paranoia, here’s what author Erica Jong wrote Friday:
I puzzled for a long time about why the Democrats were not publicizing defective voting machines nor discussing the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004…I fear we are going to have a Tuesday bloody Tuesday. Be prepared — that’s the boy scouts’ marching song — as Tom Lehrer wrote.
Honestly, this woman should write a new book called “Fear of Thinking.” But I digress, for you probably can’t imagine what’s going to happen on Wednesday as Democrats in highly-populated, poor districts around the country complain about voting irregularities and disenfranchisement. But Jong can:
If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.
Don’t dismiss this offhand as the ravings of a lunatic, for lunatics are often right about matters related to lunacy.
To make my point, I offer the now overly-discussed Bradley effect and how it relates to exit polls: How many people as they leave the voting booth Tuesday will lie to pollsters about who they voted for?
Before you answer, try to imagine the pressures many people are going to feel in certain districts around the country to answer “Obama” rather than “McCain” irrespective of the truth. Also consider the possibility that many McCain supporters will just refuse to answer the question thereby skewing the results.
Although Democrat strategist Donna Brazile has talked for months about racism being the elephant in the room this campaign, here’s an elephant Donna and her ilk are afraid to address: in some districts in this country, it will be VERY difficult for pollsters to find folks willing to admit they voted for McCain.
With the election as tight as it is, just a few percent of such embarrassed-to-look-like-racists will give the appearance that Obama has won key battleground states.
Here’s another elephant: it is almost a metaphysical certitude the exit polls in at least one state will conflict with the actual results thereby opening the door for the perpetually sore losing Democrats to cry foul.
Now that’s a big elephant.
Can you imagine the Rodney King-style rioting that might occur as a result, especially when folks like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the usual suspects get in front of television cameras blaming Republicans and John McCain for stealing another election, this time from a black man?
They’ll be on all the morning shows Wednesday doing what they do best: fomenting hate, and pointing fingers.
Lest we not forget how quickly Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton will be on planes heading to that state (or states!) with their teeming hordes of NAACP and ACLU lawyers.
Can you imagine the chaos?
But that’s just the beginning, for the Obama-loving media are also going to feel scorned, and will spend all day Wednesday airing hideously biased segment after hideously biased segment demonstrating to viewers how Republicans prevented people from voting in largely black districts in the state(s) in question. Op-eds and editorials in newspapers across the fruited plain will do the same.
Rest assured if folks aren’t mad enough about the election’s outcome, you can count on angry press representatives to stoke the fires of discontent until riots start somewhere, for nothing would please sycophants like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Jack Cafferty more than rioting across the country if McCain wins.
Of course, they’ll refer to it as civil disobedience regardless of how uncivil it gets.
And don’t expect the Messiah to do anything to quell the hostilities. Being gracious in defeat isn’t a Democrat virtue.
Much like Gore and Kerry before him — readers should recall Kerry not conceding election evening 2004, and, instead waiting for numbers to be verified in Ohio Wednesday where Democrats still believe the election was stolen! — Obama will likely withhold his concession speech while his lawyers do his bidding.
In fact, they’re already preparing for such an eventuality. The Baltimore Sun reported Saturday, “Thousands of lawyers are descending on Florida and Ohio to monitor precincts and spot any irregularities.”
On the flipside, although an Obama victory will likely not result in immediate acts of violence, Republicans already feel cheated by this campaign for a number of reasons, and understand full well that they literally have the most to lose in this election; the Messiah, contrary to all his lies on the stump, clearly intends to redistribute wealth, and it sure isn’t Republicans that are going to be on the receiving end of the junior senator from Illinois’ charity.
But before we get there, let’s be perfectly frank: Obama should never have been a presidential candidate in the first place, and, at the very least, should have been quickly discarded by Hillary in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
With the nation involved in two wars, and the economy in trouble, there’s no way a freshman senator with so little experience and no significant pieces of legislation under his belt would ever have raised enough money to mount a presidential campaign, and certainly not a successful one.
However, the media gave Obama Messiah-like status the moment he threw his hat into the ring — thereby making it easy for him to find benefactors! — and pushed him passed the once-inevitable Hillary. Even worse, they aided and abetted Obama and his minions to dismiss any attacks by the Clinton campaign as racist while diminishing her with sexist and misogynistic barbs disingenuously ignored by a normally feminist press corps.
Once Hillary was tossed aside like so much garbage, media ignored each and every issue that could possibly undermine Obama’s ascendancy while savagely attacking Sarah Palin as well as an Ohio plumber that had the unmitigated audacity to actually ask the Messiah a decent question.
Don’t even get me started on how the so-called impartial press overlooked every gaffe and misstatement made by Joe Biden while giving the Messiah a pass for going back on his promise to accept public campaign funds instead opting to raise and spend more money on his presidential aspirations than anybody ever believed possible.
As CNN.com reported October 24:
[A]ccording to advertising figures provided by Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN’s consultant on ad spending, Barack Obama’s campaign has spent more money selling its candidate on television than most major brand name companies do selling their products.
The Illinois senator’s campaign is projected to have spent $250 million on ads in the last four months – a number that is equivalent to $750 million in a full year. Only AT&T, with a yearly advertising budget of about $1.3 billion, and Verizon, which shells out $950 million a year on ads, spends more than the Democratic presidential nominee.
But most major companies spend far less than Obama, including McDonald’s ($588 million), Sprint PCS ($482 million), T-Mobile ($404 million), Target ($388 million), and Wal-Mart ($335 million). […]
“If Obama wins it is clear that the days of being on public financing are over and anyone thinking of running for president in four years will have to ask themselves one question before jumping in – Can I raise $600 million?” said [CMAG’s Evan] Tracey.
Just imagine the kind of press McCain would have gotten if he had refused public financing, and spent the kind of ad dollars Obama has. Americans likely would have been told virtually 24 hours a day, seven days a week that rich Republicans were trying to buy the election.
However, because this is the Messiah, such talk was practically verboten.
Without a doubt, the media playing field this campaign season was as un-level as most Americans have probably ever experienced, or, for that matter ever imagined, and if Obama wins, this is going to leave a bad taste in the mouths of Republicans for many years to come.
Such negative sentiments will quickly be magnified when the Messiah, like Bill Clinton before him, goes back on his campaign promise to cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans, and instead announces — possibly in less than a month — that taxes will have to be raised for the majority of wage earners.
What will be the catalyst for this decision? The exploding budget deficit, of course.
After all, the fiscal 2009 budget projects unified revenues (including Social Security and Medicare) of $2.7 trillion, and unified expenditures of $3.1 trillion. However, these numbers assume a 2.2 percent growth in the Gross Domestic Product and 5.6 percent unemployment.
We’re currently at 6.1 percent unemployment, which will certainly go much higher in the coming months, likely stopping in the eights if we’re lucky. And, as the recession has certainly started, 2.2 percent growth in FY ’09 seems highly-doubtful. As such, $2.7 trillion in tax receipts might be a very aggressive forecast.
Maybe more important, $3.1 trillion in projected expenditures doesn’t include the $700 billion (and counting!) allocated to bailing out failed financial institutions. This means that for the first time since World War II, America will spend 40 percent more than it collects creating a budget deficit almost guaranteed to be in excess of $1 trillion…and everybody in Washington knows it.
With this in mind, the talk coming from Democrats like House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank that tax cuts may have to be postponed next year due to the recession is a lot of pre-election hooey. These folks want higher taxes, and with the Messiah in command, they’re gonna get ’em.
Yet, Obama has promised low income voters who don’t currently pay federal taxes that they’re going to get checks to offset their property and state taxes…and that’s a promise this socialist is gonna keep.
As a result, most Americans, in a slowing economy that’s making them fearful for their jobs and their futures, will see their income taxes rise as Obama supporters receive checks largely funded by McCain supporters. And that’s likely when things will really begin getting ugly, for the class warfare that Obama-Biden have been playing during this campaign will cease being only figurative.
To paraphrase Guido the Killer Pimp from the film “Risky Business,” in a sluggish economy, never, ever mess with a man’s livelihood.
But that’s what the Messiah is going to do, and as a result a lot of normally non-violent folks who “cling to guns or religion” are going to really be feeling “antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” just not for the reasons Obama believes.
And therein lies the real tragedy, for November 4, 2008, could have been a shining moment in American history. After all, a black man is running for president, and might actually win. This should have united the country like never before, and come close to ending the racism that has been one of our nation’s banes since its inception.
However, because Obama used race to get himself to this point, while also pitting folks of differing incomes against each other for his own political benefit, it seems far more likely that tomorrow will divide our country like it hasn’t been in over a century ushering back in hatred that will make Martin Luther King Jr. roll over in his grave.
As a result, Tuesday has all the makings of a day that will live in infamy, for what “The One” has wrought will leave behind an America that resembles nothing like what we’ve asked in song for years be blessed.
Ironically, it seems the Messiah’s reverend will get his wish after all.
Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of the Media Research Center’s NewsBuster.org. He welcomes feedback at email@example.com.
Obama’s Hug-a-Thug Crime Policy
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com | 11/3/2008
The triple homicide of actress-singer Jennifer Hudson’s kin has thrown crime into the national spotlight – along with Barack Obama’s hometown, which is the new murder capital of the U.S. Chicago has seen more murders this year than both New York and Los Angeles.
Yet you won’t hear Obama talk about crime or his policy to fight it. That’s because he doesn’t have one – unless you call hugging thugs a crime policy.
One of the first things Obama would do as president is repeal mandatory minimum sentences for crack and other drug offenders to “reduce the ineffective warehousing” of such criminals, according to his website. He favors “drug rehabilitation” over incarceration for even “a second-time offender,” according to a 2007 interview he gave to the Michigan Chronicle, Detroit’s second-largest African-American newspaper.
Decriminalizing pot is also on the table. “We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,” said Obama, who admits to smoking weed and doing “a little blow” as a young man.
As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted to weaken penalties on gangbangers who deal drugs in schools.
He also wants to rehabilitate inmates through prison-to-work programs. Obama’s pet charity, ACORN, has such a program. It hired 59 inmates at its Las Vegas office this year. They proceeded to fraudulently register voters using the names of Dallas Cowboys football stars. A police affidavit quoted a supervisor describing them as “lazy crack-heads” who just wanted money for drugs.
ACORN and Obama have been working to restore voting rights for felons, which would be another priority of his administration. “At a minimum,” Obama told the black Detroit paper, “those who serve their sentences should be re-enfranchised.”
In Illinois, he unsuccessfully sponsored a measure to expunge some criminal records. He thinks they are used as a “stigma” against blacks.
Obama also wants to outlaw police use of racial descriptions as a means to capture suspects, including Middle-Eastern terrorists. As a U.S. senator, he’s already co-sponsored federal legislation to ban “racial profiling.”
At the same time, he wants to limit your right to protect yourself from criminals by permanently banning assault weapons, among other gun-control measures to de-“cling” you from your guns.
As a state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on the sale and transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, along with a bill limiting handgun purchases to one a month. In a 1996 questionnaire supplied by a liberal Chicago nonprofit group, he answered “yes” to supporting legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”
Obama fought a bill in the Illinois senate that would send youth who commit a second violent felony to prison. He fought to keep even the most violent juvenile offenders out of the adult system.
Instead, “We must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime,” he said at the Denver convention. One ladder he has in mind is funding contractors who train “ex-felons on projects that can benefit the community as a whole: insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient, perhaps.”
Terrorists could also catch a break. “I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act,” he said in 2003. Now he says he would merely repeal the parts of it that are “just plain wrong,” whatever those are.
Obama, who would as president have the power to pardon criminals, isn’t a big fan of U.S. laws in general, at least not as currently written. He thinks they are racist, along with the courts.
“We have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like,” he told Howard University students last year. “It’s time to seek a new dawn of justice.”
“Laws are sometimes malleable,” he wrote two years ago, and he plans to “fix” what he sees as a “broken” criminal justice system. And he favors judges with the “empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American.”
That worries some legal analysts. “If Obama wins,” warns Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi, “we could possibly see the abolition of capital punishment and mass freeing of criminal defendants.”
In fact, Obama in the 1996 questionnaire responded “no” to supporting capital punishment. His website now calls for unspecified “reform” of the death penalty, which he contended in his book “does little to deter crime.”
Obama will, however, get tough on “hate crimes.” He plans to pack the criminal section of Justice’s Civil Rights Division with African-American prosecutors, and make “hate crime a priority.”
He will “reinvigorate federal civil-rights enforcement” by prosecuting alleged civil-rights abuses by local officials, such as the Jena, La., district attorney. “As president,” his website says, “Obama will ensure that the section vigorously pursues such cases.”
Suburban employers won’t be safe from Obama’s race cops, either.
“Anyone who thinks that such enforcement is no longer needed should pay a visit to one of the suburban office parks in their area and count the number of blacks employed there,” Obama complained in his 2006 autobiography.
And woe to suspected disenfranchisers. “When fliers are placed in our neighborhoods telling people to vote on the wrong day, that won’t only be an injustice, it will be a crime,” he promised black graduates at Howard.
Also, “I will crack down on predatory lenders who all too often target the African-American community,” Obama vowed, “with tough penalties that treat mortgage fraud like the crime it is.”
It’s plain where Obama’s priorities lie.
“Jesus has a soft spot for thugs,” preaches Rev. Otis Moss, the “wonderful young pastor,” as Obama described him, who took over the pulpit from retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright at Obama’s longtime church in Chicago.
Apparently so does Obama.
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. He can be conacted at Sperry@SperryFiles.com.