One of England’s foremost prime ministers, Winston Churchill, lamented something to the effect that the greatest argument AGAINST democracy was spending 5 minutes talking to the average voter. He can thank shock jock Howard Stern for aptly making his point. 

 

In a recent experiment Stern inquired of several voters as to whom their choice was for president. All 3 had unequivocally selected Barack Obama. Probing further, Stern asked each of them if they, for instance, supported Obama’s policies like Obama’s pro-life stance or his commitment to leaving the troops in Iraq until the war was finished.    Without hesitation each of them was very supportive of those policies. Unquestionably, they endorsed Obama’s supposed choice for vice president, Sarah Palin.  I suspect they also support Obama’s plans to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes and reducing the size of the government !!!??? 

 

 

The shock jock never ceases to shock us all…And with regard to the American voter, shirking his responsibility to become informed, God help us. 

 

 

Scroll down the “Newsbusters” cite to see Stern’s video. For those with concerns, Stern does not use any offensive language. 

 

“Howard Stern exposes why so many people support Obama” 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/13/howard-stern-exposes-why-so-many-people-support-obama

 

In each election we have the moral obligation to make informed voter choices. I see this as a serious responsibility, a very serious responsibility. Here is some info on how our candidates vote…take a minute and look it over.  Again I urge you to do your own homework.

 

Americans for Tax Reform —Fact Checking the Debates”

 

Obama Voting Record

http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/oct/101608pr-factcheck_debate.html

 

 

McCain Voting Record

http://www.atr.org/content/html/mccainvotingrecord.html

 

Also on the stomp, Obama has started urging voters to vote NOW, two weeks before the campaign ends...not a good idea to cast your vote before the campaign ends, obviously. Take your time and see how the game plays out... What’s the rush?

 

 

 

 

 

Two men are running for president.

 

One man loved America so much he defended it from its enemies by living in a hell for 5 years that most of us cannot even bring ourselves to discuss.  Afterwards, he chose to continue his life of service to America in our government, upholding American principles. 

 

One man condemned America so much that he lived a life with radicals who openly hate America, break its laws and desire to curtail the American dream of the unbridled opportunity from which he derived so much benefit that he achieved the epitome of success in America, running for president.

 

Is the choice for president really all that hard?   

 

 

 

 

Undoubtedly Wedneday's debate will devote a goodly amount of time on our dismal economy. It seems to me that we hear a hodge- podge of ideas and strategies.  To help grasp the plan each candidate has to address the economy, it may help to have an overview of the economic philosophy of the candidates. Borrowing an analogy from the British magazine, ”The Economist” an excellent read BTW, I will roughly, the key word here being “roughly”, explain each candidate’s overall economic philosophy in the context of pie slice economics.

 

Both candidates want to help Americans in economic distress but they perceive the dynamics of the economy differently.

 

Obama sees the economy as one pie with uneven slices. Those with more money have bigger slices. Those with less have smaller ones. He and Joe Biden have introduced the notion that this uneven pie slice is a problem. That problem will be fixed by evening up the slices. The slices will get more even by re-distributing the assets and income of those with bigger slices because Obama/Biden maintain the view that the pie is only so big and re-distribution of assets of those with bigger slices is the most proper way to even up the pieces. They believe it is morally justified to re-distribute wealth or tax the income of another by arguing that this is a matter of fairness. This argument about fairness must be put forth because in the disciplines of ethics, political philosophy and economics, one must justify taking the assets legitimately owned by one person and giving them, re- distributing them, to another. This economic strategy is the basis of socialism, which is why Obama’s critics say he has socialist policies.

 

McCain’s economic philosophy is that the pie size is not fixed in size. It is more like the big bang universe, ever expanding. The most proper way to give people bigger slices, in other words, is to make more pies to go around. To make more pies, their needs to be more money available. There's a lot of pie for you and there's a lot of pie for me. This means less taxation on those with assets so these people will spend on products and services or invest in growing businesses, large or small, as opposed to taxing profits to re-distribute to those with less for health care, college education and subsidized housing, as Obama proposes.

 

Capitalists believe that if they acquire their assets legally, these assets belong to them. Hence, it is unfair to take them. Furthermore, if over taxed, the pies will shrink. All will have less in the long run for more pie making because when profits are over taxed, there is little incentive to work to expand businesses, slowing down the driving motivation to achieve the American promise, an unbridled opportunity to get rich. This disincentive can lead to less revenue for the expansive social programs that Obama supports to raise the standard of living for low income Americans. Critics of McCain’s view on economics believe that capitalist policies fail to raise the standard of living and that corporations keep too much of their profits, i.e. it is unfair as per Obama/Biden. Corporations have too much pie.  

 

You will notice that there are differing views of what constitutes fairness/unfairness that are endemic to the differing views on the economy. Each candidate will offer plans specific to or consistent with their economic philosophy. These philosophies are divergent, apples and oranges. This is why they seem so conflicting when we hear these debates.  

 

Now America already has some income re-distribution programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits to cite a few. We have them because we believe them to serve the common good despite that the money for these government programs is generated by taxation. The overall benefits of the common good offset the legal forfeiture of someone’s assets, and is hence morally justifiable.  This is a straight utilitarian justification for the re-distribution of assets; typically one that satisfies most Americans to the small extent that re-distribution has been utilized in America.   

 

Each candidate‘s view is really representative of classic differing theories in economics and political philosophy that are intensely studied by the kinds of people who study such things, certainly not me with respect to economics but definitely me with respect to political philosophy and ethics.

 

In this election, the puzzle we Americans have to piece together before we vote is figuring out whether or not Obama’s dramatic proposals to use what seems to be significantly more money for government programs than we have ever seen in our current re-distribution programs like SS, a tipping point with respect to social and economic engineering, will deprive the markets of the money needed to make more pies AND will his proposals, if implemented, maintain and progress our standard of living and elevate the standard of living of those Obama wants to assist. As for the effects of capitalism, Americans are pretty much familiar with that economic system and would know more of what to expect under the capitalist model.   

 

  

 

We have a serious, possibly life changing, decision in this election.  

 

 

Trying to get a handle on Barack Obama’s affiliations such as the one he has with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, has been like pulling teeth. Obama is less than forthcoming. Rather than explain or even apologize, he postures himself as the victim of smears and dismisses the questions about Ayers as deflective of the economic crisis. His reaction is suspicious. For instance, instead of using his experience with Ayers in dispersing some $100 million of grant money from the Annenberg Foundation earmarked for education as good fodder for the political stomp to the White House, the information about that achievement is not coming from the Obama camp or his biographies. It is coming from investigative reporters, the few out there trying to get to the bottom of the Ayers/Obama connection. There is evidently a connection. 

 

The Wall Street Journal article cited below does as good a job as I have seen in beginning to elucidate the relationship between publicly professed terrorist William Ayers and Barack Obama. It is far more extensive than the Chicago senator seeking the Oval Office has admitted to thus far, distancing himself from Ayers by claiming he was an 8 year- old in the height of Ayer’s bombing spree…perhaps true but not a complete picture of the relationship he has with Ayers. 

 

Let’s look at their connection on one project they did together.

 

“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg.  In early 1995 Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the ”Collaborative”, which shaped education policy.” The article continues…
”CAC translated Mr. Ayers radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners”, which actually got the money. Proposals from groups to fund Math/Science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).” 

 

I urge you to read this entire article from which the above quotes were taken. 

 

“Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools”(Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2008)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

 

Bottom line the man who dispersed the purse, Barack Obama, expects us to believe that he had no idea whatsoever of Bill Ayer’s political views, views that seem not really all that different from those of the anti - American Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose church Obama attended for some 20 years. These views are not exactly mainstream Americana.  They are hard to miss. 

So let me get this straight. Obama, who campaigns for education reform ,gives millions in educational funding to promote Bill Ayers’ anti-American philosophies to school children instead of bolstering the academic programs desperately needed. It’s no wonder he is not forthcoming.

I am sort of on the gullible side. I still believe in God and Santa Claus. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that Barack Obama dispersed millions of dollars in grant money supportive of Bill Ayer’s “Collaborative “ and knew nothing of his anti- American views and how to achieve his political agenda. If Obama is so utterly oblivious, he certainly is not Oval Office material. 

For a bit of context on the philosophies of professors like Ayers and Dohrn both of whom are profiled in the book, “The Professors” by David Horowitz, read the below excerpts from a post I did in March 2008. No doubt my view of America, possibly your view too, is not the embodied in Ayers’ educational policy.

 

From Many, One

 

”The melting pot speaks of America as a unique nation filled with the flavors of numerous ethnicities that blended into a one single, solitary main course, the great nation of America. And in those days we were first and foremost Americans and proud to be so. We were, from many, ONE: many ethnicities united philosophically under one American heart and mind and soul.

Unfortunately, over the last 30 years or so our college campuses have been unwisely populated with a team of professors, teeming with anti- American sentiment. They are harsh with America in their lessons to our students on college campuses. Collectively, in their radical viewpoints--- America is an exploitative capitalist, racist, sexist, militaristic, patriarchal blight on the face of the earth. Some of these professors sympathize with bin Laden or bask and regale in the glories of the former Soviet Union or China or North Korea, countries that somehow in their eyes have become beacons of human rights and moral rectitude…examples to be followed. (See “The Professors” by David Horowitz)

Even though many students are not blinded by this extremist anti- American bias they are being subjected to in classrooms what has trickled out of these extremist and perverse teachings into the mainstream of society are its progeny, politicized diversity and political correctness. Instead of a melting pot to be savored, America has become the United States of Victims and their endless list of grievances against America. 

Political correctness tacitly assumes that Americans, because of their depravity, must shut their mouths and instead speak with a script imposed on them by the political correct police who believe at heart, we Americans, are just as these professors say we are. We, the people, have come to believe of ourselves that we, particularly white males, are exploitative capitalist, racist, sexist, militaristic, patriarchal blights on the face of the earth who are solely responsible for all the evils in the world. Accordingly, Americans should apologize to all our supposed victims on a daily basis. “ (Excerpt from “From Many, One” J Greiner @ 3/15/08)

 

I was in college during the era of SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, and the violent

Weather Underground…Bill Ayers and his followers terrified Americans. He turned on his fellow citizens and only regretted that he was not as successful as what? Not as successful as Timothy McVeigh?  What is Obama doing providing any assistance to the likes of Bill Ayers?   Bringing this information to light is not a smear. It is a bona fide part of Obama’s biography, reflecting his political sympathies that ought to be public knowledge for the voters to better know this candidate.     
 

 

 

 

 

Those of you who have been reading my posts (www.MyCentralJersey.com, Blog Home Page) for any length of time know how deeply I disapprove of corruption in the government. This spring I repeatedly highlighted the “Soprano State”, a book detailing Trenton corruption, written by fellow blogger, Bob Ingle. I always urge NJ residents to get informed so they can make informed choices in the voting booth. I feel no differently about corruption on the federal level. The public needs to be informed here also in order to make informed choices in the voting booth.

 

This presidential campaign has seen its specific set of twists and turns. There is the Wall Street/Main Street tension and the ultimate financial meltdown that is felt round the world, for instance. There is an information gap that is not being closed by our leaders and reputable media sources for reasons that I think are unseemly but typical politically expedient. It is up to us to hunt up answers and inform. And I urge you again to do your own homework…always do your own homework. Don’t just believe me. I am certainly fallible. I will give you some info and some references. If not now, later, grab a cup of coffee and go through these references. Check them out and then start your own search.     We have an exceptionally important election here in a few weeks. There is more to this campaign activity than meets the eye, scandalous activity that needs t be addressed not only by the electorate but also by our justice system.

 

I was open to both candidates when the campaign stomp began. I posted that I agreed with ”The Economist” that this presidential contest afforded Americans the first real choice in platforms in a very long time. I voted of Kerry the last time around.  I have done several posts on Obama, not as a dyed in the wool Republican, but as an independent/ ethicist who is very concerned about Obama’s ethics and his personal misrepresentation of his past and facts such as his relationship with Weatherman, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. If Obama is not forthright, why trust him? Don’t you think leaders of foreign nations are asking themselves the same question?  If they cannot trust him, will they negotiate with him? 

 

In Sunday’s CN, on the editorial page, Bob Ingle, that tough-minded NJ political watchdog, noted that the Democrats had registered some 34,000 new voters in NJ as opposed to their Republicans counterpart registrations with 7,140. He attributes this to the enthusiasm Obama has invoked, unaware, I suspect, that ACORN, a group conducting voter registrations nationwide, is under investigation by the FBI for rampant voter fraud in approximately 14 states. This past week the FBI raided their offices in Nevada.   I let Bob know. That Bob did not seem to be aware of this is testament to the willful blindness of mainstream media to scrutinize Barack Obama, a violation of journalistic ethics to report the news, not make it. You and I ought not to have to do our own in depth research on these issues in a presidential campaign.     

 

What is ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now? Truth be told, I do not know how to describe this organization without sounding prejudicial. So please do your own homework. I will offer a few details. Bill Ayers and Obama worked together on the Woods Fund.  The Woods Fund gave money to ACORN to get Democrats elected to effect social change. Obama has given guidance to ACORN. At times he has been its legal counsel. Despite its history of voter fraud, the Obama campaign gave ACORN $800,000 from its campaign war chest. This is the first time a presidential candidate hired an organization to collect voter registrations. This past week has seen growing allegation of rampant wide spread fraudulent voter registrations by ACORN workers who evidently register the dead or just make up names and then fill in the forms to meet their quotas. ACORN workers are paid. This week FBI raided ACORN offices in Nevada this week. The Ohio Supreme Court ordered its Secretary of State to turn of information on registrations to the Board of Elections. Voter fraud is prosecutable crime. It should be prosecuted. See below. 

 

“Who is ACORN”

 

http://www.barackbook.com/Profiles/ACORN.htm?sid=google&t=rncgeneral&r=barackbook

 

“ACORN submitting false registrations in Connecticut”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl71dL5no_0&feature=related    

 

The financial catastrophe we are experiencing may have shocked the everyday citizen. It was entirely not unforeseen on Wall Street, in Congress and by those who lobbied for questionable mortgage practices, like ACORN. The National Review article cited below is must read…a must read. It gives us a very complete picture of how lenders on Wall Street could be draw into such unsafe lending practices. It takes a lot of handling to get a suicide bomber to get to a pith where he or she will strap on a vest of explosives and blow up himself along with innocent bystanders. It takes a lot of handling to get presidents, Congress and Wall Street to engage in suicidal economics. Americans need to know the mechanics of such an operation. And ACORN is a good case study. This is a must read so we can make the necessary mid course corrections to protect ourselves from this dangerous behavior.

 

ACORN should be ordered to cease all activity until it is fully investigated for and cleared of all criminal charges. Those involved in out and out fraud, with respect to voting and mortgage lending practices, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Voter fraud to the extensive extent suspected cheats Americans of their election. Fraudulent lending practices have cheated us out of our financial security. 

 

 

‘Planting Seeds of Disaster” Stanley Kurtz, National Review, October 7,2008   

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=

After the second debate I sat with my empty bowl of Cheetos, more frustrated than ever ever thinking--- this is the worst of times with little constructive change in sight.

As a professional philosopher, I am trained to scrutinize platforms for their plusses and minuses. So during the sacred season of political races, like the presidential one, I suffer from an occupational hazard. With my training I hear every word-smithed phrase and idea with its ensuant implications that may slip by those not trained to data mine theories and words with the fervor I do whether I want to or not. So what did I hear?

Last night I heard a lot about economic woes, not surprisingly, mortgage problems and health care needs as if these problems needed extraordinary measures to be addressed. And I suppose in the current stated of mismanagement, they do require extraordinary measures.

One upon a time Americans bought homes and acquired health benefits by getting an education, entering the job market and earning the money to meet their needs. Through discipline, education and productivity, America delivered on its promise of hope for the future in this way that kept our economy and world economies steady.

Talk last night tells me that this proven road to American success is being surreptitiously pre-empted by a culture of entitlement. Instead of telling parents to deliver more diligent students, etc America has being painted as if the “poor” hopelessly locked into poverty despite the billions of dollars directed to education and housing already, as if there is no class mobility. Therefore the way to remedy this deadlock is to tax the so-called rich, those with incomes over $250,000 because it’s not fair that they not bear the burdens. This is, of course, income re-distribution and fans a new set off flames of tension between the “haves” and the “have nots”. And a sleepy but desperate electorate let's' Obama get away with his failure in forthrightness, ommiting the fact he is a socialist. 

Now I think it’s quite reasonable and for our common good that we have a bit of income re-distribution. I want to help those facing the hard hit of joblessness or health problems in old age. But what is so unfair about people who play by the rules and earn a lot of bucks by their wit and work having more money than $250,000? And what pray tell is fair about me getting my hands on money I did not earn to pay for my house or health benefits? You’re not going to like this but this appeal to the unfairness of the wealthy being wealthy and therefore it is all right to deprive them of their wealth is textbook Marxist thought. It was this thinking that was the basis for several bloody revolutions in Europe and championed state managed economies that we see from never provide that standard of living that capitalism does. (The last thing I want the state to manage after its dismal performance on mortgage lending practices is my health care.) 

As a trained philosopher, I analyze thinking and theory. I will tell you that a suicide bomber can never strap on a vest of explosives and kill himself and innocent bystander unless someone has tinkered with his thinking. Likewise the most successful capitalist nation in the world cannot drift into socialism we are having foisted on us in this election with our brains being toyed with. Grab a cup of coffee or in my case a bowl of Cheetos, dust off  those old college economic and history texts and give yourself a quick review session on the Russian and French Revolutions and Marxism and the mindsets that drive these revolutions and economic theories.  

Believe me, I wish I were rich (if in today’s world $250,000 can even be deemed rich) but I do not covet my neighbor’s goods to the extent that I have decided I can have them. I earn what is mine.  “Mine” is the key word. What incentive is there for any of us to scrimp and save and discipline ourselves to get an education if after we earn a certain amount of money or reach a certain threshold the government takes our profits and I can get these necessities from the government without contributing to the productivity necessary to underwrite these goods and services?

 

SMS, Sunday Morning Sober, has me thinking hard on last night’s SNL’s satire on Sarah Palin. It is like a version of comedy central soaps.  The blizzard of media attention on Sarah Palin is astounding and astoundingly nasty. Even so, we accept it as fair play in American political campaigns that usually tease and scrutinize candidates. It goes with the territory. My question is why hasn’t Obama been forced to walk the walk. Let’s see how Obama fares. Oh, as you will see, I am not as funny as Tina Fey.

 

 

"Getting to know you, getting to know all about you..."

 

Did you know that Obama is connected to the Chicago political machine? This means among other things that in the face of reform, Obama opted to maintain the status quo of patronage etc by supporting the likes of Richard Daley and John Stroger?

 

Did you know this machine has been under investigation by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald?

 

Do you know that Illinois State Senate President, Emil Jones, a member of this machine is Obama’s political godfather?  This means among other things that “Jones gave Obama high- profile legislation in its late stages, sometimes taking bills away from its original sponsors.” *pp 27

 

Did you know that Obama garnered the support of the Chicago Teachers Union, one of most influential unions whose teachers average a salary of $83,000 **pp 80 but did not back education reform by lobbying to lengthen the all too short Chicago school day?

 

Did you know that Obama, despite the economic failure and rising food prices that resulted from ethanol production at home and abroad, hitting indigent countries especially hard, still backs ethanol subsidies? Recall the pay off to him in the Iowa caucuses where Hillary Clinton was sidelined in his favor.  

 

Did you know that as a US Senator he backed out of working across the isle on ethics reform with John McCain due pressure from the Democratic leaders? * pp 97-99

 

Did you know that he endorsed off- shore drilling and nuclear energy in Thursday’s debate? 

 

Did you know that Michelle Obama was the vice president of the Chicago Medical Center and received a $200,000 increase in her salary when Obama was elected to the Senate? Then in 2007 Obama earmarked the Center for a $1 million appropriation? * pp 96

 

Did you know that Obama’s mother and Bristol Palin are exactly the same, unwed teenage mothers, despite the nasty treatment Palin was subject to by the left wing media and bloggers? 

 

Did you know that Obama votes straight Democratic Party line 100% of the time, unless he votes non-committal, "Present"?

 

Is this the resume` of someone who bucks the political system to bring hope and change?

 

To me this is pretty much political trivia, however. All politicians do these kinds of things.

 

Here is what other politicians do not do. 

 

Former Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, also black said it well. Obama has “ a curious pattern of association”. He refers to Obama’s associations with extremist Leftist thinkers. Other politicians do not become friendly with the likes of Bill Ayer, former terrorist /Weatherman of the 60’s, a radical group that advocated violence to mold America to its own peculiar image. Young voters do not know things like the Weathermen bombed a Manhattan brownstone, which BTW was 4 doors down from the home of one of my philosophy professors. Ayer and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, openly advocate violence. They are a part of a group of college professors who quite plainly hate America. (See ”The Professors” by David Horowitz.)

 

As a community organizer, Obama is mentored by the late Saul Alinsky who advocates among other things agitating people to their winter of discontent. All Americans but the hated white middle class are victims, you see. You will see threads of Alinsky flowing through Obama’s campaign style, blaming everyone for their pain and pushing all the emotional buttons he can find.  Throughout his educational career he gravitated to people who feel what Michelle Obama expressed… not proud of America, right out of the ultra Left wing prayer book that advocates income redistribution to offset the travesties against the down trodden by the white middle class. Income redistribution to the extent Obama and other extreme left-wingers advocate, my friends, is SOCIALISM. Well, that campaign platform is foiled by the losses on Wall Street and middle class Main Street. Put simply: no money, no universalized entitlement programs.

 

And then there was Reverend Wright. What exactly was that about? Is Wright the person to spiritually guide a candidate who claims to want to erase the racial divide, enter a post - racism era? Hillary Clinton was correct. When you hear that vitriol, you leave the building. Obama did not. I do not want people like Wright influencing the President of the United States, filling cabinet posts or any other government posts.

 

Then there is Obama’s opposition to legally mandating hospitals to care for babies who survive abortions. He opposed this in the Illinois legislature. He evidently supports leaving these babies to die unattended, like they did in ancient Sparta, I suppose, so he would not tread on the so-called right to choose, live births/babies dying, apparently not a moral problem for him. Likewise, he opposed a ban on partial birth abortions in this day and age when a Caesarean can be performed in a matter of minutes. This is not moral leadership; it is the lack thereof.  I am being too kind to the man here.     

 

So under some scrutiny we see Obama is not the “ second coming”. His political history shows that he is aligned first and foremost with his backers and that by his choice, they command his loyalty before any commitment he will make to either you or me.

Hope and change come when a candidate stops catering to his political party and political backers and his personal advancement. He has associations that, were they Palin’s, would have been under the media microscope and studied meticulously, slide by slide. Finally, I cannot find the words to even begin to comment on his lack of moral standards in addressing the complexity of abortion issues. 

 

In some ways Obama is the typical American politician, nothing new under the political sun. In other ways he is a serious departure and we should understand more of who he is…do you own homework because SNL is apparently not going touch this man.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.    

 

 

 

 

* ”The Case Against Barack Obama”, David Freddoso, pp 29: **pp 80