About Me

Name: Randy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Obama's Background Would Make Him Ineligible to Serve in Secret Service or FBI

Posted by Randy on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:47:17 PM

Barack Obama (the man who would-be President), if he were to apply to join the Secret Service or the FBI or to even have Top Secret security clearance (without being elected to an office requiring it) would likely fail the background check.  Here are some major red flags that would be very difficult to surmount:

1.   His association with terrorist William Ayers, who bombed various federal government buildings, and whose group bombed the Capitol. 

2.  His business dealings with convicted felon Tony Rezko.  Rezko was a major fundraiser for Obama and got him a sweetheart deal on Obama's $1M+ home ($300,000 below asking price) and then bought and sold him the adjoining lot under market value.  Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was just convicted of corruption for using his political office to receive undervalued improvements to his home from a constituent.   

 
3.  Obama's admitted heavy drug use, including cocaine, would be another major red flag in his character background check. 
 
4.  His relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.   

Obama described Wright as an important mentor in his life (a spiritual adviser), said he could no more disown him than a member of his own family.  Obama even honored Wright by titling his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope from a title of one of Wright's sermons.  In Obama's speech in Philadelphia this past spring defending this relationship, Obama said that Wright married he and Michelle, baptized their children and led him to faith.  The Obamas attended Wright's church for twenty years and contributed thousands of dollars to it during that time.  Until this past spring, Wright was one of the Obama campaign's spiritual advisers.  Clearly a very important person in Obama's life.     

As a reminder in case any have forgotten since this past spring. 
  
  a.   Wright called on God to d--- America. 

  b.  Said the Federal government introduced AIDS and drugs into black communities in order to bring about their demise. 

  c.  Said immediately following 9-11 that America's chickens had come home to roost--it was our just due in light of the United    States dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and other injustices throughout our history including our ongoing oppression of black people. 

  d.  Wright honored Louis Farrakhan, leader in the Nation of Islam, last December at Trinity Unity Church calling him the "epitome of greatness."  Farrakhan has openly preached hatred of Jewish and white people and America generally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright_farrakhan/2008/01/14/64332.html

Weeks after saying he could not disown Wright, Obama in fact did so--that is when his poll numbers began to flag and Hillary started picking up primary victories.  So much for loyalty.  Wright said nothing more radical in those weeks than he had come to the public's attention prior to Obama disowning him. 
 
If Obama could somehow manage to surmount all the other red flags, this relationship with Wright would be a deal breaker for anyone conducting his background check for joining the Secret Service or FBI or any other position of high trust and great responsibility within our nation's government.  Certainly anyone with such a strong connection to a rascist like Wright (or a white supremacist putting the shoe on the other foot) would not be qualified to serve in a position where one must respect all Americans regardless of their color.  
 
One can even look to comments made by Obama's own wife, Michelle, and find that anti-American strain in them.  During this past year, she said that America is "downright mean" and also proclaimed for the first time in her adult life she was "proud of her country" when Obama started winning primaries this past winter.  She's the one who first took Barack to Wright's church and since college days, over twenty years ago, is on record stating that black people will always be outsiders in the United States. 
 
You can tell a lot about the friends one chooses to keep.  Ayers, Wright, his own wife have one thing in common: strongly held and openly stated anti-American sentiments.  Someone who would surround himself with people who hold these views hardly seems like someone who should be given the trust of representing all Americans' interests.  Someone who could not likely pass the security background check to join the Secret Service or the FBI should not be given the keys to the White House. 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence throughout our nation's history.      
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is John McCain Heading Back to the Future?

Posted by Randy on Monday, October 20, 2008 11:31:08 PM
Marty McFly, in Back to the Future, wound up in 1950’s where he was able to learn some things about his past, resulting in a better future for himself and for his family.  In this Presidential election year of 2008, another trip back to that decade can shed light on the decision that is about to be made. 
            In 1952, and the main campaign issues were the war (the Korean War) and the size and scope of an ever-burgeoning federal
government.  Then President Truman was experiencing record low job approval ratings, ranging in the mid 20's and to low 30's due to his handling of these issues.  The American people were ready for change.  Possible change took the form of war-hero Dwight D. Eisenhower.  His military credentials and patriotism were beyond reproach.  He had bi-partisan appeal in a time when the partisan attacks had reached a fevered pitch.  Indeed, President Truman had put out feelers during his re-election campaign in 1948 to see if General Eisenhower would join him on the Democratic ticket.  Four years later, Eisenhower entered the political fray as the Republican Presidential candidate. Eisenhower promised to find an honorable end to the Korean War, reign in the federal government and promote policies that create a strong economy.  Ike’s opponent in 1952 was Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who offered little by way of how to effectively win the war in Korean War and promised to continue and build upon the New Deal tax and spending programs begun under President Roosevelt and expanded under Truman. Universal health care was one program that both Presidents had tried to achieve, but had not been unable to do so. Perhaps Stevenson would be able to move that ball forward, if elected.  

            In 2008, the Presidential race shapes up in much the same way.  John McCain is the war hero with bi-partisan appeal.  McCain, like Ike, was asked by the Democratic Presidential candidate four years ago (John Kerry) to consider being his running mate.  The main campaign issues are much as they were in 1952: a war that must be finished, a federal government grown too large, and additionally an economy that must be strengthened.  McCain, like Eisenhower, faces a liberal Democratic opponent in Barack Obama (who like Stevenson happens to be from Illinois), who believes the best way to solve America’s economic woes to for the federal government to tax and spend more money. Obama has taken up the banner of universal health care, even as the federal government is currently running half a trillion dollar deficits and, all told, is proposing nearly a trillion dollars in new spending. 

There are other interesting parallels.  Eisenhower was a solid public speaker, though not given to flights of rhetorical fancy. Credibility was his greatest strength. Adlai Stevenson, a lawyer, was known for his outstanding rhetorical ability, but could become too professorial at times.  McCain offers “Straight Talk” with little flowery rhetoric. Obama, a lawyer, is an extremely gifted public speaker, but can at times slip into the professor mode too, speaking about both sides of an issue, so you don’t know exactly where he stands. 

Regarding social issues, Eisenhower became a great friend of religion seeing it both as an encourager of a virtuous culture and promoter of liberty under God as opposed to the godless atheism of communist regimes. He sought and gained the support of evangelist Billy Graham during his candidacy and as President.  When Ike did attend church, he went to traditional Protestant services.  His opponent Stevenson was a Unitarian Universalist, a group which shares some of the moral beliefs of traditional Christianity, but denies that Jesus was the divine Son of God and the existence of the Holy Spirit, who can strengthen and help people to overcome their selfish, sinful nature and do the right thing. Such views put Stevenson at odds with the main stream of American religious culture. McCain attends a traditional Baptist church in Phoenix and he, like Ike, has also reached out to Billy Graham and the evangelist's son Franklin.  By comparison, Barack Obama was a member of Reverend Wright's controversial Trinity Church of Christ, which prides itself in being Afro-centric and teaching "liberation theology."  One of the central tenets of this faith tradition is opposition to oppressive governments and societies, which Wright determined the United States to currently be.  The hatred expressed by Wright towards white people, his promotion from the pulpit of conspiracy theories about the government seeking to destroy African American communities by introducing AIDS and drugs into them, and the honoring of the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan (who’s also expressed hatred towards white Americans and Jewish people) places Obama’s church outside the main stream of Christianity in America. Barack Obama left Trinity this past spring, after attending it for the last 20 years, when his association with the church and his self-described spiritual mentor Wright started to adversely affect the Senator's Presidential bid. 

Another parallel to the 1952 campaign is that Eisenhower, at 62, was the oldest candidate at that time to stand for the first term as President: and John McCain, at 72, took over that mantle, but given the increased life expectancy in our day, their ages are comparable.  There was something reassuring to the electorate with Ike’s age, both in terms of him having experienced a lot of life and not having to prove anything he could. In this way he could get beyond petty partisan politics.  McCain has displayed this capacity of reaching across party lines many times and helping to craft legislation on important issues.  Obama has voted his party line 95% of the time and not authored any controversial legislation.  One other noteworthy comparison is that both Obama and Stevenson were elected to their high office in Illinois for the first time four years prior to their run for the White House. 

Eisenhower, in the 1950’s, was able to finish what President Truman had started by bringing the Korean War to a successful conclusion. Further Ike reined in government spending so within a few years the federal government had budget surpluses and the United States economy became the largest and richest in the history of the world. McCain has the same goal of finishing the war his predecessor started and the same intention of reining in spending and promoting a sound and a growing economy. 

Somebody find the DeLorean with the charged flux capacitor and tell Marty to step aside because it just might be time to send John McCain Back to the Future. 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence throughout our nation's history.     
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obamanomics: Throw the Ring in the Fire!

Posted by Randy on Monday, October 13, 2008 1:15:16 PM
Anyone who has seen The Lord of the Rings Trilogy remembers the climatic moment of the story. After many perils and many months (and 11 hours of screen time), Frodo and his friend Samwise Gamgee have finally reach the fiery Mount Doom. It is the only place the Ruling Ring of Power can be destroyed, and Sauron (a type of Satan) can be vanquished forever. Frodo reaches the precipice overlooking a lake of molten rock far below and starts to throw the ring in, but then suddenly has a change of heart. Like an ancient king who also had the opportunity ages before, Frodo cannot bring himself to do it. The destructive power of the Ring of Power has captivated him. His countenance turns dark as he proclaims, “The ring is mine.”  Sam can’t believe what he’s seeing. He pleads with Frodo to throw the ring in, but his words fall on deaf ears.
 
Another ring of power has emerged during this election cycle, which most had thought had long been discredited and disappeared. Its power takes shape in the belief that the best way to fix America’s economic woes is to tax the rich more heavily and give their money to the middle class and poor. Barack Obama calls this a bottom up approach, which must replace the “old, discredited Republican philosophy-give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.” Obama’s observation is wrong on both counts: 1. Trickle down economics is capitalism and it’s been the greatest creator of wealth benefiting the most in society of any economic system in history, and 2. The percentage of tax revenue paid by the rich under both President Reagan and President Bush actually increased during their time in office and the amount of taxes required of the poor and middle class decreased. 
 
President Reagan took office when the economy was struggling with unemployment on the rise at 7.5% on its way to 9.6% (currently 6.1%), and inflation at 12% (currently 5%). The policies being followed at that time under President Carter and until Reagan could pass his economic policies dated back to the previous decades and were the supposed bottom up approach Obama now advocates: increase taxes on the rich and corporations and establish more government programs and bureaucracies to address society’s woes. The eventual result of this philosophy was a stagnant economy by the 1970’s and early 80’s, with more-and-more jobs going overseas. (See Reagan's Inaugural Address 1981) 
 
President Reagan came in with a mandate to change the way Washington did business, to get government off the backs of people, freeing them to innovate and to achieve. He cut the tax rate on all Americans, including the poor and middle class and added the earned income and child tax credits, which meant millions of lower income Americans no longer had to pay federal personal income taxes at all. These actions hardly sound like the heartless Republican philosophy that Obama describes above. According to the annual nonpartisan Tax Foundation's report, the percentage of taxes being paid by the lowest 50% of wage earners went down during the Reagan years from paying 7.5% of the total federal income tax revenues to 5.7%; while the amount being paid by the wealthiest 5% of wage earners went up from 35% to 45% (despite the top tax bracket being cut from 70% to 28%). By-the-way, total revenues from income taxes nearly doubled from $244 billion to $445 billion during the time period. Reagan also cut the capital gains tax rate, which meant people were free to buy and sell investments, without having to pay a high tax rate each time, which spurred economic growth. 

President Reagan liked to point to the example of President John Kennedy who also passed across the board tax cuts to stimulate the economy.  When Kennedy was questioned about granting tax cuts to wealthy Americans, he responded that a “rising tide floats all boats.”  In other words, the increased economic activity caused by tax cuts would help all. This prediction certainly was true then and during the Reagan years.  During the 1980's, the nation experienced the longest economic expansion in its history, with the total economy becoming 1/3 larger than when Reagan took office (or put in other terms like adding the entire economy of Germany). Unemployment fell to 5.5% and inflation to 4.8%, which meant more people were working and the money they were working for had more value. The per capita income rose 15% during this time period.  Dare it be restated for Barack Obama? The effect of increased economic activity trickled down to all.  

We have been living in the world Reagan made having rejected the liberal tax and spend Democratic model of the late 1960's and 70's.  Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, by-in-large, followed the Reagan tax philosophy. The economy has been strong during most of these years, minus some corrections due to the dot.com over-speculation bust of the late 90's and now the real estate bust.  During Reagan's time in office, as now, our stock market and markets worldwide experienced a crash.  "Black Monday" occurred in October 1987, and the stock market after a week of losses plunged losing 24% in a single day.  It eventually recovered in the following months and years.  By comparison the stock market dropped 18% this week.  President Reagan did not assume his policies were wrong because of the drop in the markets.  These corrections unfortunately will happen, given human nature (including greed and overspeculation) and economic cycles.

Because the economy was experiencing a downturn when he took office, and tax rates rose slightly during the nineties (to a top rate of 39.6%), George W. Bush sought to bring rates back towards the levels under Reagan and managed to achieve a top rate of 35%. President Bush also increased the child tax credit to $1000 (from the $600 per child which began under Reagan) and earned income credit to help middle and lower income Americans. He also reduced the capital gains tax.  As during the Reagan years, the percentage of taxes being paid by the lowest 50% of wage earners went down from 4% of total federal personal income tax revenue to 3%.  In fact the bottom 40% of wage earners, because of various credits actually received a net payment from federal income tax revenues.  Put in other terms: not only did they receive back all that was withheld from their paychecks, the earned income and child credits actually caused them to receive higher amount then they paid in.  Whereas the percentage paid by the wealthiest 5% went up from 53% to 60%, while this group only earned 36% of the total income in the United States.  These are the people that Barack Obama says have not been paying their fair share under President Bush!

There have been federal budget deficits in recent years not because revenues were to low, but because spending was too high, including federal entitlements such as the ever-increasing costs of Medicare and the newly added prescription drug benefit. The latter was originally projected to cost a half a trillion dollars over a 10 year period, but some estimate may reach over $1 trillion. Our current budget deficits are running at a half a trillion dollars.    

What is Barack Obama’s solution to our current economic and budget crisis?  Tax the rich and corporations and add hundreds of billions in new federal government spending including universal health care.  When he speaks of tax cuts for 95% of Americans, what he is proposing is a stimulus check in the form of a $500 tax credit.  As pointed out above, nearly half of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes at all, so Obama is proposing a taking massive amounts of money from the federal revenues and taxing the top 5% at a higher rate to, in theory, pay for it.  (see Tax Cuts Real and Imaginary) NEWSFLASH, in case he was asleep during the last 25 years: HIGH TAX RATES KILL ECONOMIC GROWTH, which leads to a poorer population and smaller revenues, which leads more people looking to the government for help and in ever-increasing spiral down. We must face the hard truth there is a limit to the amount of federal revenues that can be taken in, and a point of diminishing returns when tax rates are increased.  This is the lesson from the economic stagnation of the 1970's and the amazing growth seen following Reagan's policies.  Taxing the rich is not done in isolation but the effect trickles down to the whole. A lowering tide sinks all boats. Raising taxes takes away incentive to work hard and innovate, risk and invest.  It takes away capital from the market, so there is less money available to expand existing businesses and start new ones, which is what creates new jobs and economic growth.  Further, when you start taking half of people’s income, as Barack Obama proposes to do, many will seek ways to shelter their assets outside of the United States (as happened during the 1970’s).  High tax rates, both individual and corporate, also encourages companies to relocate overseas, therefore fewer jobs and more economic turmoil. 

John McCain calls for keeping individual tax rates for where they are in order to better ride out the current economic storm and wants to cut the corporate tax rate from its current 35% to 25%.  Our corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrialized world: by comparison Europe averages 24% and Ireland's is 12.5% and has been experiencing an economic boom.  If Obama truly wanted to keep jobs in America he would be proposing cutting the corporate tax rate not increasing it. 

We’ve reached the Frodo decision point. Will we throw the ring of big government programs and high taxes proposed by Obama in the fire, or decide to take it up again to the detriment of us all?    

----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence throughout our nation's history.      
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain's Underdog, "Rudy" Campaign

Posted by Randy on Monday, September 29, 2008 7:53:06 PM

Anyone watching the McCain campaign over the last year and a half has to admire the sheer grit of it. First he staked his entire candidacy on the success of the surge at a time when Iraq seemed on the verge of civil war and the United States was suffering over 100 combat deaths a month. The surge now appears to have succeeded. Next, in August of 2007, when his campaign looked all but dead in the water, he chopped his staff back to bare bones, replacing some key players, and of those who remained many worked for free. Together they rebuilt the campaign, and through events not entirely of their making, McCain prevailed in the Republican primary. Then he faced the prospect of a general election campaign against Barack Obama with strong head winds running against anyone from Republican Party. Obama was consistently running ahead of him in the polls, then came the most surprising and gutsy move of his campaign yet. McCain made the announcement and then the fanfare theme music (trumpets and French horns blarring) from the movie “Rudy” played as out strode Governor Sarah Palin. More appropriate music could not have been chosen for a the occasion and the campaign as a whole.

Rudy is based on the true story of the never-say-quit Dan Ruettiger. As a young man with mediocre grades from a working class family, he had no business thinking he could get into Notre Dame, but through much perseverance and a few years later than most, he did; as someone 5’6" tall, 165 lbs, he had no business trying out for the Notre Dame football, but he did; he had no business thinking he would make it as a walk on to the Notre Dame football team (a team always in contention for the national title during the years Rudy attended), but he did; he had no business thinking he would ever be able to suit up for a game, but he did. He had no business thinking he would get in the game, and…then comes the critical moment in the story. It’s been close the entire last home game of the season against Georgia Tech, Rudy’s last chance to play. Finally Notre Dame scores, running an interception in for a touchdown, making it 17-3. The Fighting Irish then recover a fumble with less than a minute to go. 

Everything that is conventional says the Notre Dame quarterback should take a knee and run the clock out: that was the play coach Dan Devine called. The players realize if they follow that course, Rudy, who has spent the last two seasons earning their respect playing defense against them in practice, would not get in the game. The Notre Dame players on the sidelines begin to lead the crowd chanting “Rudy, Rudy, Rudy…” The players on the field decide to overrule their coach and risk everything. The call, “A halfback pass to the right, going for the endzone. A riskier choice could not have been called.  If Tech intercepts the ball and runs it in for a touchdown, they could  potentially go on to win the game. “Hike”, the Rudy fanfare music (that Sarah Palin came on stage to) begins to play as the quarterback fades back and the wide receivers sprint down the field; he pitches to the halfback who starts to run the ball. Coach Devine, watching the play unfold, yells out, “What the hell is he doing!?” The halfback then pulls up and passes toward the endzone, Touchdown!! The team and the crowd go wild and keep chanting, “Rudy, Rudy, Rudy…” Coach Devine relents letting Rudy go in to the game with 27 seconds left to play. 

Now Rudy is on the field for the kickoff.  He runs downs the field, but doesn’t get in on the action. One play left.  Georgia Tech's quarterback fades back. Rudy gets through the offensive line, chases the quarterback down and drops him for a sack. The fans go wild. The theme music plays in the background as Rudy gets carried off the field.   

John McCain, by choosing Sarah Palin, made that halfback pass to the right (Notre Dame means Our Lady by-the-way).  Now, particularly after the Katie Couric interview, some are beginning to doubt if she has what it takes to be on the national stage.  Everything that was conventional said McCain should have chosen someone like Governor Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty—both are conservative (though Romney lacks the confidence of social conservatives and Pawlenty is not well known nationally) who fit the bill for a Vice Presidential pick: that is they should do no harm and perhaps help with a certain demographic or in a swing state. If McCain had chosen one of these men (or the others on his short list), the Republican Party (like Rudy) would not have been able to get in the game and Obama in all likelihood would have stayed ahead in the polls and went on for the win. Now, though the polls are trending a bit towards Obama this last week or so, it’s still anybody’s game. Perhaps Palin will be able to really get back in the mix this week, and drop the Democrats’ backup quarterback for a sack Thursday during the Vice Presidential debates. Regardless McCain has shown time-and-again,despite being slightly outmatched by events and in dollars, he’s playing to win. That never-say-quit, underdog spirit (probably born at least in part during his years surviving in captivity) is to be admired and hopefully will result in him and Palin being carried from the field in victory. 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randall DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths about how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence throughout our nation's history. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »