RiteOn Blog

LIVING ON OBAMA'S COLLECTIVE FARM

In a commencement speech at Wesleyan University, Barack Obama advised graduates not to pursue the American dream of success. Ivy League graduates who live in big homes can be selfish, you know.

President Kennedy once spoke of a rising tide that would lift all boats. Obama wants us to pull into shore and tie them to a dock.

Worse than that, a disturbing pattern of rhetoric indicates he will not only counsel a draconian lifestyle, but also mandate it.

The man who made over $4 million last year, who lives in a $1.65 million house and who probably doesn't get his great suits off the rack, advised graduates: "You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should. But I hope you don't." I got mine.

He hopes you don't walk off the job and do something greedy like finding a way to economically retrieve the 2 trillion barrels of oil locked up in North American shale, lowering fuel and transportation costs, and helping America achieve energy independence.

Don't be another Bill Gates and amass a fortune making people more productive and, uh, successful in their daily lives and giving your countrymen a standard of living the world will envy. Exchange your cap and gown for sackcloth and ashes. Leave your possessions behind and come follow Obama.

"Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition," he opined.

Shame on us for being selfish and buying that SUV built by an autoworker trying to fulfill his family's immediate wants and needs. "Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation," he said. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

So far, Obama's idea of hope and change sounds an awful lot like the Marxian vision of taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his needs. Though we're already the most charitable and giving nation in history, Obama doesn't seem to think volunteerism is part of it.

In a speech in California, wife Michelle, who has made a small fortune in the "helping industry," said: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed."

Frankly, we like our comfort zone, even if Barack Obama doesn't. Campaigning in Oregon, he said: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.

"That's not leadership," Obama added. "That's not going to happen."

Not going to happen? Require? Demand? Never allow? If you detect an ominous tone of authoritarianism, so do we. It's almost enough to make one cling bitterly to one's guns and Bible. Heck, we write conservative opinion and watch Fox News. We're uninformed and uninvolved. Obama will make us see the light

And if your idea of service is to join the military and keep others alive and free, forget about it. Obama has no place for those like Pat Tillman who are willing to abandon fame and fortune to lay down their lives for their friends.

"At a time of war," Obama said, "we need you to work for peace." That's what our troops are doing, Barack. They're working for peace — and freedom.

Those pulling the wagon with their taxes are already doing enough to "serve" the wagon riders.

Barack wants to raise their taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and eliminating the earnings cap on Social Security taxes. But if you don't want to enlist in the Obama army of change, you will be drafted.

They have ways to make you volunteer.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297297353643901
**************************
(Forwarded to RiteOn by Iowa Guest Editor M. K. W. .......)

ABOUT OIL & POLITICS

Every time we have an oil “crisis” you can count on the politicians and the pundits to spout off, look for scapegoats, take the “populist” line and try to distract the public from who is really at fault for high gas prices. Most of the news shows will cater to the politically motivated, the ignorant and the misinformed, especially if their views serve the liberal agenda. Two issues concerning energy are particularly widespread in the media these days.

One “argument de jour” is that the oil, companies have “millions of acres” that they can drill on so its nonsense to open up more. This argument strictly caters to the uninformed “greenies” and is so phony it’s almost laughable. Anyone who knows anything at all about the oil business knows how expensive it is to drill for oil, especially in the ocean. Nobody in his or her right mind is going to sink a well if the chance of finding oil is “marginal.” When the government leases acreage and ocean area for drilling it includes a lot that is not suitable but the oil companies must bid on ALL of it, along with the part that might be suitable. Until seismic and other high technology exploration is done, the prospects for that territory are not known so the oil companies are “stuck” with a lot of land that is not suitable for drilling. They could drill in my back yard too but the chance of finding oil there is nil. The politicians know this but they insult the public intelligence by prattling this hogwash filled argument. Our suggestion is, if you hear a politician spouting this view; don’t vote for him or her. They are telling you that you are too stupid to figure it out and who wants that kind of politician in office!

Another is that “speculators” are driving the price of oil up? Well, that’s more hogwash! There will always be people who speculate in markets and bet one way or another on whether a marketable commodity will go up or down but the idea that they “control” the price is ridiculous and every professional trader knows that. To try to control a market is economically stupid and financially dangerous for those who try to do it. Do we want to destroy our free market system because of a populist mythology being spread by those who advocate government control of everything? We think not! What controls the price is availability and PERCEIVED availability. When some Iranian nutcase talks about wiping out Israel or when Nigerian radicals actually do blow up a pipeline or when the nitwit dictator of Venezuela threatens to disrupt oil supply why don’t we consider all of them to be “speculators.” Those are the real “speculators” we should be “spiking” and not the producers and those who trade in the free market.

The answer to our energy problems is to ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION not to tax it, ration it, stop it, discourage it and listen to misguided liberal politicians promoting a socialist agenda. Free markets will eventually “deal” with the speculators. They always have, when allowed to. Under Ronald Reagan's Presidency, even bankrupt Communist regimes embraced the free market philosophy. They found that free markets were a much better tool to build personal and national wealth than the old socialist style controls. It's too bad that the Democrat Party seems to have lost its way! Any attempt by politicians to control free markets will end up with scarcity, rationing and, eventually much higher prices! Only the "chosen few" will have a decent standard of living and the rest of the population will be "rationed" into REAL poverty (Not the "perceived" kind we hear all the whining about). How many times must we keep learning the lesson? If we want to bring prices down at the pump, America’s leaders need to send a message to the world that we mean business about becoming energy self reliant. While we are doing that, we and our friends, will develop ways to remove us from dependence on the America-haters around the world. We can do this but to make it happen we need common sense leadership that believes in American values. Maybe high energy prices will finally show people that they need to support and vote for those who believe in free markets. Policies that bring a bright future to America, whether it be in energy independence or anything else, will not be found among tax and spend Democrats who support socialist liberal politicians. Neither will it be found among tax and spend Republicans who fail to provide real leadership and who pander to special interest money. Maybe we have to experience real hardship and depravity before we finally see the light. Let's hope not!

Is Obama a "standup guy?"

The following (except for beginning comment) was forwarded to RiteOn by Guest Editor S. B. of O’Fallon, Missouri...
***************************
RiteOn comment:
This an excerpt from an eye-opening article on the "presumptive" Democrat candidate for President. The information is “out there” folks. We just need to pay attention to what is there and get involved!

Corporate scandal has been identified with some Republicans of late but we need to remind ourselves that many Democrats, and, it seems, at the highest levels of their Party, also have a long history of "questionable" performance when it comes to maintaining minimal ethical standards! (We are being VERY charitable in our terminology here!)

Democrats almost totally control "big city" politics and does any tax paying citizen in this country believe they have not taken corruption in our cities to new levels. The “presumptive” Democrat nominee for President is a “product” of this “big city” political environment. Do we want to put the ethical standards of “big city politics” in charge of our tax money? (To say nothing of national security, foreign policy and Supreme Court nominations.) There’s a good chance that a Democrat sitting in the White House will have a veto proof majority in Congress! With this scenario in place we wouldn’t simply have “change,” we would have “revolution!” If that happens, RiteOn predicts that waste, corruption and incompetence will reach a level never before seen in America! What we see as today’s “corporate greed” will look like the financial operations of a kid’s corner lemonade stand.
*************************************
Excerpt from an article by Columnist Froma Harrop...

Barack Obama is such a stand-up guy that he'll stand up twice — once for each side of an issue. The poetry reading on change and hope is over. Now that he has to talk about real policy, there's little rhyme in the rhythm.

Take James Johnson, who was Obama's adviser on picking a vice president until his resignation Wednesday. Nothing wrong with rich businessmen. They can be smart and help solve America's problems. But Johnson's chief specialty has been in helping himself.

He has apparently been a "friend of Angelo" — that is, Angelo Mozilo, the former head of the infamous mortgage monger Countrywide Financial. Like other well-connected "friends," Johnson received mega mortgages from Countrywide at rates considerably below that offered the average toiler.

But that's not the worst part... (...continued by using the link below)

(please read the entire article by clicking on the following link:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/froma-harrop/on-issues-obama-poetry-won-t-rhyme.html

DECEIVING THE INFIDEL AND OTHER MATTERS

The following was written by RiteOn Guest Editor E.G......
(Note: Written as a response to comments made by another member of the "discussion group" that EG participates with. You can see more writing from this group by going to Stephen Browne's blog at http://rantsand.blogspot.com....  Ed.)
*******************************
I believe Arab/Islamic culture considers deceiving “the Infidel” as acceptable, so why would any intelligent being believe we can “negotiate” with those whose very idea of negotiation is to deceive? This is what makes Obama so dangerous. He’s arrogant and uninformed (a deadly combination).  Achmadinijad would be schmoozing him with butter tea and singing his praises (which makes his head swell alarmingly) while planning on nuking Tel Aviv. The North Koreans did the same thing to Bill Clinton (and to some extent to George Bush).

Incidentally, will the nuclear physicists on the board (the “discussion” group) educate me. One of the posters—forget who—lamented that Israelis nuking Tehran would be a bad thing because it would spread radiation both east and westward --  the “On the Beach” scenario. So why wouldn’t Iranians nuking Tel Aviv be the same dire happening? Or is nuking Jews okay because they’re Jews? Iran has openly stated destroying Israel is their intent in the future and they’re madly refining uranium. So who doesn’t think it’s for a bomb?(... read on)

BARACK OBAMA: GAFFE MACHINE

Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
By Michelle Malkin  •  May 21, 2008 07:43 AM
Copyright 2008

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe <http://www.capitalcentury.com/1992.html> .” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology <http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.asp>  at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people <http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/09/video-obama-10000-dead-from-tornado-in-kansas-give-or-take-9988/> : “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? <http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/09/obama-i-want-to-be-president-of-all-57-states/>  I think one left to go.”

*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City <http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/16/obama-to-sioux-falls-thank-you-sioux-city/> …I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.” (... read on)

OBAMA AND MCCAIN

(Forwarded to RiteOn (with comment) by Guest Editor H. B. of Williamsburg, Virgina...)
**************************
With respect to those wh have said, “I could never vote for McCain” because... HB. ---
-------
Thomas Sowell-“Obama and McCain”

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober—if not grim—assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world—Iran—is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran’s nuclear bomb will be the terrorists’ nuclear bomb—and they can make 9/11 look like child’s play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand—however outrageous those demands might be—or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden’s threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s—and our “leaders” and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the “leaders” and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today’s presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear—or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West’s lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West’s industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure—at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

A YEAR OF FIRSTS!

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.    Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things,... (read on...)

GEORGE SOROS MAY RUN THE COUNTRY

Any excuse at all that we can find to disqualify an elitist socialist phony like Barack Obama from gaining the Presidency of the U.S. is one we’re going to take! Hillary is not much better but she IS a cut above Obama. We don’t want George Soros running the country and a plethora of political appointees enacting policies that dismantle our national defense and military research.

This guy Obama, if he is elected, will have the power to destroy both the country and the culture as we know it. In our opinion, his 20 years of being tutored under radical extremists in Chicago plus all of the obvious, trivial or not, indications of his mistaken beliefs are of great consequence to our well being and our ability to maintain our traditional culture and a decent standard of living. We may be forced to surrender our security and economic stability by a large number of spoiled brat fools who think a smooth talker who beckons them with a crooked finger every time he speaks is “cool,” but we won’t go easily!

THE HARRY TRUMAN KIND OF POLITICIAN

Well...you can’t help but long for the Harry Truman kind of politician again.

When President Truman retired from office in 1952, his income was substantially a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year.  Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an ‘allowance’ and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, ‘You don’t want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.’ Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, ‘I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.’

We now see that the Clintons have found a new level of success in cashing in on the presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, ‘My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, I find there’s hardly any difference.

RULES MATTER? WELL, ONLY IN CERTAIN CASES!

All of a sudden the Democrat Party is taking the position that rules matter! In the case of whether or not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates at the Democrat National convention, the Obama camp, along with its sympathizers on the Democrat National Committee is sticking to the argument that there should be a penalty for breaking the rules.

We wonder why that principle doesn’t apply to their multitudes of liberal supporters and sympathizers in organizations like the ACLU who argue almost daily in the courts that penalties should not be levied against those who break the rules of society. Its a big no-no to break the party’s rules when it comes to politics but when it comes to inflicting rule breakers on non-politician citizens of the country we are supposed to “give in” and “understand.”