I will begin by answering coven's questions:
1. Which McCain policy is better for U.S.?
Lifing ban on offshore drilling.
Question 1 for coven:
How does Obama's insistence on banning offshore drilling help lower gasoline prices?
2) Definiton of a 'Good Leader';'Visionary'?
A good leader is somebody who goes first.
It's not somebody who says they're for public funding of campaigns and then rejects public funding
out of pragmatism. A visionary is somebody who can see things in the future better than they are today -and not for himself personally, but for the
3) How do Nuclear Weapons Ensure Global Peace?
They don't. Eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons ensures enemies of the U.S. could hold the U.S. hostage.
4) How does a guaranteed Nuclear Holocaust Ensure Global Peace?
Because it would be in nobody's interest to initiate an attack that would ensure their own destruction.
5) How would John McCain's policy of 'Don't leave Iraq ensure Americans are safer, and global peace is possible?
The presence of the troops in Iraq stops other enemies of the U.S., like Iran, from moving in an taking over Iraq and gaining more power that would
destabilize the region, and put U.S. allies in jeopardy.
Now I will rebut coven's Top 3 reasons he gives for Obama becoming next POTUS.
1. Affirmative action for poor whites. Huh?
What coven has pointed out is that Obama, in his obsession with pandering to every possible demographic, has now sunk to a new low. Obama is now
pandering to his weakest demographic, middle-class white voters, by bastardizing the entire concept of affirmative action.
2. Easing up on convicted drug users and crack heads.
While the first reason is pure pandering to the white middle-class, the second reasoning is pure pandering to blacks who have made the crack vs.
coc aine sentencing disparity into a racial issue.
With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while gas is at $4 a gallon, and while the mortgage industry teeters on implosion, coven would have you believe
that Obama should be the next POTUS because he's going to go easier on crack users.
3. Fix the tax system by eliminating taxes for 10 million Americans, and eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000.
Again, this is pandering at it's finest. Coven is pointing out that Obama is campaigning on the premise that "everybody except YOU will pay higher
taxes." Telling millions of people they won't have to pay taxes is a way to get elected, but I would guess that it's not going to happen. After
all, in his time in the Senate has Obama introduced any tax legislation that reflects what he claims he's planning on doing now?
Now let's look at coven's answers, or lack thereof, to my questions:
Except for #1, Coven's answers are barely worth wasting space over. An example of Obama's leadership and vision? He'll reduce crack-head
sentencing? I don't think this is leadership or vision.
Obama's core principle: ethics? Uh-huh. Ever wonder why Tony Rezko's wife bought the lot adjoining Obama's property on the SAME DAY Obama bought
his $1 million+ house?
The U.S. would be more secure with less advanced weapons? I don't think so.
And coven claims windfall profit taxes would cause the oil companies to LOWER prices to make more profit? Nope. Not even close.
Profit = sales x price - taxes.
Notice that if the "taxes" variable in the equation is increased, say for example with a windfall profit tax, there is no way the right side of that
equation can get larger by LOWERING price. It's the opposite. To keep profits even LEVEL, price has to be increased.
This should be so obvious that coven should be embarrassed to even claim otherwise. In recorded history, increasing taxes on a company has NEVER
resulted in a company lowering a selling price to consumers.
Cite examples of when increasing taxes on a corporation resulted in that corporation lowering prices to the public.
Now let's look at coven's first answer...
I asked coven to name just 3 policies of Obama's that differed from Hillary Clinton in a way that distinguished Obama as being more worthy to be
POTUS. coven used limited space as an excuse and listed only ONE policy difference -Obama doesn't take lobbyist money.
Of course what coven didn't tell you is the rest of the story.
Obama didn't take money directly from lobbyist because he attempted to eliminate the 527 groups altogether by asking donors to bypass the 527s and
contribute money DIRECTLY to Obama. In other words, Obama still wanted the money, but wanted to eliminate the middle-man 527 groups so that he would
not be held accountable to what they stand for.
Why's this? Because Obama stands for nothing. He says one minute he'll filibuster any FISA bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies
and then a few weeks later he turns around and says he'll vote for a FISA bill giving telecoms retroactive immunity. Obama did the same with
campaign finance, and now is softening his pledge to immediate withdraw the troops from Iraq to bring them home, and instead is talking about
redeploying the troops to Afghanistan.
So it's no wonder Obama would rather you send money to him instead of a 527 group. He still gets the money and he doesn't have to stick to one
position that is in alignment with whichever group gave him the money.
But more important is this whole notion that Obama's failure to accept lobbyists' money somehow puts him above "politics as usual." Nothing could
be further from the truth.
Obama is surrounded by the most deeply entrenched Washington operatives. His chief foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski. And this is where
we can begin to go further down the rabbit hole because Brzenski's son, Mark Brzenski, is also an advisor to Obama.
And what's Mark Brzezinski's "day job"? He's an attorney for one of the most powerful international corporate law firms in the world,
And who does McGuireWoods represent? How about firms like General Electric, Global Oil Field Services, Ford Motor, and Verizon.
One of Obama's most connected advisors, Mark Brzezinski, is a lawyer for a firm that represents Verizon, a telecom company which will directly
benefit from Obama's recent reversal to vote in favor of the FISA bill giving telecom companies retroactive immunity.
And coven claims Obama is
somehow immune from the influence of corporate lobbyists?
How can Obama have Mark Brzezinski on his payroll while Brzezinski and his firm represent companies like Verizon, Ford, Global Oil Field Services, and
still claim that he is beyond corporate influence?
Who else does McGuireWoods represent? Alternative energy firms Greenlight Energy, Leveraged Green Energy, LP, and SUEZ Energy North America. So
McGuireWoods represents alternative energy companies and Obama plans in putting $50 billion of taxpayer money into alternative energy venture cap
funds. Coincidence? Not likely.
And if you doubt the influence of McGuireWoods on the Obama campaign, check this out. Jeremiah J. Posedel, another attorney at McGuireWoods, was
Obama's deputy campaign manager for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.
Obama reversed his position on retroactive immunity for telecoms, while his former deputy campaign manager and current foreign
policy advisor are attorneys for McGuireWoods, the firm that represents Verizon. Is Obama being disingenous by claiming he's free from corporate
influence while not disclosing this fact?
And now here's an interesting connection.
Brzezinski co-authored reports with Richard Holbrooke. This is the same Richard Holbrooke who is also a co-Chair of Perseus LLC, the hedge fund at
which James Johnson is Vice Chairman. And of course it's James Johnson who Obama selected to lead his committee to vet a VP candidate.
Is Obama being disingenous by not disclosing his relationship with Perseus LLC execs, and their partnership with George Soros?
I could devote a full book on Obama's relationships with Washington insiders like the Brzezinski's but space does not permit. Needless to say,
Obama's claims of being insulated from corporate influence are totally bogus. He's being bought, sold, and controlled by the wealthy
Washington/global elite. As such, Obama shouldn't be POTUS because he cannot be trusted to act on principle rather than act to benefit the
interests of his handlers.
This is why I selected the "Wizard of Oz" as the metaphor for Obama. It fits perfectly. Coven's erroneous claim that the Wizard helped Dorothy
get home is indicative of his poor attention for details, and for his desire to believe what he wants to believe no matter what the facts. The Wizard
promised Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Lion, and the Scarecrow that he would give them their deepest desires. In reality, he gave them nothing. In the
end, the Wizard, exposed for what he really was, a charlatain, floated off alone in his balloon never to be seen again. It was Glinda that helped
Dorothy get home, not the Wizard.
Likewise Obama is the same type of charlatan, promising everybody that he will give them exactly what they want. However, the only people who
actually will get what they want are the men paying the bills and pulling the levers, men like James Johnson, Frank Pearl, Richard Holbrooke, Lee
Hamilton, Zbigniew & Mark Brzezinski, and their clients.
Explain how Obama is a different type of politician?