Change, Obama's positions vary minute by minute

As recent news events and the current political cycle has demonstrated, disgusting images of anyone on the left are hate speech and those committing such acts must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Arguments, ideologies and even general statements that differ from the leftist “party line” are deemed at their core racist, intolerant, disgusting, lies and without basis. Even when it is shown that those statements are rooted in fact backed up with quotes and even recordings showing the statements to be factual.

Barack Obama was only 8, so the story line goes, when Bill Ayres committed his heinous acts, there for he cannot be held responsible, I can accept that. But Obama was in his 30’s when he sat on committees and boards with Ayers, conceding to and helping to promote Ayres views of America while accepting Ayres help in launching his own political career. The Obama campaign would have us believe the candidate barely knew Ayres.

For 20 years Obama sat in the pews of the Chicago Trinity United Church while Jeremiah Wright spewed hate for the principles of America and directed that hate towards 74% of Americans who are white. Obama counseled with Wright and calls Wright his spiritual mentor. Yet during all that time Obama claims he knew nothing of the racist views and hatred espoused by Wright. When confronted with it, Obama conveniently threw his mentor of 20 years “under the bus.”

Now the story line goes that it was 7 years ago when Obama made statements of support for PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi calling Khalidi his "friend and frequent dinner companion." That was so long ago and now the Obama campaign spins out, “he does not share Khalidi's views.”

Of course, he didn't mean "spreading the wealth" when he said those words so clearly to Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher. What he really meant was tax fairness.

He doesn't promote or support socialism or Marxism. But, as stated in a 2001 interview, equal outcome for all is desirable and even, in his view, a basic societal right that the US Supreme Court has failed to ensure. According to Obama our nations highest court failed to "break free from the essential constraints" of our Constitution. Therefore the Constitution itself is, in his view, fundamentally flawed and should be "thrown under the bus."

The Obama campaign dismisses the socialist characterization of such statements as a "distraction." The spokesperson says Obama was speaking of the "civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality" and "has nothing to do with Obama's economic plan."

Excuse me. His 2001 statements are fundamental to his current tax and wealth redistribution policies.

I recently heard Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton excuse a statement by the candidate as inconsequential because it occurred 2 weeks previously. Next we’ll be told to forget what was said in the previous sentence because it just didn’t happen that way.

So we are required to make excuses for and accept a new story line a day for candidate Obama who refuses to defend at face value even one of his controversial stands. If we fail to accept his views we are characterized as racist, intolerant, dysfunctional and without merit.

I suppose in an Obama administration free speech will still reign as long as it mirrors their party line. If not, you may well end up in an gulag, Obama style.

"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson

Profits, profit margins, get the whole story

With 58% Jump in Profit, a Record Quarter for Exxon

As usual the NYT, like most of the rest of the media fail to put oil company profits in perspective.

The "record" was set with the highs in oil prices back in the summer. I want to know what the profit "margin" was. The numbers are impressive, but most Americans don't differentiate between "profit" and "profit margin" or the net earnings to revenue ratio.

That is the real telling figure. Microsoft averages 28-29%. Coke averages 18%. Most people think a 10% margin is acceptable. Historically, oil companies earn 7.5-8.5%, even during the recent "astronomical highs." Exxon's net margin is 9.21%. Coke 18%, Microsoft 28%, Exxon 9.2%. Who's really raping the consumer?

In this quarter they spent $7 billion on research and development, nearly $33 billion on taxes (that's before the Obama "windfall" profits taxes) and had earnings of $14.8 billion.

And those earnings are returned to the investors, i.e. pension funds, mutual funds, 401-K's, individual investors, institutional investors. If you have a retirements fund or mutual fund, you may very well be a beneficiary.

All I want to see is perspective in these articles but they are determined to demonize these companies without which our economy would come to a screeching halt. No energy to run it, no economy, no jobs, no home, no retirement, no food, clothes, goods etc.

Do they make a lot of money, Sure do! Is that bad? Let 'em go bust and see what happens. Do they earn excessive profits, not even.

"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson

Hangings in America

The recent degeneration of political discourse in the form of effigies of Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and now twice reported effigies of Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama are a sad commentary on the state of America.

Chad Michael Morrisette, the creator of the Palin effigy that has hung since the weekend, says its art and humor. At the same time he acknowledges that such an image is distasteful and offensive, "The image of a hanged black man is a lot more intense than the image of a hanged white woman, for our country and the history of our country," he told a local station.

Yet the effigy remains despite outcry from local official as well as across the nation. The local sheriff says there’s no law against “bad taste” while the FBI responded, "It's clearly distasteful, but it doesn't appear to be a violation of federal civil rights statutes." A special agent with the Secret Service says, “incident seems to be a harmless, though unusual, Halloween display.”

Meanwhile, effigies of Obama have had brief appearances at the University of Kentucky in Lexington and at George Fox University in Oregon. Both effigies were immediately taken down, there were no references to free speech or art, only offered apologies and disgust.

The students who allegedly confessed responsibility for the GFU incident will be punished according to school officials while the president of KU, Lee Todd, “says that he plans to personally apologize to the Obama family on behalf of the university and that he is ‘personally offended and deeply embarrassed by this disgusting episode.’"

Why the disparate difference in response to these equally despicable acts of feigned violence? Do we in America, in the interests of “tolerance” fail to understand the significance of the act of hanging someone in effigy? Is good taste, or conversely abhorrent behavior, solely dependent on the political position of the one so depicted?

Perhaps so. The Islamic world well recognizes the power of the image of hanging one in effigy. We have seen images almost ad nauseam of President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Many Americans have found these images disgusting and disturbing, yet we have never heard outcries against them from those on the left who now find such images of Obama offensive.

From this lack of response one can infer that as far as the left is concerned, it is just fine and even acceptable practice to disparage, demonize, and disgustingly depict anyone on the right, or for that matter anyone who disagrees with the left.

"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson