Coatsville Blog Combo

Merry Christmas to all of our friends and family. May you all have a wonderful and safe Christmas and New Years.

Love,

The Coats'

OK, so my friend, a liberal Democrat, sent me an email today - Day #1 with a President-elect Obama.

In it, he said:

I definitely understand the apprehension involved in welcoming a democrat to the white house. Even though I will vote for him I will be worried as well, but the same thing that worries me about him also is what won my vote. He is not afraid to tell you what he hopes to do even though he knew it could scare a lot of people. I heard a lot of the same talk when Clinton was running against Bush. Doom and Gloom. And now 12 years later I heard a die hard republican say that the last good president we had was Clinton and going further back Reagan. He said he would vote for Clinton today if he was running against McCain. So Im hoping Obama proves to be as surprising. We shall see.

I respect him for admitting some anxiety regarding the upcoming Obama presidency. I, too, hope that Obama proves to be suprising. I hope I'm not only wrong, but WAY wrong. Though his past statements and actions hint otherwise, I truly hope he governs from the center instead of the FAR-left where he's resided pretty much his whole career.

So, to my friend, I thoughtfully submit the following reply:

For me, the apprehension isn’t directed toward the new President being a Democrat. The apprehension is directed toward the fact that he is an extreme left-wing ideologue.

If I had a choice, I’d love to have Bill Clinton take his place for the next 4 years. The reason is because Bill Clinton, pathological liar he may be, was a centrist. True, he was “center-left,” but he was, more or less, a centrist nonetheless. He was able to get things done because he wasn’t a hard-core left-wing ideologue. He was able to come together with the Republican-controlled Congress at the time. I also give the Rep.-controlled Congress props as well, for being able to “reach across the aisle” and work with the Democrat minority and a Democrat President. I believe that the Republican-controlled Congress should get most of the credit for what was accomplished during this time since Congress is the one that actually writes the bills, etc.

One of the things I’ve been disappointed with Bush about is that he hasn’t been able to come to that kind of middle ground very much (that, and I hate how large government has gotten under him – it’s pathetic for someone who is supposedly for smaller government). For the same reason as above, I also lay most of the blame at the feet of the US Congress for the complete and utter inaction that has occurred over the last 8 years. And yes, not only do I recognize that it was mostly a Republican-controlled Congress, I blame the Republicans for it much like I think the Republicans deserve most (not all) of the credit for the Clinton years.

The last two years, which have been clearly the worst of the 8 Bush years, can be laid at the feet of the Democrats who had control of both houses of Congress and was supposedly going to usher in a climate of bipartisanship and, instead, made that climate worse. Proof of the last 2 years being the worst is easy to see: the current economic environment and the obscenely low approval rating for Congress (if you think Bush’s low approval numbers which are around 25-30% are bad, Congress’ approval numbers are around 10%).

So what it comes down to is that Washington is NOT doing the right by the people and blame can be laid at the feet of both parties.

So, back to my opening two sentences. I believe that Barack Obama is a very far-left ideologue and will not create a climate of bi-partisanship. He is widely considered the most extreme candidate to ever win it’s party’s Presidential nomination. In 2007, he is ranked as “the most liberal” by the non-partisan National Journal. He voted with his party 4th most of ANY Democrat. I do not believe he will work with Republicans and come together. I think there may be 4 more years of infighting and stalemate.

I also believe that he is, more or less, a Socialist. I don’t think he’s a Marxist or a Communist like some of the crazies call him, but I do think he’s a socialist. From Wikipedia definition of Socialism: All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly. I don’t believe that we need to redistribute our wealth. I do not think the Government is was created to provide cradle-to-grave service. I believe that we, as a nation, are overtaxed, not under-taxed. I think that wealth redistribution (and that’s what taxing the rich to give to the poor is, ultimately) promotes a laziness and selfishness that is bad for our society.

I believe his incredible lack of experience will be a large obstacle to getting anything done. When he won his Senate bid in 2004, he was asked if he would like to run for President in 2008. He said he had no experience and being President didn’t lend itself to on-the-job training. Well, he’s spent 2 of the last 3.5 years campaigning. He has no experience. He’s never run anything in his life. Acting as a “Community Organizer” is one thing, but running the most powerful country on the planet is, sadly, WAY out of his league.

We are becoming an “entitlement state” and we are losing standing in the world because of it. For whatever reason, people think that they’re entitled to free healthcare, free college, free retirement (Social Security) and that it should be provided by the government (ie. Taxpayers). I don’t think so. Why the same people who think government, which is a bloated, inefficient mess that can’t even balance a checkbook, could think that it could run a healthcare system is beyond me. Do I think healthcare is an issue that needs to be reformed – absolutely. Do I think that Socializing it right? Absolutely not; that would be a travesty.

Unfortunately, I think his lack of experience, socialist economic philosophy and the entitlement/welfare/nanny state that his policies will be disastrous for America. I can’t believe I’m saying it, but if a Democrat had to win, why couldn’t Bill Clinton be running the country right now?

That’s why I’m afraid. I’m very afraid.

Ok, so I believe I left off with the reason why I believe that the McCain-Palin ticket is the one to vote for. This part deals with why I believe the Obama-Biden ticket would be very BAD for this country.

First and foremost, I believe that Barack Obama is possibly the most liberal and most extreme Presidential candidate in the last century, possibly ever.

His associations, by themselves, are a little disturbing as well, but put together, they are downright terrifying.

First, take his relationship with Tony Rezko. Rezko is a political fundraiser, who was recently found guilty of six counts of wire fraud, six counts of mail fraud, two counts of corrupt solicitation, and two counts of money laundering.

Obama purchased 1/2 of a lot of land on the exact same day that Rezko bought the adjoining lot. The lot was actually one big lot, but the owner was talked into splitting it into two. Obama's paid approximately $300k LESS than it was worth while Rezko paid full price.

After it had been reported in 2006 that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling, Obama purchased a 10 foot (3.0 m) wide strip of Ms. Rezko's property for $104,500, $60,000 above the assessed value (well more than double the value).

From ABCNews:

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

Obama also helped funnel $14 Million for a senior citizen development project headed by Rezko and partner Allison Davis. The project received more than $14 million in taxpayer funds, including $885,000 in development fees for Rezko and Davis. After Rezko and company accepted these millions of dollars, the "Senior Citizen Development Project" apartments slowly went into decay as the funds never went for maintenance.

From Salon.com:

Rezko, after all, built part of his fortune by exploiting the black community that Obama had served in the state Senate, and by milking government programs meant to benefit black-owned businesses. But Obama took Rezko's money even after the businessman was sued by the city of Chicago for failing to heat his low-income apartments, and even after Rezko was caught using a black business partner to obtain a minority set-aside for a fast-food franchise at O'Hare Airport.

Second on the disturbing associations is his former pastor of 20 years, Reverend Jermiah Wright. Wright is the far-left extremist, racist and America-hating pastor, famous for the following saying we should say not say "God bless America, but to say "God damn America" instead. He has also said that we deserved what we got on 9/11.

Per ABCNews.com, Obama's press spokeman said:

Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright...

Lastly, but possibly most disturbingly, Obama has had a long "friendly" (as an Obama campaign strategist admits) relationship with William Ayers, one of the founders of the domestic terrorist group (though I hear they like the term "radical" instead) "Weather Underground" in the '60s and '70s. He is now a Professor at the University of Ill. at Chicago.

The Weather Underground took credit for several bombings on targets, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. In his memoirs "Fugitive Days," Ayers writes: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers posed for a photograph accompanying the 9/11 piece that shows him stepping on an American flag.

To me, that makes him an unrepentent domestic terrorist. I wouldn't want to be associated with him under any circumstances. Obama's political career was launched in Ayer's house. Obama has lied to the public by saying that this FACT is untrue. Why he continues to deny it when it's so well documented is strange.

They served on a Board (that oversaw distribution of grant money) together for 3 years as well. He was not just "a guy in my neighborhood." Stop lying to us Barack.

If you take them one at a time, they're disturbing, but once you look at his associations (long-time pastor who is "like an uncle" or "father-figure", an unrepentent terrorist he is "friendly" with and an convicted felon who happened to buy the other half of the property you otherwise couldn't quite afford), they're downright scary.

I, personally, don't want an extremist and corrupt liar in the whitehouse (at least Bill Clinton was just the last two).

Obama is running on a campaign for "change." He's never changed anything in his life. He's never run anything either, for that matter. I take that back. 2 of his 3 years in the Senate he's been running for President, not doing the job he was elected to do (represent the state of Illinois).

When he was in the state senate, he had a chance to change Illinois politics, but didn't. Hell, the only reason he was able to win his senate race is because his campaign minions worked tirelessly to get his opponants thrown off the ballot, thus running unchallenged.

From NRO book review on "The Case Against Barack Obama" (great book, though it's too late for you to read now, isn't it?):

Yes, some signers didn’t live in the right district to vote in that race, and there were allegations that some signatures were forged. But others were thrown out for being in print instead of cursive, and one woman’s was deemed invalid because she signed under her married name and was still registered to vote under her maiden name. These are “technicalities.”

Obama is also the most ill-equipped, least experienced candidate ever to get his party's nomination. He has voted "present" 129 times. That's not a yes or no. That's a "I don't want to go on record as having an actual opinion or making an actual decision." Sorry Barack, there is no "present" vote as President. You have to make actual decisions and it's clear you're not capable.

Biden, on the other hand, has quite a bit of experience in Washington. He's also on the liberal (ie. wrong) side of nearly every idea as well, though admittedly not AS liberal as Obama.

Let's contrast the "airhead" persona the liberal media has portrayed Palin with some of the comments of Biden and Obama. Read them. Try to even remember if ANY media brought them up. Think what would happen if Palin had said any one of these idiotic things...

Obama:
Click the link to watch the video, by the way.

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in...in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

Yes, he apparantly sees dead people. At the Memorial Day rally, he says he sees many of our fallen heroes. All I can think of is "The Sixth Sense" and that kid whispering "I see dead people."

Obama: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

Obama (same site as above):

Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.

Obama (same site):

Worse than the lack of knowledge of the languages spoken in other nations is that he lacks an understanding of the threat posed by some of them. Or maybe he doesn't. It is really a bit confusing. In Portland, Oregon, Obama said of Iran, "They don't pose a serious threat to us." The following day in Billings, Montana he said: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave." Maybe it depends what the definitions of "grave" and "serious" are. As I said, it is all bit confusing. Maybe that is why so many focus on the crowds at Obama's events, rather than to what Obama is actually saying to them.

Obama dodging a very important question:

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?" Obama responded: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."

We know what that answer is, though, don't we. Obama voted AGAINST requiring medical workers to provide life-saving help to an infant that was born alive after a botched abortion. Personally, I would think if the baby is born alive, he should have the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our forefathers intended. But if that's above your pay-grade...

Biden's gaffe's include asking a wheelchair-ridden Senator to stand up at a rally, saying that paying high taxes is "patriotic," has confused army brigades with battalions, and said that Hillary Clinton was a better VP candidate than him.

Biden also raised eyebrows with his awkwardly-worded praise of Obama:"I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Biden:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed," Biden told the CBS Evening News on Sept. 22.

But Herbert Hoover was president in October 1929 when the stock market crashed. FDR wasn't elected until 1932, and television made its debut a decade later, in 1939.

Biden:
"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

Biden:

Biden's 1988 presidential bid imploded when it was revealed he was lifting parts of his stump speech -- and parts of his supposed family history -- from a speech given by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Biden said he was the first in his family to go to college. He wasn't. He said he was the grandson of a coal miner who "would come up [from the mines] after 12 hours and play football."

While Biden did attribute statements to Kinnock several times, in a Democratic debate at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 23, 1987, he didn't give Kinnock credit when he plagiarized his speech. It was also revealed that Biden plagiarized a paper in law school. That tape kicked off the controversy that sunk his campaign.

Biden:

On Sept. 17 at a campaign stop in Maumee, Ohio, Biden told an environmentalist that the Democrats don't support clean coal. "We're not supporting clean coal," he said.

But they do. Obama said his administration will "enter into public private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology."

Biden had criticized China for building "two dirty coal plants" every week and polluting the United States. "No coal plants in America," he said. "If they're going to build them over there, make them clean, because they're killing you."

Overall, an Obama-Biden administration would be a travesty. Obama is a shady extremist who's accomplishments include an uncontested election and a speech during the Democratic Convention earlier in the decade. I haven't even gotten into how bad his social-ist economic policies will be to our economy (read this and this for great analyses). I haven't even discussed how bad his Social-ized healthcare policies will be for America (read this for more). I haven't even discussed how bad Obama's energy policy is for America. I haven't discussed Obama's connection to ACORN, a left-wing group, subject to over 11 investigations of voter fraud and other criminal behavior (For example, an ACORN employee filed false/illegal voter registrations that included the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys)

If you want lower taxes (not government-controlled wealth redistribution), vote McCain-Palin.

If you want better healthcare (not government-controlled healthcare), vote McCain-Palin.

If you want better energy policy (not environmental-wacko extremism that has caused our current foreign energy dependence), vote McCain-Palin.

If you want an experience President (not the least-experience Presidential candidate in history), vote McCain-Palin.

If you want someone you can trust (not someone with close ties to radical extremists), vote McCain-Palin.

If you want someone who can work "across the aisle" (not someone who has voted with their party more than any other congressman), vote McCain-Palin.

If you want someone who, 5 years ago, forsaw the mortgage crisis and actively tried to regulate Fanny/Freddie (not someone who received more money from Fanny/Freddie than any other congressman in history, in just 2 years even), vote McCain-Palin.

If you want a better America, vote McCain-Palin.

Ok, here's my take on the upcoming election. Now, don't get me wrong, John McCain was NOT at the top of my choices for the Republican candidate for President. I think that the best candidate to lead America for the next four to eight years is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Unfortunately, he decided not to run because, due to campaign finance laws, he would have to quit his post at American Solutions, a think-tank he helped found.

Strangely, Senators Obama, Biden, McCain and Gov. Palin all area able to fly around the US campaigning, NOT doing their job as Senator/Governor, all while collecting paychecks for the job they're not doing. That's CRAP and a major piece to the system that is broken.

I believe that individuals who are currently serving in another governmental capacity (Senator, Representative, or other position like Sec. of State, etc.) AND would like to run for President of the US, should be required to either A)resign or take a leave of absense from their position. This would include stopping any salary they were receiving as part of their old position. I also think that their old position should be filled on an interim basis by someone so the work they were elected to do could get done. How this replacement is chosen (by the candidate? Gov. of the state they're representing? by their party leader of the branch they're in?), I'm not sure on.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah. So McCain wasn't my first choice, but I do believe he is a SIGNIFICANTLY better choice than Barack Obama.

First, McCain has 20+ years of Congressional experience. He knows how Washington operates, though he's never been the "insider." He's been the one that stands his ground. He'll stand up to his party if he needs to and he'll work across the aisle as well.

Second, I believe that McCain has an overall better vision of America than Obama. I believe that ALL Americans are vastly OVER-taxed, not under-taxed. We have, by far, the highest levels of business taxes of any industrialized nation. The high taxes are slowing our economy and driving businesses overseas where they can experience a more favorable tax climate.

Third, I believe McCain has the better ideas on Energy independence. I believe we need an "all of the above" approach to our energy policy. I know he was a recent convert to offshore drilling (as was Obama - sort of, but we'll get to that later), but I believe we need to allow for drilling offshore, add a significant number of nuclear reactors, we need to explore and drill in ANWR and try to harness Wind, Hydro, Solar and other alternative energy sources.

Lastly, I believe that Senator McCain will appoint good Constructionist judges, which is what we need. The US Supreme Court has become the most powerful legislative entity in the Government. Read "Men in Black" by Mark Levin for a great tutorial in how these judges are legislating from the bench, essentially creating laws based on their own beliefs and not from what the US Constitution says, which is their job.

As for Sarah Palin, I believe she is a VERY bright individual. The liberals in this country try to mock and diminish her acheivements every chance they get. They all but slander her non-stop. I think that part of their hatred for her is that there is a female that dares to be conservative. Not only that, she's a very attactive woman (and we all know how women hate other attractive women). So much for the feminists - they now have to actively hate/despise/undermine another woman!

Palin was elected Mayor of a small town in Alaska, but did such a great job there (lowered property taxes while increasing services), she was able to beat a same-party incumbent for Governor of the largest state in America to become the first female Governor for Alaska. While Governor (Executive Branch like the Presidency for you liberals out there), she worked very well with Democrats and quickly acheived the highest approval rating of any Governor in America.

Overall, she is a very nice, bright individual who can get things done in a bi-partisan way. She will make a great Vice-President.

Stay tuned for my take on Senators Obama and Biden.

Link: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

This is a very interesting article (written by a Democrat, by the way), which points out how badly the media is in the tank for Barack Obama. It's so obvious it's sickening. What it comes down to is that any journalist or media personality (or, um, Senator running for President or Vice President) that says Bush and/or McCain caused the financial mess is flat out lying to the public.

Interesting exceprts:

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.

Bet you can't guess which party

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

Oh no, must be McCain, right? Nope.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

AMEN brother! You're very right. Most of the liberal media are nothing but dishonest, do-anything-to-elect-Obama, public relations mouthpieces of the Democratic National Committee. No wonder journalists have such a low "trust" ranking by the American public.