MonkeyCrash

This Youth Says No To Obama

// November 4th, 2008 // 4 Comments » // POLITICAL ARENA

By a High School Student Named Alyssa

I am a high school student who had to write an argumentative paper on anything we wanted. The topic I chose was why we as Americans should not vote for Barack Obama. The information that I have is cited and factual. I did a lot of cross referencing. I think anyone who is undecided or for Barack Obama should read this, and hopefully it will open their eyes.

Why not to vote for Barack Obama

The 2008 Presidential Election is right around the corner. Some people are voting for Senator John McCain, some are voting for Senator Barack Obama, and some are still undecided. Choosing one of these men to run our great country should not be taken lightly, but done very carefully. Those voting for Obama and those undecided should take Senator Barack Obama’s stances into consideration.
One of the many reasons Barack Obama should not be voted for is because of where he stands on abortion. This is a very sensitive issue with many Americans. Not only is Obama pro-choice, he also voted against banning partial-birth abortion which is abortion that can take place after the first trimester in pregnancy up until a day before the baby is delivered. Obama strongly criticized the decision upholding the partial-birth ban by the Supreme Court. He also opposed a bill that would give medical attention to infants mistakenly left alive by abortion in the Illinois state Senate (Washington Post). According to abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, approximately 80 percent are done for “elective” reasons. Many who are pro-choice might try to argue that the fetus feels no pain at this stage. Professor Robert White, director of the division or neurosurgery and brain research laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine in Cleveland said “the fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without a doubt, this is a dreadfully painful experience for any such infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.” Abortions and partial-birth abortions are both horrible, but partial-birth abortions are dangerous and horrific. If the woman wanted to have an abortion, why wait until the first trimester is over? If Obama has that little regard for a human life, people need to rethink their support for him. Taking a human life is the worst crime that can be committed.
Barack Obama wants to “spread the wealth around”. Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio, was playing ball with his son when he saw Obama in his neighborhood (New York Times). Joe, who was considering buying the plumbing company he worked for, approached him and asked him, “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” (Joe Wurzelbacher)”. Obama answered, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’vegot a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” (Sen. Barack Obama). “Spreading the wealth around” may sound like a good idea to some, but to others it means not working hard and relying on those with higher incomes for money. We live in America where we have the opportunity to be anything we want to be. Men and women go out, earn money, and are entrepreneurs. We should not havea government that takes from one to giveto another. Senator Obama contradicts his “spread the wealth around” statement by saying “We need to steer clear of this poverty of ambition, where people want to drivefancy cars and wear nice clothes and livein nice apartments but don’t want to work hard to accomplish these things. Everyone should try to realize their full potential.” (Barack Obama). If America is going to become a country where we spread the wealth around, what would the incentive to work hard be? This is America where anyone can be anything and all they want to be.
One more reason not to vote for Barack Obama is because of his relationships with radical people. William “Bill” Ayers was a leader of a homegrown terrorist group called Weatherman during the 1960’s. Ayers summed up the ideals of the organization by saying “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents “(Bill Ayers). In his book Fugitive Days Ayers brags that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972? (Bill Ayers, Fugitive Days). Ayers and Weatherman were responsible for thirty bombings that were aimed at destroying the United State’s defense and security infrastructures. Ayers said in 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough” (Bill Ayers). In his book Fugitive Days, Bill Ayers said on whether or not he might use bombs against the U.S. in the future, “I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility” (Bill Ayers). Even though Ayers admitted to these attacks by saying he was “guilty as sin, free as a bird”, he could not be charged with anything because of improper surveillance. When Barack Obama decided to run for the Illinois Senate in the 1970’s, Bill Ayers welcomed him into his own home, invited neighbors, and helped launch Obama’s campaign. Bill Ayers joined the Woods Fund of Chicago in 1999 and served as director alongside of Obama. Ayers also made presentations to board meetings which were chaired by Obama, and spoke for the Chicago School Reform Collaborative before Obama’s board. Obama and Ayers are neighbors and Obama has spent time in his home, yet Senator Obama says he does not have a relationship with this man and was “ignorant of Mr. Ayers’ past terrorist acts” (Barack Obama). Is this the kind of man we want as president of the United States? Do we want someone who has a relationship with a former terrorist who wishes he would have done more? This is just one of several radical persons who Barack Obama calls his “friends”. Obama said of these relationships “Frankly, when you live the kind of lifestyle that I have, it’s hard to make friends. You take what you can get, and you don’t ask a lot of questions. These guys are the best I could do.” I would hope that our next president could do better.
These are just a few of the many reasons as to why we as Americans should not give our vote to Barack Obama. During his campaign, he has not been clear on where he stands and has not been detailed in any of his viewpoints. He has flip-flopped on so many issues that it’s hard to figure out what he stands for. Obama’s main slogan is “change”. Is this change for the better or the worse? The United States of America is the greatest country in the world. Is change really what we want?

Mortgage Crisis Solution: Motivate Homeowners Like Sales Reps

// October 1st, 2008 // No Comments » // ECONOMY

Mortgage Crisis Solution: Motivate Homeowners Like Sales Reps

Posted By, Allyn Paul

I’ve been convinced that with the current state of the economy, the government needs to act as a charity and give out $700 billion. I just don’t think investment bankers should be the recipients. The charity should go to homeowners, and they should have to “do” something to get it! They should earn it.

In my middle-class, middle-manager mind, the solution is simple: if we could get homeowners to pay their mortgages on time, we’d be out of this crisis in a matter of months. It will not be a quick fix, but it will be a rewarding one.

At my office, when my sales force is lagging for the month, I create a contest to motivate them. More often than not, money is the “hot button” that motivates, and I’ve learned to push that button early and often. So let’s pretend that everyone in the US with a mortgage is a “sales rep” and congress is the “sales manager.”

How can we motivate our reps to not only perform, but excel? Incentivize them!

Basic Incentive Plan

For Anyone with a Mortgage on their Primary Residence: Run an incentive plan for 6 months (November 1, 2008-May 2009) stating, “anyone who makes their mortgage payment on time every month during that period will be sent a check from the government for $8,000 in June 2009.”

This is for anyone with a mortgage: on time, late or whatever.

Acceleration Bonus For Over-Achievers

For Those Behind On Their Payments: If your mortgage is already behind at the start of November 2008, you are not required to catch up to be eligible for the basic incentive above. You just have to make 6 monthly mortgage payments on time during the contest, but instead of the $8,000 being sent directly to you at the end, the money will be sent to your mortgage company on your behalf to cover arrearage and late fees. (anything left over is sent to you)

However, if during the 6 month period you not only make your monthly payments on time but work extra hard and “catch up” or “become current” on what you were behind, you will get an additional $2,000 for each month you were able to become current on. (3 month maximum)

For Those Who Are Making Payments On Time As Agreed Already: If your mortgage is current at the start of November 1, 2008 your incentive is to get ahead! You will be paid $2,000 for every 1.5% of the principle mortgage amount you send in over and above your monthly payment during the 6 months! (4.5% maximum)

Just like any good sales incentive, if at the end of the contest the manager sees it is making clear headway towards the bottom line, it can be extended for another period of time. Sometimes you may also adjust the contest to focus on another area or need.

Congress or the IRS would also need to put some stops in place. For example, anyone participating in the plan would need to register and have their credit run so as to thwart those who would run out and advance credit cards in order to catch up their debts. We don’t want to rob Peter in order to pay Paul. I am sure there are other fail-safes that could be added.

The root of this idea is to teach us all a lesson while stimulating the economy. You see, I don’t believe that the majority of people who are behind on their mortgages are that way because they have to be. I wonder how many people who are over their heads with mortgage debt still have cable television, a flat screen HDTV and a family cell phone plan with unlimited data package?

How many of them are eating fast food for lunch everyday and drinking beers and Vodka on the weekends? So what if they lose their house; they’ll just go find an apartment and stock it up with that same HDTV, internet cell phone, beer and vodka.

On the flip side, you have the honest and hard-working folks out there who do keep their bills current and still afford the finer things in life. They live within their means. The extra money they earn will surely find its way back into the economy in the form of spending, whether on luxury items or lifestyle upgrades; ie: economic stimulation.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand there are people in real trouble in this country. But the truth is most have just not been motivated properly to make their house payments. There truly is no incentive for them to do so, negative or positive.

A sales rep once said to me, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so motivate us with positives instead of negatives.”

He was right.

So all you lawyers in Congress need to start thinking like middle managers. What can you do to turn around the country’s “sales numbers?” Is it better to inject money into big company coffers, or put it in the hands of the employees/people?

We elected you, and will be voting again soon. Just beware: swallowing vinegar may cause vomiting. So are we gonna get the honey or what?

Allyn Paul is a big company middle manager. He lives within his means; simply.

His blog, Life and Lawns, offers lawn care tips and advice.

In Florida, Extremists Push Legislation to Ban Grass!

// September 21st, 2008 // 2 Comments » // ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

From Life and Lawns.com
Posted By Allyn Paul

This story comes from Lawn and Landscape Magazine. The reason I’m sharing this is that it goes to show what extremism on issues can do. On one extreme, you have homeowners who are over-watering or at least mis-watering their lawns and wasting a precious resource. On the other extreme, you have people who think the solution is to outlaw grass!

This thinking, friends, is dangerous…Read the rest of : In Florida, Extremists Push Legislation to Ban Grass!

MonkeyCrash is Your Source For Conservative Opinion

A Hillary Supporter’s Caucus Analysis

// September 12th, 2008 // No Comments » // POLITICAL ARENA

This is the story of Lynette Long a Hillary supporter who feels Obama Stole the nomination. Read her story and view her in-depth Caucus Analysis.

MY STORY

by Lynette Long

As I viewed the Texas Primary returns, I was thrilled when Hillary Clinton was declared the winner in Texas. But when national television provided a glimpse of the chaos of the caucus, I thought this does not look like democracy in action. Voters in gymnasiums waiting to caucus in the middle of the night, voters standing in line for hours, and police called into the polls to ensure safety and calm disputes. I did not recognize my country. When all the results were tallied, Texas was painted purple by the pundits since Hillary won the primary and Obama won the caucus. But as the delegates were distributed, I watched the results with dismay and confusion. How could one candidate garner almost a million and a half votes and win the primary by four points and lose the caucus by 12 points in the same state on the same day? Obviously the voters’ perceptions of the candidates had not changed in a few hours. Voters who were voting in the caucus were supposed to have voted in the primary. Obviously caucus voters were not a random sample of primary voters. Certain groups of citizens were less likely or able to attend a caucus: senior citizens afraid to go out or drive at night, single mothers without a babysitter, and people doing shift work. Could these voters, disenfranchised by the process, account for a sixteen point swing in the Texas Two Step? It seemed like a large swing and a statistical improbability to me.

With a Master’s degree in math and fourteen math books under my belt, albeit some of them for first graders, I felt well-armed to explore this problem further. Eventually, I examined the results of the caucuses in all fourteen states and compared the results to the results in the primaries. I was stunned by the fact that Obama won thirteen out of fourteen caucuses when he only won eighteen out of thirty-nine primaries, another statistical improbability. He was just better organized, was the common retort from Obama supporters when I challenged this feat. Initially I bought the combination of better organization and voter disenfranchisement and labeled it “the caucus factor.” I figured that the caucus factor was worth about 15 points in each of the caucuses. In an election this close, that was a hefty difference and one that could determine the candidate for presidency.

Superior organization and voter disenfranchisement were the only explanations I could find to justify the magnitude of the discrepancies I found between caucus results and primary results and caucus results and polls, but I still was not satisfied with my conclusion since it was a historic election where voters for both candidates were motivated to participate. It was at a meeting of Hillary supporters at a friend’s house that I got a glimpse of what really happened. Each of the people at the meeting stood up and introduced themselves. Many were Clinton volunteers who had personally attended one or more of the caucuses. During the introductions, many told stories of busing of out of state voters into caucus states, intimidation from the Obama campaign, and rampant voter fraud. I got the names of many of these women and contacted them, eager to hear the details of their trials. As a researcher, I must admit my initial interviews, although accurate, were undirected since I did not know what I was looking for. I was a voyager in a dark room without a flashlight, but as someone who has developed many research protocols and interviewed thousands of subjects it was easy to discern that the people I was talking to were passionate, honest, and highly motivated to share their experiences. In time I developed an interview protocol, and posted requests for subjects on the internet. Many of those interviews are posted on this website and more will be added as they are conducted. Please feel free to contact me at DrLynetteLong@aol.com if you would like to be interviewed or if you have information you would like to contribute to this report.

My conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process. These efforts produced invalid results in the caucus states and the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for the presidency against the will of the people. I further conclude after systematically examining large PAC contributions to the campaigns of various members of congress that the Democratic hierarchy, including Dean, Pelosi, and Clyburn, selected Obama as the nominee and pressured superdelegates to endorse him.

You can view the in depth analysis at CaucusAnalysis. You can also share your story there as well.