How Obama Got Elected . com

 
This is an insightful piece of video and documentary.  It is neither a slight on Obama nor his supporters. From our perspective it makes the case for the CommonSense2day. Those interviewed on the piece are intelligent individuals, who some may say were subjected to “media malpractice”.  This documentary highlights the importance for the American people to develop a true “common sense” understanding on the basics of mass media. Read more

Over 12 Million Views on YouTube

 Email to a Friend

 

Is this a Democratic Strategy?

Obama continually states that John McCain supported George Bush 90% of the time.

Does it surprise any reader here that Democrats stand with Democrats and Republicans stand with Republicans?  John McCain is accused of voting with George Bush 90% of the time.  However, the record shows that Barack Obama voted 97% of the time with the Democrat party. In fact there are many instances where the Democrats vote with Democrats 100% of the time.

Here is a very interesting piece of information worth further analysis.

The New York Times on September 11, 2003 printed an article about a Bush Administration proposal for a “significant regulatory overhaul” to the housing finance industry.

The proposals were designed to prevent the financial collapse of the housing mortgage industry at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

During the 2005-2006 congressional sessions of the 109th Congressional session, Senator John McCain addressed congress in support of a bill to save and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It was called S.190 (190th ): Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

This bill was introduced by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE] and co-sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC;  Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] and Sen. John Sununu [R-NH].

On Jan 26, 2005, Sen. Charles Hagel addressed the Senate introducing and explaining the bill.

Senator John McCain’s address to the Senate on this bill was on May 26, 2006.

They both urged the passing of this legislation hoping to ward off economic crises. We now know that they were absolutely correct in that assessment.

But a Democrat controlled Congress, lined up 100% against supporting this or any action, and as a result we have the chief component (housing and mortgage) of our recent economic slowdown.

What many cannot understand is how the government, when given the chance, made a decision to do nothing. It failed to act on the looming financial crisis that has overtaken us recently.

There were significant advance notices of this crises dating back to September 11, 2003 in the New York Times and in the 109th Congress S. 190 bill.

So why did the Democrats do absolutely nothing when they held the majority position in votes and committees?

Why did Senator Christopher Dodd [D-CT], Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs fail to act?

Why did  U.S. Representative Barney Frank [MA 4th Congressional District,- D], Chair, House Committee on Financial Services fail to act?

The Republicans tried to do something about Freddie and Fannie before the bottom fell out and the economy collapsed. But the Democrats can point to nothing but inactivity on their parts to avoid the 2008 economic slide of the last few months.

Yet, the general population for the most part who are not aware of the above facts are about to lay the blame on the current Republican administration by voting in an entire Democratic government.

Is it possible even probable that the Democrats let our economy slide intentionally so that they could seize control in 2008? In 2006, did they realize that an economic crisis would be blamed on the current administration making it easier for Democrats to move into the White House in 2008?

Is it possible that the Democrat leadership was more interested in themselves and the acquisition of power then in serving the good of the people?  Have they forgotten they work for us and not themselves?

Sir Conan Doyle writes (Sherlock Holmes), that “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.

By Jay Ashe, Staff Writer (jay.ashe@att.net)

 Email to a Friend

McCain for President

 Charles Krauthammer delivers common sense insight into why he is endorsing John McCain for President over Barack Obama. 

Contrarian that I am, I’m voting for John McCain. I’m not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it’s over before it’s over. I’m talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they’re left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

Read more

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked…

[Watch the Video] Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to “spread the wealth around” — a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a “socialist” at the Republican’s rallies.

Read more

Important Update from CommonSense2day Editor in Chief. Watch this Video.

 Email to a Friend

CommonSense2day is an organization that strives to bring “common sense” news to its readers and subscribers. We have received feedback recently that we are one-sided as it pertains to our news promotions for the current election.  In posting this video we are continuing our pursuit of promoting “common sense” news which we have viewed through a lens of the every day American and more importantly have reviewed for accuracy as best we can.

In viewing this video we have considered some of the feedback that we have received, and feel even more compelled to promote this YouTube video.  It is accurate.

Part of our charter is to help in leveling the playing field of big media that can in fact shape the outcome of political elections due to their massive reach and “deep pockets”. While we do believe that the election coverage in the news has been slanted in favor of Senator Obama, that does not change our charter, we exist to bring pertinent information to everyday Americans. Read more

A Congressional Outrage: An ACORN Falls from the Tree

As negotiations over Congress’s emergency rescue bill continued over the weekend, repeated rumors leaked out that the Democrats were trying to funnel money to a hyper-partisan organization involved in criminal voter fraud. I’m speaking of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — known by its acronym, ACORN. Although ACORN was cut from the final legislation, it’s important to understand this organization and its long history with, of all people, Barack Obama. And it’s important to see how partisan this emergency legislation has become.

 Email to a Friend   Leer en español   Read more

Report on Debate: Only One Candidate Looked Presidential in Debate

Barack Obama Agrees With John McCain Again and Again and Again John McCain and Senator Barack Obama particapated in the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi on Friday evening. Once again, John McCain showed without a doubt that he is ready to be Commander in Chief from day one. Senator McCain’s answers were clear, direct, and heartfelt. Barack Obama, by contrast, repeatedly evaded questions and directly contradicted previous statements that he has made. Read more

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) — The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story. Read more

Election 2008, What matters most?

 

 

 Email to a Friend

 

Biden: Wealthy Americans Must Pay More Taxes to Show Patriotism

The video above shows Obama-Biden tax and spend redistribute income goals. “We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: It’s time to be patriotic… time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Link to related CommonSense2day Post here

 Email to a Friend
 

Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe-”The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.”

“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ “

– New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
You can communicate with the author at: letters@charleskrauthammer.com

 Email to a Friend

Common Sense review of Charlie Gibson interview with Sarah Palin

Palin Takes on Charlie Gibson
(from Rush Limbaugh show)
 Email to a Friend

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to go to one Sarah Palin sound bite. This is perhaps one of the highlights of Sarah Palin’s interview. It’s number 23. It is one of the highlights of the whole interview last night. She’s great in this. I just want to set up this. She would not allow Charlie Gibson to put different words in her mouth when she answers his question about Israel. Now, just listen to this. This is Gibson’s question. “What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?”

PALIN: I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.

Read more

Jon Voight’s Obama Op-Ed: “[He] Falls Short In Every Way”

Jon Voight accuses Barack Obama of “sowing socialist seeds in young people” for an op-ed published in the Washington Times on Monday. Writing on behalf of “we, as parents,” Voight blames the Democrats for waging a propaganda campaign against America’s youth and insisted Obama is weak on terror. Read more

Wealth Distribution? Winfall Tax? The Ant and the Grasshopper

The And and the Grasshopper is a well known story originally attributed to Aesop.  An unknown author wrote a humorous part II. They are provided below as the old version and the modern version. Read more

Next Page »