Following in My Sister's Footsteps: Going Forward After McCain '08

Some Light Reading

2008-09-22T17:40:00.001-04:00

A bit of history about the economic crisis:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Who's To Blame?

2008-09-20T12:50:00.004-04:00

As the economic crisis deepens amidst a volatile election season, many look back to the reasons the market is experiencing such a downturn. Many point to a lack of regulation of mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But that just leads to another question...who is responsible for not regulating them?

If one listens to the rhetoric being spewed by Sen. Obama, one would think it was Republicans, not Democrats who are in the hip pocket of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crowd. Unfortunately, even people not that good at research can perform a simple Google search to find the real answer...That Sen. Obama was actually the one being described as "family" by the CEO of Fannie Mae, not McCain.

Furthermore, Obama is #2 in contributions from FNMA ($126, 349), despite being in Congress less than 1/2 of one Senate term. The #1 spot goes to Democrat Chris Dodd ($165,400). Furthermore, Obama took $6,000 from FNMA PACs, McCain took zero. McCains total contributions from FNMA were $21, 550. McCain ranks 53rd in FNMA contributions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Obama's spokesman David Plouffe said on March 27, 2008 that "If we're really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we're going to need a leader who doesn't owe the industry any favors." It appears Plouffe was not talking about his own candidate, Sen. Obama. Take a look at the following campaign contribution stats, taken from Congressional Quarterly and the Center for Responsive Politics:

$370, 500 - Lehman Bros

$5,395 - GMAC

$150, 850 - Credit Suisse First Boston

$11,250 - Countrywide

$9, 052 - Washington Mutual

$161, 850 - Citigroup

$4,600 - CBASS

$170, 050 - Morgan Stanley

$1,150 - Centex

$351, 900 - Goldman Sachs

Total $$ from Top Subprime Mortgage Companies:

$ 1, 180, 103

Two of Obama's top advisers, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, are former CEOs of FNMA as well. (Raines succeeded Johnson.)

Check out http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00252.htm

Furthermore, McCain sponsored legislation in 2005 (The Federal Enterprise Housing Regulatory Reform Act) which called for additional/more regulations for FNMA. The bills sponsors (all Republicans) were John Sununu, Elizabeth Dole, John McCain, and Chuck Hagel. The bill was blocked by Democrats. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@X

McCain's comments at the time:

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 The United States Senate May 25, 2006 Section 16 Record Text Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]:”Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

Depression Era Politics

2008-09-20T12:41:00.001-04:00

Great article on how today's market crises are different from the Great Depression. The article also gives great insight into what works and doesn't work vis a vis Resolution Trust Corps, Reconstruction Assoc's etc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186507676758669.html

Rupert Murdoch Calls Obama Policies "Naive"

2008-09-18T20:41:00.012-04:00

Article here:

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/murdoch-obamas.html

Charlie Rangel's fall from grace is long and hard (That's what she said?)

2008-09-18T20:41:00.011-04:00

Sen. Charlie Rangel, under investigation for tax fraud/evasion/et cetera called Sarah Palin "disabled" on WCBStv today (New York Station). The transcript of the comment:

CBS 2 HD: "Why are the Democrats so afraid of Palin and her popularity?"
Rangel: "You got to be kind to the disabled.
CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?
Rangel: "Yes."

http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/congressman.charles.rangel.2.821541.html

Pretty disgusting comment especially when the woman whom you're calling disabled is a mother of a son with Down's Syndrome.

Nice one Charlie.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

2008-09-18T20:41:00.008-04:00

Each year the National Taxpayers' Union (NTU) analyzes congressional members' votes and ranks them based on these votes (related to anything affecting taxes, budgets, etc.) In 2007, the top 20 members in both House and Senate were Republicans. Anyone above 70% is deemed a "Taxpayers Friend" while anyone scoring below 23% is a "Big Spender."

McCain: 88%

Obama: 16%

Biden: 11%

Hillary: 17%

From the Press Release of the NTU: "The Taxpayers Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, and higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden to taxpayers"

http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2006.pdf

Another thing to consider - Obama swears he will only raise taxes on those making $250,000+ per year. What he actually means is couples make that much (so that individually, someone may only be make $125,000/year. Furthermore, 80% of the top income tax bracket is in fact small businesses, which employ about 75% of the U.S. workforce. Where do you think they will get the money to pay for the huge tax increase Obama is proposing? By cutting workers and lowering salaries or by passing it on to customers in the form of higher prices. This practice restricts on savings, investments and expansion! Thus, Wal-mart may end up paying a smaller percentage in taxes than a small business. Does that sound fair? No, but then again, neither do higher taxes.

An Argument Against Government Spending

Some Democrats argue that by increasing federal spending, we can stimulate our economy. However, history has shown us that that is rarely the case. Higher spending leads to a decrease in business investment and reduction in growth opportunities (according to a study done by researhers are Harvard, Columbia, and Boston College). When federal spending grows, the stock market falls (case in point - what's going on right now!) A study by Lowell for the Joint Economic Congress found that the rise of stock market averages from 1994-1999 reflected a decrease in federal spending (as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product - GDP). Thanks, mostly, to Republicans limiting pork barrel spending (Lowell E. Gallaway and Richard K. Vedder, Government Size and Economic Growth (Washington D.C. Study prepared for the Joint Economic Congress, December 1998). Thus, to increase economic growth, one should create an environment in which the private sector can best flourish (since it is more productive than the public sector). This means lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a truly free trade economy.

***UPDATE

Obama, while criticizing our nation's current spending, is promising to spend tens of billions more dollars on a U.N. program that gives cash to poor countries. Cuz throwing more money at problems usually works.

McCain was RIGHT about Obama sex-ed ad.

2008-09-18T20:41:00.005-04:00

So in a sickeningly excellent turn of events, it seems McCain's ad regarding Obama's support for kindergartener sex-ed was dead-on-balls accurate. Obama did in fact support "comprehensive sex education." Which is what? you might ask. Well, the bill (linked at the end of this post) states that children of all elementary and secondary (public) schools should be taught about Sexually Transmitted Infections/Diseases and how to prevent pregnancy. It's a huge worry for Kindergarteners...And first graders, so I hear. The following is excerpted from Byron York of the National Review Online:

"The second purpose [of the bill] was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.

Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. (emphasis added)

Certainly, Obama wasn't flat out lying about the part about protecting elementary schoolers from sexual predators - the bill contains a small section on that. However, in no way does it comprise a majority of the bill nor can it be said to be the bill's primary purpose. Furthermore, while the bill may not explicitly state that teachers must educate children about the actual "act of sex" it is a mystery to me how it would be possible to teach about STDs without mentioning how they are transmitted and what their symptoms are. Yes?

Another fun nugget of cheerfulness - TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group (TNSMI/CMAG) and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project analyzed the political ads being (officially) produced/sponsored by each respective campaign. Both campaigns are spending approximately $15 million per week across all states and territories (about $7.8 million per candidate/week). McCain's ads are typically paid for by McCain and the RNC while 97 percent of Obama's ads are paid for solely by his campaign. The study found that 77 percent of Obama's ads qualify as "negative" while only 56 percent of McCain's are "negative. The organization is nonpartisan.

In case you're curious, the breakdown by state:

Table 1: Advertising Spending by State

	McCain	Obama
Colorado	$553,000	$522,000
Florida	$1,040,000	$1,327,000
Iowa	$352,000	$148,000
Indiana	None	$263,000
Michigan	$761,000	$954,000
Minnesota	$472,000	$18,000
Missouri	$353,000	$504,000
Montana	None	$37,000
North Carolina	$245,000	$300,000
North Dakota	<$1,000	$22,000
New Hampshire	$225,000	$172,000
New Mexico	$214,000	$155,000
Nevada	$365,000	$297,000
Ohio	$812,000	$801,000
Pennsylvania	$1,612,000	$948,000
Virginia	$312,000	$868,000
Wisconsin	$487,000	$432,000

* Money spent by the Obama campaign in Minnesota was in the Rochester market,which also covers parts of northern Iowa.

Anyway...happy day for us! McCain's bounce is certainly finished, but if he continues the emphasis on the economy and keeps us thinking about my girl Sarah, I think the polls will remain close if not tied until November 4th. :-) Happy reading!

Links!!

Illinois SB 99 www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0099&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

Negative campaign data:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obamas_run_more_negative_ads.php

There are so many things wrong with this ad I really can't even list them all.

2008-09-17T10:51:00.003-04:00

'I'm so proud of all of them [soldiers killed in Iraq. But it's the price we pay for freedom."

-Claremont Anderson, 2006 (http://www.militarycity.com/valor/1464138.html)

The DNSC (Democratic National Senatorial Committee), headed by Chuck Schumer (of course) is essentially pinning the death of Major Stuart Anderson on Sen. Norm Coleman. Because he voted for the war? Because he voted to fund the war? I think, then, we can also blame the war on Hillary, Obama (funding), and, interestingly, Chuck Schumer himself. Furthermore, Norm Coleman's opponent in Minnesota is Al Franken, and he verbally supported the war at the time of the invasion (Interview, MSNBC, 2002). I hope Minnesota is smarter than Al Franken is.

Does anyone even know what a subprime mortgage is?

2008-09-16T23:05:00.005-04:00

I googled it and I was completely expecting it to be a trivia question but alas, it was not. But the following is an interesting article from the LA Times (That well known bastion of conservative politics) stating that Obama and Clinton have become the new darlings of Wall Street. Economic policy advisers are questioning whether Obama will shape his economic policies based on his friends on Wall Street.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

If Obama told me he would shut Barbra Streisand up if he wins the presidency, I would totally vote for him. But she sang at his $28,500/person dinner tonight so I don't think that's in the cards unfortunately for me.

In case, like me, you're struggling with the gobbledegook of the financial crisis and what the heck "regulation" actually means, a few quotes below:

The Democrats throughout the past year have been calling for the kind of control that the Fed has over banks, which is super-strict oversight. It would mean Wall Street firms would have to keep larger "capital reserves" (actual money I think) on hand. The problem is that it means less money for lending, trading, and "underwriting new securities."

While Republicans advocate an updating of regulations (they are currently fragmented, difficult to understand, and many are obsolete), they ideologically reject strict or severe regulation of financial activity. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (who was Hamilton's graduation speaker last year) stated the general gist of what Republicans are hoping for:

“The objective here is to get the balance right,” Mr. Paulson said last week. “Regulation needs to catch up with innovation and help restore investor confidence but not go so far as to create new problems, make our markets less efficient or cut off credit to those who need it.”

Another issue with regulation is the experiences of the past. Some point to the fact that despite having bank regulators, they

"did little to slow the explosive growth of high-risk subprime mortgages, many of which were “liar’s loans” that did not require borrowers to verify their incomes."

Essentially... there's a difference between "strict" regulation and "consolidating" regulation. There are problems with both, but both McCain and Obama are calling for more regulations on Wall Street. Congrats to anyone who actually could have explained any of this without Google.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/business/23regulate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

Separated at Birth

2008-09-16T23:03:00.002-04:00

If you were Sarah Palin's child...

2008-09-16T22:50:00.002-04:00

If you want to know what your name would be if you were Sarah Palin's child, check out

http://politsk.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah_13.html

My mother's would be Revolver Trooper Palin, which I think fits her well.

Electoral Map (By the polls)

2008-09-16T12:45:00.003-04:00

Thanks Jon!

Obama's Love Affair with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

2008-09-15T23:19:00.002-04:00

Excerpted from powerlineblog:

"Over the weekend, I saw on several occastions an Obama campaign ad attacking John McCain's credentials as a reformer by pointing out that lobbyists occupy key positions in his campaign. The ads are classic "guilt" by association attacks, and their effectiveness against a candidate known to much of the public as a maverick reformer and a war hero is likely to be limited. On the other hand, with Obama apparently now trailing McCain, he has little choice but to go negative with ads of this sort that seek to peck away at McCain's image.
However, today comes word that, with the exception of Chris Dodd, Barack Obama received the most money of any member of Congress in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, a total of $126,000 plus change. John McCain is well down the list at around $22,000.
If the choice is between a candidate whose aides make money by lobbying for various big industries and a candidate who himself benefits through contributions from an industry that Congress failed to keep an eye on, to the well-publicized detriment of taxpayers, it's pretty clear who wins that argument."

New York

2008-09-15T23:08:00.002-04:00

Obama is only up by 5 points in New York, which is a significant decrease from the Spring, when he was up by about 18%. If I was super-optimistic, I'd think that McCain could win NY. But the numbers were collected a few days prior to the crazy anti-Palin spew on the big networks, so who knows! ;)

Don't forget though...

Reagan carried New York twice! :-)

Al Gore has a house boat

2008-09-15T17:29:00.001-04:00

...and apparently it uses energy.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080915/NEWS01/809150337/1006/NEWS01

This might be news if Gore wasn't a has-been.

T.R. and Lipstick Sarah

2008-09-14T14:26:00.002-04:00

I saw someone wearing a t-shirt (on tv) the other day that proclaimed the following:
"I love the outdoors (especially hunting) and have many children
I'm a reformer and have gone up against the Republican Party Establishment
I'm the VP candidate on a national party ticket and am under 45 years old. Who am I?"

I expected to find that the answer was Sarah Palin, but in fact it was our 26th President (and former vice president) Theodore Roosevelt (Teddy to the public.) I decided to do some research and see if they were actually similar. Here's a summary of what I found.

1) Both were 1 of 4 children (Both have 2 sisters and 1 brother, though Teddy was 2nd born and Sarah was 3rd born)...
*It should also be noted that Teddy Roosevelt and I have the same birthday.
2) Both were avid outdoorspeople. Roosevelt moved to the badlands in the 1860s after the death of his first wife, Alice. He learned to "run, rope, and hunt" despite a bad heart. Palin, after to moving to Alaska as a child, became an enthusiastic hunter, rider, and generally active woman. Both were also known for their love of the outdoors.
3) Roosevelt had 1 child with his first wife, Alice and had 5 children with his second wife, Edith Carow. Palin has 5 children.
4) Roosevelt reformed the NYC police department (the "most corrupt in the country") and Sarah Palin created a police force in Wasilla, Alaska (which, fyi, is the 5th largest population center in Alaska).
5) Roosevelt was 40 when he was elected as Governor of New York, Palin was 42 when she was elected governor of Alaska. Both ran on "anti-machine politics" platforms and rooted out significant amounts of corruption.
6) Both were governors for less than 2 years when tapped as VP candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt succeeded McKinley after McKinley was shot and killed by an anarchist. Roosevelt became the youngest president in our history (younger than JFK). On that sidenote, JFK wasn't exactly Mr. Experience either. Though he did serve in the House and the Senate, he spent most of his Senate years cooped up in a hospital because he needed several spinal surgeries. During that time, he wrote "Profiles in Courage" - or rather, his speechwriter Ted Sorenson wrote it (as he confirmed in his autobiography). JFK received the Catholic last rites 4 times in his life.

Now it is important to note that there are key differences between Palin and Roosevelt, too. Namely, that TR had military experience (in the Spanish-American War). But McCain more than makes up for that shortcoming, I think.

One more quick note: No one ever criticized Teddy Roosevelt's right to be president despite his large family. Upon being elected in 1901, TR had a 17 year old, a 14 year old, a 12 year old, a 10 year old, a 6 year old, and a 3 year old.

Palin is a book-burning, librarian hating, gun toting, creationism teaching, Pat Buchanan supporting Alaska seccessionist (not!)

2008-09-12T22:30:00.004-04:00

A few articles over the past week have mentioned some now-debunked rumors about Palin, her husband/family, and her life in Alaska. Perhaps you've heard mention of her "book banning, special-need children hating, librarian firing, Alaska secession supporting days" in Alaska... Sadly for Palin's opponents, all of those remain just that...rumors. Here are a few of the facts!

1) FALSE: "Palin slashed the budget for special-needs children by 62%" - This rumor was apparently reported frequently among blogs and at least 1 major news source - CNN.
FACT: Palin signed a bill in March '08 that increased funding for public schools in Alaska significantly. Furthermore, it increased spending three-fold on students whom the state deemed "intensive need" students. According to an article in the Anchorage Daily News and one in Education Week magazine, special needs students received just $26,000/year prior to the Palin's new bill. Under Palin's governorship, the "intensive need" students now receive more than $73,000 per year per child. In fact, this increase is almost $1,000 less than Palin's initial proposal.

The "62% decrease" figure comes from a misinterpretation of the Alaska state budget - people assume that the "special schools budget" is the same as the "special needs budget." The special schools budget refers to money set aside for certain school projects and programs. However, this wasn't cut either. Instead, a project called the "Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe Program" was moved out of the budget and placed onto its own line in the state budget. All other programs received the same funding.

2) FALSE: Palin banned books and fired a librarian who opposed book banning. (Initially rumored in an email by a resident of Wasilla (Anne Kilkenny), who has "hated Palin for years" and has since clarified her statements regarding the Wasilla town librarian)
FACT: According to Newsweek "Palin never asked that books be banned: no books were actually banned, and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication." According to both Palin and Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin asked theoretical questions about the procedure of the library, including what would happen if the Mayor requested that certain books be banned. Emmons, the libarian, was fired at one point for one day because Palin "didn't feel that she had Emmons' support" (Newsweek). One version of the story recounts how all department heads were fired because they had openly supported Palin's opponent for mayor - Palin was ensuring that she had their loyalty. They were all, including the librarian, reinstated the following day. Here is the fake list of books from the supposed Palin book ban list (it is copied and pasted, apparently, from a list on the internet of books banned "at one time or another in the U.S.")

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

3) FALSE: Sarah Palin advocated for Alaska to secede from the Union.
FACT: Palin was never a member of the AIP, although her husband, Todd Palin, was a member for a number of years but is not any longer. Palin did attend one meeting of the AIP because it was held in Wasilla, where she was mayor. She attended in her capacity (and obligation) as mayor of the town. AIP president Lynette Clark incorrectly stated Sarah was a member, but she has issued a retraction that was printed on the AIP's website (you can view the retraction at http://www.akip.org/) The state of Alaska confirms that Sarah was registered for the first time in 1982 (when she was 18) as a Republican and has not changed her party affiliation since then. Todd Palin was registered with the AIP from 1995-2002, and is now registered as undeclared. AIP Party officials support Palin's statements that Todd has never participated in any party functions, save for attending one party convention in Wasilla with his wife, who was mayor.

4) FALSE: Sarah Palin endorsed Pat Buchanan.

FACT: Palin in fact worked for rival Republican Steve Forbes. This rumor started after Palin wore a Buchanan button to an event held in Wasilla (Palin was mayor at the time.) The AP reported that Palin was a supporter of Buchanan's. Palin responded by writing a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News and set the record straight - she wore the button as courtesy to Buchanan, who was a visitor to Wasilla. Palin was appointed to the state leadership committee for Forbes less than 1 month after the Buchanan "incident."

5) FALSE: Sarah Palin thinks creationism should be taught in schools.

FACT: First of all, what's wrong with teaching creationism? It's a theory just like any other theory, right? Can't be proven wrong or right. If teachers can teach a theory that humans are evolved from bubbles, I think creationism should be taught, too. Back to the facts: Palin supports allowing students to debate creationism if it comes up in class. Her exact quote was "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum" (October, 2006 Anchorage Daily News). Palin, a few days prior to that quote, did remark that creationism "should be taught along side evolution (and theories of evolution)" - she clarified her statement with the former quote. She has never pursued teaching creationism as governor.

See for yourself if the information in this email is true or not:

1) Sutton, Anne "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 March 2008

2) Www.akip.org (website for the Alaska Independence Party)

3) Http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986/output/print

4) Tapper, Jake. "Members of 'fringe' AK Independence Party incorrectly say Palin was a member in 90s." ABCNews.com, September 1, 2008

5) Stuart, Paul. "From the archive: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries were "rhetorical'" December 18, 1996.

6) Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life, and creation" The Boston Globe, August 29, 2008.

What is the Bush Doctrine??

2008-09-12T22:07:00.002-04:00

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 by Charles Krauthammer

The Wikipedia article Krauthammer references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bush_Doctrine

In honor of 9/11

2008-09-11T18:05:00.003-04:00

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

~Emma Lazarus

God Bless America

Never forget

9/11/01

The religious left?

2008-09-10T22:01:00.003-04:00

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/09/10/rep-cohen-compares-obama-to-jesus/

Surprising to note that while the Dems typically condemn religious Americans, they treat their own leader much like a Messiah. And it's not just me who thinks that...even more surprising.

Like stealing lipstick from a baby?

2008-09-10T20:35:00.003-04:00

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight." - Joe Biden

Let's get this straight...He didn't think that Obama was ready to be president ("It's not a job that lends itself to on-the-job training.") and now he doesn't think he's qualified either? Excellent confidence there, Joe. Definitely what I'd like to see in a Veep candidate.

Additionally, South Carolina Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler apologized for her revolting remark yesterday that "[Palin's] primary qualificiation seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." Fowler said that she was "clumsily trying to make a point." I'll say.

Social Security and a few random thoughts

2008-09-09T17:54:00.003-04:00

Here's a link explaining Obama's social security plans (or lack thereof) - an excellent resource for young voters since social security most definitely matters to us!!

http://www.thenextright.com/brian-karpuk/why-does-barack-obama-hate-me-just-because-im-young

Thanks Susannah for the tip!

P.S. McCain is up 20 points in North Carolina http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=6380065

P.P.S. McCain made $5 million in 5 hours today...in Obama's Chicago!! http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/mccain.chicago.fundraiser.2.812952.html

One more thing...Gallup poll shows McCain up 15 points among Independents (post-GOP convention) and up 5 points among Democrats (post-GOP Convention). Check out the full analysis here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx

Obama (Ironically) Accuses McCain/Palin Of "Dishonesty"

2008-09-08T20:25:00.004-04:00

In a new Obama ad today, an announcer accuses McCain and Palin of "lying about their records." In a speech today, Obama criticized the Republican candidates as attempting to "reinvent themselves." It's ironic that Obama is accusing the duo of lying about their record when he himself has frequently flip flopped and changed opinions on a variety of issues. Since most won't accept such a comment without proof, here ya go:

1.) Public Financing of Elections

In September 2007, BO pledged to accept public financing should he become his party's nominee "if his major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign." (Newsweek 2007). McCain, in March, said he would accept public funds. Obama stated "If I am the Democratic Nominee, I will agressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." (February 2007, Newsweek). Obama has since renegued on his pledge and has foregone public funding. Obama is the first presidential candidate since Nixon (1972) to state that his campaign will be financed totally and completely by private donations with no limits on spending. In 2004, Democratic 527s spent three times as much as Republican 527s. Obama, however, claimed he did it because "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs," he said. "And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." (Newsweek). Too bad he's outspent McCain thus far, as have Democratic-leaning 527s (The Washington Post).

2) The Cuban Embargo

In January of 2004, Obama stated that he thought it was time to end the Cuban Embargo because "it [had] utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." However, 3 years later, when speaking to a Cuban-American audience in Miami, Obama said he "would not take off the embargo" if were elected President because "it is an important inducement to change." (Reason.com)

3) Illegal Immigration

In a questionnaire he filled out in March 2004, Obama was asked should "[the U.S. government] crack down on business that hire illegal immigrants." Obama answered "oppose." In January 2008 (televised debate) Obama remarked that "we do have to crack down on those employeres that are taking advantage of the situation." (The Washington Post)

4) Special Interests

In January 2008, Obama described the union members contributing to the campaings of Clinton and Edwads as "special interests." However, once he began collecting his own union endorsements, he referred to the money as coming from "working people" and said he was "thrilled" by their support. (Washington Post)

5) Marijuana

While campaigning for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004, Obama spoke before a college-aged audience and told them that he supported eliminiating "criminal penalties" for marijuana use. However, on October 30, 2007 (presidential debate) he tagged along with the other Democratic candidates and stated he did not support the decriminalization of marijuana.

6) Running For President

On Meet the Press (1/22/06) Obama was asked wether he would serve his 6-year term as U.S.

Senator from Illinois. Obama responded "I will serve out my 6-year term. You know, Tim, if you get

asked enough, sooner or later, you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But

My thinking has not changed." Russert said, "So you will not run for President or Vice President in

2008?" Obama: "I will not."

7) Iran

Prior to clinching the nomination, Obama pledged that he would meet with various heads of

terror states (most notably Ahmadinejad of Iran) "without preconditions." Then, soon after, Obama

rescinded earlier statements and said "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with

Ahmadinejad. He's not the most powerful person in Iran."

8) NAFTA

In October 2007, Obama stated he supported NAFTA expansion. In March 2008 (while

campaigning in Ohio) he expressed a desire for a "reopening" of the trade pact's terms. In June

2008, in describing his own rhetoric, he used the word "overheated." He said NAFTA has had a

positive effect on the U.S. economy.

In other news...Obama, on O'Reilly Factor tonight stated 1) That he supports income/wealth

redistribution (he claimed, however, that that is not a socialist policy.) Dick Morris (on Hannity

and Colmes after the interview) revealed the following tax figures:

In 1986 the top 1% pays 20% of taxes

In 1993 the top 1% pays 36% of taxes

In 2008 the top 1% pays 40% of taxes

The bottom 10% of taxpayers consistently pays just 2% of taxes.

Obama stated that he will raise taxes on those making $250,000+ in the U.S. These taxpayers

will see their taxes go up in excess of $50,000. Morris also made the point that Obama has yet

to elucidate how he is going to pay for the programs he's proposing. He will raise payroll, capital

gains and income taxes, which will amount to about $80 billion. However, Obama (in the interview)

stated that his programs will add about $1 trillion to the budget. Where's the extra $920 billion

coming from?

Dear Mr. Obama

2008-09-07T17:50:00.001-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

The above is a video posted by a veteran of the Iraq War. He talks about why he's supporting McCain and why Obama is wrong to suggest that the Iraq War was a mistake.

My favorite line is when he says "Would you rescue a firefighter right before he's about to save a child?" referring to the soldiers and the good they're doing in Iraq.

Obama's exaggerations...a little insight!

2008-09-06T16:07:00.006-04:00

I just watched an interview on CNN of several young voters, citing that they weren’t voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin because McCain “frequently lied.” While I’m sure one can point to instances where McCain stretched facts or misworded things (as you can do with any candidate) I wanted to compile a list to combat accusations of this nature. Specifically, a list of instances where Obama has been less-than-truthful to his devoted followers and undecideds. A comeback, if you will, to accusations that McCain is the only exaggerating politician ever.

Obama Exaggeration #1:

Obama: “Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.”

What he should have mentioned: Over the summer, the Barack Obama campaign told newspapers that their tax proposals were estimated to cost the U.S. approximately $130 billion dollars. The Tax Policy Center analysis reveals that "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens" America would save only $80 billion dollars, leaving $50 billion that still would be unpaid for. Another little fact Obama didn't mention is that he plans to return taxes on people making $250,000+ to pre-Bush tax cuts levels to provide additional income for the government. Another point? The Tax Policy Center indicates that without significant cuts in spending by the federal government, the deficit would increase significantly over the next 10 years, to about $3.8 trillion, even with the ending of the Iraq War and the aforementioned $100 billion factored in.

Obama Exaggeration #2:

Obama: "Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn’t know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?"

What he should have mentioned: What McCain actually suggested was that taxes should be low for all income levels. His '$5 million' comment was a joke, as demonstrated in the transcript below:

Pastor Rick Warren: "Give me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?"

McCain: "I don't want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? [Laughter from audience] But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously – and I'm sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues." (From August 16, 2008)

Obama Exaggeration #3:

Obama: "When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11."

What he should have mentioned: What McCain actually said was that the U.S. "may muddle through" indicating that he was "guardedly optimistic about" Afghanistan. The exact quote was:

McCain: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ...There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that – in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan." (2003)

McCain has strongly and consistently argued for more troops in Afghanistan, as well as installation of NATO forces.

Obama Exaggeration #4

Obama: "And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."

What he should have mentioned: If Senate votes are the measure of whether a candidate breaks with his party or not, then McCain is partisan at an average of about 85% of the time while Obama votes with the Democrats about 97% of the time (Congressional Quarterly Study of Senate Votes). Either way, neither candidate can claim to be that bipartisan if this is the measure of bipartisanship we're using.

A Few Other Exaggerations:

Obama suggested that during the presidency of George W. Bush, the average American family experienced an income drop of about $2,000. That is flat-out wrong. Figures from the U.S. Census actually state that the "average" family income decreased by $348 - quite a jump from $2,000. Obama aides clarified what Obama meant by saying he was referring to "median" income not "average" income. Median refers to the middle point (not the average). The aides also insisted Obama was referring to working families as opposed to including retired couples, etc.

He was still outrightly incorrect. Median family income increased under George W. Bush by $272.

Leave a comment if you want sources on these facts!

Can Evangelicals Get Behind Palin? Yes.

2008-09-06T15:58:00.002-04:00

Last week when the rumors and stories began wildly circulating about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, many talking heads speculated whether or not her family situation would affect how much support she received from her political base, namely Evangelical Christians. Clearly, they were referring to Palin’s pregnant teenage daughter Bristol and the fact that Palin’s not a stay-at-home mom to her 5 children (Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and newborn Trig). The pundits were of the opinion that conservatives couldn’t and wouldn’t support a woman who was governing a state instead of ensuring that her 17-year old daughter wasn’t having sex and getting pregnant.

Bloggers, especially at liberal blogs like DailyKos, suggested that Palin’s candidacy was itself a flagrant assault on the “Christian” idea that women should be stay at home moms and forego having a career in order to have and mother their children. A Daily Telegraph columnist (Liz Hunt) asked “How can she reconcile such a high-profile job as ‘veep’ – a ‘heartbeat’ away from leadership of the free world and all that – with bringing up 5 children?” Many other news outlets made similarly sexist comments which are detailed in an archived blog post of mine (Entitled "Obama gets something wrong...Again!")

The problem with all of these incredible suggestions is that pundits and bloggers are working from what is a very obsolete idea about what Evangelicals think, especially regarding women in the workplace. The following provides a few interesting numbers:

From a Pew Survey released this summer:

Should women return to their traditional roles in society:

22% of Americans say “yes”

32% of born-again white Protestants

*Not exactly a huge difference. Next generation Protestants are even closer…

In 1988:

Only 33% of 18-35 year old Evangelicals believed that “women should take care of running the home and leave the running of the country to men”

In 2001:

Only 20% of 18-35 year old Evangelicals agreed

In 2007

0.3% of women attending non-Catholic religious institutions said they would likely become a full-time homemaker (That’s 99.7% who would have different careers).

Evangelical women place a similar emphasis on having a family:

80% of Evangelical women said it was “very important” compared to 73% of non-Evangelical women.

In summary, a quote from a WSJ article

“So have Evangelicals accepted the sexual revolution? Yes and no. While they generally agree that women should have careers, evangelical women and men still have some traditional social views – that sex should be reserved for marriage, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the possibility of abortion on demand, far from being a key to women’s happiness, is simply wrong. In other words, like most Americans, they have rejected the more radical elements of feminism.

Another newsflash for pundits, perhaps.”

Naomi Schaefer Riley, 9/5/2008, WSJ

http://people-press.org/ (Pew Survey)

Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation by James Davison Hunter, 1988

University of Chicago Press

The Dems Avoiding Their Racist History...Again!

2008-09-05T21:33:00.003-04:00

An article appearing in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section featured information on the how the Dems have been misinforming people about their history – and their racist roots. The following is a summary of this article (with some additional research done by yours truly), written by Jeffrey Lord, a Reagan White House political director (as well as an author).

The history discusses platforms from the party’s inception in 1800 to the creation of the official DNC in 1848. The platform continues with “As the 19^th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more rapidly…” – erasing about 52 years of Democratic Party history.

Things left out:

The six party platforms that supported slavery from 1840-1860.
The 7 Democratic presidents who owned slaves (1800-1861)

Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican Party, which became the Democratic Party), James Madison (Democratic-Republican Party), James Monroe, Andrew Jackson (Shaped Modern Democratic Party), Martin Van Buren (Democratic Party), John Tyler (Democratic-Republican), James K. Polk (Democratic Party).
Only 1 Republican (Ulysses S. Grant) owned slaves.

The 20 Democratic Platforms from 1868-1920 supported (or were silent on) slavery.
The fact that Jim Crow laws (which effectively legalized racism) were largely the responsibility of democrats. (Source: Haws, Robert, ed. The Age of Segregation: Race Relations in the South, 1890– 1945 University Press of Mississippi, 1978.)
The face that the Ku Klux Klan, a racist organization that advocated violence against blacks, “became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party” (Eric Foner, www.ericfoner.com/reviews/030401nytimes.html, American Historian). Historian Allen Trelease’s account of the KKK describes it as “the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party” (Allen W. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy & Southern Reconstruction (HarperCollins, 1971; Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
Democrats opposed the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments which respectively banned slavery, overturned the Dred Scott decision, and gave blacks the right to vote.

“The final version of the Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery--has an interesting story of its own. Passed during the Civil War years, when southern congressional representatives were not present for debate, one would think today that it must have easily passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Not true. As a matter of fact, although passed in April 1864 by the Senate, with a vote of 38 to 6, the required two-thirds majority was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 93 to 65. Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it” (http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm)

The Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was passed by the Republican Majority over the veto of (Democratic) President Andrew Johnson
They also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which abolished discrimination in public places/accommodations.
In 1904, the Democratic platform specially contained a section entitled “Sectional and Racial Agitation,” claiming the GOP’s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country” which in turn “means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”
Of the four Democratic platforms from 1908-1920, all are silent on blacks, segregation, voting, and lynching despite mounting concerns about racial tensions. In contrast, all of the GOP platforms during those years specifically address “The Rights of Negro” (1908), opposing lynching ( 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928).
There is also no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924. History refers to it as “Klanbake.” The 103-ballot convention was held in New York City’s Madison Square Gardens. Hundreds of the DNC delegates were Klan members. The Klan was so powerful that a plank that condemned Klan violence was defeated on the floor. To celebrate their victory, the Klan held a rally across the Hudson from MSG which included 10,000 hooded Klansmen. Hundreds of delegates attended. The rally featured burning crosses and called for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
The “history” doesn’t mention that Democrats were responsible for the segregation of the government – it was segregated at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Instead, the Democrats only mention that President Harry S Truman integrated the Army after World War II.
75% of the opposition in the House to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill came from Democrats. 80% came from Democrats in the Senate.

The opposition included future Senate leader Robert Byrd of WV (a Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore

There you have it. The imperfections the DNC tries to cover up by assuming we Americans don’t do our own research ; - )

Sources:

Herman Belz, Emancipation and Equal Rights: Politics and Constitutionalism in the Civil War Era (1978)

Mitch Kachun, Festivals of Freedom: Memory and Meaning in African American Emancipation Celebrations, 1808-1915 (2003)

C. Peter Ripley, Roy E. Finkenbine, Michael F. Hembree, Donald Yacovone, Witness for Freedom: African American Voices on Race, Slavery, and Emancipation (1993)

Michael Vorenberg, Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment (2001)

Model State Anti-trafficking Criminal Statute U.S. Dept of Justice

www.nas.com/~lopresti/ps.htm

www.powerset.com/explore/go/1924-Democratic-National-Convention

www.coloradoindependent.com/3983/1908-and-2008-democratic-party-platforms-converge-on-many-planks/

Unemployment Rate Isn’t the Only Measure of an Economy

2008-09-05T19:33:00.001-04:00

Some would have you believe we are facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression that began in 1929. However, I would point to some factoids that may give hope to struggling American families…

Though today’s news reported that the jobless rate (6.1%) is the highest in 5 years, the average jobless rate from 2001-2008 was just 4.7%. Compare that with the average jobless rate during the Clinton Administration, which was about 5.2%. Additionally, the average jobless rate in Europe is 8.3%. (Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
The U.S. spends the most on health care per capita at about $6,657 (in 2005). This rate is double that of Britain. BUT because of private funding (which equals 55% of the total) the actual cost to the U.S. taxpayer is kept to similar levels as France and Germany, which both have a universal health care system. Additionally, in 2006 about 85% of the U.S. is covered by heath insurance. That number increased by 3.6 million people in 2007. The average life expectancy also rose from 77 in 2001 to 78 in 2007. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
Investments: Additions to fixed assets (machinery, buildings) amounted to about $8,000/per capita in 2005 compared to just $5,000 in Germany and the U.K. What does this mean? If Obama institutes higher taxes on upper-income Americans, there would be lower savings and investments, a reduction in entrepreneurial activity, and a decreased availability of bank credit – lower-income Americans would be affected significantly (negatively). (Source: International Comparison Program)
U.S. Output (measured by GDP) has expanded faster than many/most advanced economies since the year 2000. GDP grew about 2.2% from the period 2001-2008. Thus, the next President will inherit a 19% bigger economy than Bush inherited from Clinton. In the same period, France grew by just 14%, Japan by 13% and Italy and Germany by just 8%. (Source: ICP)
The GDP per capita grew to $41, 813 (purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This number is 33% higher than Great Britains, 37% higher than Germany’s, and 38% more than Japan’s. (Source: ICP)

OK OK maybe this is me being a conservative..

2008-09-04T22:34:00.003-04:00

125 people were shot and killed in Chicago, Illinois this summer (Obama's home state.)

That's twice number of soldiers killed in Iraq in the same time period.

Also...48 came from the South Side, where Obama was a "community organizer."

Obama gets something else wrong, but at least he admitted it this time.

2008-09-04T21:58:00.006-04:00

"With less than three months to go before the election, a lot of people are still trying to square Senator Obama's varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure. In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference - the great difference - is that I intend to win it first." - John McCain, speaking at the VFW in Orlando on August 19, 2008. Since President Bush authorized the surge in January 2007, McCain has supported it strongly, and naturally, Obama did not. But he ate his words tonight when he appeared on the O'Reilly Factor and admitted that the "surge had succeeded beyond his wildest dreams."
On a side note, a CBSNews poll has the candidates completely tied up in a poll tallied before Palin's big speech last night. I'm psyched to see the polls tomorrow!!
Another thing...some Dems are trying to say that there hasn't been any sexism in the media's treatment of Sarah Palin but I have to disagree due to the following examples of it I've found:
Ed Schultz (liberal radio host) suggested we should go on "bimbo alert," of course referring to Sarah Palin.
The Huffington Post ran an article with the headline "Former Beauty Queen, Future VP?"
Joe Biden, while attempting to be funny (unsuccessfully), said "There's a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent...She's good looking."
A spokewoman from NOW (referencing Palin's opposition to abortion/social conservative agenda in general) told Politico "She's more a conservative man than she is a woman on women's issues. Very disappoinitng."
John Roberts (news anchor on CNN) said "Children with Down's Syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up a awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"
Sally Quinn (columnist for the Washington Post) said "Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at 3 in the morning and one of her children is really sick, what choice will she make?"
Perhaps somehow, some way, someone could argue that some of these are legitimate questions..or the would be, if they were also being asked of Obama. When he gets a call at 3 in the morning and one of his kids is sick, what choice will he make? Shouldn't his priority be his kids first? Or how about this...when John Edwards decided to continue on the campaign trail despite his wife's incurable cancer, he was praised for persevering...but shouldn't his priority been his family first? More examples of double standards that I love so much.
I've got sources for all of this if anyone wants them, but I can't figure out how to add hyperlinks that don't stretch on for 80 miles.

"It's a little more than a community and it needs a little more than an organizer"

2008-09-03T23:09:00.002-04:00

Sarah Palin's speech tonight was excellent and delivered exactly what it needed to. She asserted that she's not in the race to win the media's good opinion - she's out to win the opinion of the American people. She commented that the being the Mayor of Wasilla is a "little like being a community organizer, except with actual responsibilities." She talked about her experiences and her personal story, supporting the troops and not being afraid to seek victory and uphold the truths we hold to be self-evident. Palin mentioned her small-town life and how people from small towns often do the hardest work - "They grow our food, work in our factories and fight our wars and they are always proud of America." She looked great, her family looked beautiful and her whole family was there (including baby Trig!). The crowd is/was going nuts for her.

Flawless speech, Sarah!

"Seems clear that she can speak. No doubt about that tonight." - FOX News Anchor Brit Hume

Excerpt from Facebook...Because this needs to be mass-produced!

2008-09-03T21:03:00.001-04:00

Michelle Seitz writes:

"McCain votes with Bush 100% of the time in 2008, BUT...Lo and behold so did Barack Obama. This is a classic example of how the extreme left tries to warp your mind….how facts can be incorrectly spun. Dick Morris got my attention when he said over 50% of the votes in the Senate are unanimous, so I decided to do some digging.

In order to accurately compare McCain, Bush and Obama, we can only look at what the President signs into law since that is the only way the President can actually vote.

Below is a list of bills that became law from January of 2006 to the latest record of recorded Presidential signing statements.

1. H.R. 1815, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
2. H.R. 972, the "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005"
3. S. 1932, the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005"
4. H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005" (P.L. 109-177) and S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006" (P.L. 109-178)
5 S. 1869, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005
6. H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006
7. H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006
8. H.R. 42, the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005
9. H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006
10. H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007
11. H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
12. S. 56, the Rio Grande Natural Area Act
13. S. 203, the National Heritage Areas Act of 2006
14. H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006
15. H.R. 233, the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act
16. H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
17. H.R. 5682, the "Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006"
18. S. 843, the Combating Autism Act of 2006
19. H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006
20. H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
21. H.R. 5076, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006
22. S. 2370, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006
23. H.R. 6344, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006
24. H.R. 5946, the "Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006"
25. H.R. 1, the "Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007"
26. H.R. 2272, the "America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act"
27. S. 1, the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007"
28. H.R. 3222, the "Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008"
29. H.R. 1429 the "Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007"
30. H.R. 2764, the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008"
31. S. 2271, the "Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007"
32. H.R. 4986, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008"

Barack Obama voted “Yes” to TWENTY-SIX of these bills. He voted “No” to ONE!!! He did not cast a vote for FIVE of them. If we do not count the bills that did not vote for that yields a 96.3% of voting with Bush. Even counting the bills he did not cast a vote, we come up with 83.8%. Just comparing “yes” against the total, comes to 81.3%.

Now for John McCain:

McCain voted “Yes” to TWENTY-FIVE of these bills. He also voted “No” to ONE. He didn’t cast a vote for SIX of them. Not counting the bills he didn’t cast a vote, we get a 96.2%. If we count the “no votes,” we get an 80.6%. When comparing “yes” versus the total, we get a 78.1%.

Two other things to note: 1) most of the no votes were when both were out on the campaign trail and 2) 56% of the votes in the senate were unanimous, which means Dick is correct when he says more than ½ of the votes are unanimous.

In summary, when we run these numbers, we see that Barack Obama is more like Bush than McCain is…..so who’s Bush III????? Wake up people, the spin in the media is sickening."

Down's Syndrome and Abortion, Arguments 2 and 3

2008-09-03T19:27:00.004-04:00

2.) "Palin doesn't represent most women because she is pro-life."
FACT: Only 37% of women polled believed that abortions should be "generally" available (Source: CBS/New York Times Poll, 2007). That means that 61% of women think that abortions should NOT be generally available. 37% of women believe that abortions should be legal, but with stricter limitations than there are now. What does this mean? MOST women think abortion is TOO readily available and a MAJORITY believe that abortions should NOT be generally permitted (e.g., the opinion of John McCain and Sarah Palin). Obama on the other hand voted AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban...He wanted women to be able to have abortions well into the 3rd trimester of pregnancy (e.g. 24-40 week pregnant). Interesting sidenote: A fetus is viable (could survive outside the womb) at 20 weeks. From the same poll: Only 10% of women agree with Obama that partial-birth abortions should be legal.

Additionally, the number of women who do not support legal abortions without restrictions has decreased nearly 10% since just 2003.

There's your argument...Palin actually does represent most women because she's not saying that abortions should NEVER be an option. She just does not agree that abortion should be generally permitted; rather, it should be utilized only for cases of rape, incest, if the baby has certain incurable/life threatening disease(like Taysach's NOT Down's Syndrome).

Also, here are some stats on Down Syndrome for those of you who have heard some liberals suggest that Palin shouldn't have kept Trig, her 4-month old baby who has Down's Syndrome.

Although the probability increases with maternal age, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under the age of 35
Current research (as of 2008) has shown that Down syndrome is due to a random event during the formation of sex cells or pregnancy. There has been no evidence that it is due to parental behavior or environmental factors.
Due to the low incidence of Down syndrome, a vast majority of early screen positives are false. Since false positives typically prompt an amniocentesis to confirm the result, and the amniocentesis carries a small risk of inducing miscarriage, there is a slight risk of miscarrying a healthy fetus. (The added miscarriage risk from an amniocentesis is traditionally quoted as 0.5%, but recent studies suggest that it may be considerably smaller (0.06%), not statistically different from zero.
Some members of the disability rights movement "believe that public support for prenatal diagnosis and abortion based on disability contravenes the movement's basic philosophy and goals."
A large percentage of men/women with Down's Syndrome go on to lead normal, healthy and productive lives. By aborting these people in utero, one is basically practicing eugenics, the "policy" of eliminating unproductive/"defective" members of society. Should we kill quadriplegics or paraplegics or blind people or deaf people? I vote no.

Liberal Arguments and How to Counter Them

2008-09-03T19:03:00.004-04:00

1.) Gov. Sarah Palin is too inexperienced to be VP.

Answer: "I guess a small-town mayor is like a community organizer, only you have actual responsibilties" - Sarah Palin, 9/3/08.
Before you can counter this argument, you need to understand it. To understand it, you need to know both Palin's experience and Obama's.

Obama's goes something like this:

Prior to being elected to the state senate, Obama worked as an attorney, a professor, and a "community organizer" - essentially meaning he got people to register to vote. He began serving the state senate in 1997 and was reelected twice (2 year terms). In 2000 he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, and lost by a margin of 2-1. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and on 2/10/07 he announced his candidacy for presidency, meaning that he was a Senator for only 750 days before announcing his run for the presidency - not even halfway through his first Senate term.

Sarah Palin's history is a little different...:
Palin served in the Wasilla PTA, worked as a sportscaster and journalist and then served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996. She then won two terms as mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002. After an unsuccessful campaign for lieutenant governor of Alaska in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004 while also serving as Ethics Supervisor of the commission.

In November 2006, Palin was elected the governor of Alaska, becoming the first woman and youngest person to hold the office. She defeated incumbent Republican goverin the Republican primary and former democratic governor Tony Knowles in the General election, garnering 48.3% of the vote.

What does this actually mean? It means that Sarah Palin has executive experience - she knows how to run things. Obama's experience is legislative and that's not really what a president does, is it? She governed and he...what? Wrote a few bills and gave a few speeches, and got elected. Palin wasn't looking for fame or fortune or visibility. She was a concerned citizen who did/does what she could/can to make things better. She has a big family who isn't perfect, but who she loves and cares for and works hard for. Plus, she's a true maverick - she went against corrupt politicians regardless of their party affiliation. Obama did not - he used corruption to gain favors (Think Tony Rezko and the housing scandal...Rezko gave the Obama's a $300,000 deal on their house.)

Tom DeLay Said Something Not Wrong

2008-09-03T15:39:00.003-04:00

In a rare moment of clarity, Tom DeLay today scrutinized the media for its coverage of McCain the past two days. Essentially, DeLay asserted that the media has accomplished something McCain had not yet done - it has awakened Republican women to come to defense of Sarah Palin. The unfair and ridiculous scrutiny she and her family have been under is unfair and people are realizing it. DeLay called Republican Women "the sleeping giants" - and I agree. The media's argument that she was selected because she's a woman is as if not more offensive as suggesting that Dems chose Barack Obama because he's black - it's not a correct statement, it's not what this race is about.

"Obama Offers a Beautifully Packaged Lie"

2008-09-02T18:26:00.003-04:00

An article from this morning entitled the above by Robert Tracinski offered many valid points about the numerous factual errors Obama frequently gets away with. The main deception the Obama Camp repeatedly emphasizes is that "McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time." The author points out that that is a bizarre statistic because when have Bush and McCain EVER voted together? Bush is not a member of Congress.

Tracinski goes on to more of Obama's Convention speech. He comments on the part where Obama spoke about his grandmother and how she pulled her self up from nothing, etc, etc...Tracinski argues that Obama's tactic here is to defer everyone's prying eyes from the saga of Jeremiah Wright, the Iranian Billionaire, and Terrorist Bill Ayers and instead wants everyone to focus on his "normal upbringing". He wants us to stop asking questions about why he wants to write out so many aspects of his own biography. McCain has been up front about his involvement in the Keating Five and his divorce, but the Obama camp has consistently refused to provide information on many things and is notorious for throwing a fit when it doesn't get its way (i.e. when conservative talk show host Kurtz attempted to go on the air in Illinois and discuss Obama...The Obama Campaign appealed to the Justice Department to get him off the air. So much for free speech?)

The point is this - Obama gets away with a lot because the American people let him. We must start asking more questions and demanding more information. It's only fair to us and McCain that they run equally forthcoming campaigns.

Access the article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080829/cm_rcp/barack_obama_offers_a_beautifu_1

Bristol Palin is a nonissue

2008-09-01T21:07:00.002-04:00

I agree with what Obama said regarding Bristol Palin's pregnancy...kids are off limits in the election! Additionally, Obama's mother was 18 when he was born. So it's kind of a moot issue.

In other news, for likely the first time since modern day polling began, a presidential candidate got NO BUMP after announcing his VP candidate. Who was it? Obama. Biden gave him very little if any bump at all :-) Many polls, including CNN and Zogby have McCain and Obama in a virtual tie.

This is heating up and getting very interesting!!!

Bristol Palin

2008-09-01T16:35:00.003-04:00

After some filthy lefty blogging over the past few days that suggested Sarah Palin's youngest son, Trig, is not her own, some interesting news has developed. Bristol Palin is pregnant, about 5 months a long, and plans to wed the baby's father soon. Naturally, lefty bloggers are going nuts about this story as well, though I can't say it surprises me that they would attack a 17-year old pregnant teenager who isn't running for any office. The Dems are bullying their way to better polling numbers and anyone who buys their crappy tactics should reevaluate their priorities. Bristol is taking responsibility for her actions - having the baby, creating an intact home - and is supported by her family and her community. No one was trying to cover up the pregnancy, and McCain himself knew about the pregnancy before naming Palin as his VP - he rightly believes that her daughter's pregnancy doesn't disqualify her from being a powerful name on the Republican ticket. Palin has dealt with real issues that real people face - she's a mother, a wife, a small-town citizen. She has 5 children and an incredible career. She's made incredible and historic progress in the area of women's rights and has 80% + approval from her constituency. The idea that people could attack her parenting abilities is absurd. Where are the critics of Obama's parenting style? Is he eating family dinners every night? Is any politician? He takes no heat because he's a man, not because he's a better parent.

Frankly, I'd rather have a VP whose 17 year old daughter is having a baby than a VP whose plagiarized at least twice. Sarah is real and has dealt with issues normal, everyday Americans face everyday. Keep up the great work, Sarah!

To read an article about this, click:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837862,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Bias in the Media

2008-08-31T14:46:00.002-04:00

An AP article featured on the Yahoo! Home Page contains the following statement:
"The Bush White House and Republicans in general are still shadowed by criticism of their handling of relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and parts of the Mississippi Gulf Coast three years ago."

Certainly, one can agree Bush was criticized for his handling of Katrina (rightly or wrongly). What I take issue with is that "Republicans in general" took criticism of their handling of Katrina. What was I supposed to do? I donated money, as did many Americans, both Republican or otherwise. Does the article mean Republican Congressman? What did they NOT do that Democratic Congressman did? Surely saying the Bush White House was enough to convey the writer's point. But I for one had no control over they way relief efforts were handled and I'm pretty sure being Republican doesn't increase one's power to coordinate these relief efforts.

"Obama Should Come Clean on Ayers, Rezko, and the Iraqi Billionaire"

2008-08-30T21:09:00.003-04:00

Obama Should Come Clean On Ayers, Rezko And the Iraqi Billionaire

August 30, 2008

By JOHN FUND

WSJ - Even as Barack Obama gave his soaring speech Thursday night, his campaign was playing hardball with its critics.

Team Obama has launched an offensive against WGN, the Chicago Tribune's radio station, for interviewing Stanley Kurtz. Mr. Kurtz is a conservative writer who this week forced the University of Illinois to finally open its records on Sen. Obama's association with William Ayers, the unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist.

An Obama campaign email to supporters called Mr. Kurtz a "slimy character assassin" whose "divisive, destructive ranting" should be confronted. WGN producer Zack Christenson says the outpouring of negative calls and emails is "unprecedented." He also notes that it is curious — because "we wanted the Obama campaign's take" on Mr. Kurtz's findings, but the campaign declined to put anyone on air.

Separately, Mr. Obama's lawyers have also demanded that the Justice Department prosecute an organization called the American Issues Project for running an ad about ties between their candidate and Mr. Ayers.

Obama aides believe John Kerry lost in 2004 because he failed to respond to the "Swift Boat" ads attacking him, and they are lashing out. Sometimes the Obama objections have merit, as when they exposed errors in Jerome Corsi's sensationalized Obama biography. But sometimes they are designed to shut down legitimate questions. "They're terrified of people poking around Obama's life," one reporter told Gabriel Sherman at the New Republic. "The whole Obama narrative is built around the narrative that Obama and [campaign strategist] David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it's not entirely true." The stakes are high. If the full story of Mr. Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been revealed before the Iowa caucus, he wouldn't have won.

Aides claim Mr. Obama "has taken voluntary transparency steps" that allow "his constituents, the media and his political opponents to fully examine him." In reality, anyone questioning the approved story line is liable to be ignored, misled or even bullied. This isn't what reporters expected when Mr. Obama began campaigning for a "new politics" that would bring honesty and openness to government.

Walking the rows of media outlets at the Denver convention, I had no trouble finding reporters who complained the campaign was secretive and evasive. Ben Smith of Politico.com has written about Team Obama's "pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents, even when relatively innocuous." Politico asked months ago if Mr. Obama had ever written anything for the Harvard Law Review as a student. The Obama campaign responded narrowly, with a Clintonesque statement that "as the president of the Law Review, Obama didn't write articles, he edited and reviewed them." This month it turned out Mr. Obama had written an article — but it was published a month before he became president.

Chasing the rest of Mr. Obama's paper trail is often an exercise in frustration. Mr. Obama says his state senate records "could have been thrown out" and he didn't keep a schedule in office. No one appears to have kept a copy of his application for the Illinois Bar. He has released only a single page of medical records, versus 1,000 pages for John McCain.

Then there's the house that Mr. Obama bought in 2005 in cooperation with Tony Rezko, his friend and campaign fund-raiser — a move the candidate concedes was "boneheaded." Rezko was convicted in June of 16 counts of corruption. (Mr. Obama was not implicated in Rezko's crimes.)

Rezko's trial raised a host of questions. Was Mr. Obama able to save $300,000 on the asking price of his house because Rezko's wife paid full price for the adjoining lot? How did Mrs. Rezko make a $125,000 down payment and obtain a $500,000 mortgage when financial records shown at the Rezko trial indicate she had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000? Records show her husband also had few assets at the time.

Last April, the London Times revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire living in London, had loaned Mr. Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before the day the sale of the house and lot closed in June 2005. Mr. Auchi's office notes he was a business partner of Rezko but says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property sale. But in April 2004 he did attend a dinner party in his honor at Rezko's Chicago home. Mr. Obama also attended, and according to one guest, toasted Mr. Auchi. Later that year, Mr. Auchi came under criminal investigation as part of a U.S. probe of the corrupt issuance of cell-phone licenses in Iraq.

In May 2004, the Pentagon's inspector general's office cited "significant and credible evidence" of involvement by Mr. Auchi's companies in the Oil for Food scandal, and in illicit smuggling of weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime. Because of the criminal probe, Mr. Auchi's travel visa to the U.S. was revoked in August 2004, even as Mr. Auchi denied all the allegations. According to prosecutors, in November 2005 Rezko was able to get two government officials from Illinois to appeal to the State Department to get the visa restored. Asked if anyone in his office was involved in such an appeal, Mr. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times last March, "not that I know of." FOIA requests to the State Department for any documents haven't been responded to for months.

After long delays, Mr. Obama sat with the editorial boards of the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune in March to answer their questions about his connection to Rezko. He had no recollection of ever meeting Mr. Auchi. He also said he didn't understand a lot about house buying, and gave vague answers to other questions. Since then, he has avoided any further discussion of the Rezko matter.

Some inquiries could be cleared up if the Obama campaign were forthcoming with key documents. Mr. Obama claims that in buying his house in 2005 he got a low mortgage rate from Northern Trust bank because another bank made a competitive bid for his business, but his campaign won't reveal from which bank. While he has released 94 pages of documents relating to the Rezko sale, they don't include the single most important one — the settlement statement that shows the complete flow of funds that were part of the house sale. When asked why that last key document isn't being released, the Obama campaign issued a boilerplate statement saying, "we have released documents that reflect every one of the final terms of the senator's purchase of the home." But key data are still being withheld.

The Obama campaign didn't hesitate to criticize Hillary Clinton for not revealing the names of donors to the Clinton Library, or John McCain for releasing only two years of tax returns as opposed to Mr. Obama's 10 years. Those were proper questions. But so too are requests for information from Mr. Obama, a man whose sudden rise and incompletely reported past makes him among the least-vetted of presidential nominees.

Reporters who decline to press Mr. Obama for more information now, whether it be on William Ayers or the Rezko-Auchi partnership, may be repeating an old mistake. Most reporters failed to dig deep enough into the Nixon White House's handling of Watergate before the 1972 election. The country was soon consumed with that scandal. Most reporters pooh-poohed questionable Whitewater real-estate dealings of the Clintons before Bill Clinton's 1992 election. Within months of his inauguration a tangled controversy led to the appointment of a special prosecutor and an endless source of distraction for the Clinton White House.

All presidential candidates resist full examination of their records. But it should be the job of reporters not to accept noncooperation, stonewalling or intimidation when it comes to questions about fitness for the nation's highest office.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Classy Democrats Hit Again!

2008-08-30T20:55:00.006-04:00

Despite the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina's devastation 3 years ago, many Dems, including blowhard film maker Michael Moore and former DNC Chairman Don Fowler are excited Gustav is headed directly toward Louisiana! In fact, they believe Hurricane Gustav indicates "God is on 'our' [Democrats'] side." because its scheduled to strike tomorrow - the scheduled first day of the Republican National Convention. And I thought that Democrats were above dirty politics and were clean as whistles? How wrong I've been this whole time.

Not only did they relish Gustav's imminent arrival in New Orleans, but they trashed Governor Sarah Palin. Fowler said she's "just terrible...other than the simple fact that she's female" (Redstate.com - http://www.redstate.com/diaries/absentee/2008/aug/30/fowler-fouls-hurricane-is-gods-favor-to-dem/")

To see the YouTube video of Fowler bashing Repubs and getting excited about Hurricane Gustav, click here!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78

Bill Kristol

2008-08-30T19:29:00.001-04:00

Pundit Bill Kristol writes:

"Millions of Americans -- mostly but not only women, mostly but not only Republicans and conservatives -- seemed to get a sense of energy and enjoyment and pride, not just from her nomination, but especially from her smashing opening performance. Palin will be a compelling and mold-breaking example for lots of Americans who are told every day that to be even a bit conservative or Christian or old-fashioned is bad form. In this respect, Palin can become an inspirational figure and powerful symbol." (August 30, 2008 - Los Angeles Times)

2008-08-30T12:32:00.000-04:00

Well, it certainly didn't take long for Dems and gossipers alike to impugn Mr. McCain's VP selection, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. What galls me most, however, is the Dems' complete lack of acknowledgment that this is a historic occasion! Gossiper Perez Hilton called her "anti-feminist," yet made incredibly sexist, disgusting comments at the end of the same post - calling her a slut and suggesting she must have a sex tape. Just because she's attractive, she is attacked for being anti-feminists. I, for one, am not surprised that this smart, intelligent and progressive woman is a Republican - a maverick, too! Congrats on a great VP, Mr. McCain! Way to energize the base. Let's be honest...
Our VP candidate is hotter than yours! And smarter, funnier, more promising, and more connected with real Americans. Can't wait for the debates!!

Gov. Sarah Palin

2008-08-29T17:37:00.000-04:00

Check this out for a summary of why Gov. Sarah Palin is a brilliant choice for VP!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/rollins.palin/index.html

McCain and the Environment

2008-08-29T16:15:00.003-04:00

Certainly Mr. McCain has been slower to gain favor with the youth vote, primarily because he is older than Mr. Obama -McCain is 72. However, despite his age, McCain's policies are aimed at allaying the fears of youth - namely the environment, the war, and the economy. I outline the first of these 3 policy areas below:

1. The Environment
-Mr. McCain certainly acknowledge that the US must break its dependence on foreign oil - however, until then, the US cannot cease oil production and exploration. He believes that we must utilize American's own vast resources to transition between the dependence of the past and the independence of our future. McCain has said "In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025." (John McCain, June 25, 2008)
- Though exploring offshore oil drilling possibilities and our own domestic reserves of natural gas will help to lower costs now, McCain has plans to search for alternative energy sources and reward Americans who begin or continue to be environmentally-conscious.
-Mr. McCain plans to offer a $5,000 tax credit to Americans who purchase cars who have zero net carbon emissions. He will offer tax incentives to automakers to make cleaner cars and graduated tax credits for citizens who buy hybrid or other low-emitting vehicles - lower carbon emissions = higher tax credit.
-Mr. McCain will offer a $300 million dollar prize to the person/company who produces fully electric and gas-free plugin/electronic cars comparable in quality/life expectancy to gas-run cars.
- Mr. McCain supports increasing production of flex-fuel vehicles
- Mr McCain will help companies move past ethanol onto more promising alcohol-based fuels and cease over-subsidizing ethanol producing farms to the point that domestic products like food etc. are increasingly expensive. Mr. McCain will cease government support of special interest lobbies and instead focus on finding an alternative that works.
- John McCain will commit $2 billion/year toward clean coal initiatives
- He will increase the production of nuclear power plants, with the ultimate goal of producing 100 new plants.
- He proposes a Cap-and-Trade program that would limit carbon emissions from factories etc. while employing a free-market strategy.
-Mr. McCain will focus on "greening" the government, which is currently the largest consumer of electricity world wide. He will focus on applying newer efficiency standards and reducing electricity/gas costs and usage.
- McCain does not support a windfall profits tax. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil and hinder investment in domestic exploration. Jimmy Carter put a windfall profits tax in to place with little to no useful results.

Students, Beware! How Obama's "Plans" May End Up Costing Young People Most

2008-08-29T15:30:00.002-04:00

With just 67 days until the general election on November 4, 2008, it is the responsibility of the American public to educate themselves on who is best to represent the US for the next 4 years. The Dems have chosen Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, the Republicans, Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin. This election cycle, students represent a dynamic and critical constituency who seem overwhelmingly in favor of the former - a Harvard University School of Politics poll found that while 32% support Mr. McCain, 55% support Mr. Obama (Harvard University, 2008).
Below, I've outlined just 5 of the numerous reasons why that 55% should rethink their decision to support Mr. Obama:

1. Healthcare
Mr. Obama's healthcare plan is referred to as a "community rating" program and seeks to ensure all Americans pay the same premium on health insurance. The downside? Healthier and younger Americans will end up paying for the health care of older people - at a huge financial cost. I, for one, am not yet in a position where I can pay for someone else's healthcare. Additionally, Mr. Obama's plan prohibits high-deductible, low cost insurance plans, making it increasingly hard for young people just entering the workplace to afford insurance on their own. This may force many young people to forego purchasing insurance in the first place.

2. Social Security
Our country's SS taxes are already incredibly high - especially in relation to the benefits received. Despite early support to keep all options on the table, Mr. Obama now opposes a plan to allow young people to invest their social security taxes in a separate account to make money over time. The program is facing a troubling future - some suggest future obligations of SS could add up to more than $15.3 trillion dollars. What does this mean for you and me? We will either face a massive tax hike to pay for other people's social security, or we will face a dramatic decrease in benefits when it comes time for us to retire and collect.

3. Medicare
Medicare's anticipated debt is even higher than Social Security's - some suggesting it may equal more than $70 trillion. Despite a multitude of concerns about the future viability of this expensive program, Mr. Obama opposes most, if not all, Medicare reforms and in fact wants to increase benefits of the prescription drug program. Translation? Another massive tax hike for young voters.

4. Government Budget and Debt
Congressman Wayne Allard (R-Co.) proposed an amendment last Spring aimed at demonstrating just how much all of Mr. Obama's programs would cost. The total? Approximately $1.4 trillion dollars over 5 years - that's only including Mr. Obama's universal healthcare program, eliminating income taxes for seniors, and "expanding" the army (Source: Politico.com).
Without Mr. Obama's programs, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that in the near future, the government could consume nearly 35% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to columnist Michael Tanner, "Paying for a government that size would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%. The impact on workers, businesses and the economy at large would be catastrophic" (Tanner, 2008, New York Daily News). Tanner goes on to say that "Far from restraining the growth of government, Mr. Obama is proposing program after program of new spending. According to the most recent tally from the National Taxpayers Union, he has laid out $343 billion per year in new government spending" (Tanner).
Furthermore, Mr. Obama has no plans to eliminate or even reduce the budget deficit. "Now I want to go ahead and tell you the truth, which is, we will not eliminate the deficit or the national debt in the next four years, or even in the next eight years" (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Fairfax, VA, 7/10/08).
In another article, it is reported that "[Elizabeth Sperling] says the key difference between the two candidates' proposals is that [Sen. Hillary] Clinton has been more conscientious and rigorous about finding specific, realistic ways to pay for her plans. 'There is a significant gap between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on the fiscal responsibility of their proposals,' says Sperling. 'She felt very much that when you're talking to people you need to be able to look them in the eye and tell them very specifically where's the beef.' Sperling notes Mr. Obama estimates it would cost about $85 billion a year to deliver the three tax cuts he's proposed that Clinton hasn't - for seniors, for payroll taxes, and another that would allow a mortgage-interest tax credit for non-itemizers. The cost of Obama's tax cuts has raised eyebrows not only in Clinton's camp. Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center in Washington, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, says he is concerned that both candidates have promised too much at a time 'when we know our fiscal situation is bad and getting worse.'" (Elizabeth Auster, "Clinton, Obama Plans Are Similar," [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 2/24/08)

5. Foreign Policy
Mr. Obama's relative lack of experience is easy to ignore in the face of all that charm and lofty and un-ignorable rhetoric. However, behind that polished facade is someone who has been in the Senate less than 1 term (in fact, he has only served about 170 days), was in the Illinois state senate before that, and previously was a "community organizer" - whatever that is. Which of those prepare him best for Foreign Policy issues? "None" was Mr. Obama's answer. Instead, Mr. Obama pointed to his 4 years living in Indonesia. Was he an ambassador? A diplomat? Neither. Mr. Obama wasn't even a teenager when his family moved to the island nation for their brief tenure there. Even Senator Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama's lack of experience. From Time Magazine last year: "Voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face," Clinton, the former First Lady who has spent seven years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told supporters Nov. 20 in Shenandoah, Iowa. "I think we need a President with more experience than that." (Time, December 2007).

Judge for yourselves, but it seems those are 5 major drawbacks to Senator Obama as a presidential candidate. Certainly both candidates have their flaws, negatives, and points of disagreement - as does anyone - but Mr. Obama's seems perversely anti-youth. I'd rather not gamble on a risk like Senator Obama.