Bias in the Media

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

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!

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

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)

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

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

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

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.