In honor of 9/11

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?

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?

"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

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"

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

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!

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.

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!

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

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)