Iris Data VoIP Services

Iris offers commercial grade VoIP at great rates with all of the features, plus many that other VoIP companies charge for. I have had the opportunity to look at several VoIP companies and compare prices and quality and have determined that nonbody knows VoIP like Iris.
Hosted PBX services comes standard with every VoIP account as does fax-to-email, music-on-hold, customer menus, call routing, voice-mail, three-way calling, call waiting, open-line hunting, call transfer, video phone compatability, web-based account access including call data records and much more.
Iris' VoIP services bring extended families together and can be installed virtually anywhere in the world, and Iris' SIP compliant VoIP devices are completely portable. Many of their customers have relatives overseas who they get to see every day via video phone for no addition to the $19.99 monthly unlimited residential rate.
Businesses also enjoy the service because office that are located in different parts of the world can also be interconnected at no charge and the video conferencing save hundreds if not thousands on airfare, lost time, or miscommunications and in today's competitive world, every advantage counts.
Iris Data also provides VoIP to call centers because of their exceptional quality and low rates as well as WHOLESALE TERMINATION to other major carries throughout the world.
Based in the Pacific Northwest, Iris now makes its' service available to the general public via the internet at www.iriscrystal.com. They call it the "crystal" because the quality is "crystal-clear".
VoIP versatility and Iris' innovation bring savings and reliability that you can count on!
Why not try a line for a week at no charge and see for yourself? Just call 1-866-755-IRIS and ask about promo "TRIAL4" for a week of free service and become a believer in their personal attention and great quality!

An Electorate In The Dark

by David Kilpatrick

Thanks to the fine work of the mainstream media, the American electorate went into the 2008 elections with a fraction of the information needed to make an intelligent decision... and Obama won. Three cheers and a monkey for us!

According to Zogby, 512 Obama voters were asked 12 multiple choice questions regarding the 4 candidates Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin and a shocking .5% (that's one half of one percent) aced the quiz. The point of the poll is NOT to say Obama supporters are stupid, but to demonstrate how "in the tank" for Obama the media coverage was in that news unfavorable to Obama was largely not broadcast.

Zogby Results:
42.6% could correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
28.2% could correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing).
17.4% could correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing).
11.6% could correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing).
43.9% could correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

The results, when asked about negative stories of Sarah Palin and John McCain, were startlingly different:
86.3% could identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes.
93.8% could identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter.
86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey, the comedian, who said that!!

Sure, we can point to media bias, after all, journalists voted for Walter Mondale by a 2 to 1 margin over Ronald Reagan (58% to 26%) which was a substantial victory for Reagan as only 9% of journalists identified themselves as Republican. Today, self identified liberals in the media outnumber conservatives by 7 to 1. For anyone to say there is no liberal bias in the media would mean that person is... well... very liberal and the coverage of this last year's election is very revealing in the Zogby poll: The media simply did not educate the public. Do Obama supporters know about Obama's foreign policy ideas? No, but they do know about Palin's wardrobe... as if that has any bearing on how a nation would be governed. We all know about Palin's pregnant daughter, but only 11.6% know that Obama said he will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Which will effect our country more? When your heating bill doubles, will you be thinking about a pregnant teenager? No, but that was all the media reported.

George Washington said, "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened," in his farewell address on September 19, 1796. Public opinion should be "enlightened" meaning "informed" yet, Americans have fallen victim to malpractice by a media who has failed miserably to surpass anything more than tabloid status.

To help us all:
1. The congress is controlled by Democrats and has been for two years.
2. Joe Biden was the one guilty of plagiarizing a speech.
3. Barack Obama is the one that launched his political career in a confessed terrorist's home.
4. Barack Obama had his opponents removed from the ballot during his first campaign.
5. John McCain could not say how many houses were under his name.
6. Barack Obama said his policies would bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs.
7. Sarah Palin was the one whose campaign wardrobe cost $150,000 (that was actually for the entire family).
8. Nobody said they could see Russia from their house. That was a comedian named Tina Fey.
9. Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter.
10. Joe Biden was the one that said Obama would be tested by our enemies within his first 6 months in office.
11. Barack Obama is the one who claimed to have campaigned in 57 states with one more to go.
12. Barack Obama is the one who said that the government should redistribute wealth.

Now, if you watch CNN and Zogby calls you on the phone, you can help CNN look better than they really are.
We continue to learn all the time, I suppose, but the video is painful to watch.

Let Us Pray.

by David Kilpatrick

Let us pray that Obama does NOTHING that he promised he would.

1. Raising taxes on small businesses
Inherently a bad idea as small businesses employ 84% of the population and Obama seems to be completely unaware of a startlingly obvious dynamic in economics: BUSINESSES DON’T PAY TAXES! They simply collect revenue from consumers and pass on taxes to the government. So, the tax increase on the business owner may not be a tax increase on you, but when the cost of goods goes up, you are the one paying the bigger bill. This is also a sure-fire way to ignite inflation… remember President Carter? Inflation was in double digits because the Democrat super-majority in congress and the president didn’t understand that simple dynamic. A tax on business is a tax on everyone, and here’s the part nobody wants to hear: rich people are business owners. Taxing the rich doesn’t hurt the rich… it hurts their customers and employees.

2. Carbon credit trading
Obama readily admits that coal-fired plants will be bankrupted… even clean-burning coal will face heavy levies in the cap-and-trade schemes that will force electricity producers to pay penalties for the carbon emissions of the electricity generation plants, and Obama admits that the price of energy will skyrocket. This will also lend to inflation as higher energy costs effect the prices of all goods sold and the poorest of the poor will be the hardest hit as they will face heating and cooling costs that will be the highest in history. To offset the cost of government regulation on coal, we could turn to nuclear as France and many other nations have, but Obama is against nuclear power. Sadly, this leaves the United States with few options and the U.S. will remain the only country on the planet that is at war with its own energy producing industries.

3. The Fairness Doctrine
Democrats in both the Senate and the House will certainly try to push through the “Fairness Doctrine” which will be the first time in history that commercial broadcasters will have their content regulated by the Federal Government. This is the beginning of “change” that most Americans didn’t bargain for, but it is, unfortunately, part of the package. The Fairness Doctrine will require that broadcasters who air commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity also air opposing commentators, even if those commentators make the station no money. This will cause stations to move away from talk and commentary as “Free Speech” will not be allowed without regulation. This infringement upon such a basic right would likely draw a filibuster by Senate Republicans and would surely be taken before the Supreme Court, but nobody knows what will happen. Again, we can only hope that, for the first time in his career, Obama does not follow the Democrats. The unfortunate pattern though, is that freedoms, in the mind of the far left which now runs the country, only apply to people who think like they do. Remember one thing, my liberal friends: if one person can have their rights taken away today, your rights can be taken away tomorrow.

4. The Employee Free Choice Act
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers, but the key component in this measure would make private balloting a thing of the past – thus having the exact opposite effect by allowing intimidation from either employers or union thugs and with union membership languishing at around 6% of the work force, the unions who backed Obama’s election see this as a special reward. How does preventing you from having a private ballot help you exercise your free will? With union thugs looking over one shoulder as you vote and employers looking over the other, workers will find themselves in possibly the worst no-win position in history, yet it is part of the new society Obama promises to deliver. An increase in union membership will also result in an increase in labor costs as is proven historically which is bad for the general public and ultimately the workers as it will increase inflation as employers raise prices to cover higher costs and cut jobs in an effort to keep budgets under control.

5. Increasing the Minimum Wage and Indexing it to Inflation
Increasing the minimum wage is always popular because nobody wants to see others working full time and struggling to survive. What is missing is the down-side to this never ending increase-after-increase which actually serves to make the problem of low income survival even worse.
A. To capture the broad sense, we need to take a step back and look at this issue from a global standpoint. Increasing the cost of labor in the U.S. will make our labor even more costly than in other countries, which prevents the export of American goods while increasing outsourcing. Consumers will not buy a $100 stereo made in America when they can buy the same stereo for $20 – made in China. Does this help or hurt manufacturing in the U.S.? Clearly, it hurts it, so fewer jobs become available as prices rise.
B. As labor costs increase, so does overhead for the U.S. companies which will raise prices and reduce the size of their workforce. This will cause a rise in inflation and a rise in unemployment, thus a need to raise taxes to cover unemployment benefits, which will result in higher overhead (again), higher prices (again), more inflation and another round of cut-backs and so on. This is not a cycle that will improve anything economically.
C. With all the concern being on the minimum wage ever being potentially too low, at what point do we ask, “Is the minimum wage too high?” Surely, as it begins the unstoppable upward spiral, a rational person has to realize that unskilled, entry-level positions or positions sought by teenagers to get some experience while they live with Mom and Dad are not worth $20 per hour to have filled and as more and more of the unskilled or young are finding that no positions are available, many will turn to crime or other “under the radar” ways of making money. Clearly not helpful and possibly quite harmful.
D. Increasing the minimum wage also kills initiative. Why would an unskilled worker need to get an education if they can make plenty of money without one? Many of us were traditionally raised knowing that an education was the key to financial stability. If we remove that teaching from the fabric of our society, will we not be teaching our youth that an education is unnecessary? This would make our workforce less educated and further our inability to compete with labor forces in other parts of the world – a very harmful idea.

6. $1 Trillion in new spending
The argument is that “more spending” is the way to solve the economic crisis in the world today and, as Barney Frank (D-Mass) puts it, the deficit should not be considered at this time. The interesting thing to note here is that, for some reason, Obama thinks that government spending is somehow superior to private-sector spending when it comes to jump-starting the economy. If tax rates were kept at current levels or even reduced slightly, as McCain had proposed, private sector spending would be greater than it would be if you raise taxes on business owners and would not need to be supplemented by increased government spending. To say that somehow, our woes would be behind us if only the tax code was tweaked a little bit is naive at best and completely ignorant at worst. Again, let us pray that Obama was only joking about imagining that a tax adjustment is a fix to anything.
As it stands, roughly 18% of the gross domestic product is collected in taxes and amounts to roughly $2.2 trillion. To generate enough tax revenue to support this (even if they claim they don’t have to), tax receipts will need to increase by 50%. This cannot be done by only taxing the rich business owners who (will only pass the higher costs on to the consumers anyway).

Someone is going to have to pay the bill and if it won’t be us, it will be our children… or maybe not. In 1850, Alexander Tyler said, “Democracy is not a permanent form of government. It only lasts until people discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.” – and we’re watching it happen.

Let us pray. Let us pray for the survival of our country.

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

Democrat plan to "Educate The Idiots" by targeting minorities unveiled

Democracy Alliance memo details Dem plan to "educate the idiots" and target minoritiesFiled Under: Colorado ElectionsTopics: AFL-CIO, Andrew Romanoff, Bell Policy Center, Bill Ritter, campaign finance, Colorado Democracy Alliance, Democracy Alliance, Dominic DelPapa, Evan Dreyer, Joan Fitz-Gerald

October 1, 2008

Face The State Staff Report
In a confidential internal memorandum obtained by Face The State (PDF), the Colorado Democracy Alliance outlines a roster of "operatives" who worked for Democratic victory in the 2006 general election. The document outlines specific tasks for various members of the state's liberal infrastructure, including a campaign to "educate the idiots," assigned to the state's AFL-CIO union. Among the operation's intended targets: "minorities, GED's, drop-outs."

Individuals named in the document, marked "CONFIDENTIAL," "for internal use only," and "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE," are high-level elected Democrats including House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, as well as Gov. Bill Ritter's press aide and former campaign chief Evan Dreyer. All are specially marked as "off-the-record or covert."
Mentioned as a "critical contact" was Dominic DelPapa, a partner at Ikon Public Affairs. DelPapa was at the center of recent controversy stemming from the February leak of a confidential memo he authored detailing a multi-million dollar "foot on throat" attack on Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, among others.

CoDA is one of 18 state-based versions of the nationally focused Democracy Alliance, a self-described "investment partnership of business and philanthropic leaders" funding liberal infrastructure nationwide. For more information about the Democracy Alliance in Colorado, see day one and two of Face The State's week-long series on the group.
In a podcast released by the DNC Host Committee Tuesday, national Democracy Alliance founder Rob Stein explains the need for large, secretive donor networks. "We do not have the infrastructure that the right has built, yet," he said. "But there has never in the history of progressivedom (sic) been a clearer, more strategic, more focused, more disciplined, better financed group of institutions operating at the state and national level."
In the same podcast, Laurie Hirschfeld Zeller, the newly installed executive director of CoDA, explains her organization's mission. "Our job is to build a long-term progressive infrastructure in Colorado while we're conceding nothing in the short term in terms of progressive goals at the ballot box."
Zeller had high praise for the state's liberal establishment, specifically naming America Votes, New Era Colorado, Progressive Majority, the Latina Initiative, and ProgressNow as partners in CoDA's coalition building efforts. "CoDA works with all these organizations," she said.
The Bell Policy Center, a liberal think tank that regularly plays host to CoDA board meetings, was praised for its work fighting to dismantle Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. She characterized Colorado's constitutional requirement for voter approval of tax increases as "arcane."
According to Zeller, CoDA operates "in a structure that provides privacy to members." Under current law, this structure is as a taxable non-profit organization that allows individual donors to give anonymously to shared causes. She described the structure as a "fiscal irrigation system" designed to "provide a harvest later this fall."
Stein, the DA founder, said state groups like CoDA have fired "a warning shot to conservatives in America."
"Conservatives have nothing comparable to possibly compete with it, and they better watch out," he said. Colorado was chosen as a test case for exporting DA's national model, due in part to the "significant wealth" of liberal donors living here.
"It's not just individual donors," Zeller said of CoDA's financial underwriting. "One of the things that has been crucial in making the work of the Colorado Democracy Alliance effective in Colorado has been our partnership with institutional donors and activist organizations in labor, particularly," she said. "That's been a major part of how we get our work done here."
According to Zeller, CoDA's giving is concentrated in five general funding categories: leadership development, communications, "research and ideas," "civic engagement" and "constituency development."
"We embrace the 'progressive' label in our giving and the strategic role we play in Colorado politics," she said.
Despite sweeping gains for political liberals both in Colorado and nationally, Stein believes his coalition can do a better job of communicating with voters.
"It feels scary, because we don't have the message down right," he said. "[But] We're being more businesslike - we're being more professional."

Obama the Amateur vs. The Statesman

by David Kilpatrick

It's time for true colors to be seen. In light of the largest financial crisis to face our country since the Great Depression, McCain has decided to suspend the campaign of partisan attacks, reach across the aisle, once again, and do what needs to be done to serve the American public. After all, a Senator is a public servant, right? But, from Obama's shock at McCain's announcement that he really does put his country ahead of his party, we can see Obama's true priority: GETTING ELECTED first, while serving the country at his convenience which, with only 143 days in the Senate, he has yet to really begin doing.

For BOTH Senators to return to Washington at this time would prove their devotion to the country, but Obama will stoop to no such self-sacrificing move. He feels he would be better served if he were out giving speeches trying to motivate people to vote for him, a man with so few accomplishments, that one is really left in a sobering state of shock to realize that he could become the leader of the free world AFTER demonstrating that HIS needs and ambitions come first.

The question is simply: Is Obama still a Senator with a duty to serve the people? If so, can we ask him to do something other than vote "present" on important issues that will effect us for years to come? Or, is he already an exalted messiah that is above such demeaning things as returning to Washington to help steer the country through such dangerous and uncharted waters? He must realize, based on his past record, that if he doesn't input anything useful, he can later claim that he didn't cause the problem... and use that point to forward his career. Sadly, it's also like a race car driver refusing to steer and then claiming he could not have been responsible for the crash because his hands were no where near the steering wheel!

Obama is arguing that he can do two things at a time: maintain a back-breaking campaign/fund raising schedule AND simultaneously dedicate himself 100% to helping restore the economy. Is he so mighty? I think not. Obama is demonstrating that he is drunk with his own rhetoric! Does he imagine that his simple signature on someone else's work will suffice? Does he imagine that he is not required, as the leader of the Democrat party, to assist in finding solutions? What could be more important than attending to the crisis at had? Obama's political ambitions and quest for power? That, in his mind, is much more important than helping the country right now on Wall Street OR on Main Street and, as usual, he has no legislation offered and no ideas presented to the Senate, a body he still claims to be a member of.

One thing is absolutely certain. When this crisis has passed, as all do, thanks to the hard work and selflessness of real men like John McCain, we will not have Obama to thank. We can also be sure that if Obama is elected, we will have little to thank him for later. Simply put, his plans to raise taxes and double spending don't fit today's economic environment. On the other hand, maybe it's best that he stay out of Washington so that the real men can get things done. We can call him for his autograph later, then he can claim the credit like the clueless little boy that he is.

For Obama to remain on the stump attacking John McCain while McCain is doing what he can to help the country is a new definition of low in American politics. Obama is looking more and more like the junior mechanic who doesn't want to soil his overalls, while criticizing the man that is covered head-to-toe with the grime of getting things fixed.

The Emerging Obama Deficit

By Dick Morris

There appears to be a gap of between 10 and 20 points between how voters see the parties and what they think of the candidates. Between one-tenth and one-fifth of America’s voters feel that the Democratic Party would be the best for the country but like the McCain-Palin ticket better.
•By seven points, they identify as Democrats more than Republicans. But by 16 points, they say that if they faced the “toughest decision of your life” they would go to McCain rather than Obama for advice.
• They think the Democrats will do better on healthcare by 19 points, but by 20 points they think McCain is more qualified than Obama to be president.
document.
• They prefer the Democrats to deal with the economy by four points (down from 10 a few months ago) but feel — by eight points — that the Republicans better understand what it is like to live day by day in America.
• While they are more likely to vote Democrat for Congress, they rate Obama as more of a talker than a doer by 20 points and rate McCain the opposite by 15 and, by nine points, they think the Republican ticket has the better judgment than the Democratic nominees.
If this were a nonpartisan mayoral election, McCain would win in a walk. If this were a European-style proportional representation contest, Obama would be the next president by a good margin. But our system is a unique fusion, of course, of the two — a decision on the candidate and on the party.
How odd that Obama, with a world-class personality and an incredibly charismatic speaking style, should be losing the mano-a-mano contest to McCain, who is 25 years older and a foot shorter. But McCain has opened up a decisive lead over Obama, actually using the Democrat’s articulateness against him. Asked in the Fox News poll whether each candidate is a “talker” or a “doer,” voters perceive Obama as more of a talker by 15 points and see McCain as more of a doer by 24 points.
This kind of gap in the assessment of the candidates shows dramatically what a steep hill Obama has yet to climb. But the fact that the very same sample on the Fox News poll turned right around and voted for McCain by only three points shows how skewed the party preference is against McCain.
In effect, a lot of Democrats and independents are saying we trust McCain more, he has better judgment, he is more of a doer, and we think he’s more qualified — but we are going to vote for Obama because he is a Democrat and we agree with his party more on healthcare, energy and the economy.
Such a dichotomy is an unnatural political situation. Since 2000, we have become accustomed to 50-50 politics with each side holding its red states or blue ones close to its vest with few voters in the no man’s land in between. But the portrait that emerges from the polling is quite different. It is a consensus on how much water there is in the glass. The only difference is whether to see it as half-empty or half-full!
What will prevail? Party or candidate? It’s hard to tell. But debates are between people, not parties, and it is the three debates that will probably determine the outcome of this race.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue

In God We Still Trust

Obama’s Specifics for Economic Change

by David Kilpatrick

There has been a lot of talk about Obama being the agent of change, but many are asking the question, “What, exactly, does he intend to change?” His speeches are a virtual cornucopia of promises that a better life awaits us all under an Obama administration, but how will he deliver? Let’s examine some of his specific proposals relating to the economy from his web site and ask ourselves how these proposals will make our lives better.

According to the IRS: For 2006, taxpayers filed 138.4 million U.S. individual income tax returns, an increase of 2.9 percent from the 134.5 million returns filed for 2005. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) increased from the previous year by 8.4 percent to $8.0 trillion for 2006. Taxable income increased 9.0 percent to $5.6 trillion; the alternative minimum tax rose 21.3 percent to $19.3 billion; total income tax increased by 10.6 percent to $1.0 trillion; and total tax liability rose by 10.3 percent to $1.1 trillion. So, even with a fundamentally strong U.S. economy, there are still weaknesses in job growth, the credit markets, manufacturing, and trade.

Obama Solution 1:
A Windfall Profits Tax on American oil companies to bring a $1000 energy rebate to American families.
Barack Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on Obama's long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

Problem with that: Let’s do math: $1000 for each family, 140 million tax returns… that’s checks totaling about $140 billion! As oil company profits in 2007 were $120 billion, the rebates would be $20 billion more than ALL of the profits made by American oil companies… so clearly, this can’t be funded with a windfall profits tax.
Result: According to John Hofmeister, president of Shell U.S. in a recent interview on CNNMoney.com, "If our profits are taxed, that means we'll have less capital to invest in new production and it could raise gas prices." In other words, LESS SUPPLY and HIGHER PRICES, as well as a shortfall of almost $130 billion in funding the rebates.

Obama Solution 2:
Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs.
This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. Obama’s relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school re­pair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut.

Problem with that: The Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is $13.13 trillion. $50 billion is a drop in the bucket that directed toward government spending projects designed to “prevent cutbacks” can hardly be called a “Jumpstart”. A “Jumpstart” would normally be seen as a chance to advance, not merely hold the line. Interestingly, nothing proposed by McCain would provide for cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance or school repair, so the 1 million jobs are not in jeopardy in the first place.
Result: Two more pointless government funding projects costing $50 billion per year.

Obama Solution 3:
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families.
Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Problem with that: This is not a tax cut at all. It’s wealth redistribution. 50% of American workers pay no taxes, so “offering tax relief to those who need it most” sounds nice, but it is a nonsensical statement. Adding another entitlement to the spending problems facing the U.S. is counterproductive. Since 1965, incomes are up 35%. Since 1965, mandatory government spending is up 789%. Another government spending program is not the answer.
Result: Another government spending program costing $140 billion per year.

Obama Solution 4:
Ensure Freedom to Unionize.
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.

Problem with that: The Employee Free Choice Act eliminates the right to a private ballot and would, consequentially, allow intimidation by unions that are trying to make workers join. Burdening businesses with more regulations in an obvious attempt to pander to the unions will not help the economy or encourage more hiring. Workers are already free to unionize and employers are already required to adhere to labor laws that protect workers’ health, safety, rights, working conditions, and fair wages. It’s not the health or welfare of the worker that Obama would fight for, but the health and welfare of big labor unions who sustain themselves on the backs of the American workers.
Result: Higher labor costs which HURT employment and the return of historic worker harassment by labor unions whose memberships are dwindling.

Obama Solution 5:
Raise the Minimum Wage.
Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.

Problem with that: The minimum wage is an unfunded mandate on small businesses that offer entry level positions for teens and young adults that, most typically, don’t have families to support. Many live with their parents. Increasing the price of labor will make it more difficult for people to find jobs, not easier.
Result: Employers will hire the “bare minimum” number of employees and finding work will become difficult. We are in a global labor market and raising the cost locally will hurt us globally.

The policy of “raise taxes” and “spend more” has never been helpful during a weak economy and it is likely to cause a disaster. Obama continually wants us to remember Clinton’s era as a time of growth and prosperity, forgetting that tax revenues were falling under his higher rates and that the economy was stagnating prior to Bush’s tax cuts. The solutions he offers are either counterproductive to growth or address labor rights problems that don’t exist.

Obama's profound lack of experience leads him to make decisions based on book study rather than hands-on application and his advisors from socialist think-tanks won’t help. We can hope for one of two things: That McCain wins or that Obama changes his stands completely.

Sarah Palin's Address to the RNC

By Sarah Palin

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.
I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.
They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.
And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.
Our son Track is 19.
And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.
In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.
And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us.
Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.
And children with special needs inspire a special love.
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.
And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.
When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.
Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.
And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
I also drive myself to work.
And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.
We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.
How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.
He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.
A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.
He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.
It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.
It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.
As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.
For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you all, and may God bless America.
Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, is the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee.

Obama Offers a Beautifully Packaged Lie

By Robert Tracinski

There was a fair bit of talk about Bill Clinton's speech Wednesday night to the Democratic convention, and Peggy Noonan even went so far as to declare that "The Master Has Arrived." But she is wrong. When it comes to political oratory, the master arrived last night at Invesco Field. Bill Clinton can give a glib speech, but there has always been something missing from his delivery. Try as he might--and he really did try--he was never able to convincingly fake sincerity. Barack Obama can fake sincerity, and that, more than the words of a speech or the pageantry that precedes it, is the key to his power as a speaker.
His speech last night was brilliant and perfect. It is too bad that the whole thing was a lie, which depended on the smoothness and apparent sincerity of Senator Obama's delivery to lull the listener into a state of credulity and prevent him from asking too many questions.
Here's an example that is small but revealing. Obama led with the best sales pitch he has to offer: that he is not George Bush. But of course, Obama is running against John McCain, not Bush. So he attempted to justify the substitution by claiming that "John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time." This statistic has been used throughout the Democratic convention, but it makes no sense. Bush is not a member of Congress and casts no votes there--so how can you compare his voting record to that of McCain?
But don't examine this folly; ask only what it accomplishes. It allows Obama to run against an unpopular president who will not defend himself because he is not actually in the race.
When it came to making the positive case for himself, Obama's first goal was to address the public's concerns about his background, particularly his patriotism and how much he identifies with American values. So he drew, not from his own biography, but from that of his family.
[I]n the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.
In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships....
And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work....
I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me.
In addition to identifying himself with the lower-income, blue-collar types who have so far refused to vote for him, Obama is also painting himself as someone with uncontroversial, traditional American values, someone who believes in fighting for your country and improving your life through hard work and perseverance.
This is supposed to make us forget that Barack Obama launched his political career under the spiritual guidance of a pastor who delivered far-left tirades calling on God to damn America--and he launched his first campaign under the patronage of a former domestic terrorist. Theirs are the stories that also shaped Barack Obama--but he wants to write Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers out of his biography.
Worse, he wants us to stop asking questions about this sort of thing.
These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain. But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
It's awfully generous of Obama to refrain from questioning the patriotism of a war hero. The real purpose of this statement, of course, is not to protect McCain but to protect Obama. Its purpose is to declare off-limits any further questions or discussion about his past association with Wright, Ayers, and all of the other shady characters from Obama's past.
On another area where he is particularly weak, foreign policy, Obama decided that the best defense is a strident offense. He projected a righteous self-confidence intended to make his viewers forget his opposition to the surge and his weak and stumbling response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. In this section, note again the gap between rhetoric and reality--and the willing suspension of critical thought that he requires of his listener.
For example, here is what he has to say on Afghanistan.
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, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
Obama criticizes McCain for allegedly going soft on al-Qaeda--it's a good thing he's not going to question anyone's patriotism--yet all Obama can offer is precisely the policies we are already pursuing: more money and troop for Afghanistan and one-at-a-time special forces strikes against al-Qaeda leaders "if we have them in our sights," which we have been doing for years. What Obama is presenting as a tough and visionary new policy is his support for the Bush administration's status quo. Does he really think that no one will notice?
His statement on Iraq is an even more brazen evasion. He boasts that "today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration,...John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war." But all of the current discussion about drawing down troops from Iraq is possible only because of the success of the surge--which John McCain advocated and Barack Obama opposed. He is presenting the success of a military buildup as vindication for a policy of military retreat.
Perhaps his worst line, however, is this one: "You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances." This is a reference to NATO--which has been conspicuously useless in the Georgian conflict, refusing even a symbolic resolution to suspend military cooperation with Russia. This statement is evidence that Obama is not even paying attention to world events. But he expects the viewer to be carried forward by the certainty and stridency of his tone. He asserts with an air of conviction, "don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country"--but he depends on the air of conviction, not any actual evidence, to sway the listener.
Addressing criticisms that he offers soaring rhetoric with no specifics, Obama replies "So let me spell out exactly what...'change' would mean if I am president." But what he presents is mostly a list of aspirations, such as "Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it." Or: "for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." How is that to be achieved? Is it even possible to achieve it? Obama offers no answer.
Obama's list of specifics continues in this vein, promising everything to everyone in a way that would make the Clintons blush--but with such an earnest sincerity of delivery that it somehow doesn't seem like pandering.
In foreign policy, he promises the miraculous: "I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease." He's going to defeat terrorism with "partnerships"; face down Russian and Iranian aggression with diplomacy; and while he's at it, he will end poverty, disease, and changes in the weather. All of these promises are equally implausible.
As to domestic issues, here is what he promises on energy policy:
I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy--wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
Five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced! He'll just snap his fingers and the laws of economics will bend to his will.
Oh yes, and he will "cut taxes for 95% of all working families," but he'll "pay for every dime." How? "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less--because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." Does anyone remember the Grace Commission in the 1980s or Al Gore's task force in the 1990s? Eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" is a perennial promise made by politicians, but it will never produce significant results, because you can't pare down a $3 trillion federal budget by squeezing out dimes.
But the biggest contradiction papered over in Obama's speech is not about Obama's background, his record, or his policies. It is an ideological contradiction. The theme of his speech is "The American Promise." Here is how he defines it.
What is that promise? It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves--protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology....
That's the promise of America--the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
So we'll be free to run our own lives--except that we are also required to be our brothers' keepers. We will have a free market--except for the vast network of regulations needed to force businesses to live up to a long list of "responsibilities." We will take responsibility for solving our own problems--except those relating to roads, education, health care, water, toys, science, and so on and on.
In essence, Obama is declaring simultaneous loyalty to individualism and to collectivism, to independence and to dependence, to free markets and to state control.
If you wonder which half of this self-contradictory agenda will win out, Obama doesn't leave you in suspense. He criticizes McCain because "For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy--give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." The references to "two decades" and to "trickle-down economics"--a derogatory term for Ronald Reagan's pro-free-market policies--make his meaning clear. It is the free market that he wants us to regard as "discredited."
What he wants us to forget is what was actually discredited two decades ago by the collapse of the Soviet Union. What was discredited was socialism, not capitalism.
That is what makes this the most dangerous election in many years. It has been almost half a century since the left's ideas have had such an intelligent, charismatic, and appealing advocate. He is now preparing to lead the left's effort to reconstitute itself in the first serious way since the Fall of Communism. He must be defeated.
Obama's acceptance speech is likely to be effective, and we should expect him to have a solid "bounce" in the polls now that the convention is over. But there is a way to defeat Obama. His whole campaign is a beautifully presented illusion, and the way to defeat it is to keep hammering on the difference between illusion and reality. Because the more grandiose the illusion, the more thoroughly it will be rejected when it is revealed as a lie.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.

Supporting Obama - Emotion or Logic?

By: David Kilpatrick

Senator Obama is, arguably, one of the most motivational speakers in the Democratic party. His words motivate crowds and touch hearts. His words inspire us to look past our current problems and imagine a better tomorrow. His words make us believe in a greater good and a united planet where peace, love and harmony unite with the environment. Where greed is a thing of the past and the possibilities are limited only by the power of our imaginations. He tells us that the only people that need to pay are the richest among us and that a free ride awaits everyone else. All we need to do is trust him and his judgment to lead us to a brighter tomorrow and if we do, “…the levels of the oceans will drop and the Earth will begin to heal itself.” Truly, only a great, great man would be capable of healing the wounds that have plagued mankind for so long.
The emotional reasons for following Obama on this journey are many, but unfortunately, the logical ones are few. If we examine beyond the great speeches and grand platitudes, we find that his positions are not as savory as many of us would prefer and some of them are downright silly. Is this because of profound inexperience? Many believe so. What are the logical reasons we should elect Barack Obama to the White House? What has he done, where does he stand and what does he want to do?

TAXES as a SAMPLE ISSUE:

We know that he wants to raise a variety of taxes, especially on the wealthy, but is that smart? The wealthy provide jobs and spend the most money. Will taxing them simply cause them to cut jobs and wages and/or spend less? History shows us, time and again, that that is exactly what will happen, but even as Obama denies the success of the surge in Iraq, we find that our constitutional scholar is ignoring this historical fact.
Under the Clinton tax rates that Obama wants to return to, tax revenues actually dropped starting in 2000 from $2.4 trillion until 2003 when they bottomed out at just above $2 trillion. What happened in 2003? The Bush tax cuts took effect and going into 2008, revenues have recovered to their highest levels in history at $2.5 trillion. Lower taxes did not hurt the country. The solution to our economic problem is not nearly as simple as a slight tweak of out tax burden to a lucky few among us, but it’s not so difficult to understand either.
Incomes for average Americans has increased by 35% since 1965, yet discretionary government spending has increased by 152% and non-discretionary spending has increased by a whopping 759%! How can any society maintain these types of spending increases without matching increases in wealth? The answer is simply that we cannot.
In 1850, Alexander Tyler wrote, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From to liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependency; and, From dependency back to bondage.”

Obama’s promise to lead us to dependence may sound great to the unwashed and uneducated masses and even many of the wealthy elite who stand to enrich their companies by serving the needs of the people at the request of the government through a variety of new programs, but to those of us who step back and think for a moment, the deals don’t sound so sweet.
Looking at his current positions and gathering from his statements we can put forth the following and ask ourselves if these are positions we can all agree to stand behind:

Obama's solution to illegal immigration: You need to teach your kids Spanish.

Obama's solution to the energy crisis: You need to check your tire pressure.

Obama's solution to abortion survivors: Let the abortionist pretend to be a pediatrician.

Obama's solution to health care: Free health care for all, including illegal immigrants.

Obama's solution to a sluggish economy: Raise taxes on the people who provide jobs and spend the most.

Obama's solution to the war on terror: Withdraw and wait for them to come to us again.

Obama's position on abortion: Government funding for all, up to and including partial-birth, with or without parental consent.

Obama is a community activist with no experience in governance, military, health care, finance, management, or business who got elected to the Senate and even now, rarely attends hearings and has never written any legislation of his own. Clearly he has no relevant experience and is not qualified under any standard we would normally hold someone to if they wanted this job.

I'm not saying he isn't a nice guy, but his support is largely among people who have more of an emotional attachment than a logical one. They believe he cares about them and will work to make their life better, but if he has yet to help his own brother who is living on a dollar a month and has made over $4 million of which less than 5% has been donated to charity, I again see sheer emotion over-riding factual evidence among his supporters.

When we vote, we need to think more about a person’s deeds and LESS about the grand platitudes they speak in. Will the ocean levels really drop if we elect Obama? We the Earth begin to heal itself upon his inauguration? Is this really the moment we've all been waiting for? OR are these all just words designed to move us emotionally?

When asking a supporter why they intend to vote for Obama, typical responses are, "I like him," or, "I think we need a change." When asking the same people what kind of change they look for from Obama, the answers start to get a little odd and if you ask them what Obama has done in the past that they really admire, the answers start to lose cohesion completely. It generally boils down to the emotion of hope while losing all logic of experience or qualification. As Joe Biden said, the White House is no place for on-the-job-training, yet that is exactly what Obama would need.

Obama Votes to Withhold Care from Abortion Survivors

by David Kilpatrick

The more we learn about this junior senator, who would be president, the more unsettling he becomes. He carefully dances around questions with a style and grace that momentarily leaves us with a feeling of satisfaction, but that satisfaction is short-lived when we ask the dangerous question, "What did he really say?"

Obama says he is a long-practicing Christian with strong family values and an all-around good guy with a sense of morality, making him a good judge of what would be right and wrong. We should feel safe putting him in charge of the free world, making him the most powerful man on the planet and allowing his moral compass to direct the winds of change that blow across our country, but when we look at the positions he has taken, we don't see the moderate bridge-builder that he wants to brand himself as.

Obama, as an Illinois state senator, voted against a state version of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in 2002 by a unanimous vote. The law prevents the killing of infants, usually by denying them medical care, when they are mistakenly left alive, outside the mother's womb after an abortion.

When Obama was speaking against this measure, he was particularly convoluted and vague in comparing as similar the "pre-viability" status of a fetus and a very viable, breathing, thinking infant with his words, "Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this were a child, this would be an anti-abortion statute."

His statement makes perfect sense, except for the fact that it was issued on a measure that was not addressing extending rights to a "pre-viable fetus". It would be easy to write off his statement as a simple mistake made by a junior senator who slept too late and hadn't read the measure. When confronted with his position on the measure, Obama replied that he would support the measure if language would have been included in the bill specifying that it would not encroach on a woman's right to choose an abortion.

When given the opportunity to clarify his position, critics note that in 2003, when an Illinois lawmaker again introduced a state Born Alive Infant Bill, it came with a proposed amendment that included language on protecting abortion rights identical to the federal version. The bill was never brought up for a vote in the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired because in Obama's view, it was not important enough an issue to spend the committee's time by voting on.

Obama's vote against the measure still stands and he made no effort at all to clarify his stand when given the opportunity. The current procedure supported by Obama is to take the living infant to another room and leave it there to die on its own. Is this a "mainstream" position? Is this a "Christian" position? Is this a "good morals" position? I would venture to say that even the most heartless and cruel among us would find it difficult to stand in a room with a dying infant under orders to do nothing, except let it die.

Followers of Obama will not want to think about this, of course, but as more of Obama's positions become known, we will all be asked to "not think about" more and more of them. It would be crazy to imagine that any presidential candidate would ever match any one of us on every issue and there are many more issues that will confront us over time, BUT we need to examine them all and consider each one as a piece of the puzzle which makes up the man who wants to lead our country and too many conflicts in his position still exist. He talks about extending medical care to all uninsured and includes illegal immigrants in his numbers, yet he doesn't support taking an abortion survivor to the nursery. Regardless of your politics, those are difficult positions to reconcile.

Obama has demonstrated time and again that he does not wish to govern for all, but only for those who are on the far left of the political spectrum. He has never worked in a bi-partisan way and to assume he would suddenly start would be irrational. Obama very rarely lets his rhetoric influence his actions and while he speaks well, he needs to know that the man who would be president needs to be president of all, not just his followers. The survival of our union depends on it.

On this issue, Obama demonstrates a VERY dangerous position. He has decided not to represent the interests of ones who cannot speak for themselves, when those are the ones who would need him the most.

Spinward Launches Presidential Campaign

By Odds Botkins

What started as an internet fluke has become a grass-routes movement to put a virtual unknown in the White House. Both political parties are finding themselves wondering if they did, indeed, put their best candidates forward as neither can draw the crowds or have the command of the English language that the mysterious "Spinward" seems to be so comfortable with.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LATE BREAKING NEWS VIDEO

It's truly a wake-up call for both parties as Obama seems to be completely distressed when his teleprompter is not working and McCain seems to be completely distressed when Obama's teleprompter is working. Is this election going to be based on sound bites from candidates that are incapable of producing the words they speak on their own? When asked about his thoughts on the issue, Spinward graciously replied, "I don't want to point out weaknesses in my opponents when there are so many things that we could be focusing on that would actually benefit our great country. Any references to Obama's frequent and ongoing drug use or references to the issue of McCain being older than cotton will NOT be used by my campaign." With that statement, he smiled in a way that communicated a warm feeling of sincere compassion felt by all of the members of the attending press corps, some of whom were visibly moved to tears.

Spinward seems to be well versed, unlike his opponents, on a wide variety of issues and has a common-sense approach that spans the divisions between Republicans and Democrats. One senior Democratic official, who agreed to be quoted on the condition of anonymity, said, "Well, you can't argue with the guy and sound clever at all."

On energy, Spinward is quoted as saying, "I refuse to declare war on American oil until the Saudis declare war on Saudi oil. American oil companies are more environmentally friendly than any of their foreign counterparts. While my administration will tirelessly pursue alternative, renewable energy sources, we will need to expand our capacities to acquire and refine as there is currently no such thing as a solar powered passenger airplane." He then equated this approach to being able to "Walk and chew gum at the same time," and said, to the approving laughter of those present, that he invited anyone who couldn't do both simultaneously to step forward in disagreement... nobody did.

On the war on terror, Spinward said, "While me must strike fear into the hearts of those who plan to harm us, the uniformed members of our military must adhere strictly to honorable codes of conduct." He then went on to outline an impressive shift of military spending to the CIA and Secret Service. When asked what he would hope to accomplish, he replied, "James Bond times ten thousand. Can you picture that?" Again, the crowd applauded approvingly, several noting that CIA and Secret Service don't wear uniforms... while Spinward smiled and winked in acknowledgement. Under his breath he was heard saying the words, "Plausible deniability."

The only gaff so far was attributed to a staffer who promised that Spinward would be available to "Kiss some gents and give cigars to all the babies" at an upcoming rally. Spinward denied his willingness to do either, claiming that facial hair was a personal turn-off and also noted that babies were not likely to fully appreciate a fine cigar. It later became known that the staffer was a plant from the McCain campaign, but after being in Spinward's presence for a short period of time has switched allegiances and is now fully supporting Spinward's candidacy.

As the crowd was leaving, this reporter noticed Democrats and Republicans alike were lining up for buttons and bumper stickers...

Thanks for the fun, my friends. Sometimes we all need a break.

"Obamamania" Appears More "Hitleresque" Every Day

by David Kilpatrick

Normally, I'm not much of an alarmist and I dismiss out of hand conspiracy theories all the time. There is no boogyman waiting around every corner, Bush did not know about 9/11 ahead of time, there are no war crimes trials of Dick Cheney warranted, and Nanci Pelosi is not the devil with a red dress on. In today's world, that makes me more of a moderate than most. I also like to hear both sides of an argument and gather all of the facts I can on my own before I make a decision on a given issue so that I can form an opinion that is not based on ideological bias, but on intelligent reasoning. Moreover, I maintain an open mind and am always willing to alter my view if new information is available that would prove me wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong if one is willing to acknowledge the error, make a correction, and move forward. We're all humans and none of us know everything. All that said, I am getting more and more disturbed with some of the things I'm seeing in Obama, whose full birth name is Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama. No spin, just reporting the truth.

First, this man of questionable origin and history has submitted a false birth certificate as proof of U.S. citizenship. As long as he is very popular, it's ok to overlook that, according to my liberal friends. When shown the evidence that proves the certificate was made with a graphics design program which was unavailable in 1961, we are quickly told that it is just not important if nobody really cares. That said, I'm content to let it go. I believe that the dangers in the water ahead are much greater than the idea of electing a person who would, in any other case, not be eligible for the position. You can watch a YouTube video showing the birth certificate problem if you would like, but if you are a follower of Obama, you won't care anyway.

Obama's Fake Birth Certificate

If you're wondering about his "Duel Citizenship" status, you may also like knowing that he can't be a duel citizen of the U.S. and Indonesia (the country he does have citizenship in) OR Kenya, the country he could claim citizenship in. In order to become a U.S. citizen, he would need to renounce his Indonesian citizenship... something he hasn't done. If you care to see another video on the legality of his duel citizenship conflict, you can, but again, if you're a follower, you won't allow it to influence you in any way and that's expected.

Obama's Duel Citizenship Conflict

Let's proceed on the premise that neither of the two issues I've just mentioned will ever amount to anything due to lack of interest. That's fine. What concerns me on the next note is the blind devotion of the followers coupled with the wild abandonment of all logical reasoning. If you are an Obama follower, you have likely quit reading by now, as most of the followers I've encountered have no interest in learning anything that could call into question the rationale behind their loyalty. The rest of you may like some examples of well-founded concern.

Recently, Obama said that we could replace ALL of the oil we would get from new drilling by inflating our tires and getting tune-ups. There is an element of truth to his claim in that if your car is running at peak efficiency, it will get better gas mileage. That is undeniable and your car's owner manual will back this claim up very nicely. The fictional element is that, in order for his statement to be true, ALL of our cars would need to be currently running on flat tires with poorly performing engines. Obvious to everyone, that's not the case at all and Obama's claim is utterly fictitious - unless you're a follower. If you're a follower, you have praised him for his awesome insight into automobile maintenance and you now believe that oil drilling is not necessary if we would all simply line up at Jiffy-Lube as instructed. I am amazed at the naivete of the educated liberal who seems to be accepting of the idea that he was not smart enough to maintain his car prior to Obama's advice. The follower simply accepts the words of Obama as truth and does what he's told.

Obama's race is not white or black. According to all accounts, he is of mixed race. While "playing the race card" is getting to be a tiresome tactic, Obama and his followers are very quick to point out that Obama "doesn't look like other presidents". That is true, but why? Is it because of his ears? Is it because of his build or the shape of his head? Is it his clothing style? No, none of the above... they are clearly pointing out his race and his followers will openly say, "I'm excited to be voting for our first African-American president." The thought that crosses the balanced mind is simply, "Should I vote for or against someone because of their race?" At the risk of sounding judgemental, this could easily lead a non-committed observer to say that the "race-based" supporter is a racist. Surely, if a person said they were voting for a candidate because they were white, that person would be labeled as a racist - and rightly so. Is it not also racist to vote for a candidate because they're not white? If you're a follower, you simply accept the double standard with a smile because the racist label is not directed at you. In your mind, the racist is the one NOT supporting Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama. After all, as long as someone else is being attacked, it's ok to permit it. As a follower, you either engage in the ridiculing and attacking of the non-followers or simply turn away and ignore it.

As I have brought out my concerns and made public the fact that I am not an Obama follower, I have been called a racist daily. I don't support Obama because I either can't understand his position on most issues, as he has not taken many solid stands, and on the issues he has taken stands on, I simply don't agree. Do I have to vote for someone I don't agree with to have the "racist" label removed?

In the days of Adolf Hitler, supporters were loved by all... detractors were labeled, hated, ridiculed, humiliated, abused... and many were killed.

In the days of Barack Obama, followers are loved by all... detractors are labeled, hated, ridiculed... more to come? I hope not, but the unfounded love of a man who brings nothing but unidentified change sold as nationalism to the table is not rational.
Hitler ran on a platform of unidentified change sold as nationalism as well, and the similarities we see now to the support of Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany are chilling.

"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!" is the same as, "Hail Victory! Hail Victory! Hail Victory!"

If you prefer German, it's pronounced, "Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!"

With all of the "racist" (Jew) labels flying, this "typical white person" is starting to feel uneasy.