Spinward's Landing

U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade: It’s Our Parent’s Fault, Claims the White House

2011-08-08T03:11:00.000-07:00

By David Kilpatrick

Last time I checked, the government was working FOR the people – at least that’s what our founding fathers intended. As such, we the people have not only the right, but the responsibility to supervise the government in many ways the same manner that a parent must supervise a child. Sure, we TRUST them to watch the house while we can’t (CIA) and keep the doors locked while we are at work (military) and we even trust them to go to the store and buy things we need when we can’t.

So, what happened when we gave them their first credit card (the power to borrow) and they maxed it out - then discovered they didn’t have enough allowance from us (tax revenue) to make the payments? Did they take responsibility for the problem and reduce spending? No. Did they realize months ago that the course they were on would lead to this eventually? No. (so they say) What did they do? They blamed us. They claimed we should give them more money while calling the credit card company to ask for a limit increase with us as a co-signer. They then reminded us that because we did not raise their allowance fast enough – we created the problem for them. This mindset alone should warrant giving President Obama (our eldest child) a good spanking and a few days in “time-out”. Now, just as any responsible parent (which we haven’t been so far), we will need to step in and get the kid’s financial house in order. No, we can’t count on his help, he’s gone out to play (endless golf breaks) and instead asked congressional leaders (his younger siblings) to “set aside politics” and lead the country. As parents, this puts us in an awkward position. Accept the blame for the problem due to the limited allowance we gave or accept the blame for putting such an irresponsible person in charge in the first place. Either way, the blame is completely ours. Whichever side you’re on, we simple can’t kick the “Yes, we can” down the road for the next group of politicians, who will only try to figure a way to kick the “Yes, we can” down the road even further. You see, eventually we will run out of road – and the contents of the “Yes, we can” will be completely rotted and hard to swallow by the time reality MUST be faced. So when President Obama chides us by saying that he promised “Change we could believe in,” but he didn’t say “when”, I wonder what the change was exactly. It’s like he’s saying, “You didn’t ask me for any details, so I never gave you any. Don’t be angry at me for not living up to expectations if neither of us ever put them in writing.”

The question one keeps asking is: who’s leading the country? President Obama keeps deferring all responsibility to Congress, Congress is getting blamed for proposing things contrary to the president’s plans – which, one might note, don’t actually exist in a paper form of any sort. Small wonder congressional leaders are getting miffed by a president who keeps “moving the goal posts” and bemoaning the “messy democracy” involved in getting things done while he quietly slips out the back for another round of golf, only to return tomorrow to criticize congress for not leading properly. So when President Obama chides us by saying that he promised “Change we could believe in,” but he didn’t say “when”, I wonder when and what that change was exactly because, so far, it has not been for the better. It’s like he’s saying, “You didn’t ask me for any details, so I never gave you any. Don’t be angry at me for not living up to expectations if neither of us ever put them in writing.” I guess “the planet healing itself” thing is out the window. Bummer – I was looking forward to that.

Obama's Leadership Vacuum

2011-02-24T18:06:00.000-08:00

by David Kilpatrick

“Vacuum Rose Law files”, the infamous phrase described by the Clintons to mean, “there is nothing in the Rose Law files”, could now be re-written as “Vacuum White House” – as there is absolutely no leadership in the White House.

We knew during the Obama campaign leading to his election in 2008 that Obama had no experience in leading a city, county, state, country, basketball team, corner store or ice cream stand. But, he made great speeches, so we elected him to lead the greatest country on Earth. As such, we are now without a leader during times when speeches are not the solution. Don’t get me wrong; I like a great speech as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that talk and action are two entirely different things and the time for talk expired a couple years back – now we’re left waiting for the action. When’s that going to come? Oh, you might say, “Obama passed health care reform,” but did you also notice how he has given out 1000 exemptions from the law that supposedly all men enjoy equal protection under to largely political allies including big corporations, unions, and even entire states? If his crowning glory of health care reform is so great an accomplishment and was delivering “greater access and lower costs without adding a dime to the deficit” – why would so many political friends need to opt out? Remember the rush to pass it “in order to find out what’s in it,” as the great Nancy Pelosi mentioned? Where was Obama’s leadership of the nation while Reid and Pelosi were going through procedural contortions that put normally straight-forward business through something akin to the pretzel making process? Vacuum White House.

We knew Obama wanted the support of immigrants, but is the president not interested in enforcing the law? Seems there was something about that in that pesky oath of office thing. So, when Arizona saw that no leadership was coming from the White House in the way of immigration reform, Arizona took it upon itself to pass laws allowing them to determine if wrongdoers were in the country illegally. While offering no assistance past marvelous speeches, Obama’s justice department decided to sue the State of Arizona before even reading the sixteen page law! I’m not sure that a legal battle is the help Arizona or any other state is looking for, but I guess it’s a new form of leadership? Leadership through lawsuit? Don’t interfere with our lack of leadership or we’ll sue you? To this day, when it comes to illegal immigration: Vacuum White House.

Should we discuss the war in Afghanistan? Months after the officers on the ground said they needed more troops, Obama finally approved 30,000. What about the men who died during the months of waiting? Where was White House leadership? Anywhere? This pattern of absent leadership reminds me of the line in the movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” when the teacher played by Ben Stein was taking roll, “Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?” Today, it would sound like this: “Obama? Obama? Obama? Obama?” it seems we are all living through a movie right now titled, “Barack Obama’s Day Off”. Tough day on the golf course, Mr. President? One would expect that a president would be sitting down with his generals during a time of war, when time is of the essence (war is always a matter of life and death – we were so frequently reminded while Bush was in office) and getting things done in an expedited fashion! Why leave our men and women standing in harm’s way while playing golf? Ah, yes… Vacuum White House.

Has anyone seen the budget that the Democrats were supposed to pass last year as required by law? No? Well, that’s ok. The Democrats haven’t seen it either. The president’s party decided that spending so much with no noticeable positive impact during an election year made a written budget such a disgusting tar baby that it would be better to just forget about leadership altogether and punt – leave the Republicans to fix it in the next session. Now, that’s leadership for you. Run the opposite direction even when the law requires that you act. They would face consequences for breaking the law, except for one of my favorite Al Gore quotes: “No governing authority.” In other words – we lawmakers don’t need to adhere to laws; laws are for you little people. Not to worry though! Surely President Obama, the savior of our generation (Yes we can!), will step up and let his congressional pals know that simply kicking the “yes we can” down the road is no way to govern, right? Wrong. Budgets? What budgets? We don’t need no stinkin’ budgets! Maybe this entire “Barack Obama’s Day Off” movie has been edited to include scenes from “Treasures of the Sierra Madre”? Finally – months after your popcorn went stale – Barack Obama broke loose with a budget that included “tough choices” and “hard decisions”. Tough decisions like what? Whether or not to raise, stand, draw, or spit in the ocean? What was he talking about? Oh, yes, it was just more talk – no real action. The budget shows no leadership on any difficult issue and, once again, punts it back to the Republicans to cut the deficit that Obama promised to make his top priority. Obama leadership? Vacuum White House.

Oh, no. It’s time to look at foreign policy. Remember the Clinton campaign ad about the phone ringing at 3:00am? She was asking who you would want answering it, right? It seems that Obama has, indeed, solved the problem. He took the phone off the hook. It reminds me a little of the time I was in San Francisco and the mayor (I can’t remember which) had just won by promising to put all of the city busses back on time as they were always late. After he took office, he was reminded of the promise and solved the problem with true hard-decision, liberal leadership fashion: He had the bus schedules reprinted to add the word “approximately” next to the pick-up times. I saw that and had to slap my forehead, pull my hand down my face, and cover my mouth in utter disbelief at the audacity. When I was informed that the bus drivers are union workers, it all became clear. Anyway… Tunisia in revolt, Egypt on fire, Libya breaking into pieces, Iran cracking down on demonstrators, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain… not a sound from the White House. Peace through weakness? Is that the new road to world stability? You may argue that it’s hard to know which side of the issue to be on when the same populations rioting now were the same bunch of Muslim sand-monkeys that were celebrating in the streets over the deaths of innocent Americans during the fall of the World Trade Center towers, but coddling our enemies while scolding our allies seems to be the best we can expect from a busy president working on those back nine holes. Which club would Obama use on this tricky shot? Your guess is as good as his. What about the Somali pirates? Is this 1811 or 2011? Any steps being taken to destroy their ports or ships or abilities to collect ransoms – or will that problem simply vanish when the planet “heals itself”? Vacuum White House.

Leadership on the environment? What - getting the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant? Great. Now the government can classify breathing (you see, kids, you breathe out carbon dioxide) an environmentally threatening activity – making polluters out of all of us, even those of you that spit your old chewing gum into your pocket. That’s just what we needed. Thank you so much, President Obama. It’s getting colder outside already as a result of that pile of horse hockey. The government can now regulate my breathing. Is that “change I can believe in”? Where’s Obama to help clear up that bit of confusion and overreach? Vacuum White House.

Where’s the leadership on job creation and the economic stimulus? Billions spent on “shovel-ready” jobs that, as it turns out, don’t actually exist. Maybe his wonderful speech was the only thing that required a shovel. What about the private sector? New burdensome regulations and expenses for every new person hired – and we scratch our heads in wonder when businesses stop hiring. Who could have seen that coming? Hello, President Obama? Is this microphone on? Tap, tap, tap… Vacuum White House

On the ongoing crisis that many states are facing as a result of high-spending policies, several states are noticing that mandatory union membership and awesome benefit packages are driving the cost of government much higher while also providing the "double-whammy" of driving businesses away from or out of the state altogether – effectively making more and more people reliant on government checks in the face of a diminishing tax base. Clearly, that’s not a practice that can be allowed to carry on forever as mountains of debt grow to unsustainable levels. The Democrats, elected to govern who find themselves in the minority as a result of their disastrous policies, have decided to simply walk away from their jobs. This is the same as saying, “We can’t win with votes, so we will force the will of the minority over the will of the majority by crippling democracy.” Could the Democrat’s despise for the democratic process be made any more obvious? No worry, President Obama will be on the phone, demonstrating leadership, and letting the errant Democrats know that they are not the winners of the last election and their duty is to go to work, make the case before the voters, and win the next election. That’s what’s going on, right? Well, no. Obama is watching the wheels come off of democracy in the states and saying… nothing. No leadership detected from Obama at all. Vacuum White House.

Black Panthers threatening voters – no prosecutions. Rest assured that if Knights of the Ku Klux Klan had been threatening voters that heads would have rolled. But, our new and improved justice department has the new and improved position of only prosecuting people we want to prosecute and only upholding the laws we believe in. The law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman – what happened there? We don’t really believe in that one, so no more legal defense of that. Forget the fact that it’s a law and was passed properly by majorities in both parties. I guess a good president only enforces certain laws that favor his personal views? That would be a first. That would also be the same approach taken by a dictator. What happened to the process of getting the votes necessary to change the law? No need to do that anymore? Obama said he was the president of ALL, not just his constituency. So far, I haven’t seen that. On the basic responsibility of enforcing the laws as they exist: vacuum White House.

How long can we go on successfully without a leader? Obama is not leading; he’s pushing a personal agenda. Anything that is not part of his agenda, be it international or domestic, will simply be ignored. We need a strong leader, not grand speeches in a power vacuum. So far, Obama is a grand disappointment who is not ready or willing to lead a nation. He is in the job for his own purposes, not for the purposes of the American people.

Spend now, SUFFER later.

2010-06-20T22:45:00.000-07:00

BY FRANK WRIGHT

In Paul Krugman's piece "Now and Later" (Spend Now, Save Later), in the NY Times, he points to the current consensus that spending is out of control and implies that people need to be smarter: We need to understand that slowing spending now is "shortchanging" the economy. We need to spend even more... and when the economy improves, we'll let the chips fall where they may and pick up the pieces at that time. In short, spend as much and as quickly as we can to ease our current suffering - and not look at any long-term damage that bankrupting the country could cause. It's like telling us to run through the forest as fast as we can while staring at our shoes. Never mind the trees, we're told, they will take care of themselves. Ouch.

Are we all on the same planet?

The problem is NOT that nobody understands this administration. We've heard that old song too many times already. We didn't understand ObamaCare, that's why we were opposed. We still don't understand what awesome benefits ObamaCare will provide - and that's why we remain opposed. We don't understand the great blessings in store for us from taxing our energy use through cap-and-tax - so we're opposed. We don't understand how shifting to alternative green power (even if it's not currently sufficient or available) will bring utopia, so we're opposed. Basically, if we're opposed to some left-wing pipe-dream scheme, it's WE who are just too stupid to understand it. I respectfully disagree. The problem is that we DO understand, not that we are uneducated!

Now, it's time for the liberals to LISTEN. Government spending creates more, if not at least as many, problems than it solves. We spend a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) to "stimulate" the economy. This is essentially doing two things:

1) Hiring a lot of people to do temporary work. They'll be laid off again when the work projects are finished.

2) Starting new government agencies and programs. These will be burdens on the taxpayer for decades to come as an act of congress could be required to close them down - and we all know that congress doesn't close anything that has a compassionate name on the front of the building.

So, we have this great situation the liberals are presenting us with: Spend now on a bunch of things that are temporary relief for a small group of union workers (good friends and political supporters) and then spend more on a bunch of things that will be an increase to the burden for decades to come, but can be initially built by union workers (good friends and political supporters). Excuse me, but I don't see these as the answers we need as even the union workers (good friends and political supporters) will eventually be hurt as well. Oh, let's not forget that a modest Value Added Tax (VAT) of a mere 5% would be a great thing for the country as it would tax the poor as well as the rich (who didn't see that coming?) and, as a side-bonus which some uneducated simpleton who doesn't understand will point out, it will only add about 30% to the cost of goods for the American consumer. That won't have any negative impact on the economy - will it? (Check your wallet, then answer quietly in the voting booth) We have now arrived at the same thing the liberals have been telling us for 50 years: We're only one more massive new tax increase away from paradise! The ever more elusive and ever more pricey paradise, it seems.

We're told that the United States is one of the lowest-taxed countries in the "advanced world". Are they referring to Europe? The teetering on bankruptcy Euro-Socialist countries? The high-taxed, yet much more financially enlightened (figuratively and literally) people of the bankrupt countries in Europe? Excuse me again... I'm trying to figure out why we need to follow a path of proven failure when we already know the path to success - oh, wait! I get it: liberals cannot divorce themselves from their ideological agenda of massive government - even if it is a proven mistake! Case in point: California. One of the highest taxed states in the union, yet unable to pay the bills. Anyone that's logical can very logically conclude that high taxes ARE NOT the solution to out-of-control spending. Controlling spending is the solution to out-of-control spending. When government cannot discipline itself (painfully obvious), the solution is not to hand over more money. More money means more spending and more spending means more debt. To illustrate: If I make $40,000 per year and I spend $50,000 per year - I have a debt problem due to spending too much. Increasing my pay to $60,000 per year when I have a habit of overspending, inspires me to spend $75,000 per year. For years, this is proven to be the habit of liberal governments.

LIBERAL METHOD FOR FIXING THE ECONOMY

Step one: Spend based on "hoped for" tax revenues.

Step two: Scratch our heads and wonder why the tax revenues were not as large as imagined and the debt went up.

Step three: Introduce more taxes to fix the problem.

Step four: Go back to step one.

Liberals site one of the problems that we face now as high medical costs (note that a liberal will never site run-away government spending, high taxes, or huge debt). Let's look at this for a moment. What is it that drives up medical costs?

1) Malpractice insurance costs (liberals can't touch TORT REFORM because they need the trial lawyer money from the lawsuits to fund their campaigns for lower medical costs - odd conflict there, yes?)

2) Medicaid means free insurance (free for people who are poor - very expensive for everyone else. Going to the doctor is free and that's less than buying cough syrup. Liberals can't bring themselves to limit access for the poor because they need the votes that they used the trial lawyer's money to campaign for.)

3) Medical technology is not free or cheap. NOW, we have something liberals can attack. Those mean old drug companies! Let's cap prescription costs and doctor salaries! I know he saves lives, but did you see the nice car? He must be rich! So, they go after the researchers and the providers as the ONLY HOPE of reducing costs - not imagining that they will be cutting access and quality dramatically. Wow.

When the government runs out of our money, the solution will be forced upon us, just like it has been forced upon the well-paid and well-benefited citizens of Greece and more "advanced" countries to come. Dramatic cuts in government spending on all levels. You'll have to pick your favorite government trough, pull your snout out, and kiss it goodbye.

Our country was not founded on liberal principles of equal result. It was founded on conservative principles of equal opportunity. Our fathers believed that the government should empower - not provide. The government should insure that opportunity is equally available - not hand out other people's money. There is no such thing as a government social program that increased revenue and increased employment in the private sector because that is not the nature, design, or scope of government.

I, for one, would rather SAVE NOW and have some control over where the chips fall than spend now and let the chips fall where they may. Suffering the forced-upon consequences of bankruptcy later is not a good plan - even for now. If we must stop spending (and we must), we would be much wiser to do it on our terms rather than those terms forced on us by insolvency.

How's that whole "Hopey-Changey" thing working out for you?

2009-08-18T12:18:00.000-07:00

by David Kilpatrick

Bringing America together as one people, getting rid of partisanship, working toward the common good. Electing Obama so that the plant would begin to heal itself...

We elected a community organizer who was careful not to lay out specifics during the election campaign. Let's examine the course we have laid before us:

Helping small businesses:
Small businesses are the spearhead of every economic recovery in the history of the Untied States as they employ roughly 70% of the workforce. What policies has Obama embraced so far?

Cap-and-trade. According to the church of global warming, the sun doesn't play as much of a role in the temperature of the planet as power plants do. So we should raise the price of power to the point that people can't afford to consume as much - ignoring the fact that a prosperous, first-world country is much "cleaner" than an impoverished, third-world one. So, without China or India following suit, we are going to cool the planet alone by going to war against... ourselves. That's right - we're going to prevent those mean-spirited Americans from being able to afford to pollute with their carbon dioxide emissions which plants love. After all, if grandma is cold, she can use a blanket like they do in Serbia! This policy will involve a steep rise in the cost of doing business in the U.S. and it will also increase the burden on small businesses who will have less money to grow, hire, or pay benefits.

Additional taxes. Taking money from the business owner - always a winner because small businesses are like ATM machines in the eyes of folks like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid - three people who have never had to make payroll in their lives. More due in taxes leaves less money to pay or hire new employees - or cover their health care.

Expanding labor unions. Unions have done the country much good in the past. Child labor laws, workplace safety rules, and fairness in wages... but forcing small businesses to open their doors to labor unions will be a death sentence for many. Money doesn't grow on trees and small businesses typically have a strict budget. Simply requiring that two people get the same money that used to hire three won't make Americans richer - it will make more Americans unemployed.

The problem we have in America right now is a government running on steroids - headed by a group of people who have no idea what "unintended consequences" will occur when the Utopian ideas are taken off of the whiteboard and forced upon 250,000,000+ people. It's nice to say, "Free everything for everyone," it's quite another thing to deliver it while promising that only the very rich will have to "contribute". The great speeches and incredible promises of a better society for all are what brought the Soviet Union into being. We should take a breath and learn something from history before we continue down a path from which we cannot return.

The O is for Overrated

2009-03-13T21:48:00.000-07:00

By Richard Baehr

In his campaign for the Presidency, candidate Barack Obama and his minions relied on several key messages:
I am for change (I am not George Bush);
I am the candidate who will break through the racial barrier and show how America (and yes, you the voter) can be part of this noble uplifting effort;
I am young and vigorous but also calm and composed (not like John McCain);
I am a gifted speaker who will inspire you.
Experience, and in particular executive experience, was not much discussed, since Obama had less of both than any candidate for President in history. And Obama also ran from his public voting record and history of associations (Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko) that suggested he would be far more to the left than any President in history. Rather the message was that he would be bi-partisan, moderate, and post-racial.
We have now seen the President and his team in action, and the lack of executive experience seems to be a real drawback. The fiasco with British Prime Minister Brown's visit may reflect more than the President's fatigue after going through all those papers on his desk. The Administration's vetting process for high level positions was weak and many posts remain unfilled, especially at Treasury, arguably the most critical Cabinet Department at the moment. Investors remain baffled as to how the Administration plans to address the banking industry. The President's prior voting record (the most liberal of any Senator's) seems to have been a reliable guide as to how far left the President wants to move the country (as Rahm Emanuel has said: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and in fact offers an opportunity.) On the other hand, Obama remains unflappable, at least on camera.
In one area, Obama as the great communicator, a little bit of the glow is gone. For it turns out that while there is only one O in teleprompter, without this trusted device, we might not have the Big O in the White House (apologies to Oscar Robertson). It is now coming out (though not in the New York Times or Washington Post) two years too late, that underlying the gifted public speaker iconography is a machine. Our President has a dependency, and it is not on tobacco products. The real "jones" is for a teleprompter.
No President is known to have used such a device at press conferences before, so that his staff could funnel facts and figures to him ("my, how encyclopedic he is with information!"). No President or Presidential candidate has ever been as inseparable from the device every time he makes a speech. Barack Obama's rhetorical gifts, which delivered chills up Chris Matthews' leg, and inspired Joe Klein to paroxysms of delight during his recent address to a joint session of Congress, appears to be the ability to "deliver" a speech, written by others and printed out for him to read. For a few months, what registered as newsworthy for the legions of Obama media flacks, was whether he would get to keep his cherished blackberry in the White House. But it was always, it seems, the teleprompter that really ruled.
In but seven short weeks, the aura of greatness (if not transcendence) has all but withered away from our new President, due to the continued and it appears, worsening economic and financial turmoil. The President can continue to start every sentence with we "inherited" this or that problem from the prior administration, or repeat the mantra of the "failed policies" of the last 8 years, but in 7 weeks since his Inauguration, the nation has shed well over a million jobs. Americans who lose their jobs, are less interested in a blame game and much more in solutions that work, and get them back to work. Similarly, stoking a populist zeal to strike back at the evil Wall Street financial crowd may serve for a period of time to divert attention from the success or failure of Obama's own programs, but if all the bailouts and stimuli don't succeed in reversing the economic decline, it is the present administration that will have to answer for its failures.
Since his election on November 4th, an event we were told that would inspire Americans with hope for change (better times), more than 2.5 million jobs have been lost. The President's words, whether read (almost all the time) or delivered extemporaneously (very rare) seem to have done nothing to inspire the confidence needed for businesses and consumers to change behavior and begin to stem the job losses. In fact it can be argued that by talking down the American economy for two years (even while it was still growing) and creating fear, Obama and other Democratic contenders for the Oval office, may have helped turn many Americans from free spenders to very cautious savers. That is not helping car sales, home sales, retail sales or business inventory levels. It is why GDP is shrinking so rapidly. But all that depressing talk undoubtedly helped get Obama elected and Democrats to expand their control of the House and Senate.
Economists consider Obama a dismal failure so far. They think even worse of his tax cheating Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose Department is so undermanned, it fails to answer the phone at times. Economists give far higher grades to the performance of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who if memory serves, was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The stock market, which bets on futures, has dropped more than 15% in 50 days of the Obama administration (it is down 25% since his Election Day victory). The Obama administration's record of wealth destruction is far beyond that of any other President in his first 50 days. Forget the Lincoln and FDR comparisons. The market rallied nearly 80% in the first 7 weeks under FDR, and is down 16% (even counting Tuesday's big rally) in the first 50 days under President Obama. This is a comparison of inspiration versus desperation.
We have had a frenetic pace in the first months of the new administration. The Obama media machine has broadcast its success in early passage of the $800 billion "stimulus" bill, designed to create or save anywhere from 3 to 4 million jobs (depending on the particular day of the press release). That bill was rushed through Congress, ostensibly because every day lost, was a day when many more American jobs were shed. The reality, it turned out, was that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needed to catch a flight to Rome for a taxpayer-funded Congressional junket. The bill was then left unsigned by President Obama for 4 days, as he flew back for his own junket to Chicago, to shoot some hoops with friends, dine out with the wife, and watch the NBA All Star game.
The signing ceremony and initial release of funds actually waited until Obama could do the honors at a campaign style event in a swing state the next week. At the rate of job losses every day in February, the signing delay occurred while nearly 100,000 more American jobs were shed. So did the bill need to get passed all that quickly or not?
Could a bit more time have been taken, even if inconvenient for both the Speaker and the President, to produce a better bill in Congress -- one focused more on job creation, especially among those groups with high unemployment rates, and less on pet priorities of liberal interest groups, particularly those of teachers' unions, environmental groups, and those who favor more health care spending?
The same hypocrisy is associated with the President's (no ceremony for this one) signing of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill on Wednesday. The candidate who promised to scour the budget line by line to eliminate waste, decided that the 8,000 plus earmarks in the Omnibus bill were OK this time. (but maybe not next time). The Congressional appropriators, who raised spending in pretty much all areas from baseline plus 3% to baseline plus 8%, got a pass on that one too from President Obama. After all, what are a few tens of billions of new money to be spent (among friends), that the Treasury does not have?
The President's ten year budget proposals also scored far higher on hype and hypocrisy than reality. The supposed $2 trillion in "savings" come in two major area: tax increases, and counting as savings any reduction in spending in Iraq over the next ten years as compared to the higher spending level in that country in federal fiscal year 2008 ( the year of the surge). Does it make sense to assume a "surge" level of spending for ten years as a baseline?
The President's shills on Capitol Hill, Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag, defended this new budget math with a straight face, only further diminishing them as straight shooters of the new transparency. The projected budget deficit -- falling to "only" $500 billion a year in 2013, and only 3% of GDP in ten years, requires sizable tax increases not only on the affluent, but on energy producers and corporate users from the proposed cap and trade program (who would pass their higher costs on to all consumers), and on 4% per year growth in real GDP, a level not reached on a consistent basis for decades.
If the true deficit turns out to be a trillion dollars a year or much higher for years to come, who will buy all that new government paper: $150 billion a month in new debt for 2009, and $100 billion or more in net new debt each month in the next few years? Will China buy Treasury paper paying 2.8% for 10 years, or 3.5% for 30 years? These rates reflect investors' flight to "quality" (in their wholesale abandonment of stocks), and very relaxed monetary policy since the credit crisis began. Low interest rates are assumed to remain that way in Obama's ten year budget projections, but that too may be unrealistic.
There has been grumbling even among some Democrats that Obama is trying to do too much to soon, and that parts of his program (especially the enormous cap and trade tax) may destroy jobs that his stimulus plan tries to create.
As pointed out in an earlier article, Obama has a lot of political power at the moment, with big majorities in both the House and Senate, and is using it to steamroller through what he and the hard left of the Democratic Party have always wanted. Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders are having their day at the beach.
The President had another campaign style event in another swing state (Ohio) last week that is revealing. On a day when the new jobless numbers were released (651,000 jobs lost in February, unemployment up to 8.1%), Obama jetted off to take credit for saving the jobs of 27 Columbus, Ohio police recruits, whose pay (for only one year, it turns out) will come from stimulus funds. If the February pace holds, the economy would have shed almost 1,000 times as many jobs that day as were saved for the police recruits. Is it unfair to mention the carbon footprint of the President jetting to Ohio for this event to celebrate so small an achievement, or the cost of police protection by the local force, whose budget is so strained it needed stimulus money to pay the 27 new members of the force? The campaign event worked to help "win" the daily news cycle for Obama, and enable the ever friendly nightly new anchors to speak both of job losses (Bush's fault) , but also job gains (credit to Obama).
Making the locals pay for Obama public events, is of course, nothing new. In Chicago, the near $ 2 million bill for providing security for Obama's Election night party in Grant Park was never paid by the Obama campaign. A typical victory party in a hotel would have been far less demanding on and costly for the City of Chicago.
The sad reality is that if you are a narcissist in chief, and prefer campaigning to governing, you need to speak before large crowds all the time. Obama has promised to hit the road every week to meet the people of this great country. You can guess in which swing states he will find them. In July, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Obama demanded an outdoor event while visiting Germany, and then spoke to 200,000 Germans, assuring them that his victory would mean the oceans would stop rising, and the earth would start healing. He decided to have his nomination acceptance speech outdoors in a football stadium in Denver, with 80,000 on hand, speaking in front of a backdrop of fake Roman columns. Add Grant Park on Election Night to the mega event list.
Oprah Winfrey, whose support for Obama last year might have been critical in his winning the nomination, helping move perhaps a million or more women voters in the primaries and caucuses away from Hillary Clinton and to Obama, was seen leaving the Denver event in August, almost unable to walk, overcome with emotion, and for once, speechless. Speechless will be one word that will never be used to describe our current President. Obama needs to talk, and for crowds to cheer him. As narcissist in chief, Obama, much like Bill Clinton, flourishes in the public setting with the adoring crowd cheering, laying out a stream of fluent prose that he is reading.
In the teleprompter we trust, could be the motto of this Administration.
The jury is still out on whether we can trust Obama to do the job to which he is elected, which involves far more than speechmaking So far, we see more of a permanent campaign than a functioning Executive. If that pattern continues, there will be more Americans over time who will conclude that the O in Obama is for overrated.

Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker. www.americanthinker.com

Obama Will Sign Spending Bill Despite Earmarks

2009-03-02T08:27:00.000-08:00

Associated Press
Monday, March 02, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.
Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.
Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."
The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.
Either way, it is far more than Obama promised as a candidate. He refused "earmarks" for the economic stimulus package he championed and a children's health bill.
He similiarly pledged to reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects.
"We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they're also transparent. We're going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those," said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Obama's top hands assigned responsibility to their predecessors and President George W. Bush.
Blaming Bush-era proposals for deficits, Obama wanted to set up his own budget that would start Oct. 1, which he proposed last week with a bold goal of cutting the deficit by half within his four-year term.
"First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let's be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. "That is the facts."
Facts, aides said, would be the cornerstone of the administration's public relations push. Officials faced a tough haul, even as Orszag and others said the proposal would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and increase energy costs.
Emanuel said energy costs are too low, anyway. U.S. car companies relied too long on gas-guzzling autos and failed to invest in alternative energy vehicles, he said. The time for new auto fuels is now, he contended.
"They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. ...They have a health care cost structure that's outdated," Emanuel said, repeating the administration's premise that health costs must come under control or else risk breaking all other pieces of the budget.
Republicans were not persuaded. Rep. Eric Cantor, their No. 2 in the House, said Obama was failing on his promises.
"Listen, I mean, the president was elected by the people of this country to institute change in Washington and to finally demand a federal government that is accountable to the people," he said. "The fact that there are 9,000 earmarks in this bill and the fact that the vetting process just doesn't take place the way it should, we ought to stand up and draw the line right now and stop the waste."
Orszag and Cantor appeared on ABC's "This Week." Emanuel spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Iris Data VoIP Services

2008-12-30T16:18:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-20T21:27:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-11-11T21:30:00.000-08:00

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

2008-10-29T19:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T19:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T19:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-12T00:51:00.000-07:00

In God We Still Trust

2008-09-10T21:19:00.000-07:00

Obama’s Specifics for Economic Change

2008-09-06T14:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-03T21:40:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-29T13:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-08-25T00:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-15T11:16:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-13T09:48:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-06T12:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Dems Attack McCain VP Pick as Similar to Cheney - But Don't Know Who It Is Yet.

2008-08-06T00:12:00.000-07:00

by AmerPundit
John McCain hasn’t even announced his choice for VP yet, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from launching an entire site dedicated to attacking his top potential nominees. How? They’re already equating each and every one of them with Dick Cheney.
The top quote on the site is from John McCain, who had this to say about to the current VP:
“With a little more luck, I might have been able to ask you to be my Vice-President.”
The quote’s date? October 2001 — a time when Bush was enjoying some of the highest approval ratings in American history and Democrats were standing solidly by the Bush Administration.
Anyway, the attack centers on the following people: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, John Thune (how man people have mentioned him?), Carly Fiorina, Fred Smith, and Eric Cantor. They accuse Crist of calling Bush his hero, though they’re apparently unable to provide a quote substantiating that. Romney gets slammed for changing positions, which probably isn’t a great line of attack when your own nominee is flip-flopping by the day. Fred Smith gets attacked for saying this back in July:
‘I don’t think we’re in a recession,’ Smith said Monday in a Bloomberg Television interview. ‘We’re in a period of extremely low growth brought on by high fuel prices and the financial meltdown.’”
I don’t mean to get technical here, but we’re not in a recession. We continue to experience positive growth and the numbers just released by the feds are better than the previous month’s. We happen to be in, uh, a time of extremely low growth that was sparked by a financial meltdown and high fuel prices. Apparently Smith is wrong because he doesn’t agree with the DNC’s unsubtantiated talking points.
But remember: It’s the Republicans responsible for negative campaigning. That damn Karl Rove!

Whitey Need Not Apply

2008-08-05T21:56:00.000-07:00

By Patrick Buchanan
"Will race be an issue in this campaign?"
Hearing the cable talk-show host solemnly pose the question, I could not suppress a belly laugh.
For the anchor was fearful that some white folks might reject Obama because he is African-American -- even as a Rasmussen poll was reporting that Barack is beating McCain among black voters 94 to 1.

What, other than race, explains how Barack rolled up 90-10 margins among black voters while running against Hillary Clinton, wife of the man novelist Toni Morrison dubbed "our first black president"?
Indeed, so one-sided was the primary coverage in favor of Barack as the first African-American with a real chance to be president, even "Saturday Night Live" took to mocking the mainstream media.
As for black radio, on "The Tom Joyner Morning Show," "Michael Baisden Show" and "The Steve Harvey Morning Show," which together may reach 20 million folks, there is "little pretense of balance," writes Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times. "More often than not the Obama campaign is discussed as the home team."
Black Entertainment Television plans to carry Barack's speech to the Democratic convention live, but has no plans to carry McCain's. Barack's speech "is an historic occasion," says BET Chairman Debra L. Lee, "so that demands some special treatment from us."
As the mainstream media have moved left and talk radio right, and cable is breaking down along political and ideological lines, there is something else afoot now -- the racial Balkanization of the newsroom.
Consider. On Sunday, 6,800 folks showed in Chicago for the 2008 quadrennial convention of UNITY: Journalists of Color. McCain declined an invitation. Bush had been booed at UNITY 2004, while John Kerry got a standing ovation. Featured speaker: Barack. Major concern of the journalists running the show: that their colleagues would lift the roof off the McCormick Place convention center when Barack arrived.
Said Luis Villareal, a producer of NBC's "Dateline," "I don't think it's such a bad thing if for 15 minutes you take off your reporter hat and respond to (Obama) as a human being at an event where you're surrounded by people of color and you're here for a united cause."
And exactly what "cause" might the 10,000 members of UNITY be united behind? The hiring and advancement of journalists of color in all major news organizations in America.
For, as its emblem depicts, UNITY comprises four alliances: the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Native American Journalists Association and the National Association of Black Journalists.
"A New Journalism for a Changing World" is UNITY's motto. And the title of its July 22 press release reveals what the "new journalism" is all about. "Aim of New UNITY Initiative Is More Diversity in Top Media Management."
"With more than 50 percent of the population projected to be people of color in less than a generation," says UNITY President Karen Lincoln Michel, "the nation's news organizations continue to generate dismal diversity numbers year after year. ... 'Ten by 2010' is a significant step in the right direction."
What is Ten by 2010?
UNITY is demanding that 10 major U.S. news organizations, by mid-2010, elevate to a senior management position in the newsroom at least one journalist of color and provide "customized training to help prepare them."
The journalist may be Asian, African-American, Native American or Hispanic, which rules out journalists of Irish, English, Polish, Italian, German or Jewish ancestry, since they are white.
Is this what we have come to 50 years after the triumph of the civil rights movement? Flat-out demands, by American journalists, for the hiring and promotion of colleagues based on race and color?
Is there any evidence major news organizations in this country have engaged in systematic discrimination to keep out men or women of color this last half century? The reverse seems true. They have bent over backward to advance minority journalists.
And if journalists have been hired and promoted based on ability and merit, why in the 21st century should these criteria be thrown out as the standards for advancement -- in favor of race and color?
Isn't this what they did in the days of Jim Crow -- hire and promote based on race? What UNITY is calling for is a return to the old rules but with new beneficiaries -- blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans -- and new victims, all of whom will be white.
On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."
The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation.

Al Gore’s Carbon Empire: Cashing in on Climate Change

2008-08-01T17:14:00.000-07:00

Download a copy of the entire report here:
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1217525953.pdf

By Fred Lucas, Capital Research Foundation Watch

Al Gore says everyone will benefit when new government rules require companies to pay to reduce global warming. But some people will benefit more than others, as will some companies. Benefiting most are those like the ex-vice president who can set up and invest in companies that will profit from the federal regulations imposing heavy costs on others.
Who pays for Gore’s crusade? In accounting for the $300 million in costs for the public education campaign of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group’s website says that Al Gore pays for much of the project himself using the proceeds from his film and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and the $750,000 cash prize attached to the Nobel Peace Prize. It adds that he “has since received additional support in the form of private donations from those concerned about solving the climate crisis.”
Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times reported on the newspaper’s Dot Earth blog March 31 that the Alliance raised half the sum - $150 million - for the ad campaign. But from whom? Gore says he put up about $3 million, but when asked the question on TV’s “60 Minutes,” he would not identify other funders. Solar and wind power companies? Hedge funds and venture capitalists? Gore’s own company, Generation Investment Management?
Gore and the global warming crowd are usually quick to challenge the credibility and sincerity of any scientist, climatologist or policy organization skeptical of man-made global warming. They call skeptics “shills” for Big Oil or, worse, “deniers,” invoking the term used against anti-Semites who deny the Holocaust. But they refuse to acknowledge their own growing financial interest in the carbon control industry. Barack Obama has said if he is elected president, he will be sure to find a prominent role for Al Gore in his administration. If that happens, will anyone raise questions about Al Gore’s conflict of interest?
Since leaving public office, Al Gore has become a one-man conglomerate: He writes books, stars in a movie, commands massive speaking fees, and sits on numerous corporate boards. According to Bloomberg News, Gore had less than $2 million when he left the vice presidency in 2001. Today his fortune is more than $100 million (Fast Company, July 2007) and the prospects are that he will grow even richer mounting his crusade against global warming.
The prospect of carbon regulation is why major corporations have latched onto Gore. He is the environmental movement’s bullhorn to the world, proclaiming the crisis of planetary warming. But the truth is that Gore also has become a bullhorn for corporations that are ready to cash in on the hysteria.

Democrats impede U.S. on energy

2008-07-31T11:38:00.000-07:00

They should drop their objections and let new off-shore oil drilling proceed.

By Rick Santorum
It's the gas prices, stupid.
Every politician knows Americans want relief at the pump for their own sake and the sake of the broader economy. The Senate's continued inaction on this issue provides an insight into how the two parties hope to appeal to anxious voters and, more important, how they view high energy prices.
Democrats, including Barack Obama, support increasing taxes and regulatory costs (environmental) on energy producers and consumers (you), limiting exploration for new oil and natural-gas supplies, and mandating conservation. Liberals like Obama have long argued for higher gas prices to force conservation and reduce emissions. The only concern he has expressed recently is that prices have not gone up gradually and that the sudden spike has hit Americans hard.
It's no surprise, then, that the High-Priced-Energy Party has focused on finding a scapegoat for the rapid rise in prices. The culprits? For starters, greedy Wall Street speculators. So, the High-Priced-Energy Party tried to pass a don't-blame-us bill that further regulates the energy futures market, even though the trading activity on these exchanges during the crisis is at or below normal levels. Interestingly, the bill doesn't cover gold or silver speculators, whose commodities have seen similar price spikes.
Republicans, by contrast, favor lower oil and gas prices. Last week, they wanted to offer an amendment to the oil-speculator bill that would allow states to open up areas at least 50 miles off their shores for oil and gas exploration.
The Minerals Management Service estimates that 1.5 billion barrels of oil and 15.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie off the Mid-Atlantic coast. This is just a fraction of what could be produced if we allowed exploration and drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Because these estimates are more than two decades old and based on 1970s-era technologies, these reserves may be underestimated by as much as 50 percent, if history is any guide.
But, no. Up to this point, High-Priced-Energy Party Leader Harry Reid has blocked a straight up or down vote on drilling. The Nevada Democrat's reasoning? Only about 25 percent of leases currently held by energy companies are being explored for development. You see, it's not just oil speculators who are to blame for high prices; it's the oil companies themselves. So High-Priced-Energy Democrats proposed a bill requiring that oil companies drill on their current leases before they gain access to other locations.
Why, you might ask, are energy companies not drilling on current leaseholds? Because they discovered there isn't sufficient oil or gas on these lands to justify drilling. So, the Democrats' second answer to high energy prices is to force energy companies to drill, but only on unprofitable poor-producing fields.
The High-Priced-Energy Democrats have used this unused-leases canard to block the More-Energy-Now Republicans' offshore-drilling amendment, and why not? It's a high-octane blend of politics and policy for them. High-Priced-Energy Democrats score cheap political points by beating up on Wall Street and Big Oil while blocking any price-lowering increase in domestic supplies of oil and natural gas. Neat if you don't have to worry about filling your tank or heating your home.
Securing an adequate energy supply is critical to the nation as a whole, but could prove especially important to the Delaware Valley in particular. Environmentally friendly exploration off our coast would mean economic development across our region. New Jersey and Delaware would see an infusion of oil and natural-gas jobs. Southeast Pennsylvania - already home to three oil refineries - would see an expansion of this key sector of our local economy. The ports of Philadelphia and Wilmington, as well as nearly every other port along the Eastern Seaboard, would see increased activity and employment growth.
Yes, it would take a few years for new refineries to come online. But by opening these areas to exploration, the price of crude oil would drop. It would signal to tyrants like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and commodities speculators that we are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Once online, millions of barrels of our oil and natural gas would flood the commodities markets, allowing the economic laws of supply and demand to work in our favor.
Even more, the added influx of oil and natural gas would buy our nation time to develop the next wave of energy technologies. We need to use our vast coal reserves and encourage advancements such as waste coal-to-liquid fuels and coal gasification to strengthen our electrical grids. We need to invest in the next generation of biofuels to ensure they are energy efficient and not a cause of escalating food prices. And we need to follow the lead of France - yes, France - and build additional nuclear power plants, something we have not done in 30 years.
Now that would be a change in energy policy we could believe in.

E-mail Rick Santorum at rsantorum@phillynews.com.

Obama's Missing Ingredient: TRUTH

2008-07-27T14:16:00.000-07:00

1.) Selma Got Me Born – TRUTH: Your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - TRUTH: Father was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - TRUTH: Father was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - TRUTH: Your cousin, Raila Odinga, has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007 in Kenya. It was the first widespread violence in decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been a Christian - TRUTH: She does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - TRUTH: ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in Arabic. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - TRUTH: He practiced it daily at school, where he was registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until his wife convinced him to change so that he could run for office.

8.) My School in Indonesia Was Christian - TRUTH: He was registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (according to his book).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - TRUTH: Not one of his teachers say he could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - TRUTH: He was there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. He did learn how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger on Foreign Affairs - TRUTH: Except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), he has never been anywhere else on the planet and thus has NO experience with our closest allies or any other foreign government.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - TRUTH: He was quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - his classmates said he was just fine.

13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - TRUTH: Ebony has yet to find the article he mention in his book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook on Life - TRUTH: Life has yet to find the article mentioned in his book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - TRUTH: Here he is, despite saying, live on TV, that he would not have enough experience by then, and he was very clear in needing more experience first.

16.) “Present” Votes Are Common in Illinois - TRUTH: They are common for BHO, but not many others have 130 “Present” votes.

17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - TRUTH: Only when caught by church groups and democrats, did he beg to change his mis-vote.

18.) I Was A Professor of Law - TRUTH: He was a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - TRUTH: He was a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - TRUTH: He didn’t write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard to Pass - TRUTH: It took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - TRUTH: His bill was rejected by his own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of his nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - TRUTH: As of March, 2008, state bills he sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, so nobody can see any special interests or pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On the Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - TRUTH: He was part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. He failed to mention anyone else but himself in his books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - TRUTH: His 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even he voted against his own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - TRUTH: Even his own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on his part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - TRUTH: They were not his bills, but rather handed to him, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist him in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - TRUTH: The Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation his campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - TRUTH: He missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and his good friend, Ali Abunimah, supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - TRUTH: After the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how BHO and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - TRUTH: He allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks – and he still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan - TRUTH: He didn’t.

33.) I won Nevada - TRUTH: He didn’t.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - TRUTH: On the record, he said, “Let the delegates decide.”

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - TRUTH: He prefers caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - TRUTH: He passed 26, most of which he didn’t write himself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - TRUTH: His friend is threatening to sue if he does not stop saying this. UPDATE: Obama has now stopped saying this.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - TRUTH: He used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against him.

39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - TRUTH: He take loads of it.

40.) I don’t Have Lobbyists - TRUTH: He has over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - TRUTH: His own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - TRUTH: Tom, who started MySpace, issued a warning about his advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - TRUTH: He inspires many people with other people’s words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - TRUTH: He has passed ONE BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa. NO bills for the benefit of any Americans.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - TRUTH: He wasn’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich. He is also stepping back from his departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - TRUTH: His plan leaves the majority of us to pay for the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - TRUTH: Both companies he sites as having sent him letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - TRUTH: He won’t wear a flag pin and he doesn’t put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - TRUTH: His wife’s words follow lock-step in the vein of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support - TRUTH: His wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart, so they support him.