"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." -Gov. Sarah Palin-

"The media are not above the daily test of any free institution." -Barry M. Goldwater-

"America's first interest must be to punish our enemies, then, if possible, please our friends." -Zell Miller-

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -President Thomas Jefferson-

"Don't get stuck on stupid!" -Lt. Gen. Russel Honore-

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20-

Petition For The FairTax

GOP Bloggers Blog Directory & Search engine Blog Sweet Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs My Zimbio

Righty Blogs Of Virginia

Coalition For A Conservative Majority

A REASON TO TRY available from Barnes & Noble
A REASON TO TRY available from Borders
A REASON TO TRY available from Books-A-Million
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks New Zealand
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks Australia
A REASON TO TRY available from Chapters.indigo.ca Canada's Online Bookstore
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon.com
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon UK
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon Canada

Friday, August 29, 2008

Transcript Of Gov. Sarah Palin's Speech After Accepting The Vice Presidential Nomination Of John McCain

This is historic. This is epic. This is what political jockeying is all about. Yeah, Sarah Palin will be the first woman to run on a GOP ticket, but that's not what's important here. What is important is that John McCain selected the absolute best person he could have to be his running-mate and he did it at the best possible time he could have.

Today, the day after the conclusion of the Dem convention in Denver, the story is not about Barack Obama's speech, it is about Sarah Palin. The Conservatives who were worried that a McCain candidacy would pull the GOP further the left, can breath easy again. The women who feel disenfranchised because Hillary Clinton was given a harsh elbow to the ribs can look to another strong woman as their guiding inspiration.

Sarah Palin brings to the ticket a philosophical stability that was sorely needed to solidify the ranks of the GOP, especially the vaunted Conservative Base. Gov. Palin is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, active in weeding out corruption in both parties, for lower taxes and for listening to the American people. Further, she believes, as most Americans do, that the solutions to our problems must be grounded in reality, not in the fantasy hopes of some future breakthrough.

Her acceptance speech appears below. Please read it and take it to heart. For those who cling to the myth that John McCain is somehow no different than Barack Obama, look again. The McCain/Palin ticket clearly stands in stark contrast to Obama/Biden.

The speech:

ALASKA GOV. SARAH PALIN: Thank you so much.

And I thank you, Senator McCain and Mrs. McCain, for the confidence that you have placed in me. Senator, I am honored to be chosen as your running mate. I will be honored to serve next to the next president of the United States.

I know that when Senator McCain gave me this opportunity, he had a short list of highly qualified men and women. And to have made that list at all, it was a privilege. And to have been chosen brings a great challenge.

I know that it will demand the best that I have to give, and I promise nothing less.

First — first, there are a few people whom I would like you to meet. I want to start with my husband, Todd. And Todd and I are actually celebrating our 20th anniversary today. And I promised him … I had promised Todd a little surprise for the anniversary present, and hopefully he knows that I did deliver.

And then we have as — after my husband, who is a lifelong commercial fisherman, lifetime Alaskan. He’s a production operator. Todd is a production operator in the oil fields up on Alaska’s North Slope. And he’s a proud member of the United Steelworkers union. And he’s a world-champion snow machine racer.

Todd and I met way back in high school. And I can tell you that he is still the man that I admire most in this world. Along the way, Todd and I have shared many blessings. And four out of five of them are here with us today.

Our oldest son, Track, though, he’ll be following the presidential campaign from afar. On September 11th of last year, our son enlisted in the United States Army.

Track now serves in an infantry brigade. And on September 11th, Track will deploy to Iraq in the service of his country. And Todd and I are so proud of him and of all the fine men and women serving this country.

Next to Todd is our daughter, Bristol, another daughter, Willow, our youngest daughter, Piper, and over in their arms is our son, Trig, a beautiful baby boy. He was born just in April. His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin.

Some of life’s greatest opportunities come unexpectedly. And this is certainly the case today.

I never really set out to be involved in public affairs, much less to run for this office. My mom and dad both worked at the local elementary school. And my husband and I, we both grew up working with our hands. I was just your average hockey mom in Alaska, raising…

We’re busy raising our kids. I was serving as the team mom and coaching some basketball on the side. I got involved in the PTA and then was elected to the city council, and then elected mayor of my hometown, where my agenda was to stop wasteful spending, and cut property taxes, and put the people first.

I was then appointed ethics commissioner and chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. And when I found corruption there, I fought it hard, and I held the offenders to account.

Along with fellow reformers in the great state of Alaska, as governor, I’ve stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-old- boy network.

When oil and gas prices went up so dramatically and the state revenues followed with that increase, I sent a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska. And we are now — we’re now embarking on a $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

I signed major ethics reform. And I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves. Well, it’s always, though, safer in politics to avoid risk, to just kind of go along with the status quo. But I didn’t get into government to do the safe and easy things. A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not why the ship is built.

Politics isn’t just a game of competing interests and clashing parties. The people of America expect us to seek public office and to serve for the right reasons.

And the right reason is to challenge the status quo and to serve the common good. Now, no one expects us to agree on everything, whether in Juneau or in Washington. But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant’s heart.

Now, no leader in America has shown these qualities so clearly or present so clear a threat to business as usual in Washington as Senator John S. McCain. This — this is a moment when principles and political independence matter a lot more than just the party line. And this is a man who has always been there to serve his country, not just his party.

And this is a moment that requires resolve and toughness, and strength of heart in the American president. And my running mate is a man who has shown those qualities in the darkest of places, and in the service of his country.

A colleague once said about Senator McCain, “That man did things for this country that few people could go through. Never forget that.” And that speaker was former Senator John Glenn of Ohio.

And John Glenn knows something about heroism. And I’m going to make sure nobody does forget that in this campaign. There is only one candidate who has truly fought for America, and that man is John McCain.

This is a moment — this is a moment when great causes can be won and great threats overcome, depending on the judgment of our next president.

In a dangerous world, it is John McCain who will lead America’s friends and allies in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

It was John McCain who cautioned long ago about the harm that Russian aggression could do to Georgia and to other small democratic neighbors and to the world oil markets. It was Senator McCain who refused to hedge his support for our troops in Iraq, regardless of the political costs.

And you know what? As the mother of one of those troops, and as the commander of Alaska’s National Guard, that’s the kind of man I want as our commander in chief.

Profiles in courage: They can be hard to come by these days. You know, so often we just find them in books. But next week when we nominate John McCain for president, we’re putting one on the ballot.

To serve as vice president beside such a man would be the privilege of a lifetime. And it’s fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years almost to the day after the women of America first gained the right to vote.

I think — I think as well today of two other women who came before me in national elections.

I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.

It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

So for my part, the mission is clear: The next 67 days I’m going to take our campaign to every part of our country and our message of reform to every voter of every background in every political party, or no party at all.

If you want change in Washington, if you hope for a better America, then we’re asking for your vote on the 4th of November. My fellow Americans, come join our cause.

Join our cause and help our country to elect a great man the next president of the United States.

And I thank you, and I — God bless you, I say, and God bless America. Thank you.

WOW! She gets it! She really gets it!

She doesn't come from the privileged elite. She comes from the ranks of Joe and Jane Average American. That is something else that has been sorely missing from American politics. Sarah Palin is about as close to an "everyman," er- excuse me, "everyperson" as we have ever seen in National level politics over the past 50 years.

Thank you Senator McCain for choosing so wisely! Thank you Governor Palin for accepting!

Thank you!

You can access the complete transcript on-line here:

Raw Data: Sarah Palin’s Remarks After Being Named GOP Vice Presidential Candidate
August 29, 2008

McCain/Palin 2008

Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault On Free Speech

Usually, politicians who seek the Presidency don't get their nicknames until they reach the Oval Office and do something to earn themselves that nickname. Barack Obama has jumped the gun on this and gotten himself a nickname even before the convention nominating him was over. He is now known as "The Silencer."

In my blog posting from yesterday, I noted how the Obama camp is engaging in strong-arm tactics and even legal threats to stifle free speech. They are specifically targeting a TV ad which legitimately questions Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Further, the TV ad uses no untruthful information yet the Obama camp refers to its content as "lies" without offering a single shred of evidence to support their claim.

Thus, Obama has become "The Silencer." Michelle Malkin over at TownHall has some more on this:

Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows.

On August 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of one of these groups -- a nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit.


The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On August 13, I followed up through e-mail:

"I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America's intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU's position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement..."

ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back:

"Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don't have anyone available. Thanks, Pam."

My reply: "Pam -- Does this mean you don't have anyone available today, this week, or for the foreseeable future?"

On August 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response.

In a stunning act of hypocrisy, the ACLU refuses to denounce the strong-arm tactics of The Silencer and his minions. That comes as very little surprise given that the ACLU has done everything in its power in recent years to curb traditional freedoms and uphold freedoms that have only recently been invented.

But this is the part that should really make you stop and think. Barack Obama, for all of his eloquence and class, is engaging in a campaign of censorship that sinks to the level of street-thugs.

Michelle highlights the real Barack Obama:

Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack "The Silencer" Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault On Free Speech
Michelle Malkin
August 29, 2008

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Obama Camp Seeks To Censor Dissent With Threats

What is it that leftists hate more than anything else? When opponents air the truth about leftist policies and leftist politicians. The Obama camp made that unambiguously clear when a TV ad questioning the relationship between Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers went public.

Not only did the Obama camp completely fail to bring any evidence of untruthfulness or wrongdoing of any kind to the argument, they even went so far as to ask the Justice Department to take up the cause in an effort to censor First Amendment rights.

From the Associated Press:

Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

Yes, you read that write. Obama warned, not asked, but warned televisions stations that there would be retaliations, possibly through the Justice Department.


"It seems they protest a bit too much," American Issues Project spokesman Christian Pinkston said. "They're going all of these routes -- through threats, intimation -- to try to thwart the First Amendment here because they don't have an argument on merit."

Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.

Obama also was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.

The big thing to remember here is the Obama camp has made no attempt to offer any evidence that anything in the TV ad spot was untruthful or misleading. Here is what the TV ad says:

"Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as, quote, 'Respectable' and 'Mainstream,'" the group's ad states. "Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' home. And the two served together on a left-wing board. Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

And yet the libs will not even attempt to tell us which part of that is untrue.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama Seeks To Silence Ad Tying Him To 60s Radical
Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
August 26, 2008

25 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal (Part 2)

John Hawkins over at TownHall has a few more reasons why you might be a liberal. A few of them are quoted below.

You might be a liberal if ...

* You blame the oil companies for high gas prices, but believe in doing everything humanly possible to keep them from drilling for more oil.

* You'd have no problem with a Democratic President talking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung-Il without conditions, but would be very upset if he started seriously negotiating with Republicans over national security or energy issues.


* You think Christmas songs at school plays shouldn't be allowed because they might offend people who don't believe, but don't understand what the problem is supposed to be with government funded "art" that defiles Christianity.

* Your idea of "reparations for slavery" is white people who have never owned slaves giving money to black people who were never slaves, more than a hundred years after slavery ended.


* You think we should give condoms to thirteen year-olds because "they're going to do it anyway," but feel that we can get rid of every gun held by criminals in the U.S. simply by making them illegal.

* You think Anita Hill was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas, but Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally Perdue, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick -- among many others -- are all lying about the Clintons.


* You continually claim that we don't do enough for the poor, but you want to add 12-20 million more of them to the ranks by giving illegal aliens American citizenship.


* There's a conflict between America and any other country, over just about any topic, and you're more likely to side with the other nation than your own.


* You believe that conservative criticism of Barack Obama's abilities is primarily driven by racism, but actual race-based criticism leveled at Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, and Condi Rice by liberals obviously has nothing to do with race.

You can read all 25 of them on-line here:

25 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal (Part 2)
John Hawkins
August 22, 2008

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Judge Calls IRS 'Illogical" And Socialized Health Care Horror Stories

Everyday the frustration grows. Everyday, more people sign on to do the right thing: get rid of the IRS and our idiotic tax code.

Most Americans strongly favor such a move. The few who do not favor such a move are those who are somehow benefitting from the current set-up. Take for example Barack Obama. Part of his campaign platform relies on manipulating the current tax code so as to increase taxes on the employers while decreasing taxes on others. Good for buying votes, bad for the economy and for the businesses that have to spend even more time and money dealing with the new complications of a modified tax code.

I'm not picking on B. Hussein Obama specifically, but his Presidential campaign underscores my point. He is an example of someone who will benefit under the current system (i.e. it could bring him more power) while the rest of us suffer by having to pay more so he can get his benefit.

Charles Ulrich is one of the many Americans out here in reality who has had to deal with an invasive and abusive IRS. But, he did something very few have done: he fought back and won.

From Americans For Fair Taxation:

The accountant from Baxter, Minn., challenged the method the IRS has used for more than 20 years to tax shares and cash distributed by mutual life insurance firms to their policyholders when they reorganize as public companies.

A federal court recently agreed with his interpretation.


The dispute arose when more than 30 mutual life insurance companies became publicly traded corporations in the late 1990s and earlier this decade, in a process known as "demutualization."


All told, roughly 30 million policyholders received distributions, Ulrich estimates. MetLife Inc. provided over $7 billion of stock to about 11 million policyholders when it went public in 2000, while Prudential distributed $12.5 billion in stock to another 11 million.

The IRS held that the recipients hadn't paid anything for the shares and owed taxes on the full amount when the shares were sold. Cash distributions also were fully taxable, the IRS said.

That didn't sound right to Ulrich, 72, an accountant for 49 years. He began researching the issue in 2001, when he received shares from two companies, Prudential and Indianapolis Life.

Ulrich concluded that policyholders had paid for their ownership rights through their premiums so the distributions should have been tax-free.

That could make a significant difference in what a taxpayer owes. If a company distributed shares worth $30 and a recipient subsequently sold them at $32, under the IRS' view they would pay taxes on all $32. Under Ulrich's interpretation, they would owe taxes only on the $2 per share.

One of Ulrich's clients sued the IRS:

Judge Francis Allegra of the Court of Federal Claims in Washington sided with Fisher and called the IRS' view "illogical" in an Aug. 6 decision. He ordered the agency to refund $5,725 in taxes plus interest to the trust overseen by Fisher.

Now, before you start going off on how $5000 is a reletively small amount, remember that the principle here is how an abusive IRS can be defeated on other fronts as well.

This is one of the many reasons I support the FairTax.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Judge Calls IRS Unreasonable, CPA Wins Case After Threats
Christopher S. Rugaber
Yahoo News via Americans For Fair Taxation
Aug 24, 2008

And you can learn more about the FairTax here:

Americans For Fair Taxation

And here are some more example of what Socialized medicine will bring for us. From Merrill Matthews at TownHall:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, in a rare moment of honesty on what he’d really like to do about health care reform, recently asserted that if we were starting from scratch he would probably choose a single-payer health care system.

That’s a system in which people pay higher taxes and the government pays most medical bills.

Obama’s not alone in that opinion. Filmmaker Michael Moore took his “Sicko” audience to England, among other places, where we learned that doctors in that single-payer system made good salaries, had nice homes and cars, and patients were very satisfied.

But anyone who reads the English press will find a different message, including waiting lines, angry patients, rationed and often subquality care. Consider these recent news stories about England’s National Health Service (NHS) quoted directly from the British press.

• Twice Katie asked for a [Pap] smear test, but was told she was “too young” to need one. Now 24, she is dying from cervical cancer, one of many young women who have fallen victim to a scandalous change in health policy. (London’s Daily Mail, June)

• A man with terminal cancer has been refused a drug by the NHS that could extend his life — despite offering to pay part of the cost himself. . . . David Swain's offer to meet the monthly £2,000 cost of Erbitux was refused, he said, because the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [a government body] ruled it was too expensive. (Yorkshire Post, March, emphasis added)

• Health service dentists have been forced to go on holiday or spend time on the golf course this month despite millions of patients being denied dental care. . . . Many [dentists] have fulfilled their annual work quotas allotted by the National Health Service and have been turning patients away because they are not paid to do extra work. This is despite the fact that more than 7m[illion] people in Britain are unable to find an NHS dentist. (The Times of London, March)

This is what awaits us if we vote to destroy our privatized health care system, which, despite its many faults, is light-years better than any socialized system.

You can read more Socialized Medicine horror stories at the following website:

Big Government Health

Click on the "Health Care Horror Stories" Link.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Failures Of Government-Run Healthcare
Merrill Matthews
August 26, 2008

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Medicare Rife With Fraud: The Dems Model For Socialized Medicine

Socialized Medicine is a disaster. It is a disaster up in Canada where medical travel agencies help patients travel to the U.S. to get proper and sometimes life-saving care; it is a disaster over in Great Britain where patients wait up to 13 hours in ambulance lines before they get taken into an Emergeny Room to wait and additional 9 hours to receive care.

But we don't need to go any further than the latest Medicare audit to see exactly how how much of a disaster it would be here in then Unted States. Even the New York Times gets it. From Charles Duhigg:

Medicare’s top officials said in 2006 that they had reduced the number of fraudulent and improper claims paid by the agency, keeping billions of dollars out of the hands of people trying to game the system.


In calculating the agency’s rate of improper payments, Medicare officials told outside auditors to ignore government policies that would have accurately measured fraud, according to the report. For example, auditors were told not to compare invoices from salespeople against doctors’ records, as required by law, to make sure that medical equipment went to actual patients.

The Medicare audit claimed a fraud rate of only 7.5%.

But the inspector general’s review indicated that the actual error rate was closer to 31.5 percent.

And how did this 31.5% rate come about? Like this:

Equipment sellers have submitted counterfeit documents, forged doctors’ signatures and filed claims on behalf of patients who were dead or had never been seen by the prescribing physician, according to many reports by government oversight agencies.

For example, a Florida businessman was sentenced last year to 37 months in prison for submitting more than $5.5 million of fake claims to Medicare. The businessman operated for months, despite giving the agency an address that was actually a utility closet.

On July 1, Medicare instituted a new competitive bidding system that officials said would reduce both fraud and costs for medical equipment.

On July 15, however, Congress suspended the program, after equipment manufacturers and sellers began an aggressive lobbying campaign.

Lobbyists. That explains a great deal about why this fraud is occurring.

But the main thing to remember is that this fraud-laden program is what the Dems would have us all subscribe to under Socialized Medicine.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Report Rejects Medicare Boast Of Paring Fraud
Charles Duhigg
The New York Times
August 20, 2008

Friday, August 22, 2008

Tales From The 57 States: John Wins In Shaman Rick's House

Some true-to-life political humor for the weekend. A little something written by Lee Cary over at American Thinker:

It came to pass in the eighth year of the third millennium that a long race decided who became Leader of the Realm of the Fifty-seven States. A position many called The Potus.

Running in this race were two men: John the Warrior, who had long fought for the Realm, and a young scribe whose followers heralded as His Obamaness, the Favored One, for they believe he had been chosen by the gods to rule over them and could do no wrong.

In these days there were other realms ruled by men who did not smile upon the Fifty-seven States. Men like Putin the Terrible, Hugo the Oil Baron, and Mahmoud of Persia. John the Warrior looked upon them all with a furrowed brow, while His Obamaness longed to speak with them to sooth their angry hearts, for words were His swords while John favored swords of metal for defense.

John came from the Clan of Elephants, although he was not favored among all the pachyderms because he did not always run with the herd. His Obamaness was of the Clan of Donkeys and an adopted scion of the powerful Daley’s who ruled the southern shore of the Lake called Michigan. There he had been a “community organizer” - a guild that no one could clearly define.

It came to pass that a senior court jester among the Donkeys, Dean the Mad Alchemist, said that John spoke only for white people. But few heeded his words after the day he screamed in victory after losing a race in the Land of the Hawkeyes. From then on, many looked upon his countenance as being oddly disturbed.

It was also true then that most of the town criers of the 57 States, like Matthews of the Tingling Leg, Katie of Couric, and Obberman the Doberman, were quick to speak well of His Obamaness but not so inclined toward John the Warrior.

As the race wore on, the people asked to hear the two men speak together so they could decide who would be The Potus. His Obamaness had proclaimed loud and often that he would fearlessly stand toe-to-toe with John the Warrior “anytime and any place.” But, alas, His Obamaness was slow to accept challenges to joust verbally with John.

Then one day a shaman, highly trusted by the people, Rick of Warren, offered to referee a contest between His Obamaness and John in a way that would favor neither man. All the people upon hearing of this said, “Sounds good.”

And so it was that each man would be asked a series of identical questions. Shaman Rick flipped a coin, since there was no cat available to flip, and that decided which man spoke first. His Obamaness won the toss.

When He spoke, His Obamaness’ words were so wondrous in the ears of his followers that they immediately proclaimed him the winner of the verbal jousting, even before John spoke.

All the while His Obamaness was speaking, John the Warrior was held in a thick-walled dungeon with a black bag over his head so he could see nothing. A strong man of the realm cupped his hands firmly over John’s ears and squeezed hard so that John could hear nothing. Even John’s feet were lifted off the stone cold floor of the cell and placed on a pillow so he could not even feel the vibration of applause for His Obamaness. And so it was that, for the hour that His Obamaness spoke, John heard none of his words, nor did he hear the questions that Shaman Rick asked Him.

In the fullness of time, His Obamaness finished speaking and it was John’s turn to come before the people. When he joked that he had tried to listen through the dungeon walls, few realized he was referring to a time, long ago and far away, when he was held prisoner in a cell by soldiers of the Emperor Ho and had strained mightily to hear coded messages from other captives through his cell wall. But I digress.

As John began to speak, the disciples of His Obamaness did not fear his words for they believed they walked behind One swift of tongue and quick of thought beyond all others.

So it came upon them as a mighty and great surprise when John’s words were even more swift and quick than had been those from His Obamaness. Indeed, many gazing upon the contest declared John’s words as more pleasing to their ears than those from His Obamaness.

This then became a cause for great tribulation and gnashing of teeth by the Obamites, for such thoughts were to them an abomination. First they said, “Look how John sides with the Lords and Ladies of the realm by saying that only those with 5,000 goats are truly among the wealthy.” John, you see, was prone to jesting while jousting and had made the comment with an innocent and jovial intent. He tried to erase it, but the cat that had earlier been unavailable to flip was now out of the bag.

But as word of the verbal jousting in the House of Shaman Rick spread across the land, people saw that, indeed, John the Warrior had bested His Obamaness, and done so decisively.

That left the Obamites with but one thing to say, as reported by Andrea, Crier of the Capital, and wife of the former Exchequer of the Realm. She proclaimed that the Obamites had offered up loud lamentations crying, “John cheated.”

For in the eyes of His followers, His Obamaness could not possibly have lost to John otherwise.

You can access the original posting on-line here:

Tales From The 57 States: John Wins In Shaman Rick's House
Lee Cary
The American Thinker
August 21, 2008

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'

The following is a letter that was posted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on July 7, 2008 from a man named Manuel Alvarez Jr. Read it thoroughly and make sure you understand the implications.

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.

Does that charismatic Cuban sound like someone we know today?

You can access the original posting on-line here:

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'
Manuel Alvarez Jr.
Richmond Times-Dispatch
July 7, 2008

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Conservative Scholar Takes On U. Of Illinois In Fight Over Papers Linked To Obama

This reminds me of the last Presidential Election when one John F. Kerry refused to sign a document that would have made all of his military service records publically available for review. That refusal allowed an image of secrecy to grow and flourish among his political enemies and eventually over into the swing voter. Kerry lost that race.

Now we have B. Hussein Obama who is refusing to allow certain documents under the custodianship of the University of Illinois to be made public for review. Why? What is in those papers that is so damaging?

Maybe those papers would show the true relationship between B. Hussein Obama and domestic bomb-setting terrorist Bill Ayers? Maybe those papers would reveal even more close ties between Obama and other radical leftist organizations? We won't know until those papers are released in their entirety and completely unaltered and unedited.

Chronicle, has this to say:

Stanley Kurtz suspects that the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is playing down his ties to the radical left. The conservative scholar just can’t prove it.

That’s because the University of Illinois at Chicago, which houses the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge — a defunct education foundation with ties to both Mr. Obama and the former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers — won’t let him see the papers.


“Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations,” he writes.

The above quote links to the article by Stanley Kurtz in National Review, which can be accessed on-line here:

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?
Stanly Kurtz
National Review Online
August 18, 2008

From which we have the following:

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.” Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.


Unfortunately, I don’t yet have access to the documents. The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents. Let me, then, explain in greater detail what the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) records are, and how I have been blocked from seeing them.

If B. Hussein Obama is such a forthright and honest candidate who has been telling the truth about his relationship with the terrorist Ayers, then he should have no problem releasing all of those documents unaltered and unedited.

Otherwise, he is just a typical Dem hypocrite.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Conservative Scholar Takes On U. Of Illinois In Fight Over Papers Linked to Obama
Kelly Field
August 19, 2008

Obama's Tax Proposals Make A Complex System Worse

We already know a little bit about B. Hussein Obama's proposed economic policies. They are all of a Socialist nature with aims at redistributing wealth by taking money away from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not earn it.

John Lott, a senior researcher at the University of Maryland looks into Obama's proposed policies and shows us how they will a) do even further damage to a weak economy and b) discourage people from working harder to earn a better living. From Fox News:

While Obama would directly increase the marginal income tax rate on families making more than $250,000 per year and raise the rates on capital gains and dividends, he has a whole set of new and expanded tax breaks for the poor, retirees, students, homeowners and new farmers. All these tax breaks phase out with higher incomes, producing high effective marginal tax rates for those with low incomes as well as for people making between $100,000 and $120,000.

The effects of these phase-outs are dramatic. Alex Brill and Alan Viard, at the American Enterprise Institute, show that a two-earner couple with two children (one of whom is in college) can face a 34 percent marginal tax rate when they earn $31,000, with the tax rate rising to 39 percent when their family income reaches $45,000. And families making $110,000 to $120,000 may have to think twice about making more money with the federal income tax alone taking almost half of each additional dollar they make.

The more money that is taken away from hard working people, the less those people will want to work. Obama doesn't get it. He also doesn't get the flip side of that coin: If people are being paid by the government not to work, they will have no incentive to work for themselves.

But Obama's lackeys are doing everything they can to sell this Socialism:

The Tax Foundation points out that when Obama’s plans to increase Medicare and Social Security taxes for higher-income individuals are included, one "gets to a nearly 50 percent (federal) tax rate."


This past Thursday (Austan) Goolsbee and Jason Furman had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the top tax rates in Obama’s plan would not exceed "their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6%" even when "including the exemption and deduction phase-outs," and that all other brackets would remain unchanged. Yet, this is obviously false given that the marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent would be hit even if there were absolutely no phase-outs in the tax code.

Surely, Goolbee and Furman must have known this. Either they are completely ignorant of how the tax system works or they are deliberately spreading false information.

And Lott takes on a very popular argument among leftists about the rich paying their fair share. Read this:

During the primaries Obama often spoke about the inequities in the tax system, with wealthy individuals not paying their fair share.


Yet, one is hard-pressed to see the wealthy not paying their share of taxes or Bush’s reforms increasing inequality. In 2006, the top 50 percent of taxpayers made seven times the income of the bottom 50 percent, but they paid 32.4 times as much in taxes. Does anyone really believe that those in the top 50 percent got even seven times the benefits from government that those in the bottom 50 percent received?

The distribution changed as well:

When Bush became president in 2001, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid about 34 percent of all income taxes. By 2006, their share had risen to 40 percent. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent had declined from 4 to 3 percent.

Barack Obama's plans are an economic disaster waiting to happen. We need to educate all Americans about the realities of economics and show exactly how bad a Socailist like B. Hussein Obama can be for us.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Tax Proposals Make A Complex System Worse
John Lott
August 18, 2008

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Pelosi Offers To Cut Oil Drilling Deal With GOP, But What Will She Really Gain?

The members of the House GOP have already rejected this proposal but it would be a good idea to look into it to see exactly what motivated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try this.

From an article by Josiah Ryan at CNS:

Pelosi said she has a “comprehensive plan” for energy, which includes releasing oil from the 700 million barrel federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), creating a federal Renewable Electricity Standard that would require oil companies to pay billions of dollars to invest in clean energy resources – and allowing limited offshore drilling.

First off, those "billions of dollars" are going to come from what we consumers will be paying at the gas pump. In other words, Speaker Pelosi's proposal will result in even higher gas prices.

Second, that part about "invest in clean energy resourses." Would that happen to include the CLNE Wind Farms that Speaker Pelosi owns so much stock in?

The main reason that the GOP is rejecting this proposal is because it did not come through a committee to the House floor. Instead, it is a back-room, closed-door deal that has some very sinister undertones for Speaker Pelosi. If this particular bill went through, Pelosi would stand to makes hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit from her investments in CLNE.

GOP Prepared To Cut Oil Drilling Deal With Pelosi
Josiah Ryan
August 18, 2008

Barack Obama's Courtship Of Radical Islamists And His False Charge Of Pro-Lifers Lying

If B. Hussein Obama is this clueless about the company he keeps here in the United States, then how clueless would he be when it comes to dealing with Islamists (especially extreme radical Islamists) on the world scene? The answer to that would be "extremely clueless" as well as "extremely dangerous."

This whole question came about after Obama attended Rick Warren's forum this past Saturday in an effort to prop-up his image as a Christian.

Frank Gaffney Jr. over at TownHall takes a look into just how B. Hussein Obama is running his affairs and with whom:

It is, therefore, curious in the extreme that he is giving a prominent role at next week’s Democratic convention to a leader of an organization identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism financing conspiracy.

Dr. Ingrid Mattson is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization created by the radical, Saudi-financed Muslim Students Association. She will represent the Muslim community at the first-ever interfaith prayer service at a Democratic nominating convention.

Now, we know from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that ISNA is one of many Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups operating in America. We also know from a Brotherhood document entered into evidence in that case (which is currently being retried after the first prosecution resulted in a mistrial) that, “The work [of Brotherhood members] in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Yep, you read that right. Islamists think the United States is a "miserable house" and are committed to "destroying Western civilization from within." And B. Hussein Obama apparently has no problem at all cozying up with them.


Whatever the reasons for the Democratic presidential candidate’s sensitivities about the Islamic faith, he has an obligation to make clear his attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood, its mission in America and his willingness to be associated with its front organizations. It is still the case that most Muslims in this country do not want any part of Shariah law. It behooves Sen. Obama to make known now whether he is willing to embrace those who do, and his true attitude towards their ambition to impose the Islamists’ barbaric code here through such subterfuges as Shariah-Compliant Finance.

Why do the Democrats still insist on believing we are stupid enough to let news items like this somehow slip our notice?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Islamist Problem
Frank Gaffney Jr.
August 18, 2008

And here is another reason not to trust B. Hussein Obama: He has been accusing Pro-Lifers of "lying" about his abortion record despite the fact that the evidence shows the pro-lifers are telling the truth.

From Amanda Carpenter at TownHall:

Obama made the aggressive attack when Christian Broadcasting Network Senior National Correspondent David Brody asked Obama about documentation the National Right to Life Committee recently obtained of a 2003 committee vote on “born alive” legislation that would have required medical officials to give life-saving care to babies who survived abortion.

Obama has said again and again he voted against versions of that bill as an Illinois state senator because it did not include language to protect Roe v. Wade, as the federal version did which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. The committee report, however, shows a 10-0 vote in favor of an amendment to add the same language to protect abortion rights that was added to the federal bill. That same committee report subsequently shows Obama voting the kill the bill in a "final action" vote.

No lie there. The records clearly show that the Pro-Lifers are absolutely accurate in their portrayal of Barack Obama's abortion views. The Associated Press verified it:

Associated Press Story

And yet here is what Obama says about it:

Obama said the NRLC “have not been telling the truth” and launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying,” he lectured.

“It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond,” Obama said. “It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice; it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.”

But, once again, as the record shows, it is B. Hussein Obama who has been misrepresenting himself. The NRLC simply exposed the truth and exposed Obama to be the liar.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Calls Pro-Lifers Liars
Amada Carpenter
August 18, 2008

Monday, August 18, 2008

Pelosi And Pickens, Investment Partners

This little tidbit from the Washington Examiner serves to highlight the fact that Nancy Pelosi may be illegally invested in T. Boone Pickens' windfarm and that she may be using her power as Speaker of the House to influence the outcome of that business venture.

[I]n May 2007, Pelosi invested between $100,001 and $250,000 to purchase public common stock in Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (CLNE). Pelosi's CLNE investment was first highlighted by the Michigan Taxes Too Much and #don'tgo blogs.
CLNE is a cog in Pickens’$6 billion plan to build a massive wind farm in west Texas and to switch millions of vehicles on American roads from gasoline to natural gas. Pelosi’s CLNE purchase is listed on her most recent congressional personal financial disclosure form, which can be viewed at Opensecrets.org.

A search of Pelosi’s official web site found no announcement of the investment in the Pickens operation. A request to the Speaker’s official spokesman yesterday for information about the investment went unanswered. Coincidentally, Pelosi’s investment came the same month as the House passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which she hailed as making the Congress over which she helps preside “the most open and honest in history.” There are numerous ways Pelosi could provide assistance to CLNE and Pickens, including helping secure federal tax advantages. Pickens expects at least 15 percent profits on the wind farm and associated initiatives. At CLNE’s $14 per share value, Pelosi appears to own between 7,000 and 17,000 shares.

And as I noted earlier, this is a story that needs to be investigated even further since Pelosi's refusal to bring domestic oil drilling up for a floor vote could spur a large profit on those CLNE shares.

I believe Nancy Pelosi is engaged in illegal activity and should resign her office.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pelosi and Pickens, Investment Partners
The Washington Examiner
August 18, 2008

Senator John McCain Blasts NBC, And The Washington Post Looks At Five Ways To Wreck A Recovery

Well, we've known for a long time that Old Media outlets like NBC are biased in favor of leftist (i.e. Democrat) candidates. The question was actually one of how long it would take before Republicans would get a pair of cajones and call them on it.

Looks like John McCain has finally lashed out. From the Politco:

McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis asked Sunday for a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, to protest what the campaign called signs that the network is "abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race."

Davis made the request Sunday in a letter that is part of an aggressive effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to counter news coverage he considers critical.

In this case, the campaign is objecting to a statement by NBC's Andrea Mitchell on "Meet the Press" questioning whether McCain might have gotten a heads-up on some of the questions that were asked of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was the first candidate to be interviewed Saturday night by Pastor Rick Warren at a presidential forum on faith.


Here is the text of the letter:


We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.

Nowhere was this more evident than with NBC chief correspondent Andrea Mitchell's comments on "Meet the Press" this morning. In analyzing last night's presidential forum at Saddleback Church, Mitchell expressed the Obama campaign spin that John McCain could only have done so well last night because he "may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama." Here are Andrea Mitchell's comments in full:

Mitchell: "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/17/08)

Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night's forum at Saddleback Church. Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of "Meet the Press" viewers with no indication that 1.) There's not one shred of evidence that it's true; 2.) In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren's idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, "I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;" 3.) John McCain actually requested that he and Barack Obama do the forum together on stage at the same time, making these kinds of after-the-fact complaints moot.

Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.

This happens so often that it is beyond ridculous for Mitchell to even try to deny it. Anytime Old Media gets a chance to hurt John McCain and/or help Barack Obama, they do it.

It would probably be best for everyone if Old Media stopped pretending to be objective and just admitted their bias.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Protests NBC Coverage
Mike Allen
The Politco
August 17, 2008

And even the left-leaning Washington Post is starting to understand what Socialist policies means to the American economy. They actually allowed a column by Amity Shlaes (author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression) to be published.

Amity writes about five lessons we need to remember from the Great Depression. Here they are:

· Giving in to protectionism. In Herbert Hoover's time, Sen. Reed Smoot and Rep. W.C. Hawley proposed a tariff that was to raise effective duties by as much as half. More than a thousand economists signed an open letter warning that the duties would "raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens."


Yet again, one party -- the Democrats, this time -- is cavalier. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is blocking passage of these bilateral agreements. And another ambivalent politician -- Sen. Barack Obama -- has sent mixed messages to Canada about just how much he wants to roll back the North American Free Trade Agreement.

· Blaming the messenger. Punishing the stock market for the 1929 crash was popular in Washington in the early 1930s. Lawmakers attacked the practice of short selling; Senate Banking Committee counsel Ferdinand Pecora hauled J.P. Morgan and other Wall Streeters in for hearings.


Today, too, a "Blame the Street" mood prevails. SEC Chairman Chris Cox has criticized "naked shorts," an attack with a legitimate anti-fraud component. But targeting short-selling also generates uncertainty. The investigations of Bear Stearns and Freddie Mac are just the beginning; more prosecutions are likely. Like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed Enron's accounting meltdown, this cleanup will send companies and jobs abroad.

· Increasing taxes in a downturn. Hoover more than doubled income tax rates, taking the top marginal rate to 63 percent from 25 percent. FDR hiked the top rate to 90 percent. Perhaps worse, Roosevelt's Treasury crafted taxes to punish business, including an undistributed profits tax and an excess profits tax, that ultimately sucked cash from a capital-starved economy.

Today, Democrats are planning tax increases that make Bill Clinton's hike look mild. The proposals start with lifting the cap on Social Security payroll taxes -- an effective increase in the top marginal tax rate of 6.2 percent, or for some 12.4 percent, all by itself. Add in the promised repeal of the Bush tax cuts and you have an additional 4.6 percent increase. Effective top rates approach 50 percent. There are also proposed increases for dividends and capital gains. Taken together, these will make the U.S. economy sluggish and more like that of Europe.

· Assuming bigger government will bring back growth. There's a sense today that Washington has retreated too much from daily lives. ... Such state solutions tended to suppress the creation of long-term private-sector jobs, as did the aggressive Wagner Act for organized labor. The National Recovery Administration, the New Deal's centerpiece, favored large businesses at the expense of small fry. The new Tennessee Valley Authority and Roosevelt's repressive Public Utility Holding Company Act combined to crowd out private utilities that hoped to light up the South. As for Wall Street, those New Yorker magazine cartoons were accurate: Wall Streeters retreated into their martinis and country houses rather than rebuild. This yielded the "Depression within the Depression" of 1937.

· Ignoring the cost of inconsistency. FDR spoke of "bold persistent experimentation." Obama speaks of "change." Both can do damage. What's more, the list of experiments is always finite. Our bailouts look reassuring, but even Washington cannot rescue the entire economy. And foreign investors wonder where Washington will stop. Already concerned about the inconsistent dollar policy, China is now troubled by the inconsistent rescues.

One of the most level-headed arguments against the Socialist policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats.

I've read The Forgotten Man and strongly encourage everyone to read it as well.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Five Ways To Wreck A Recovery
Amity Shlaes
The Washington Post
August 18, 2008

Friday, August 15, 2008

If Any Of These Apply To You, You Might Be A Liberal

From John Hawkins over at TownHall:

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

* You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

* You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party.

* You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal.


* You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda.

* You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount.

* You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action.

* You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas.

* You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help.

* You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights.

You can read them all on-line here:

25 Reasons You Might Be a Liberal
John Hawkins
August 15, 2008

Obama Details Raising Taxes On Gains, Dividends And Threatens The U.S. Economy

B. Hussein Obama has let loose a little more of his economic plans for America, and they are not good. Deborah Solomon over at the Wall Street Journal takes a good look into this story:

Sen. Obama outlined a plan Thursday to raise tax rates on capital gains and dividend income from 15% to 20% for individuals and families making more than $200,000 and $250,000, respectively. He also detailed a plan to levy payroll taxes on earnings above $250,000 at a rate between 2% and 4%, though that increase wouldn't occur for at least a decade. Right now, payroll taxes, used to fund retirement benefits, are levied on income up to $102,000.

Jason Furman, Sen. Obama's economic-policy director, said the plan would cut taxes to less than 18.2% of gross domestic product. "That's lower than the level of taxes when Ronald Reagan was president," he said.

But it is still a tax increase. And as the U.S. learned in 1932 and 1936, raising anyone's taxes during an economic downturn is the absolute worst thing that government could do. Back in the 1930's it caused the Great Depression to last years longer than it should have. Today, B. Hussein Obama's economic policy could very well trigger a second Great Depression.


"The U.S. economy is in a weak state. We've got a credit crunch, high oil prices...this is not the time to be raising anybody's taxes," said John Taylor, a Stanford University economist who is advising Sen. Obama's rival, Republican Sen. John McCain.

"When the investment tax rate is higher it affects behavior because we see a retrenchment of companies paying dividends," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president of government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Dividends and capital gains lure investors to participate in the stock market, and their investment provides capital for companies to use to expand their business. A reduction in that capital could hurt business and the U.S. economy, Mr. Josten said. He said the business community also is concerned that Sen. Obama's broader tax plan would remove more individuals from the income-tax rolls, a situation that could lead to future tax increases on wealthier Americans.

But it goes deeper:

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group, criticized the proposed investment-income tax increases as dangerous. "The next occupant of the Oval Office is going to face some tough choices on fiscal policy, but raising taxes on capital gains and dividends will only further endanger an already-weakening economy and punish the more than half of all American households that are invested in the stock market," said Travis Larson, a spokesman for the group.

Less investment = less capital. Less capital = fewer jobs. Fewer jobs = lower tax revenues. Lower tax revenues = Dems calling for higher taxes on those who do have incomes. Then we are right back to less investment.

It's a pity the Dems are completely unable to understand this Socialistic economic cycle.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Details Raising Taxes On Gains, Dividends
Deborah Solomon
The Wall Street Journal
August 15, 2008

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Republicans Are Set To Let The Offshore Oil Ban Expire. And, What Would Happen In A World Without America?

Terry Kivlan of the National Journal looks into the newest round of punches being thrown on Capitol Hill. Republican lawmakers are ready to allow the offshore oil drilling ban expire on October 1, 2008. But the Dems are already parsing words, preparing to throw the well-being of Joe and Jane Average American under the bus in the name of some misguided Socialist policy.

From his column:

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has announced that 36 of the 49 GOP senators had signed a letter to Senate leaders supporting the designation of Oct. 1 - the deadline for renewing the ban for the 28th straight year - as "American Freedom Energy Day" and opposing the extension of the prohibition.

The letter, addressed to both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also targets the ban imposed last year on oil shale leasing. "Many people aren't aware that these bans on drilling must be renewed every year, and that all we have to do is to allow these prohibitions to expire on Oct. 1," DeMint said in a statement released Tuesday.

"In just 50 days, Americans will have the freedom to pursue their own energy resources here at home," he added. DeMint argued that it was "irrational to say 'no' to American energy" because it was needed to reduce independence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices.

Today, the senator announced he will begin a tour across South Carolina Thursday to promote greater dependence on domestic energy supplies. "The only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower prices at the pump is for America to rapidly pursue our own energy sources," DeMint said.

"America should remove barriers to a wide array of new energy supplies ... The first step to lower energy prices is to allow the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale to expire on October 1st," he said.

Aides to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said 136 House Republicans had signed a similar letter that the Texas lawmaker started circulating on July 23.

But Harry Reid (D-NV) was quick to bring the Dem talking points into the fray:

A spokesman for Reid was quick to warn that, because the bans are attached to annual appropriations bills, an attempt to block them could lead to a reprise of the 1995-1996 government shutdown that resulted from an impasse over government spending bills that pit President Clinton against congressional Republicans, led by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

So, the Socialist Dems want to shut down the government in order to make sure that American families will continue to pay higher energy costs? How stupid is that?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Republicans Threaten Renewal Of Offshore Drilling Bans
Terry Kivlan
National Journal
August 13, 2008

And Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at the future of globalism and what would happen in the world if we Americans backed down from all of our convictions.

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Moammar Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But we cannot keep up this pace, especially when so many within our own nation are trying to force us to become weaker (e.g. Congressional Democrats who continue to block all viable efforts at relieving high energy prices). It is causing us to turn inward with the possibility that we may be going back to the mindset of the 1930's.


Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free-trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America’s immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantánamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia’s democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant “No blood for oil” about Iraq’s petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China’s sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

So, what would happen if the United States simply turned its back on the world the way the world has been turning its back on the United States? Just this:

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won’t listen to the United Nations, the European Union, or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Brave Old World
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
August 14, 2008

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

How Nancy Pelosi Will Make Obscene Windfall Profits If Energy Prices Remain High

"Culture of corruption." Sound familiar? Two years ago Nancy Pelosi promised to clean it up. Instead, she has been adding her own filth to the cess pool and she has been looking to T. Boone Pickens to help her do it. Apparently, the big reason for her not allowing an up or down vote on domestic drilling is because if that particular energy bill passes, then she stands to lose a great deal of money. However, if she can prevent that vote from taking place, she stands to gain a huge windfall.

This is a story that isn't going to go away no matter how hard Old Media tries to bury it. It can't be done. The scenes and the action have been out in the public spotlight for too long for anyone in the Dem party to deny it. In fact, I think what Pelosi is doing is worse than John Edwards having an affair.

Nancy Pelosi is profiteering and using her power as Speaker of the House to ensure her monetary gains!

Yes, I said it. I think that this is more than enough to demand that Nancy Pelosi resign as Speaker of the House and to resign her Congressional seat as well. For her to remain would be to foster the culture of corruption that she knowingly and willingly takes part in.

Michelle Malkin breaks the story in her latest column over at TownHall

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes "hand maidens of the oil companies." Let's call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.

Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a "hoax" this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out.

Which brings us to Madame Speaker's 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists "Assets and 'Unearned Income'" of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. -- Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens -- former oilman turned wind-power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.

Pickens and Pelosi share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America's transportation needs.

T. Boone Pickens has been on so many radio and TV commercials that everyone knows what his business is all about.

So, what's so bad about that? Read on:

Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi's friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upward of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CLNE and Mesa Power are separate entities, but what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies.

Pickens is banking on 'em. And Pelosi is banking on him.

As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens' CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:

"She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive."

CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi's home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives -- namely, natural gas and wind.

Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist's terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with The Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multibillion dollar wind farm investment: "A lot of what he's trying to do is add value to a stranded asset he's obviously got millions of dollars on the line."

This is why she has been working to prevent a vote on a domestic drilling bill. The higher energy prices go, the more money she and T. Boone Pickens stand to make together at the expense of the American consumer and taxpayer.

This is not only untheical but also immoral. Nancy Pelosi promised us an open, corruption-free government, and all she did was use it to her own personal advantage and add to the corruption.

She needs to respect the dignity of her office and resign.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Pelosi And The Big Wind Boone-doggle
Michelle Malkin
August 13, 2008

Plame Lawsuit Dismissed And The Fairness Doctrine Could Be Used To Control Web Content Too

Would someone please head over to the home of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame so as to inform them that their fifteen minutes of fame ended back in 2004? These two are such shameless attention hounds that they will do anything to keep themsleves in the news, including launching a frivolous lawsuit against Vice President Cheney and other members of the Bush Administration.

Fortunately, a rationally thinking judge finally ended this whole non-scandal affair by throwing out the lawsuit. From NewsBusters:

Valerie Plame was dealt another setback Tuesday when a U.S. court of appeals upheld a federal judge's decision to dismiss her lawsuit against members of the Bush administration.

Given the media's fascination with this former CIA operative who has claimed for years she was illegally outed by the White House for political reasons, it will be interesting to see just how much attention this ruling gets in the next 48 hours.

And according to Reuters:

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former CIA analyst Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and several former Bush administration officials for disclosing her identity to the public. [...]

Plame and [husband Joe] Wilson sought money damages from Cheney, Libby, former White House aide Karl Rove and former State Department official Richard Armitage for violating their constitutional free speech, due process and privacy rights.

But a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a federal judge's ruling that dismissed the couple's lawsuit.

The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters.

Memo to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame: Valerie was not covert at the time of her non-outing.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Plame Lawsuit Against Cheney Et Al Dismissed, Will Media Care?
Noel Sheppard
August 12, 2008

And the possible effect on Talk Radio is not the only reason we should all be opposed to the mis-nomered "Fairness Doctrine." The fact that you are reading this on the Internet means you too can be affected by it. According to the Business & Media Institute:

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

This isn't China with it's massive human rights violations. This is the United States where we have Free Speech and Free Press.

Controlling web content is something that Google helps the Chinese Communists do.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

FCC Commissioner: Return Of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
August 12, 2008

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Boehner: They're 'Gonna Hang' Pelosi

Pitchforks and tar and feathers, anyone? Could be. The American people are pretty fed up at this point with high energy prices and the fact that the Dems went on vacation without even a cursory attempt at fixing the problem.

And now, Pelosi shows her ultra-Socialist side by hinting that there could be a special session of Congress in which every issue on her Socialist agenda will be discussed but not the one issue causing Americans the most grief today. John Boehner made a pretty profound comment about that:

From the Chicago Tribune blogs:

"She's gonna bring us back and not deal with it?" asked the Ohio Republican, as quoted by Politico. "The American people are gonna hang her."

Count me in as one of those who will be wielding a pitchfork in front of the Capital soon.

But, the Dems are never the type of party to pass up an opportunity to say something stupid, as evidenced by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD):

[T]he Maryland Democrat said. "I hope the Minority Leader will apologize for his remarks, and work with Democrats in a bipartisan, constructive manner to increase our domestic oil supply, invest in renewable energy and end our dependence on foreign oil."

Memo to Steny: bipartisan efforts can only be made when both parties are present in Congress and both parties are discussing the same issue.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Boehner: They're 'Gonna Hang' Pelosi
Matthew Hay Brown
The Swamp at the Chicago Tribune
August 11, 2008

Friday, August 8, 2008

Republican Energy Fumble: Five Senate Republicans Stab The GOP In The Back With 'Gang Of 10' Dagger

I simply could not believe this when I heard about it. The energy issue was the one defining issue that the GOP had that could make national headlines and definitively underscore how inept, incompetent and out-of-touch the Dems were. So, what do Republicans Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson do with this potent ammunition? They throw it all away for nothing in a deal that will only hurt the GOP and the American consumer.

That's right. These five RINOs teamed up with five Dems in the Senate and worked out a bill that gives the Dems everything they want and simply screws the GOP and more importantly, the American people.

From Kimberly A. Strassel over at the Wall Street Journal:

This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

In other words, these five Senators agreed with the Dems that there should be no drilling in any area where oil actually exists.


The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies!

So, not only will there be no new exploration nor new domestic production, but we consumers can look forward to higher prices since the oil companies are simply going to pass those new taxes on to us consumers at the gas pump!

What were these five thinking? This has got to be the biggest bone-head play in the history of the Senatorial GOP! Not only have they agreed to screw-over the American people with higher gas prices, but they have also cut their own party off at the knees!

Read on:

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. As two of the GOP's most vulnerable senators, both might well have run for cover with the Gang of 10. Instead they're fighting on the merits.

The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him.

Effectively say "no" to new domestic energy production? Push gas prices higher by raising taxes in order to pay for research on technologies that don't exist on any usable scale for viability as an alternative?

These five are going to have a lot of explaining to do. And they may have to explain it to a filibuster-proof Senate that will be nothing more than an economy destroying Socialist rubber-stamp to America's next Socialist President: Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Republican Energy Fumble
Kimberly A. Strassel
The Wall Street Journal
August 8, 2008