A Voice That Shines Through

David Ignatius has published a very nice comparison of both Obama and John McCain as written by the men themselves. In this great article, McCain's True Voice, Ignatius gives us all the more reason to passionately support John McCain by discussing their stories and how John McCain's shows his life experience as written in Faith of My Fathers as forming the character trait most needed in a president:

But what makes McCain's account of his captivity truly remarkable is not the heroism but the humility. In page after page, he praises men who he insists were braver than he was. Though even the toughest prisoners were broken by torture, he cannot forgive himself for signing his own confession: "I shook, as if my disgrace were a fever." He survived through solidarity with other prisoners who were "a lantern of courage and faith that illuminated the way home with honor."
McCain's triumph, finally, was that he got over Vietnam. He didn't fulminate against anti-war activists. ("I have made far too many mistakes in my own life to forever disparage people.") He accepted the ways America had changed in his absence. He didn't bear grudges. He had finally grown up. Robert Timberg in "The Nightingale's Song" quotes McCain after his homecoming in March 1973: "Now that I'm back, I find a lot of hand-wringing about this country. I don't buy that. I think America today is a better country than the one I left nearly six years ago."

That healing gift is what McCain, at his best, brings to the presidential race -- not the brass marching band of military valor, but the tolerance of someone who has truly suffered. It's evident in his achievements as a senator: He had been tortured himself, so he campaigned, against intense pressure from the Bush administration, for a ban on torture; he had been caught as one of the "Keating Five" in a sleazy campaign finance scandal, so he defied his party and became a crusader for campaign finance and ethics reforms.

What's crippling the McCain campaign now, I suspect, is that this fiercely independent man is trying to please other people -- especially a Republican leadership that doesn't really trust him. He should give that up and be the person whose voice shines through the pages of his life story.

I'm LeBron, baby.

There has been so much media coverage recently about Senator Obama's campaign trip abroad. It seems that although these inappropriate and unprecedented appearances have made a lot of people very angry, there is little talk in the media about the public outrage, or the Grand Canyon of difference between Sen. Obama's and Sen. McCain's character and experience as a qualification to hold the highest Office in our nation. Well, I'm here to say that character and experience do matter to me!

One of the reasons I am so concerned about the possibility of an Obama Presidency is that he himself doesn't instill confidence in me that he believes these two qualities are important in a President.

Until recently, most of what we in the other 49 States knew about "The Illinois Senator" came from books he wrote about himself. Those books earned him many millions of dollars. He also used millions of dollars worth of his money to finance his Presidential campaign. David Mendell's book, From Promise to Power, is among books about Obama recently appearing on the scene. There are many quotes from Sen. Obama in the book, and I have not read them all. Of those I have, the one I find most interesting at the moment,

"I'm LeBron, baby." - Barack Obama

That's what Barack Obama, a virtual unknown, said to Mendell as Obama was getting ready to take the stage at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and he was referring to basketball phenom, LeBron James. Perhaps that expression of Obama's self-image helps to explain the fact that Sen. Obama made time to shoot hoops in the Middle East, but didn't visit wounded American war heroes in Landstuhl, Germany after being told he would not be allowed to bring cameras with him. Or perhaps, it's part of the explanation for what Andrea Mitchell termed as "message management" and "fake interviews" recently on MSNBC.

As far as I'm concerned, Barack Obama is no LeBron James. I do find the timing of Obama's braggish self-description interesting, though. The 2004 Democratic National Convention was held during the same week the Olympics were being held in Athens. LeBron James had gained enormous fame "outa nowhere" the year before for being the last high school player ever drafted into the NBA. During the Convention, James helped his Olympic Basketball Team win the Bronze Medal in Athens.

An excerpt of a review written by HarperCollins Publishers, who published the Mendell book,

"David Mendell has covered Obama since the beginning of his campaign for
the Senate and as a result enjoys far-reaching access to the new Senator--both
his professional and personal life. ... Mendell also describes the
dirty tactics sanctioned by Obama--who has steeped his image and reputation on
the ideals of clean politics and good government--"

Then, in the very "next breath" of the review, the publisher states,

"Mendell also positions Barack Obama as in fact the Savior of a fumbling Democratic party..."

"I'm LeBron, baby." - Barack Obama. Like I said, I don't think so.

Dirty tactics, image, message management, fake interviews, Savior.

Anything about that seem strange to you considering Barack Obama believes he should be our next President?

Country First.

Opinion: Obama and McCain and Iran

Nowadays with media bias towards McCain and favourable towards Obama,it;s really hard to get a good piece of opinion by any Author. However I saw this pieces writen by Thomas Sowell:

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America

Obama Makes Germans Swoon, Snubs Wounded Americans

Barack Obama's carefully crafted photo op tour in Germany has been a triumph of 1930's Nuremburg-like proportions, lacking only Leni Reifenstahl to record the spectacle. But why is an American presidential candidate giving what is so obviously a campaign speech in Europe? Epicurus has a few thoughts on the matter over at Self Evident Truths:

"It appears that he believes that cheering crowds on foreign soil will have some measurable impact for his candidacy. He realizes the images of large crowds gathered to hear him will be beamed to our televisions tonight and prominently positioned on tomorrow’s newspapers. He realized these things long before he left on his trip and the purpose would seem intentional. Rather than speak directly to the people of our country, he appeals to foreigners to cheer him so he may have their help in influencing our population."

The very next day, Senator Obama calls off a meeting with wounded American troops at Landstuhl Army Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, but only AFTER he was informed that he would not be allowed to bring press or campaign staff to attend. Obama strategist Robert Gibbs said in a statement tried to tapdance out the controversy, stating they canceled "...out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.".



As a retired military officer, I have a more than casual knowledge of the government's ethics rules, and I cannot equate Obamas excuse with the facts. If he had used government-provided travel to actively campaign, that would be a clear violation. But travelling on your campaign funds to visit troops? There's no inappropriateness there. The inappropriate behavior is attempting to use wounded American troops as campaign props. And as a sitting U.S. Senator, he could have used his Senator's travel budget to arrange a side-trip to Landstuhl away from his campaign appearances. But he chose not to -- he chose to hit the gym and do a little shopping instead.

• Tours Europe like a rock star, primary to get photographs of himself in front adoring throngs
• Refuses to participate in town hall meetings with John McCain and talk with (rather than to) the people of the country he aspires to lead.
• Snubs brave AMERICAN men and women he hopes to command, because he can't bring the media with him

Obama continues to show incredible lack of judgment and his total contempt for the people of his own country.

Change Your Thinking -- Save on Gas

In the past week, MacPac'08 has been running a series on how all of us as individuals and families can save money and save oil during the current energy crunch.

John McCain's Lexington Project offers the best hope for leading our country to energy independence. Unlike Barack Obama's energy plan, which largely is based on the hope that scientific breakthroughs will bring about plentiful, inexpensive green technology solutions, The Lexington Project is a pragmatic, sensible approach that is based on a fundamental principle in research and engineering -- Go from the known to the unknown. Oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy are known technologies that we must use now as bridges to get from where we are (petroleum based, foreign oil dependent) to where we want to be (alternative based, energy independent).

• By opening up new oil drilling in the U.S. and permitting off-shore drilling, John McCain enables us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. This offers us a near-to-mid range solution to help reduce the. cost of oil while we work out the science of alternative energy sources.


• By building new nuclear plants, we can make use of already existing technology to provide more power for industry, residences and businesses, reducing the need for coal or oil-fueled power plants.


• The other facet of the Lexington Project is the pursuit of a wider array of flex fuel vehicles, increased-capacity batteries, and alternative green energy production capabilities such as wind and solar.

The Lexington Project plots a course for energy independence in the future, but it is not an overnight solution. It will take time to start drilling and bring these new technologies online. The challenge, for all of us, is to find ways to reduce our dependence -- and spending -- on oil NOW. So how?

• SmartCookie has already mentioned how much she saves by driving her Prius. It's a great idea, and many of us are already doing that. Unfortunately, waiting lists right now for hybrid vehicles are several months, and how many of us can really afford to buy a new car in this economy?


• Gwen has highlighted the impact of plastics on our oil consumption, illustrating how the U.S. uses 13.5 million barrels of oil a year to produce plastic bags and plastic bottles, most of which are disposed of. That is enough oil to fuel over 900,000 vehicles in the U.S. for a year. A significant change to how we use and consume plastics is a great idea, but again, it can only take us so far.

So what's next? How do we accomplish a change to seriously reduce the cost of oil in our lives? Transportation costs represent 69 percent of U.S. oil consumption, so it is obvious that reducing the amount of petroleum products we use in our cars will make that serious reduction we seek. We all have to get to work, and we all have to earn a living, but there are alternatives to driving to work every day.

Our MacPac'08 readers are far too smart to need reminding of concepts such as carpooling, but we'd like to offer a few suggestions you may not have considered. These suggestions are based on a simple, easily attainable goal -- reduce your weekly gas consumption by 20%.

• Set a budget for fuel. For example, if you fill your tank once per week, filling a 15 gallon tank with only 12 gallons, then sticking to your budget, you will attain your goal.


• Do you work in an office or in a technology-based industry? Telecommuting one day per week is an easy way to reduce your fuel consumption. Many managers are hesitant to permit employees to telecommute, but if you provide them with a clear plan for what you intend to do on a telecommuting day, they maybe amenable to giving you a trial. Telecommuting can also give you a respite from the aggravation and time wasted sitting in traffic heading into the office, as well as from the hustle and bustle of the office itself.


• Does your employer pay for you to park at work? Do you have good public transportation in your area? Ask if your employer will be willing to pay for a monthly mass transit pass instead of monthly parking fees. Its not only cheaper for them, but you will reduce your fuel consumption far in excess of your goal of 20%.


• Try using a flex day strategy for working. Instead of working 40 hours a week over 5 days, try working 4 10-hour days instead. If 10 hours a day doesn't work for you, consider working 9 9-hour days, taking an alternating Friday off. You're only halfway to your 20% goal, but you've saved 10% at the pump and gained an extra 26 days off per year.


• Try using flex hours. Instead working normal working days, go in a couple hours early, or a couple hours late. The adjustment in your hours will save fuel because you're not sitting in rush hour traffic, and you'll avoid the aggravation so many of us feel at rush hour.


• Teleconferencing and Web Conferencing. If you must travel out of town for work, investigate ways to avoid it. Use telephone conferencing and web conferencing to meet with out-of-town clients and make presentations.


• Shop locally. Find out about stores, shops and restaurants in your own neighborhood and avoid travelling long distances to hit the mall. You'll save on gas, you'll support small businesses in your community, and you'll probably get better service too!


• Shop remotely. Why drive to the mall when you can do it from home? Do you really need that white dress shirt or baseball cap TODAY? Use online banking and online shopping to reduce the amount of driving you do on errands. Some companies will provide free shipping if you buy above a certain value in goods, keeping the prices very competitive.

These are just a few ideas to help you get started. There are many more, and the combinations of energy saving measures based on those ideas will be a huge number. Find the combinations that work for you.

20% may not sound like much at first, but if all of us could set that goal and actually achieve it those small steps will result in a big step towards energy independence.

John McCain's Lexington Project. 300 million of us, all doing our part. Let's get busy.

Let's Talk To Each Other

SmartCookie, a frequent John McCain blog commenter and new MacPac'08 contributor has recently launched her own blog in support of John McCain.

If you've tracked SC's posts here and there, you can tell she has some pretty profound thoughts and isn't afraid to share them. Those of us who've spoken with SmartCookie know she's also a very independent thinker and she has some thoughts on how Barack Obama has been anointed by the media as the next President that all of us would be well-served to consider:

"...Apparently, the vast majority of corporations which own the media have decided they want Barack Obama to be our next President, regardless of whether that's what's best for America. Campaign donations from citizens who are members of the mainstream media are 100-1 in favor of Democrats. On the other side of corporate messaging, we have mostly neoconservatives. Neither of those statements makes me comfortable....

... Like I said, We The People are responsible for our government, not the other way around. We have a right to vote, but in the past most of us (literally!) haven't even bothered exercising that right. In addition to being a right, it is also a responsibility. Change with no discernable valid Constitutional standing is a dangerous threat to our Democracy. That's as simply as I can state my opinion.

Why have so many men and women died to protect our self-evident rights? What is your responsibility? Is it going to be good enough for you to just simply vote your own conscious while remaining silent about what's important?"

We invite you to check out the rest of her article at Self Evident Truths.

Obama and Iraq Surge

An article by CBSNEWS dated 22th July, Katie Couric asks Barack Obama whether he believes that the level of security in Iraq today would exist without the troop surge. Obama stated;

"What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction in violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously."

However on the Face The Nation, Obama asserted;

"We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

And MSNBC's "Response To The President's Speech On Iraq," 1/10/07, Obama even said;

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Even after the surge was announced, Obama on NBC Today Shows stated;

"Well, actually, I think there was a very serious debate, and it's based on some fundamental differences. I think reasonable people can differ on this issue because there are no good options in Iraq. We should not have gone. At this point we have bad options and worse options. But we are facing a choice. My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

And again on NBC Meets The Press, Obama has this to say;

"Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

A year after the surge was announced, Obama openly admitted during Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/5/08 that;

"Now, I had no doubt, and I said at the time when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."

And again during CNN/ Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX, 2/21/08 that;

CNN's Campbell Brown: "Senator Obama, in the same vein, you were also opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?"

Obama: "Well, I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform."

During a Remarks At A Town Hall, Rapid City, SD, 5/31/08, Obama:

"We don't need more spin about how the surge is succeeding in doing what it was supposed to do which is to get the Iraqi's to stand up and take responsibility for their own future, so we can start sending our troops home."

A good questions by USAToday, Why can't Obama admit the obvious? The surge worked.

In this article, the author wrote;

In that context, President Bush's announcement that month that he planned to "surge" more than 20,000 extra U.S. troops into Iraq felt to many critics, including Sen. Barack Obama, like doubling down on failure.

A year and a half later, though, violence is down dramatically and there's a cautious hope that both the U.S. and Iraq could achieve an outcome once seemed out of reach.
The surge didn't do all of that; a cease-fire by Shiite militias and the switch by Sunni insurgents from attacking Americans to fighting al-Qaeda helped enormously. But the extra U.S. troops, brilliantly deployed by Gen. David Petraeus, have made a huge difference in calming the chaos. In doing so, it also contributed to the other developments.

Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?

In recent comments, the Democratic presidential candidate has grudgingly conceded that the troops helped lessen the violence, but he has insisted that the surge was a dubious policy because it allowed the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate and failed to produce political breakthroughs in Iraq. Even knowing the outcome, he told CBS News Tuesday, he still wouldn't have supported the idea.

That's hard to fathom. Even if you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous error — and it was — the U.S. should still make every effort to leave behind a stable situation. Obama seems stuck in the first part of that thought process, repeatedly proclaiming that he was right to oppose the war and disparaging worthwhile efforts to fix the mess it created. Hence, his dismissal of the surge as "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."

The great irony, of course, is that the success of the surge has made Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops in 16 months far more plausible than when he proposed it. Another irony is that while Obama downplays the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq, he is urging a similar tactic now in Afghanistan.

Perhaps it's too much to ask that Obama risk being taunted by headlines such as "Obama says Bush was right." But for the nation to move forward on its single most vexing debate, it would help if the next president could admit the obvious .

Americans don't expect their president to be right all the time. They do expect him to change course when he's proved wrong.

Obama Playing To The Crowds!

On ABC News Political Punch, Jake Tapper reported;

" After Sen. Barack Obama's Meeting Today In Ramallah With President Mahmoud Abbas And Prime Minister Salam Fayyad At The Mukata, The President's Compound -- States That Obama 'Corrected His Statements' On Supporting An 'Undivided Jerusalem.’

And Obama said;

" That The Future Of The City Can Be Resolved Through Peace Negotiations Between Israel And The Palestinians," The Official Statement Said. 'The Palestinians Want The Eastern Part Of The City As The Capital Of Their State.

However on the NYTIMES on June 7th, speaking in front of the AIPAC crowds, Obama reassured Israelis that;

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

In An American Jewish Committee Election Questionaiore, Obama Stated;

"The United States cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement. We should support the parties as they negotiate these difficult issues, but they will have to reach agreements that they can live with. In general terms, clearly Israel must emerge in a final status agreement with secure borders. Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided."

As you notices the following transcript an interview of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by ABC News anchor Charles Gibson from Wednesday, July 23, 2008, in Jerusalem, Israel.

Gibson: And then there's the issue of Jerusalem. You've said in the speech, to AIPAC, Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel. And it must remain undivided. When you said that did you not realize the significance that that has for so many people in this region?

Obama: Well, number one, the fact is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. And so I was simply saying a fact, with respect to…

Gibson: You said "must remain undivided," (crosstalk) those are code words.

Obama: Well the issue of it being undivided, I have said and I said immediately after the speech that that word was poorly chosen, that what I was referring to is making sure that we're not setting up barbed wire across Israel…

Gibson: But Senator, it was a very simple, declarative statement. It must remain, and you started the paragraph by saying, "Let me be clear"—

Obama: Charlie, the day after, or the day of making the speech I conceded that the wording was poor, and it's immediately corrected—

Gibson: Rookie mistake?

Obama: Well I wouldn't say rookie mistake,I think that veterans make mistakes as well.

On CNN's with Candy Crowley 5th June; "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday.You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?"

Obama; "Well obviously it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues."

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem "must remain undivided."

One must question whether his initial remarks was simply meant to mislead Jewish voters and Israel supporters by not stating his true beliefs on this issue. Change we can believe in? No, change we can count on, because as soon as Obama takes a position, we can count on the fact he's going to change it in front of the next audience.

Obama Fake It Interviews!

More evidence about how the biased legacy media is suffering from Obamamania . Congratulations to Andrea Mitchell for outing Obama's audacious fake interviews and staged photo ops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Let me say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference," either in Afghanistan or Iraq, noted Mitchell on the air. Instead Obama manufactured "what some would call 'fake interviews,' because they are not interviews from a journalist," Mitchell went on.

Watch Mitchell's report in the following video:

Barack Obama's Fundraising Hypocrisy

A short opinion written by Bonnie Erbe published by USNEWS on the Obama hypocrisy on fundraising. On the latest campaign finance figures show Obama’s pledge not to take money from lobbyists is a distinction without a difference.

Obama clobbered John McCain in fundraising last month, netting more than twice the amount of money raised by his rival. Taken from Bloomberg;
Obama took in $51.9 million in June, including $1.4 million from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, while McCain reported raising $21.5 million, including $5.1 million from his fundraising effort with the Republican National Committee.

But consider whence much of Obama's money comes. While donations to his campaign are not accepted from lobbyists per se, corporate executives proffer them. These same executives face a mountain of federal issues on which they will most surely need Obama's help, should he win the White House in November. So what's the difference?

To wit. Bloomberg reported that donors to Obama's joint fundraising committee included Jay Grinney, president and chief executive officer of Birmingham, Ala.-based HealthSouth Corp., who gave $10,000, and Donald Thompson, U.S. chief of Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald's Corp., who gave $28,500, the maximum.

As Erbe’s noted before, Obama’s fourth-largest corporate donor is Exelon, the nation's largest provider of nuclear power.

Did he take donations straight from the pockets of the company's lobbyists? No. But did he accept largesse in the amount of more than a quarter million dollars from Exeo’s CEO and top executives? Yes.

In the process, he watered down to oblivion an antinuclear amendment he had sponsored, originally to force nuclear power producers to report even the most negligible of radioactive leaks. He then went on to tell mesmerized campaign audiences he had "passed" his antinuclear bill, which never passed the U.S. Senate.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign disinvited Democratic war hero and former Sen. Max Cleland to appear at an Obama event in Atlanta earlier this month. Why? Sen. Cleland is a registered lobbyist.

John McCain openly accepts lobbyists' donations. And some voters find that as much of a conflict (because McCain has his name attached to the most important campaign finance reform bill of the last two decades.) The difference between McCain and Obama on this issue is McCain has never pledged not to take lobbyists' donations. He has only pledged to fight to make the process as transparent as possible.

Save Plastic -- Save Oil !

Fuel efficient cars are not the only way to save at the pump. By simply changing a few of our daily functions we will not only reduce oil use but become eco friendly. First allow me to give you some background info on 2 items that are used in every household in America and the cost of using them in both petroleum and the damage to our environment:

• 1.5 million barrels of oil is used annually to produce plastic water bottles for America alone - enough to fuel some 100,000 U.S. cars for a year. -- Earth Policy Institute

• Americans will buy an estimated 25 billion single-serving, plastic water bottles this year. Eight out of 10 (22 billion) will end up in a landfill. -- Container Recycling Institute
  

If you drink bottled water, consider using sturdy Reusable Bottles like the one pictured. All retail outlets carry these with various price points.

• Introduced just over 25 years ago, the ugly truth about our plastic bag addiction is that society's consumption rate is now estimated at well over 500,000,000,000 (that's 500 billion) plastic bags annually, or almost 1 million per minute. The US uses 100 Billion plastic bags annually, consuming about 12 million barrels of oil.

• Single-use bags made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) are the main culprit. Once brought into existence to tote your purchases, they'll accumulate and persist on our planet for up to 1,000 years.

Recycling is good but not the answer, it costs significantly to recycle plastic bags, but due to low grade plastics used, recycling only yields a minute return. It is also worth noting that the production of plastic bags requires petroleum and often natural gas, both non-renewable resources that increase our dependency on foreign suppliers. Additionally, prospecting and drilling for these resources contributes to the destruction of fragile habitats and ecosystems around the world.

Most people tend to forget that the processes involved in recycling including collection, transportation, processing and conversion all require energy- often derived from oil! Let’s break that down a bit: If we use 13.5 million barrels of oil in the US annually to produce plastic bags and plastic water bottles(not factoring in soft drink and other plastic containers) that equals enough oil to fuel nearly 900,000 cars annually. According to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics for 2006 there are 250,851,833 registered passenger vehicles in the US. I know you may say that’s a mere .4% of the cars, but considering that is only plastic bags and water bottles, it’s a giant step. Everything made of plastic is derived from oil- Beverage bottles, lunch bags, food containers, personal hygiene products(shampoo,soaps,gels) household cleaning products, trash bags, lids, toys and much more. Think of how many cars that would fuel.

By simply using sturdy re-usable shopping bags and reusable water bottles( 2 small steps) we can help to reduce our countries oil consumption. Because America consumes more and more oil than readily available, we are forced to buy oil from other oil producing countries. In some cases those countries aide and abet terrorist organizations and indirectly pose a national security threat. If we, as a country, are able to significantly minimize our dependence on oil and start rethinking how we shop we will reaffirm the commitment to a better planet and at the same time lessen the burden on our pockets. John McCain has always stood firm in his approach to conserving and protecting the environment as well as our national security. There are many other ways to conserve oil use in our daily lives and we will be following up with subsequent articles that will provide more energy saving tips.

John McCain's [lack of]* Media Coverage

Brit Hume Talks About the Success and Uniqueness of Fox News
By Lyndsi Thomas July 21, 2008

When the Bush administration reported that 15 of 18 political benchmarks set for Iraq had been met, which is nearly twice as many that were met last year, only Fox News reported on the story. And during his July 2 report, Brit Hume predicted that the story wouldn’t gain much traction elsewhere:
I suspect that this broadcast tonight -- and maybe some others on this channel -- are the only ones who are going to make a headline out of this. This is not going to be a big story elsewhere.
As Hume predicted, CBS’s “Evening News,” NBC’s “Nightly News” and ABC's “World News Tonight” did not mention the story in their broadcasts that night.

MRC's Bozell on MSM Iraq-with-Barack Tour
By NB Staff July 21, 2008

MRC President and NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell appeared on Friday's "Hannity & Colmes" to talk about the media's eagerness to jump on the press plane and head to cover Barack Obama in Iraq. This despite the media's disinterest in covering John McCain's numerous foreign trips earlier this year. [audio available here]
"This is a press, the networks especially, that have gone into a complete swoon over Barack Obama," argued Bozell.
Earlier that day, Bozell appeared on "Fox & Friends" to discuss the same topic. Video of that can be found here.
For the MRC press release on the matter, click here (excerpt below):






CBS ‘Early Show’ Obama Coverage 2 to 1 Over McCain
By Kyle Drennen July 21, 2008

At the top of Monday’s CBS "Early Show" a full six minutes of coverage was devoted to Barack Obama’s world tour, while only three minutes was given to a John McCain interview. During the interview with McCain, co-host Harry Smith wondered: "You know, when you have the network anchors chasing your opponent across the Middle East it's a little hard to make news. What is your strategy to get folks to pay attention to your message over the next couple of days?" Co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked a similar question to Republican pollster Frank Luntz on Friday: "Can John McCain even compete next week?"
The coverage of Obama consisted of co-host Julie Chen talking to New York Times Baghdad correspondent Richard Oppel, followed by a clip of CBS correspondent Lara Logan’s interview with Obama in Afghanistan. Oppel highlighted recent news of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki supporting Obama’s troop withdrawal plan: "...he was quoted accurately. He did express a clear affinity for Obama's 16 month proposal."
Later, when interviewing McCain, Harry Smith also brought up Maliki’s comments: "But one of the other things that -- one of the other things that he [Obama] has said is that maybe the troops should be out within the next 18 months, an idea that Prime Minister Al Maliki basically agrees with. Maybe the surge, in fact, did work. Is it time for American troops to start coming home?" That statement was in response to McCain pointing out to Smith that: "We are winning the war. And Senator Obama was wrong. He railed against it. He voted against the surge. And he said it would fail. He was wrong there."

While Touting Obama Talking Points, ABC's Sawyer Quizzes McCain About Bias
By Scott Whitlock July 21, 2008

"Good Morning America" co-host Diane Sawyer on Monday quizzed John McCain on whether the media is gushing too much over Barack Obama's Middle East trip. She then proceeded to cite Obama talking points on the visit. First, Sawyer wondered, "A quick question about the press coverage, if I can. [Obama's] there with a lot of reporters and it's been widely reported--" At this point, the Arizona senator started chuckling to himself.

A surprised Sawyer continued, "You're laughing. Do you think the press coverage is unfair?" McCain wryly responded, "That's up to the American people to decide, Diane. It is what it is." A few seconds earlier, Sawyer appeared to preemptively answer her query on media bias. The ABC journalist prompted, "You have criticized Senator Obama in the past for not going to Iraq and getting a fresh assessment. He is in Iraq as we speak this morning. Does this take care of it?" The subtext of the question sounded very much like "He went to Iraq. Will you leave him alone now?" Never mind the fact that McCain has been to the area eight times and Obama only two.



CBS ‘Early Show’ Obama Coverage 2 to 1 Over McCain
By Kyle Drennen July 21, 2008

At the top of Monday’s CBS "Early Show" a full six minutes of coverage was devoted to Barack Obama’s world tour, while only three minutes was given to a John McCain interview. During the interview with McCain, co-host Harry Smith wondered: "You know, when you have the network anchors chasing your opponent across the Middle East it's a little hard to make news. What is your strategy to get folks to pay attention to your message over the next couple of days?" Co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked a similar question to Republican pollster Frank Luntz on Friday: "Can John McCain even compete next week?"

The coverage of Obama consisted of co-host Julie Chen talking to New York Times Baghdad correspondent Richard Oppel, followed by a clip of CBS correspondent Lara Logan’s interview with Obama in Afghanistan. Oppel highlighted recent news of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki supporting Obama’s troop withdrawal plan: "...he was quoted accurately. He did express a clear affinity for Obama's 16 month proposal."

Later, when interviewing McCain, Harry Smith also brought up Maliki’s comments: "But one of the other things that -- one of the other things that he [Obama] has said is that maybe the troops should be out within the next 18 months, an idea that Prime Minister Al Maliki basically agrees with. Maybe the surge, in fact, did work. Is it time for American troops to start coming home?" That statement was in response to McCain pointing out to Smith that: "We are winning the war. And Senator Obama was wrong. He railed against it. He voted against the surge. And he said it would fail. He was wrong there."


This is just a small list, please check out more from our friends at: http://www.newsbusters.org/

I thought another friend of ours summed it up pretty well:


John McCain's Media Coverage
Submitted by acrediblepresident on July 19, 2008.

OK, the TV networks have drawn their lines - And unfairly I might add. The American electorate are exposed to a disproportionate and unfair coverage of the two presumptive nominees of the office of President of the United States. The bottom line - Obama does not need all the money given to the campaign for campaign ads, he has been getting enormous amounts of FREE media coverage from the major networks. What does this tell us regarding our media, and what fills the eyes, ears, and hearts of our American population? Let me fill you in.

In communist nations, their populations hear and see what has been decided they hear and see. In dictatorships which claim some semblance of democracy by allowing elections, they are often biased, allowing little to NO input as members of a nation cast their ballot.

Is this what our nation has come to? The American electorate has little exposure to our Republican candidate, John S. McCain, a man of character, dignity, credibility; and a Patriot who loves our beloved nation more than himself. Yet the liberal media has chosen to give the Democratic candidate the brunt of exposure. I challenge the media, however, this: If you choose to cover this Democratic candidate, Obama, at least be fair and balanced in your coverage. You can NOT erase TWENTY (20) years of a church Obama held dear to him which preached hate - HATE against the United States. Hate against whites. Pure and adulterated hate against anyone, and any institution and nation, including our own beloved United States of America which was not in agreement with their doctrine.

To our media, I question your integrity. Not simply because you are slighting the GOP candidate, John McCain, who has proven his great love of his nation - A love of our nation which this man places before himself, party, and politics. I question our media's integrity because they are giving a free pass to a man who has CHOSEN to belong to a church or institution which hates our nation. No, just because Obama says so, does it mean his close ties do not still exist. They simply are below the radar for now. By loosing Tim Russert, the media has lost any path to fairness and honesty.

What you, our media our showering our American people with is a facade of a man who no one really knows. Yes, he's good and very smooth at hiding the reasons he chose to stay in this church for twenty (20) years, and expose his children to this hate rhetoric. But the true Obama can't hide forever, and the truth of his soul bubbles up to the surface in times of weakness. For instance, in one of the last Hillary and Obama debates when he was questioned regarding Rev. Wright and his church, Obama stumbled, stammered, and came unglued. This only happens when you hit a raw nerve you are trying to protect. http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/john-mccains-media-coverage.

I say to you our network media, if you will not give John McCain the fair and balanced coverage to a man who suffered for his nation, a nation he holds dearly in his hands to protect, we will as his army do it for him.

We will in forces write letters to the editors of every newspaper across the nation to tell the Americans the truth about the man you now choose to ignore, John McCain. I urge John McCain followers and supporters everywhere to use the resource of letters to the editor. Write letters and then write more. Have your forces in place in locations across the nation to do the same. Call in to news talk shows. We can't let a biased media unfairly represent John McCain - Not for a man, Obama, who was a part of "HATE" against our nation for so long. A hate one can NOT erase or pretend did not exist now that the office of CIC is at stake.

Barack Obama Affliction

The NRO Editorials on July 15th wrote and interesting article about Obama and Democratic affliction. The editors stated that it’s bizarre to see an American political party so afflicted by American military success. The Democrats have been laboring to look the other way from the security gains forged by the troop surge in Iraq, but now the progress is so widely acknowledged that they have had to change tack. Sen. Obama’s advisers have taken to saying that the Illinois senator knew all along the surge would improve security, an obvious falsehood (see the quote below).

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. … And the problem is the Iraqis, I think, take that message to mean that, no matter how little they are compromising with each other, Americans are still going to be present. As long as we are not willing to provide any consequences to failure for them to arrive at a political compromise, we’re going to continue to see the sort of sectarian bloodshed that’s been evident over the last several months". — Barack Obama, January 2007, in response to President Bush’s speech announcing the surge.

On My plan for Iraq, Obama in his words of pulling the troops out in 16 months; -

"We can safely redeploys our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months".

But in recent weeks, Obama has given signals that he wants to be able to wiggle out of the 16-month deadline. He famously talked of “refining” his plan earlier in the month, and his chief strategist David Axelrod told CNN, Obama’s plan was for “a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks and advice on the commanders on the ground.”

Another one of his “flip-flop,” this time on an issue that was central to Obama’s primary campaign and his political identity. He reiterated his support for his 16-month plan, subject only to “tactical adjustments.” And he has acknowledges the level of violence has been reduced, but grudgingly and while arguing that the reasons for his original opposition still stands. In other words, the theory of the surge has proven correct and Democrats who opposed it were wrong about it in all key respects.

The NRO final words were interesting when the Editors wrote; -

For all the progress in Iraq, al-Qaeda hasn’t gone away and neither has Iran. Both are trying to adjust and exploit new vulnerabilities, which are likelier to exist the fewer U.S. troops are in Iraq. While the Right must resist Democratic defeatism, it can’t give into triumphialism about the surge either. Much work remains to be done in Iraq, including ensuring the fundamental fairness of the elections later this year so all factions will accept their outcome. As we learned with the harrowing experience prior to the surge, nothing is so expensive as trying to do the Iraq war on the cheap.

Obama doesn’t understand this, or doesn’t appear to care if he does. He has taken to saying recently that he would give the military a new mission — to end the war. Not to win, not even to leave with honor, but simply to get out. The only thing more disgraceful than his dishonest advocacy of this position as a candidate would be if he actually implemented it as president.

One President, 300 Million of Us

Nearly everyone I know drives around every day complaining about the price of gas and everything they have to give up as a result … and arguing over which candidate can solve our problems for us. Here’s the way I see it: Neither of them can. Isn’t that great!

What?

We The People are responsible for our government, not the other way around. We are in control of our own success … isn’t that great!

One of the two Senators will be our next President – there are over 300 million of us. Now, which of those numbers do you believe has a greater impact on our success or failure? Am I saying it doesn’t matter who our next President is? Hell no!

The choices: Sen. McCain’s Lexington Project outlines a flexible and pragmatic yet visionary example of many things we can do together as a nation to achieve energy independence. It exemplifies problem solving through innovation and teamwork, inspired by our most basic tenets: American prosperity, strength, independence and leadership. Sen. Obama communicates a plan as well and offers massive government programs as his explanation for how he will solve our problems for us. I’ve read both plans. Like I said, 300 million of us, one President.

Ok! Cool! Besides voting for John McCain, what else can I do? Great news again: So many things! Since we can’t change the past, let’s talk about what we can do. Over the next few days here at MacPac ’08, we are sharing a few ideas for your individual consideration. One idea from me: Drive a Prius.

Like most Americans, I resisted that choice for quite some time. My vehicles in the last decade or so, all pre-owned: a Ford Explorer, a Lincoln Navigator, a Jeep Grand Cherokee …and now, a Prius. Almost every time I say “Prius” I hear the same reaction: “I would, but …” That’s cool, I feel ya! My car isn’t right for everyone. When I traded my Jeep for my Prius, gas cost less than $2/gal. By the time my husband traded his Civic Hybrid for a Prius, gas was near $3/gal. Today it’s, well, you already know. If you got on a Prius waiting list today, how much do you think gas will cost by the time you drive it off the lot? I don’t know either. We The People have only reduced our gas consumption by around 3% since prices escalated, so I doubt it will be much cheaper, but please consider the following.

I average 52 mpg after nearly 40K miles, many of which were driven over mountains, carrying hundreds of pounds of heavy wood samples in my previous job. I’m sure gas-guzzlers are pretty cheap these days, but in 2007 I paid about $4K more for a new ‘07 Prius than I paid in 2004 for a used ‘04 Jeep (I got 17 mpg) … and my Jeep did not have voice activated GPS, keyless entry and ignition, Bluetooth, heated exterior mirrors or a back-up camera … just to name a few. 2008 base price is slightly lower, but my husband’s new ‘08 Prius cost a bit more this past May because he added leather. If our goal is energy independence, in my opinion, the cost of the Prius itself is a non-issue compared to other new vehicles.

Truthfully, even if gas were $1/gal again I’d still drive my Prius. But at $4/gal, my Prius costs .08/mile; my Jeep would cost .24/mile. At 40K mi/yr, that’s a $6400 per year savings in gas, more than $530 per month. What’s holding people back? The 2 objections I hear most frequently are, “It’s too small” or “I don’t think I would feel safe in it” … Ok, let’s talk about those.

It’s too small. Personally, I don’t agree. I’ll compare my Prius to my Jeep: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/

- Headroom (front)  JeepGC-39.7 in  /  Prius-39.1 in
- Headroom (rear)   JeepGC-39.5 in  /  Prius-37.1 in
- Legroom (front)   JeepGC-41.4 in  /  Prius-41.9 in
- Legroom (rear)    JeepGC-35.3 in  /  Prius-38.6 in
- Wheelbase         JeepGC-105.9 in /  Prius-106.3 in
- Overall length    JeepGC-181.5 in /  Prius-175 in
- Passengers        JeepGC-5        /  Prius-5

My husband and I planted 47 new plants this spring, including 2 trees. Every single one of them came to our home in a Prius. We have no small children, but 3 car seats can fit in the back of a Prius, as I recently read in a bulletin board discussion of Prius owners who have young families. Obviously, you should test your own car seats in the vehicle before making a decision.

I don’t think I would feel safe in it. I understand that one for sure. Vehicle safety is important to me too: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/. NTSA Crash Test Results (Rated 1-5, 5 Stars Being Highest Rating):

- Front Impact (driver)         Jeep GC-3   / Prius-4
- Front Impact (passenger)      Jeep GC-3   / Prius-4
- Rollover Resistance           Jeep GC-N/A / Prius-4

I feel very safe in my Prius. Some things took getting-used-to, like any new car. In general, the car is a pleasure to drive, especially right past most gas stations.

300 million of us, one President. There is no single answer. A big part of the responsibility is our own. Transportation accounts for 69% of U.S. oil consumption. Driving a car that gets 50 mpg instead of what most are driving now would significantly improve the overall situation. According to the authors of ZOOM, The Global Race To Fuel The Car Of The Future,

“Toyota has taken over the past, commands the present, and is leading the way to a brighter future in which cars are powered by unconventional means. It is fathering the technology that will save the industry and America from slavish dependence on petroleum and reliance on resources from unstable parts of the world.”

To me, that sounds like a solution rather than a problem.

Obviously, a Prius won’t work for all 300 million of us. Will one work for you? Toyota Priuses in more driveways. The Lexington Project. Solutions rather than problems. We can definitely do this! Isn’t that great!

The Audacity Of Vanity

Charles Krauthammer has some interesting thoughts on Obama's desire to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.

"Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.

There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself."

Two Presidents has spoken at the Gate: John F. Kennedy, who proclaimed "I am a Jelly Donut" as he stood to declare America's support for the surrounded and threatened people of Berlin, and Ronald Reagan who came to demand the end to the imprisonment of Berlin: "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL." In both cases, these were important speeches that gave a full voice to the strength of America standing firm in the face of tyrrany in support of a important ally.

Senator Obama would turn the Brandenburg Gate into a venue for his cheap political stagecraft and satisfy his own voracious ego.

Thanks Tom!

One of our more frequent MacPac08 readers is Tom Abrahams, a reporter for ABC Channel 13 down in Houston. You'll also see him post occasionally on the John McCain blogs.

Tom writes a pretty interesting blog covering the 2008 Presidential campaign, and last week he referred to MacPac08 in one of his articles on the impact of the Internet on the campaign. We'd like to thank Tom for his consideration and invite you to check out his blog -- its definitely worth your time!

Obama's Song and Dance on Iraq

Barack Obama proves himself King of the Flip Flops!

Lexington Project = Energy Independence

The essential challenge for for our country in the next decade will be achieving energy independence. It is essential to help keep more of our money in this country as well as make sure our enemies and potential adversaries cannot hold us hostage by witholding vital strategic resources from us in a period of dire need. In the meantime, gas prices are sky-rocketing, and dragging our economy down.

Barack Obama has made no proposals to give working Americans a break at the pump. The fundamental thrust of his energy plan is reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change. He is completely opposed to domestic drilling, he is opposed to new nuclear plants, and is basing his energy policy on the HOPE that a scientific breakthrough will yield affordable green technologies in the next few years. When it comes to solving problems in the short term, he is truly Dr. No. The only thing Barack Obama has said YES to is taxes on oil companies, natural gas, and coal.

John McCain has put forward a broadbased approach for energy independence, leading with lifting restrictions on domestic oil drilling. Also included is support for alternative technologies, nuclear power, flex fuel vehicles, and addressing, through regulation, speculative oil pricing.

"America is going to meet this great challenge, but we are not going to do it as a supplicant or as a plaintiff. We are not going to meet it with words at all. We are going to meet it with action. And we are going to meet this challenge in a way consistent with the character of our nation. Three decades of partisan paralysis on energy security is enough. Since I am not president, I cannot say the buck stops here -- but I will say that it must stop now."

John McCain has the right approach for energy independence and reducing fuel prices. It is based on a pragmatic view that refuses to reject any solution because it fails to mesh with an ideological viewpoint.

Unfortunately, even John McCain cannot solve 30 years of a non-existent energy policy overnight. Drilling will work in the short-term, but not in the IMMEDIATE short term. To find immediate relief, all of us are going to have take measures -- as individuals, families, and businesses -- to ease the impact of high oil prices on our lives.

To address this, some of our MacPac08 friends will be posting some ideas and suggestions over the next few days about how YOU can help achieve energy independence. Please check back in and comment when you have your own ideas to share.

We can do this!

Who Is Barack Obama

Michael Goodwin of the NY Daily News asks "Just Who Is Barack Obama?" and goes on to give a very good summary of the changing politician. He points out how the changes are affecting Obama's liberal base and what those changes really show about Obama's core beliefs. Is Obama just another politician or the promised agent of change? Goodwin has an interesting answer to that question. Enjoy!

Fact or Satire?

• Is Sen. Obama a Muslim?
  
  Mr. Obama has repeatedly denied being a Muslim and has stated at numerous primary events that he is a Christian and “loves Christ”. However, as you will note further on these facts and letter from the Editor, his association and support for Muslim’s is truly unclear.
  
  


• Who is Raila Odinga and how is Sen. Obama connected to him?
  
  Raila Odinga is the Muslim extremist who recently lost the Kenyan Presidential election to a Christian. Raila is a “paternal cousin” to Mr. Obama and has visited with him in both Illinois and Kenya.
  



• Who is Abongo “Roy” Obama?
  
  Abongo is Barack’s brother who recently preaches that the “Black man must liberate himself from the poisons of European cultures and western values”
  



• What is Sen. Obama’s race?
  
  Mr. Obama is bi-racial, his father is a black Muslim and his mother is white. However, in most of his activities, speeches, and a myriad of voting patterns he votes primarily as a black centric man.
  




• What is Sen. Obama’s belief in Black Theology?
  
  “We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY

• Did Mr. Obama fail to hold his hand over his heart at a recent democratic event where the National Anthem was played?

Yes, during a recent democratic hopeful debate involving Mr. Obama, Senator Clinton, Gov Richardson, and Ruth Harkin he was photographed failing to show the flag of the U.S. respect by holding his hand over his heart for the playing of the National Anthem.

• Are Mr. & Mrs. Obama Anti-American?
  
  Sen. Obama is friends with an admitted terrorist William Ayers, who has no regrets about bombing the Pentagon. He won't wear a Flag Pin, because he doesn't need a symbol to show he is patriotic. To me it shows he is Anti-American. If you won't wear a symbol of freedom, you can just as easily burn the flag, although a "right", very un-American. Mrs. Obama has said, "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country". Why, because her husband is black?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Whining Liberal Idiots

Today it was revealed that the "New Yorker" Magazine's 21 July cover will feature a satirical caricature of Senator and Michelle Obama that their liberal media lapdogs are falling all over each other to condemn, even before the edition has appeared. We here at www.macpac08.com agree -- it is completely offensive. The McCain campaign has shown the decency to condemn it as well.

We also think that its important to note that not three weeks ago "Rolling Stone" magazine published a hit piece with a caricature of Senator McCain bound up in a tiger cage, being poked and prodded by his Vietnamese captors. Did any member of the media step up and mention this, let alone condemn it? Did Barack Obama or any member of his campaign show the slightest bit of class and condemn this? HELL NO! Did anyone hear the McCain campaign do any complaining? Again, NO.






What would Obama, the media, and their legion of drones do if Obama and his wife got burned in effigy, or worse, heard crowds in Pakistan or Iran chanting "Death To Obama?" Politics is tough -- wear a cup!

Ego Trippin'

More and more we are finding that Obama has a pretentious nature. His swooning droves of followers seem mesmerized and hang on to each word as though addicted junkies waiting on their Obama Fix. Obama seems to revel in this adoration and one could argue that his rock star status has gone to his head. Jonah Goldberg of the New York Post has written a good piece that points out just how big Obama's ego really is.

The overarching theme to his entire campaign - "We are the ones we've been waiting for," and all that - is that voting for Obama is proof of the cosmic superiority of ... Obama voters. In a speech in Madison, Wis., Obama told his supporters that rallying to his cause was today's equivalent of the "greatest generation" rallying to defeat Hitler and Tojo. Oprah merely calls him, "The One," saying he will help us "evolve to a higher plane."Someone get that man one of those "I'm Kind of a Big Deal" T-shirts.Take his decision to deliver his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver. It seems that the venue for the rest of the Democratic convention - the Pepsi Center (occupancy 21,000) - is just too small.Obama says he wants to give the common folk more "access" to the process. Only a man with an Olympian's sense of entitlement to mass worship could describe such a choreographed descent upon a place called "Mile High" as an effort to bond with the common man. A demigod, it seems, is never so tall as when he stoops to bask in the adoration of the little people.

History Has shown us - the bigger they are, the harder they fall. The pedestal Obama is propped on is starting to show some cracks.

More Obama B.S.

Yesterday Michelle Obama started yet another little firestorm with her comments about the economic stimulus package:

"In response to a question about the economic stimulus checks administered by the U.S. government earlier this year,
Michelle Obama said her husband believes that short-term fixes don't solve economic problems."You're getting $600," she told an audience of mostly African-American women here.

"What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month."

"Barack's approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good," she continued. "And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check.
And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings," she joked.

But just 2 weeks ago, Senator Obama called for a SECOND round of economic stimulus package
payments:

“Consumer confidence is at an all-time low, gas prices are at all-time high and the housing market still hasn’t been stabilized which is putting a lot of pressure on the Fed to juice up the economy at the same time its dealing with inflation," said Obama in an interview with Alexis Glick of FOX Business Network. “Having a serious energy plan and looking at the possible speculation in the oil futures market could have a difference at least in alleviating some of the upward pressure on oil prices.”

According to Obama, there’s a need for another stimulus package and a permanent $1,000 tax cut for individuals and families. He said all of those actions combined could “get the economy back on the right track.”

This of course is in addition to the $75 billion stimulus package he proposed in January. So Senator, if you don't think these stimulus package solve anything, why do you keep proposing them?

English Please!!!!

Sen.Obama in his own words;-

You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?

The US national language should always be English no buts please. In my opinion Americans do not need to assimilate to other immigrants coming here, those immigrants need to assimilate to us (Americans). Even though we have many who speak foreign languages, they should learn English first, because that is what ties Americans together and I believe speaking English is what this country is founded upon , a common language. America itself will fall apart if English is not a national language if we allow people to speak other languages in Government Offices or any jobs in America.

English are taught in school all over the world because English is universal. We are not taught other languages, only by choice and why forced Americans to learn languages they do not want to speak, when at the same time English is not being enforced as the national language in this country? Immigrants need to start assimilating to an American way of life, otherwise why came to this country in the first place?If it because of economic opportunity, well that is part of being an American because that is called liberty. Another part of coming to this country and becoming an American is speaking English first above all other languages.

If speaking different languages helps in securing a better job why stop at Spanish, why don’t we add Chinese, Hindu, Farsi, Arabic, German. French, Malay, Indonesia, Tagalog and so on. Obama have voted twice against making English as official language in the US. I am an immigrant and I speaks English. And I am proud of that. Why shouldn’t you???

Bill Clinton - WTF?

This weekend Bill Clinton continued his 2008 "Head Up My Ass" tour when
he made the following comments about POW'swhile he was discussing Nelson Mandela:

It's like if you know anyone who's ever a POW for any length of time," the former president opined in Aspen, Colo., over the weekend, "you will see that [they] go along for months or even years and then something will happen that will trigger all those bad dreams."

All of us here at www.macpac08.com thought Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, not a POW.

Apparently Barack Obama did a good job of kissing Clinton's ass in their meeting last week, especially considering that while John McCain struggled to survive in the Hanoi Hilton, Bill Clinton was dodging the draft in London and learning how not to inhale.

Bringing The Budget To Balance By 2013

Mike Allen has posted an article on Politico.com announcing McCain's plan to balance the budget by 2013. John McCain is proving that he is aware of how out of control spending and a huge national debt directly affects Americans and must be brought under control.

In “Jobs for America: The McCain Economic Plan,” a 15-page document to be released Monday, the senator vows to “Bring The Budget To Balance By 2013” through:

--“Reasonable economic growth. Growth is an imperative – historically the greatest success in reducing deficits (late 1980s; late 1990s) took place in the context of economic growth.”
--“Comprehensive spending controls. Bringing the budget to balance will require across-the-board scrutiny of spending and making tough choices on new spending proposals.”
--“Bi-partisanship in budget efforts. Much as the late 1990s witnessed bipartisan efforts to put the fiscal house in order, bi-partisan efforts will be the key to undoing the recent spending binge.”


The plan’s big message is: “John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers.”

How smart is Senator Kerry???

Today on Fox news, according to John Kerry Republican John McCain doesn’t have the judgment to be president.

“John McCain … has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he’s made about the war. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction, wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it, wrong about Sunni and Shia violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves,” Kerry, who supports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

McCain adviser Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said McCain was the one who stood up to the administration and urged President Bush to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to help control violence. Obama did not support the addition of troops.

Violence in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level in more than four years as a result of the 2007 buildup of forces.

“We’re winning because John McCain understood Iraq better than anybody else,” Graham said. “The surge has worked. The political, economic and military progress in Iraq is undeniable.”

McCain came to Kerry’s aid in March 2004 after Bush and his campaign tried to paint the Democrat as weak on defense. He rejected the suggestion in broadcast interviews and chided both parties for waging such a “bitter and partisan” campaign.

On UK news;The “surge”, despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday's bombings, the streets of Iraq's cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the election later this year.

The third and perhaps most significant advance of all in the War on Terror is the discrediting of the Islamist creed and its appeal. This was first of all evident in Iraq, where the head-hacking frenzy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates so alienated the majority of Muslims that it gave rise to the so-called Sunni Awakening that enabled the surge to be so effective.

But it has spread way beyond Iraq. As Lawrence Wright described in an important piece in The New Yorker last month, there is growing disgust not just among moderate Muslims but even among other jihadists at the extremism of the terrorists.

Deeply encouraging has been the widespread revulsion in Muslim communities in Europe - especially in Britain after the 7/7 attacks of three years ago. Some of the biggest intelligence breakthroughs in the past few years have been achieved from former al-Qaeda supporters who have turned against the movement.

And just yesterday, Iraq's prime minister said that the government has defeated terrorism in the country, a sign of growing confidence after recent crackdowns against Sunni extremists and Shiite militias.

On Face The Nation show in 2005, read about Kerry remarks that we need a Secretary of Defense who thinks like John Mccain not Dick Chenny. A different version of what he said about Mccain recently.

On April 23, 1971 John Kerry threw his medals, ribbons, discharge papers, photographs, citations and articles of their uniforms over a fence at the Capitol building at Washington, D.C. in protest. In 2004 Kerry medals was being probe by the Navy

And the same John Kerry who has fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia. And God knows what else he lied about and failed his own Presidential bid in 2004.And did any of you remember his outrageous remarks that American students who did not study hard and stay in school would end up "stuck in Iraq."



Is Obama going to denouce Kerry remarks? Or Kerry is just another surrogate to do Obama’s dirty works?

Obama Flipping on Iraq stance

ST. LOUIS--Barack Obama said Saturday that he was surprised at how the media has "finely calibrated" his recent words on Iraq, and denied that he intends to anything but end the war if he is elected.

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," the expected Democratic presidential nominee told reporters flying with him to Missouri from Montana. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war.'

Thanks to RNC Research Department.Lets's read about Obama statement myth(;-

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed...And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." (Jeff Zeleny, "Obama: Open to 'Refine' Iraq Withdrawal Timeline," The New York Times' "The Caucus" Blog,www.nytimes.com, 7/3/08)

"And as I've said before, and this was true during the heat of the primary, it was true when we posted this Web site. I have always said, and again, you can take a look at the language, that as commander-in-chief, I would always reserve the right to do what's best in America's national interests. And if it turned out, for example, that, you know, we had to, in certain months, slow the pace because of the safety of American troops in terms of getting combat troops out, of course we would take that into account. I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 7/3/08)

Obama: "I've given no indication of a change in policy. I haven't suggested that we're moving in a different direction." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 7/3/08)

Now lets read about Obama facts;-

In May 2008, Obama Promised To End The War In 2009- "When I promise that we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, '04, '05, '06 and '07, so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The North Carolina Democrat Party 2008 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Raleigh, NC, 5/2/08)
In March 2008, Obama Said He Would "Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq And Have Them Out In 16 Months." - "In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove one to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)
In April 2008, Obama Reaffirmed His 16-Month Timetable; Did Not Say That It Would Be Dictated By Security On The Ground.

NBC's Meredith Vieira: "You've said when, Senator. You've said if you are elected, that within 16 months you're going to bring all the troops home from Iraq. Senator McCain said yesterday that that is a reckless promise that you cannot possibly keep, a failure of leadership. And even military leaders say that any withdrawal of troops would be dictated by security on the ground. So how can you guarantee you can pull out those troops in just 16 months?"

Obama: "Meredith, I've been very consistent in saying that we are going to set a timetable and we will have a prudent pace of withdrawal, one to two brigades per month. At that pace we can have combat troops out within approximately 16 months." (NBC's "The Today Show," 4/8/08)

In November 2007, Obama Said He Would Have Troops Out Of Iraq "Within 16 Months."- Obama: "I've been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)

Obama:- "As president I will end this war in Iraq. We will have our troops home within 16 months." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Democrat National Committee Annual Fall Meeting, Vienna, VA, 11/30/07)

Obama Said He Would Remove Troops From Iraq In 16 Months Because "The Overall Strategy Has Failed." Obama:-

"But the overall strategy has failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. And that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/Nevada Democrat Party Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Las Vegas, NV, 11/15/07)

In September 2007, Obama Called For The U.S. To "Immediately Begin To Remove Our Combat Troops" From Iraq. Obama:-

"So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Clinton, IA, 9/12/07) I confused which statements came from real Obama.With all these flipping, sooner or later he will flop down on his face.

It's the Government's duty to...

Digging deeper into the American taxpayer's pocket, Barack Obama told a church congregation today in St. Louis that he wants to cure the woes of this impoverished nation, and the government can do this! Just minutes ago, in an AP release by Jennifer Loven, stated:

"But Obama's main message was the government's duty to address what he said are "moral problems" — such as war, poverty, joblessness, homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — and to employ religious institutions to do it."

Yeah... right! (I mean Reverend Wright) What religious institution does he have in mind? If he was speaking of his religious mentor and his grandeur moment of God D*mn America before a nation of Free People... I would have chosen my words more carefully. Yet reassuring the public that his campaign is not about race... he is referenced in the same article,

"Obama repeatedly referenced his religious faith in terms that would be familiar to white evangelicals as well as his black audience."

So, he says that? I would have chosen my words more carefully again. I feel sorry for the American people that uphold this candidate of change, for he still sounds the same to me. The only comparison I can make compare of Senator Obama's "gaining experience" is that of a child in an Amusement Park; hopping from ride to ride saying that was the best ever. Get a grip Barack Obama, discover yourself because your ride is coming to an end.

I don't know about you... but after reading this article, I still want to throw up.

A Picture Worth 1000 Words

• 
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  

• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  

• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  
• AP
  
  

• July 5: Venus Williams, left, won her fifth Wimbledon singles title on Saturday, beating younger sister Serena Williams 7-5, 6-4 in the final.
  
  
• July 5: Kent Couch leaves his gas station in Bend, Ore., riding a lawn chair rigged with more than 150 giant party balloons in an attempt to fly to Idaho. He is equipped with a BB gun and a blowgun for popping balloons if he gets too high and three 15-gallon barrels of cherry Kool-Aid for ballast to release if he gets too low.
  
  
• July 5: U.S. driver Chester C. Weber steers his carriage during the Marathon Driving Competition of the World Equestrian Festival CHIO in Aachen, western Germany.
  
  
• July 5: The pack passes a bridge on the outskirts of Brest during the first stage of the Tour de France cycling race between Brest and Plumelec, western France.
  
  
• In this Aug. 22, 2001, photo, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., gives the thumbs-up sign as he leaves WRAL-TV in Raleigh, N.C., after taping the announcement of his upcoming retirement set for the end of his term in 2003. Helms died at age 86, the Jesse Helms research center reported on Friday.
  
  
• July 4: Spectators watch the annual Wilkes-Barre Fourth of July fireworks display from the Market Street Bridge in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
  
  
• This undated file photo shows a close-up of the Statue of Liberty. The National Park Service is considering reopening Lady Liberty's crown for the first time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to documents a congressman released on July Fourth.
  
  
• July 4: Takeru Kobayashi, of Japan, left, and Joey Chestnut battle to eat the most hot dogs in under ten minutes in the annual hot dog-eating contest in the Brooklyn borough of New York. Chestnut reclaimed the top spot at the annual contest in Coney Island on Friday after first tying with archrival Takeru Kobayashi with 59 hot dogs in a 10-minute chow-down and then beating him in a five-dog eat-off.
  
  
• Visitors and residents spend the day on the beach in Belmar, N.J., in this June 21, 2002, file photo. Revelers in this Jersey shore party town can legally drink from unregistered beer kegs and give people the finger, it was reported on Friday, after the town scrapped laws relating to kegs and flipping the bird because they are too difficult to enforce.
  
  
• July 4: A protester is led away during the President Bush’s speech at Thomas Jefferson's home, Monticello, for the 46th annual Independence Day celebration naturalization ceremony in Charlottesville, Va.
  
  
• This undated image released by the Prado Museum in Madrid made available Friday shows the painting 'Colossus,' by Francisco de Goya y Lucientes. For years Spain's famed Prado museum has had its suspicions, but now it is certain: One of its most prized Goyas is not a Goya after all. The bombshell announcement is causing a furor among experts over the large-size work depicting the torso of a giant bursting through the clouds as he marches above a village of terrified people and animals.
  
  
• July 4: Five-time Wimbledon singles champion Sweden’s Bjorn Borg is pictured at Wimbledon.
  
  
• July 4: U.S. military service members attend a mass re-enlistment ceremony in Baghdad, Iraq. Some 1,215 service members re-enlisted Friday during an Independence Day ceremony at al-Faw palace at Camp Victory

Senator Obama hypocrisy

Obama's Campaign Has Previously Reviewed Donations And Claimed To Have Returned All Of Those Funds Connected To Tony Rezko.

"'Our campaign directed a thorough review of these contributions and did our best to identify any received as a result of the June 2003 fundraising event hosted by Tony Rezko,' Burton said in a statement. 'By refunding these donations, the campaign has returned any and all funds that could be reasonably credited to Mr. Rezko's political support.'

Still, Burton offered no explanation of why the campaign took more than a year to shed all the donations it now says are tied to Rezko, especially funds gathered at the party in Rezko's home five years ago." (Bob Secter and David Jackson, "Funds Tough To Figure For Rezko Aid," Chicago Tribune, 1/31/08)

And the giveaways questioned; The Tribune stated the event at Rezko’s home resembled a posh dinner party complete with valet paring and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Havard law school Rezko, a developer had tried to hire him; Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks.

One donor at the event was Micheal Sreenan, a former attorney for Rezko company gave Obama $2000 that night but hasn’t heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

‘If Obama wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I’m fine with that.’ He said, ‘But I don’t see how this makes a difference now, the money still got him elected.’

According to Obama For America Website,, www.barackobama.com , Accessed 6/18/08, Mr. Rogers is a bundler for Obama’s Presidential campaign and has committed to raising over $200,000.

If any of you do not know what bundler means. Bundling describes the activity of fundraisers who pool a large number of campaign contributions from political action committees (PACs) and individuals. Bundlers, who are often corporate CEOs, lobbyists, hedge fund managers or independently wealthy people, are able to funnel far more money to campaigns than they could personally give under campaign finance laws.

But an article on The Hill by Mr. Alex Bolton said that, an event Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) headlined has prompted head scratching among Illinois ethics experts and drawn sharp rebuke from Republicans because one of the main organizers participated in Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s old fundraising network. John W. Rogers Jr., the chairman of Ariel Investments who gave $22,500 in contributions to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) through Rezko, hosted a top-dollar special reception with Obama Thursday to raise money for the Democratic White House Victory Fund

Rogers has also pledged to raise over $200,000 for Obama’s campaign. He was one of many political players whose name surfaced during Rezko’s recent trial. A federal jury convicted the Chicago political fixer of mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering.

Rogers gave contributions of $10,000, $7,500 and $5,000 to Blagojevich through Rezko, according to a chart of contributions the Department of Justice (DoJ) presented as part of its case.

In an interview on Tuesday, Rogers said he never had a one-on-one meeting with Rezko and did not know why his name appeared on the Rezko donation chart compiled by the DoJ.

“I have no relationship with Tony Rezko,” he said. Rogers, who describes himself as a big Democratic supporter, said he had often “run into” Rezko at political and public events but added: “I’ve never been to his office, I’ve never been to his home, I’ve never talked to him about my business.”

Nevertheless, Rogers’s link to Rezko in federal evidence poses problems for Obama.

Kent Redfield, an ethics expert and political science professor at the University of Illinois, said Obama is taking a political risk by letting Rogers play a prominent role...

‘From Obama's standpoint, he's got to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance that he is just another Chicago politician that's connected to the underbelly of corruption in Illinois politics. If I were advising him, I would tell him, 'You have to be very careful to avoid situations where people will be tempted to connect the dots.'

Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said Rogers is part of a new generation of African-American business leaders in Chicago. She said Rogers's donation to Blagojevich is not surprising but questioned why he gave through Rezko. 'I think that's very odd,' she said of Rezko's role as an intermediary between Rogers and Blagojevich. 'I don't know why he gave that way, and it raises questions in my mind.

Happy Independence Day

To all Americans..............Have a safe and Happy Independences day.During this 4th of July holiday, when we celebrate the independence of our great country, take a second during the picnics, BBQs, patriotic music and fireworks and pay a few seconds of honor to those keeping our independence free. And as we celebrate our nation's independence, please remember the brave men and women defending our freedom each and every day.

And to everyone who have work and sacrified to make U.S.A a wonderful country in the world to lives.Take a moment and appreciate what America has offered each and every one of us no matter our differences in religions,politics,background and opinions.A special shout out to the newly promoted marines in Iraq who will received their promotion on July 1st in a battle field instead with us back home.

God bless U.S.A

Obama ‘Dignity’ Ad Lies.

According to national review online Senator Obama has taken out the dishonest reference to his passing a bill in Congress to extend health care to wounded soldiers, so all the substantive claims made in the new ad about his legislative accomplishments are about laws he is said to have passed in the Illinois legislature, not the U.S. Senate.

The ad first says Obama “passed a law that moved people from welfare to work” and offers as a citation Illinois Public Act 90-0017 from 1997. That act made some amendments to the Illinois welfare statutes to bring them into line with the federal welfare reform enacted in the previous year. It replaced references to AFDC (the previous federal welfare program) with references to TANF (the new one), and put the new federal welfare reform rules into the state code. Obama was one of the co-sponsors of the act, but in the debate surrounding it he actually said a federal law he would have opposed basically forced the state into it. His exact words were:

Illinois Senate Transcript

I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it has some problems. But I’m a strong believer in making lemonade out of lemons

But the ad makes it sound like it was Senator Obama’s idea, and then says that he “slashed the rolls by 80 percent,” thus taking credit for the declining welfare rolls achieved by the federal law Senator Obama would have opposed (it cites HHS statistics for that decline, and those trace the results of the federal welfare reform).

A question to Senator Obama, how many lies you need to publish or said to add colors to your ‘accomplishments'.

"A People of Great Destinies"

An essay titled An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom written by John McCain was published by the Council on Foreign Relations in their Nov/Dec 2007 edition. In honor of the birthday of our country, a country born out of a desire for freedom from oppression, I thought it appropriate to share this excerpt . Enjoy!

“Since the dawn of our republic, Americans have believed that our nation was created for a purpose. We are, as Alexander Hamilton said, "a people of great destinies." From the American Revolution to the Cold War, Americans have understood their duty to serve a cause greater than self-interest and to keep faith with the eternal and universal principles of the Declaration of Independence. By overcoming threats to our nation's survival and to our way of life, and by seizing history's great opportunities, Americans have changed the world……Thomas Jefferson argued that America was the "solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights, and the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government, from hence it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth, if other regions of the earth shall ever become susceptible of its benign influence." Since that time two centuries ago when the United States was the "solitary republic of the world," more people than ever before have come under the "benign influence" of liberty. The protection and promotion of the democratic ideal, at home and abroad, will be the surest source of security and peace for the century that lies before us. The next U.S. president must be ready to lead, ready to show America and the world that this country's best days are yet to come, and ready to establish an enduring peace based on freedom that can safeguard American security for the rest of the twenty-first century. I am ready.”