Welcome To MacPac '08!


"My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives." -- John McCain


Oct 31, 2008

Obama on low taxes: “Selfishness”;



Taken from Hot Air;

Barack Obama gave John McCain another pre-Election Day gift this morning in remarks made to a Sarasota, Florida audience. After telling Joe the Plumber in Ohio that he wants government to “spread the wealth,” Obama told Floridians that opposition to such policies amounted to “selfishness”:

“The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

Jake Tapper thinks this is a nod to Ayn Rand’s book, The Virtue of Selfishness. He’s unimpressed:

It would seem to be, given the themes of Rand’s work, what happens when independent achievers are demonized.

Which would fit with this description of those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as “selfish.”

Atlas may not be shrugging, but Obama is.

This reveals the basic underlying philosophy of the Left - that one cannot possibly be charitable unless they use the government to redirect their funds. Obama assumes that people who don’t want to pay higher taxes are somehow “selfish”, but that’s only true if one assumes that the so-called rich won’t do anything else with their money except sit around like Scrooge McDuck, counting it constantly. Most people today invest it, which creates jobs, or spend it, which creates even more jobs, or donate it to charity — which works much more effectively and with much less overhead than filtering it through government bureaucracy.

Those who earn the money want to direct it in the manner they see fit, in the most efficient manner possible. That’s not selfish, it’s just common sense. Only someone in love with government power could see it as anything else.

Obama's 'Change' Is Socialism

Mike Reagan wrote an article for Newsmax and it was really interesting.

The other day, I went to a Hollywood luncheon crammed with producers, directors, writers, and other film industry notables.

One of them, Larry Gelbart of “MASH” fame, spoke telling the group that since capitalism has failed, why don’t we try socialism?

Try socialism? Take a sip of it and see how it tastes? It doesn’t work that way.

There’s an old saying that you can’t be half-socialist any more than you can be half-pregnant; get knocked up with a socialist fetus and you’ll have to deliver a full-born Marxist. There’s nothing in between. Try it, you’ll like it; and if you don’t, as the lads in the Gestapo used to tell people, they had ways to make them like it.

Larry Gelbart gorged himself at the capitalist table and came away with untold millions, now safely banked, and continues to collect even more millions from never-ending reruns of the “MASH” sitcom. Having made his bundle from our capitalist free-enterprise system, he seems to be telling us now that the rest of us should get in the socialist bread line and eat crumbs while he feasts on caviar.

One of the realities of this age is that the great mass of the American people haven’t traveled abroad to see how the rest of the world lives, a lot of it under dreary socialist regimes with stalled economies and no real chance for advancement for the ordinary citizen.

Moreover, our shoddy educational curriculum that has left most younger Americans so deficient in the study of history that vast numbers of them think George Washington was a Civil War general, or a lumberman who chopped down cherry trees. They have no real understanding of the economic system that allowed us to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation since the Roman Empire ruled most of the known world 2,000 years ago.

Given that mournful reality, the moment the economic Rolls Royce engine that drove this nation to the top of the hill stalls, instead of installing new spark plugs to get it going again, they go looking for an alternative mode of transportation.

In the present case, Obama and the Democrats are directing them to Larry Gelbart’s used-economic system lot where he shows them a jalopy with a fancy paint job on the outside and a one-cylinder motor inside that goes chug-chug.

Listening to the advice of a man who made his name and his money on a show about America’s military at war — yet told the same audience that our armed forces are nothing but “mercenaries” — doesn’t seem the smartest thing to do.

We are now a few days away from an election in which one of the presidential candidates is trying to sell that jalopy on Larry Gelbart’s lot and convince us that it is really a luxury limo that will get hundreds of miles to the gallon and carry us off to the promised land, where the rich will be impoverished and the middle class enriched and everybody will be deliriously happy.

Call Barack Obama’s program socialism, however, and he’ll swear on a stack of Qurans it isn’t. He calls it change. He says it’s fairness, not Marxism.

Oh?

How does he explain the proven fact that he has been wallowing in a sty surrounded by fervent socialists and sharing in their swill for most of his life?

According to Fox’s Bill Sammon, his messiahship recalled that when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles "to avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," he wrote in "Dreams From My Father," his memoir. "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." And that was his milieu for all his years in Chicago.

To anyone familiar with socialism, Obama’s programs fit comfortably within the pages of Karl Marx’s playbook, the root of which is the redistribution of the wealth, the key to the entire Obamian vault.

What’s mine is yours, and he’s the middle man.

It’s socialism lite, and it can only evolve into socialism heavy. Remember, you can’t be half-socialist, and Barack Obama knows it.

Oct 30, 2008

The Senator's Best Endorsement Yet

This endorsement for why Senator McCain should be our next President is probably better than any one that he's received to date. This one video alone has received over 11,000,000 hits, and even the BBC has called it "short, simple, and powerful", the quote courtesy of Greta Van Susteren's blog found at http://www.gretawire.com/



Pass it on.

Planned Parenthood admits infanticide happens

From HotAir; Students for Life of America released a video this morning that puts lie to the notion that late-term abortions do not result in infanticide when babies survive the abortion process. Barack Obama claimed that the law he opposed on four different occasions in Illinois was unnecessary, because he was certain that doctors wouldn’t just leave living infants to die — even though the Attorney General and Jill Stanek both testified that they did and that existing Illinois law didn’t prevent it from happening. Abortionists will not render medical assistance to such living infants unless forced to do so. Guess who else admits it?



Planned Parenthood of Freehold, New Jersey confirms to this young woman that they commit negligent homicide when infants survive the abortion process. This is the same Planned Parenthood to which Obama pledged to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove all state limitations on abortion and restore federal funding for the first time in decades. These are the people to whom Obama pledges his loyalty.

“They wouldn’t be able to live on its own. So, eventually, the baby does die.” Chilling.

Obama: Late for a Lot of Senate Hearings



This compilation video shows Barack Obama apologizing for being late to a number of foreign relation committee hearings during his brief Senate career.Is this kind of President Of The United state OF America you can count on?? I don't...

Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations

According to Newsmax;

A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.

A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.

But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.

Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.

The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.

In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”

Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.

Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obam a donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.

“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”

Rustmann and his investigative team expressed “high suspicions” that 118 donors flagged as “red” were not U.S. citizens.

“That’s all we can say for certain, because it’s difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens,” Rustmann said.

Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.

That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign’s finance team.

A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as “NA.” They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).

Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ,” with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.

The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.

The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.

Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name “Jo Anna Jacquet” who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.

“Jo Jacquet” made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.

On all of the donations, she gave her employer as “DFDFGDFG,” and her profession as “DFGDFGDFGHFGH.” None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign’s credit card donations.

The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from “Jo Jacquet” that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the “Obama Victory” account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.

One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder’s name and billing address.

Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.

Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.

Wester said that Paymentech was “not going to be issuing a statement at this time.”

VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.

“Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations,” a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.

In fact, by operating as a “high-risk merchant,” the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.

“A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI” if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.

“If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later,” he added.

Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;

  • Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, “NA,” made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser’s personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations.

  • Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for “Anaka,” No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship.

  • Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, “NA,” and said he was unemployed but working for “Association,” the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, "I'm a Cameroonian living in France” and notes that he is not registered to vote.

  • Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as “Filtom Design Services” and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama.

  • Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister’s office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger’s extensive uranium resources to market.

  • Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be “founder and senior consultant” of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200.

  • Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as “Mployer” and his employer as "Employer." He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship.

  • Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship.

  • Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

  • Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

  • Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

  • Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

    Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear.

    “In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors,” Rustmann said.

    An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources.

    A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud.

    Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn’t find any trace of a charge to her account.

    “We're not out a penny," Biskup said. "I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people's credit cards and putting my name on it."

    The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security systems, insiders tell Newsmax.

  • Video: Obama 1995 - “Reverend Wright Represents The Best Of What The Black Church Has To Offer”



    Wow,with all Sen.Obama talking about race and Rev. Wright. I feel like I'm being blind- sided here!

    Oct 29, 2008

    Obama wrote a letter

    Ed Morrissey sums it up on Obama and Freddie/Frannie;

    Before the debates, I advised the John McCain campaign that they needed to make an issue of Barack Obama’s repeated bragging about writing a letter as a response to the pending subprime market collapse. “McCain sponsored legislation; Obama wrote a letter,” I wrote. “McCain took action; Obama did nothing but talk, and far too late. That has to be the message — and it’s a winner.”

    The Wall Street Journal picks up the theme today:

    Mr. Obama replied that he “never promoted Fannie Mae” and that “two years ago I said that we’ve got a subprime lending crisis that has to be dealt with.” And that’s not all. “I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it,” said the Illinois Senator.

    There’s more. Mr. Obama’s March 2007 letter included a stirring call to “assess options” and boldly suggested that the two men “facilitate a serious conversation” about housing. He was even brave enough to suggest that “the relevant private sector entities and regulators” might be able to provide “targeted responses.” Then in paragraph four, the Harvard-trained lawyer dropped his bombshell: a suggestion that various interest groups get together to “consider” best practices in mortgage lending.

    Some may find it hard to believe that Mr. Obama had nothing to show for this herculean effort to shake up Washington. They may be shocked as well that such passionate language didn’t move the Fed and Treasury to action. For our part, we note that nowhere in his letter did Mr. Obama suggest that the government should stop subsidizing loans to people who can’t repay them.

    Perhaps writing a letter would have shown some remarkable effort, had Barack Obama merely been John Q. Public, private citizen, or even still in the Illinois state legislature. However, Obama at the time served in the US Senate, where taking action means more than just writing a letter and allowing a matter to drop. The Senate has a formal role in overseeing the actions of the Treasury and the two GSEs that bought bad subprime paper like they were on a Nordstrom’s sidewalk sale. Obama didn’t take that role seriously enough to take real action — like introducing legislation or sponsoring another Senator’s bill that attempted to stop the meltdown before it occurred.

    John McCain, on the other hand, did take action. He co-sponsored Chuck Hagel’s bill that would have required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to adhere to responsible lending practices and loan-to-value standards. Obama, after writing his magnum opus to Henry Paulson, never bothered to support Hagel’s bill or introduce another for the purpose of reforming the GSEs. Instead, Obama took their money, becoming the second-highest recipient of Fannie/Freddie contributions in the Senate in the last 20 years — having only served less than four of those.

    In a crisis, some show leadership, and some show up, and some … write letters. Barack Obama hasn’t shown the courage of leadership on any significant, controversial issue in the US Senate — not even once. Now he wants to run the country after almost literally mailing in his performance in half a term in national office. That’s judgment we cannot trust.

    Obama Attacks Founding Fathers, Constitution

    From Newsmax;

    Barely noticed in the furor over Barack Obama's remarks dealing with re-distribution was the Illinois Democrat's assault on the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they created.

    Said Obama: "To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical."

    What followed that remark was a screed that should frighten the daylights out of any American who understands that the Constitution is the sole and most important safeguard of our rights and our liberties. Without it we are subjects, not citizens.

    According to Obama if the Constitution "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and [the] Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."

    The document, he argued, "Says what the states can’t do to you, says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

    That remark shows a shocking ignorance of the purpose of the United States Constitution. Writing in National Review, Bill Whittle explained, "The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government."

    And that's the last thing Barack Obama, a devout worshiper at the shrine of Big Brother government, wants to do. It would stop him from taking your money and giving it to someone else.

    Obama's remarks would have sent shivers up the spine of Thomas Jefferson, et al. And they should do the same to all thinking Americans who know that without the Constitution as framed by the Founding Fathers to protect our rights and liberties, we would be at the mercy of a powerful and unrestrained Federal Government ruled by power-hungry men like Barack Obama, and not by law.

    Oct 28, 2008

    If This Doesn' t Give You Chills, What Will?

    In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview, Obama discusses how the Warren Supreme Court didn't go far enough because they didn't tackle "redistribution of wealth."




    I hate to say this out loud, but what am I gonna have to give up? 40 acres and a mule? SLAVERY WASN'T MY FAULT! My ancestors were poor dirt farmers! I'm sorry it happened to your forefathers, but JEEZ!

    Oct 26, 2008

    Be Careful What You Wish For!

    The Old Woman and The Snake

    A Parable
    An old woman was walking down the road when she saw a gang of thugs beating a poisonous snake. She rescued the snake and carried it back to her home, where she nursed it back to health. They became friends and lived together for many months. One day they were going into town, and the old woman picked him up and the snake bit her. Repeatedly. “O God, ” she screamed, “I am dying! Why! I was your friend. I saved your life! I trusted you! Why did you bite me?”
    The snake looked up at her and said, “Lady, you knew I was a snake when you first picked me up.”

    The scariest thing about a President Obama, supported by an ultra-liberal Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, is that they will feel unfettered in their attempts to take care of you, so you won't have to. After all, who could possibly be better than the government in making the decisions that affect your lives?

    Barack Obama has already indicated that he intends to increase taxes. While he says that these tax increases will only be on families (not individuals) making over $250,000 per year (and that in itself is not wholly uncommon, for married college-educated adults in their peak earning years), but we've shown before how Obama's numbers don't add up and how his plan is nothing more than redistribution of wealth to those who pay no taxes whatsoever. Further, we've shown how a Nobel-prize winning economist stated that rolling back the Bush tax cuts will sink the global economy into a recession. Now that we're apparently in one, rolling back those taxes would have an even greater effect by deepening the recession.

    Obama also proposes eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes, increasing taxes by about 6.6% for anyone over a specified amount. Unfortunately, more and more Americans no longer trust that Social Security will be there when they retire, as there has been little to no effort to reform how the funds are managed and the Trust fund not longer exists -- its just another pot of money for the government to spend as they see fit. So when Obama offers up more tax increases, without any proposals how to reform Social Security (other than "I'll work with Congress"), we see Obama as nothing more than a typical politician full of empty promises.

    John McCain, on the other hand, has proposed keeping tax cuts in place, reducing or freezing government spending, and reforming Social Security by allowing contributors to put a small fraction of their money into the market so they can get a higher return on their contributions. Of the two, who do you think has the better record as a reformer?

    Now, in even scarier news, Congress is eyeballing eliminating tax breaks for contributions to 401(k) accounts, saying that 401(k)'s are too subject to volatility in the stock market, and they haven't gotten as much out of the $80B investment as they had hoped. One must challenge the intelligence of Congress in even CONSIDERING radically altering tax policy based on a couple of bad months in the stock market. Even Warren Buffet says this is a great time to be buying stocks, and he's right!

    What Congress fails to realize is that a lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the employer matching. Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined contribution plans. If that tax deferral goes away, the employers will have no reason to continue 401(k) matching, which will result in REDUCED retirement savings, as some employees may choose not to make 401(k) contributions without the matching. So what do we have? Fewer and fewer people saving for their own retirement, and more dependent on the government in their twilight years.

    In addition, Congress is considering requiring contributions to a "Guaranteed Retirement Plan", where all workers must contribute 5% of their earnings to a government plan (no one's said if this is in addition to, or in lieu of Social Security), to which the government will add $600 per year! WOW! That's $50 per month, plus a guaranteed 3% per annum return! Incidentally, the stock market AVERAGES about a 7% return historically. What's the difference? If you invest $10,000 in the government plan, at the end of 40 years, you would have $22,000. Working in the market, the same investment (at a 7% return) would result in $150,000.

    It's also important to note that the Social Security trust fund as it exists today was supposed to be inviolate, but Democrats in Congress decided they wanted to tap the funds for their own purposes. Who is to say that they wouldn't do the same with these "Guaranteed Retirement Plans?"

    What Senator Obama and and the Democratic Congress fail to understand is that a large number of Americans do not trust their government with their retirement. We understand that when we GIVE the power to the government to take care of us, we RELINQUISH the power over our own lives. Because when we allocate to the government the power to GIVE, we also allocate the power to TAKE AWAY.

    This writer, for one, wants the government to stay out of my life -- I want to retain the power to decide what is best for me and my family, to determine my own fate, and to think and decide and act for myself. In this way, I retain my freedom. For everytime I abdicate my responsiblities to the government, I am also giving up my own freedom. Giving it up to the government is giving it up to those whose agendas are not necessarily mine, but agendas oriented to retaining their own power and privilege.

    So be careful about what you wish for, and vote intelligently on November 4th.

    Oct 25, 2008

    We're ALL "Joe The Plumber!"

    I was checking out my email the other day and ran across an article from my friend SmartCookie over at Self-Evident Truths, espousing the proposition that many, many of us are "Joe The Plumber." Joe the Plumber (more commonly known as Joe Wertzelbacher) challenged Barack Obama on his tax policy and how it would make it harder for him to purchase a small business. Check out the exchange in the video below:



    Thinking about this, it occurred to me that ALL of us, every one, are "Joe The Plumber." Senator Obama would have you believe that this country is 2 classes, of the very rich, and everyone else. But that makes no sense. What we really are is a continuous spectrum of people all making their way up the ladder of success at their own pace. Will we ALL get fabulously rich? Hardly. But America is still the best place to do accomplish that, or at least move up the economic scale according to our own abilities and motivation. Why? Because our government (for the moment, anyway) is smart enough to stay out of the way while we pursue our dreams. After all, the Declaration of Independence assures us the liberty of "pursuit of happiness", it doesn't guarantee it.

    There are so many of us in this country who were not born into privilege. We came from lower or lower-middle class families, where our parents didn't have much money, or privilege, or connections, but they had an abiding belief that in this country, you could accomplish ANYTHING. That belief was imparted to us, at home, in church, in school. Just a few simple guidelines, really:
    • Stay In School,
    • Work Hard,
    • Save Your Money, and most important,
    • Believe in Yourself, and in the American Dream
    So that's what I did. I did it the old-fashioned way: followed those few simple guidelines, made a few smart decisions, had a bit of good luck, and took advantage of the opportunities that came my way. So what happened? I went from:
    1. Joe The Janitor, to
    2. Joe the Short Order Cook, to
    3. Joe The Theater Employee, to
    4. Joe The United States Airman, to
    5. Joe The United States Military Officer, to
    6. Joe the Highly-Paid Technical Consultant
    And now Senator Obama wants to take more taxes from me, in order to "spread the wealth?" Let's think about that for a moment. If my taxes go UP, I will have less money of my own.
    • I must pay my mortgage.
    • I must eat, and travel to work, and clothe myself, and pay the costs of living in our world.
    • I must save for my retirement, because Social Security is going broke.
    • I must be able to pay for the care of my parents in their later years
    • I like to give donations to charities I care about
    • I prefer to do business with small business owners to provide goods and services to make my life better, or easier.
    So, where will the money to pay those extra taxes come from? Unfortunately, I will have to make pragmatic choices about what I MUST do, and what I would LIKE TO DO. So, under an Obama administration, I will be forced to make decisions to eliminate services from:
    • Joe The Lawn Care Guy
    • Joe The Lady Who Cleans My House Every Couple of Weeks
    • Joe The Financial Advisor, Who Helps Me Plan For My Retirement
    • Joe The Physical Trainer, Who Helps Me Stay In Shape
    • Joe The General Contractor Who Does Things Around My House
    • Joe The Painter, and oh, yeah...
    • Joe The Plumber
    Senator Obama, are you starting to understand that "spreading the wealth" will hurt so many more people than you will help? Perhaps you should spend more time figuring out how to tell the less-fortunate how they can pull themselves UP, rather than telling those of us who are succeeding how you are going to pull us DOWN.

    Oct 23, 2008

    Drunken Joe Biden!

    Apparently no one told Joe Biden that the booze for the party AFTER election night! This guy is one cold one from telling Obama "I Love You, Man!" and grabbing Michelle's ass.




    Well, with Ted Kennedy likely to leave the Senate, looks like ol' Joe will be stepping up to fill his somewhat beer-splashed shoes...

    Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud

    Kenneth Timmerman from Newsmax wrote an interesting article today;

    What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?

    All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.

    The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.

    An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign’s finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.

    Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.

    Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.

    The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign “turned off” many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.

    Typically, card merchants require a cardholder’s name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.

    Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.

    For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” participated in Obama’s latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign’s Web site.

    Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the “State of Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.” The donor used a disposable “gift” credit card to make the donation.

    The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to “match” his contribution.

    Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name “Raela Odinga” also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.

    The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s through a maternal uncle.

    Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his address as “2007 Stolen Election Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.

    A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck” gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as “124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif.”

    But just as with Odinga’s address, the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.

    Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:

  • Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.
  • Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.
  • King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.

    Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.

    Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama’s campaign finance irregularities “with great interest,” and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — “you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”

    [Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."]

    “I tried it myself a few days ago,” he said. “I’m attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy.

    “What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn’t wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!

    “This needs to be exposed,” he said.

    The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to “match” their contributions.

    None of the matching donors’ names appears in the Obama campaign’s public disclosures to the FEC.

    Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”

    Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.

    “We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with,” James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.

    Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.

    But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards “only by the numbers on the cards.”

    “There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction,” one industry analyst said.

    Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.

    “It’s like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks” to newly registered voters or others, “and there’s no way of tracing who is using them.”

    Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.

    “Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty,” he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

    The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.

    The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was “never contemplated by the FEC,” a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.

    “It’s a lot of data. You’re talking 7 million contributions,” he said.

    The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It’s just huge. When it’s this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is.”

    One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. “It’s a colossal problem. They’re paying the campaign with other people’s money.”

    Individuals such as “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.

    “It’s all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they’re testing the cards. The campaign doesn’t want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It’s a colossal pain.”

    However, the campaign itself has solicited these “messy little transactions” in numerous e-mails to supporters.

    For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to “make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack.”

    Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to “match” donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.

    Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores.

    Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor’s name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.

    Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story.

  • Oct 22, 2008

    Terrific McCain Ad: Obama Ties To ACORN “Long and Deep”

    It's a little long to run on the TV, but it really packs of punch and shows how Obama inline with Acorn

    Oct 21, 2008

    We're mad, and we're not going to take it anymore!

    I was reading over Tom Abrahams' blog and came across this comment (all spelling/punctuation errors made by C.A. are left as is):


    Tom, Thanks for the report the best part is "We don't live in a vacuum. Our politics and choices don't end at the border." This I think is forgotten especially with republicans. Sometimes you get the sense its us versus the whole world. We have the ultimate military so we can do whatever we want. I think that is what got us stuck in the Iraq mess. We figured we don't need any other country's permission to invade Iraq we are the U.S. Now we are paying with our economy and American lives. That's the price of arrogance. Posted by: C.A October 19, 2008 at 06:39 PM


    I am sick to death of hearing about how bad this nation is. Here's a clue, C.A.: "Love it or leave it" applies to you. Why is it that we're not "arrogant" enough for the world at large whenever there is a natural disaster and the world wants our money and military to help get over that disaster? Why is it that we're not "arrogant" enough for Obama to want to send our military men and women into Darfur? I suppose when we're dying for every little third world nation's causes, that somehow makes us less "arrogant" then when our brave military personnel are fighting and dying on orders of this nation's Commander-in-Chief who decided to take on Al-Qaeda on Al-Qaeda's front doorstep?

    Fellow MacPac'ers know me: I don't hesitate to tell it like it is, especially when I'm fed up with the tripe that I quoted. So, in response to good ole C.A., who feels that we Republicans are the bane of his existence, here's my response to him - and to everyone who feels that Socialism should be elected into office in November in the name of Barack Hussein Obama. By the way, folks, using his given middle name is not racism - so get over yourselves.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, C.A., but we Republicans haven't forgotten anything.

    We haven't forgotten that we haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since 2001.

    We haven't forgotten that the majority of European governments are Socialist and we don't care for Socialism, thanks. You might have learned such philosophies in school or college, but contrary to the popular opinion of most educators today, the USA was founded by hard-working men and women who didn't ask for government handouts and certainly didn't expect any.

    We Republicans haven't forgotten the blood shed during WW II liberating Europe from the Nazis.

    We haven't forgotten how liberals treated our military men and women returning home from Vietnam. We surely haven't forgotten the blood shed in Operation Desert Storm and the current Operation Enduring Freedom.

    We haven't forgotten that the United Nations - with countries that regularly bash us - are the first ones who run to us with their hands out when something like a tsunami or earthquake hits one of the member nations, or who runs to us to beg for our military to join their "peacekeeping" operations world wide. We also haven't forgotten that the United Nations is also the first one to criticize the US for "not giving enough" - money, food, troops....name it...we don't "give enough" to a bunch of America-haters.

    We Republicans haven't forgotten that DEMOCRATS got us into this current financial mess...after all, look at the top five money makers from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and you'll have your answer right there. The DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED Congress refused to listen 2-3 years ago when they were warned by Republicans and other financial analysts that the subprime mortgage business would end up in disaster. The DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED Congress allowed us to get into this mess, and now they're giving handouts to millionaires on my tax dime.

    We Republicans won't apologize for being the greatest nation on earth.

    We Republicans won't stand for the mediocrity proposed by the ObamaNation's Socialistic view of how this country should somehow be punished for our greatness.

    We Republicans are coming out in force in November to speak out against Socialism as a way of life in America.

    Smears' About Obama Largely True

    Interesting stroy written by Newsmax;

    The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” -- and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

    But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth -- and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

    Obama’s www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama ideological allies are not dominant.

    These “smears” and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

    FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

    In a section of the site titled “Who’s Behind the Smears,” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

    The people and groups named are real, but members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.” This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

    Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their factuality. Here’s what we found:

    Claim No. 1. Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

    “Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from the Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising. “Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”

    Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

    “The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”

    However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.

    McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

    Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul -- the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests -- came in the form of a flood of small, anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

    Claim No. 2. Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

    The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

    It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

    Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of the former Weather Underground leader. [Obama is currently lawyerly saying it was not the first event. Perhaps there was another meeting first at Dunkin Donuts. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in the Ayers’ home.]

    There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon and Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grothwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”

    “Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques…” says the Obama Web site.

    Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who as recently as 2001 said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

    Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

    3. Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

    “John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution -- James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines -- whose corruption played key role in the current financial crisis.

    But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”

    Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.

    Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.

    And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

    Claim No. 4. Obama has close ties with ACORN, a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

    Obama’s site says the candidate never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”

    In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell -- calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” -- for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

    As Newsmax has documented [Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past], Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

    ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

    As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November: When “I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”

    Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.

    The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”

    Over the years ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This in theory could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

    Claim No. 5. Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

    “During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children -- including his own two daughters -- from illegal gun violence.”

    But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”

    Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September [NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops], to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights. If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

    Claim No. 6. A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

    The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

    But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

    Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food or warmth.

    Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “None of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

    True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

    Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

    How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

    "Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

    Claim No. 7. Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

    Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe.

    A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off. … He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to than them for their service. … I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Sen. Obama].”

    Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

    Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

    Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

    Claim No. 8. Barack Obama is not a Muslim.

    FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

    In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

    His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Koran. According to a childhood friend, attended services at a local mosque occasionally.

    Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in the Baltimore Sun) headlined Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid. Middle expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.

    It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say was never a Muslim. But in the past Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

    Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

    Claim No. 9. As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

    Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

    The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

    What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.

    “Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline … or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”

    During his campaign Obama has promised to various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate, and new taxes on gasoline. He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raises taxes on most Americans. By backing wishing the Bush cuts to expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

    Claim No. 10. Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

    The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United Stats and “completely false” and “groundless.”

    As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from the State of Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for certified birth certificate.

    No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which blacked out on copies on the Obama site.

    Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”

    Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

    Biden: Obama’s inexperience will prompt nations to test us

    Cross over from HotAir;

    Joe Biden continues to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Barack Obama. In a stunning statement, Biden acknowledged that Obama’s lack of foreign-policy experience will provoke America’s enemies into creating an international crisis. Biden apparently thinks this is just terrific:

    ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

    “Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

    “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

    Isn’t this an argument for electing someone with more experience? Why should we elect a man who will embolden our enemies and push us to the brink of disaster? Biden seems convinced that electing John McCain will make our enemies abroad much less sanguine about provoking us — which is one of the best arguments yet heard for electing McCain.

    Even worse, Biden admits that an Obama administration will likely fumble the ball. “It’s not going to be apparent that we’re right.” Really? Why not? I’d say that Biden admits that Obama will deviate from long-held principles of American foreign policy and diplomacy, and expects to reap a whirlwind of disapproval because of that. Where will that be most likely to occur, given Obama’s previous political alliances with people like Rashid Khalidi?

    Let’s not forget the example that Biden himself uses here. John Kennedy got tested because he met with Nikita Khrushchev with “no preconditions”. Kennedy acknowledged afterwards that it was an “unmitigated disaster“:

    Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

    Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

    What resulted? The Berlin Wall and the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy wound up trading strategic intel and missile installations in western Asia in exchange for Soviet withdrawal of the nuclear missiles from Cuba. The entire Kennedy administration turned out to be a foreign-policy disaster that was only overlooked because of the tragic assassination of Kennedy in Dallas in 1963.

    I agree with Biden. Obama is exactly like Kennedy in this regard, and our enemies will test us by threatening our interests around the globe if we elect Obama. I’d rather avoid the problem altogether and elect a man who puts enough fear into the minds of our enemies to keep them from testing us at all.

    Oct 17, 2008

    Obama supporter steals vote from disabled man

    Georgia state officials have begun an investigation into Primus Industries and the alleged voter fraud committed by one or more of its employees. Jack Justice attends the adult day care provided by Primus for mentally-challenged individuals, and one or more Primus aides took them to an early voting event without permission from their families. Once in the booth, the aide cast the ballot for Barack Obama over Justice’s protestations:

    Obama’s Tax Cut is Actually a Spending Increase, Says Non-Partisan Group

    According to CNSNews.com; Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to cut taxes on 95 percent of taxpayers would effectively increase government spending by an average of $64.8 billion a year and effectively raise income tax rates for many Americans, even on some earning $20-$50,000 per year, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

    The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

    In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.

    By using these refunds, Obama is able to claim that he is giving a tax cut to 95 percent of households, although only 62 percent of households pay any income taxes at all. This means that Obama’s tax plan calls for giving money to some households that do not pay taxes, including a plan to make community college “essentially free” and pay 10 percent of the interest on all mortgages.

    The problem with Obama’s characterization that his proposals are tax cuts is that refundable credits are calculated as outlays, or direct spending, not as reductions in tax rates, according to the Center. This means that, in budgetary terms, some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually spending increases.

    The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama’s spending proposals will be so large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for 15 million households, increasing the percentage of households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1 percent.

    Obama’s biggest refund, and the one most likely to go to non-taxpayers, is his Making Work Pay credit, which would give $500-$1000 to everyone making under $200-250,000 a year. This proposal, which the Tax Policy Center says is “intended to offset the regressivity of payroll taxes,” would cost taxpayers $323.4 billion during Obama’s first term, if elected.

    The credit would be applied to those making as little as $8,100 per year: the equivalent of working approximately 20 hours per week at $7.25 per hour, the level of the federal minimum wage during Obama’s presidency.

    Obama’s second refund is his Universal 10% Mortgage Interest credit, which will automatically refund 10 percent of mortgage interest, up to $800, for taxpayers who do not itemize deductions. Currently, taxpayers who itemize deductions may deduct mortgage interest from their taxes. This new refund would amount to a $13 billion subsidy for taxpayers who do not itemize.

    Obama’s third new refund is the American Opportunity credit, which will provide up to $4,000 in refunds to cover the costs of college tuition. The Obama campaign Web site says that this refund is aimed at “making community college essentially free and covering 2/3 of the cost of public 4-year college.” This refund would cost $58.2 billion during Obama’s first term, according to the Center.

    Obama also plans to expand the child and dependent care credit, by making it refundable and extending it to cover up to 50 percent of the cost of child care, up to $3,000. This proposal would cost an estimated $10.6 billion during an Obama first term and would disproportionately benefit those who pay little or no taxes, according to the Center.

    Obama would also make the Savers Credit refundable, expanding it to “match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000,” per year, according to the Obama campaign.

    The Saver’s Credit is a non-refundable credit which offers low-income taxpayers up to a $1000 refund on contributions they make toward a 401(k) or IRA retirement account.

    Combined with his proposals to mandate enrollment in 401(k)s and require employers who do not offer them to establish IRAs for workers would carry a Center-estimated cost of $92.3 billion during Obama’s first term.

    Obama would further expand an already refundable credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, in three ways. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit for low-income workers designed to give refunds to people who may have dependents but do not pay income taxes.

    First, Obama’s plan would extend the credit’s phase-in range for childless workers, or lower the income level required to qualify for the credit, by increasing to $6,300 the amount of income that can be used to calculate the credit.

    Second, he would extend the credit’s phase-out range for childless workers, raising the income ceiling on the credit. Phase-in and phase-out ranges are the maximum and minimum income levels needed to qualify for the credit. Obama would extend the phase-out level to $9,825.

    Third, he would increase the size of the refund available by increasing rates from 7.65 percent to 15.3 percent for childless workers, and from 40 percent to 45 percent for couples with more than three children. According to the Center, these expansions would cost an estimated $19.3 billion over four years.

    These programs would apply to most workers making less than $200,000 a year for singles and $250,000 a year for couples, but not evenly. Most of the benefits of Obama’s plan would go to the bottom 40 percent of wage earners, a group that, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center, pays zero percent of the nation’s income taxes.

    In fact, Obama’s refunds get smaller as tax burdens get larger, which means that while it is true that 95 percent of workers will receive some form of tax refund from Obama, they will not all receive a full refund, because Obama relies on phase-in and phase-out proposals to target his refunds toward the lowest-earning tax brackets.

    It is these phase-out requirements that result in a general decrease of the refunds for people earning over $75,000 per year, according to the Center. This bracket includes nearly 40 percent of all Americans and nearly 20 percent of total income taxes.

    When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

    Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year.

    Oct 16, 2008

    Obama's Tax Lies

    Interesting article at the Wall Street Journal, outlining how Obama's tax policy is more about wealth redistribution than it is lowering taxes for, as he says "95% of all families."

    "For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

    • A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
    • A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
    • A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
    • A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
    • An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
    • A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
    • A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

    Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut."

    These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

    In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.

    According to Michelle Obama, the fix is already in-Newest Michelle Obama Anti-Americans/anti-white rant.

    A fellow blogger send this article to me last night. I am really tired of any Presidential candidate or their spouses telling me how Anti whites are against her husband.And I'm not even white nor African Americans, I own my vote and so is every citizens of this country and they have the rights to cast their votes to anyone they deemed fit without them telling us, we are racists. I thought Americans are better than playing with race cards! Is these what our Founding Fathers and Armed Forces are fighting for?? Being an Anti- Americans and Anti whites just because we disagreed on our Democratic Presidential nominee???According to Canadian Free Press;

    Like editors the world over used to admonish reporters at deadline: “Your lead is buried down copy”, the lead in African Press International’s (API’s) “Mrs. Obama decides enough is enough” comes well down copy:

    My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father.” (Emphasis added).

    In other words, according to the overzealous, you’re-all-racists wife of candidate for presidency Barack Hussein Obama, the fix is already in.

    The candidate’s wife treated the Norway-based API as if it was already under the command of a Barack and Michelle-run White House.

    With an arrogance that can only be described as stunning, Michelle Obama said API would earn an invite to hubby’s upcoming inauguration ceremony when he will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year, if only they wrote a “good” story.

    In a good old fashioned hissy fit, Michelle Obama had picked up the phone to accuse API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, saying she had decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name. She made plain her hopes that the African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.

    “When API told her that our online news media was only replaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs. Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African Press International is supposed to support Africans and (the) African-American view, and she went (on) to state that, “It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband.” (africanpress, Oct. 15, 2008). “There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father, The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption has never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner, (emphasis added) says Michelle Obama on telefon (sic) to API.”

    The person on the other end of the telephone line indicated concern for “the American man Dr. Corsi, who was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.

    “When API asked Mrs. Obama to comment on why Dr. Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr. Raila Odinga was involved in Dr. Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.

    “When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.

    “On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs. Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr. Farrakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections (sic) was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of Muslim faith if he became the president, adding ‘even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?’” Mrs. Obama asked.

    Oct 15, 2008

    Obama voted “present” on Fannie/Freddie reform

    Cross over from Hot Air;

    Barack Obama has claimed that he foresaw the subprime mortgage collapse and took steps to warn the Treasury — by writing a letter. That claim has come in two presidential debates. Peter Wallison reminds Wall Street Journal readers of the obvious in pointing out that Obama serves as a Senator and had the power to draft legislation, not letters, to prevent the collapse. Instead, Obama voted present:

    Finally, on the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown.

    In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

    Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending — but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama’s past: voting present.

    I mentioned this in an earlier debate analysis. It demonstrates a key difference between Obama and John McCain. When McCain saw the potential for crisis, he took action by co-sponsoring Chuck Hagel’s Fannie/Freddie reform bill that would have increased regulation on the two GSEs. He spoke in the Senate for its passage.

    What did Barack Obama do? He wrote a letter. He didn’t bother to co-sponsor the bill that could have prevented this year’s financial collapse, or to even allow it to come to a vote. Obama talked (allegedly — we have yet to see this letter) while McCain took action.

    Now Obama and the same Democrats who pushed Fannie and Freddie to buy a trillion dollars in bad loans want to blame “deregulation” for the crisis. It wasn’t deregulation, and as Wallison points out, the industry didn’t get deregulated at all. Congress created this crisis by pushing Fannie and Freddie into not just buying subprime paper but into transforming it into securities that infected the entire financial system.

    Read all of Wallison’s column to see how intellectually dishonest the “deregulation” argument truly is. That’s all Obama has left, however, to distract people from his inaction and his support of government distortion of the lending market to achieve artificial social-policy goals. That’s what makes his alliance with former Fannie Mae chief Jim Johnson such a revealing data point about Obama and the Democrats in general.

    Oct 14, 2008

    Obama is Hiding a Radical Past!

    By Matthew WeavercloseAuthor: Matthew Weaver Name: Matthew WeaverEmail: matthew@theindependentview.comSite: http://www.theindependentview.comAbout: See Authors Posts (45) on October 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM in Barack Obama, Current Affairs
    (bumped by SusanUnPC at 11:11 p.m. ET)

    Edited and updated at 8:50 p.m. ET.

    Did you know that Barack Obama was affiliated with a leading national socialist party? Barack Obama didn’t include in his 2008 resume that he entered politics in the mid-1990s endorsed by Chicago’s leading socialists. This just keeps getting better and better. Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

    1. Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
    2. Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
    3. Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
    4. Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
    5. Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

    Obama’s participation in and endorsement from the Chicago New Party and Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America (which is the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International) is quite clear:

    1. According to the write-up on the July 1995 meeting of Chicago DSA and New Party membership, Barack Obama was one of about 50 people attending out of their then-300 member local group. Other documents below will demonstrate Barack Obama attended and participated in subsequent meetings.
    2. The New Party rigorously evaluated its candidate endorsements and claimed “a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections.” This was no passive endorsement.
    3. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.—New Ground
      Candidate Barack Obama participated as a panelist at the DSA-sponsored Town Meeting on February 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America”. As reported in New Ground,
    • Barack Obama observed that Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in the 1960s wasn’t simply about civil rights but demanded jobs as well. Now the issue is again coming to the front, but he wished the issue was on the Democratic agenda not just on Buchanan’s.
    • One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is “what does it take to create productive communities”, not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.
    • The first is “human capital development”. By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a “workforce preparation strategy”. Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By “workforce preparation strategy”, Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.
    • The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

    4. Obama subsequently secured his endorsement from the Chicago DSA

    • The local Democratic Socialists of America affiliate issued their Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election:
      Barack Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer’s old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore.

    • Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and promptly went into community organizing for the Developing Communities Project in Roseland and Altgeld Gardens on the far south side of Chicago. He went on to Harvard University, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated with a law degree. In 1992, he was Director of Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration campaign that made Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the U.S. Senate much easier than it would have been. At present, he practices law in Judson Miner’s law firm and is President of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant which is distributing some $50 million in grants to public school reform efforts.
    • What best characterizes Barack Obama is a quote from an article in Illinois Issues, a retrospective look at his experience as a community organizer while he was completing his degree at Harvard:
    • “… community organizations and organizers are hampered by their own dogmas about the style and substance of organizing. Most practice … a ‘consumer advocacy’ approach, with a focus on wrestling services and resources from outside powers that be. Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities.” (Illinois issues, September, 1988)
    • Luckily, Mr. Obama does not have any opposition in the primary. His opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot.

    5. Barack Obama Continued Attending Membership Meetings of the Chicago DSA New PartyObama attended membership meeting on April 11, 1996 where he expressed his gratitude for their support. The report shared that “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

    6. Obama won his election with the help of the Chicago DSA’s New Party.

    7. Chicago DSA notes in 1998 that Barack Obama eulogized Saul Mendelson, co-founder of the Debs Dinner.

    8. In the fall of 1998, Chicago DSA’s New Ground’s editor offered nomination of Barack Obama for reelection.

    9. When Barack Obama challenged Bobby Rush for the 1st Congressional District in 2000, the Chicago DSA opted to recommend both:

    • For Congressman of the 1st Congressional District, the Executive Committee was faced with two very good candidates. As we are not making endorsements but merely recommendations, we felt no conflict in recommending both Bobby Rush and Barack Obama.
    • Bobby Rush was the incumbent Congressman. He was also a candidate for Mayor of Chicago in the last municipal elections, endorsed by Chicago DSA. While he hasn’t always been the ideal Congressman from a left perspective (being a cosponsor of the “NAFTA for Africa” bill, for example), he’s generally been quite good. To volunteer, call 773 264 7874. Contributions may be made to Citizens for Rush, 514 E. 95th St., Chicago, IL 60619.
    • Barak Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy.

    Conclusion

    Barack Obama has a long-term and sustained relationship with the Chicago DSA, an affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America, and with the Chicago New Party. He participated in multiple membership meetings and in DSA-sponsored events, repeatedly sought their endorsement. This does not answer all questions about Barack Obama’s past relationships with multiple socialist groups. What the media need to find out is this: Has Barack Obama broken his ties with them> If so, when and why?Cross-posted on my blog, The Independent View.

    Oct 8, 2008

    Short-n-Sweet

    I was appalled by last night's pale imitation of a town hall meeting. NBC and Tom Brokaw have, once again, proven that they favor Senator Obama over Senator McCain. The questions did not delve into any new topics, and while I understand that the economy is at the forefront of everyone's minds, this debate was supposed to be for those who were undecided. Instead, we got 40 minutes of Obama stump speeches with the same ole tired soundbites, and 35 minutes of McCain being told he needed to move on, wrap it up, time was short. Those five minutes that McCain did not get in rebuttal were crucial - and Brokaw knew it.

    Still, when Obama went on and on and on about his tax plan that was supposed to rain down money on all of us poor working saps, a friend and I were on MSN discussing the debate as it occurred. He sent me this link: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

    JFK - the person the Democrats love to cite in the same sentence as Obama - actually had a tax plan similar to McCain's plan! Obama supporters, of course, won't read this - it's too long, too many big words, and it doesn't support the Messiah's dream of "tax cuts for 95% of America". It does, though, sound very, very similar to what Senator McCain envisions for our country when he gets into office. And remember: Reagan managed to accomplish a similar plan and show a positive impact on America in just two years.

    Something to think about....

    ACORN Vegas Office Raided in Voter Fraud Investigation

    I wrote an article about Acorn fraud in Michigan. Now according to Fox News; Nevada state authorities seized records and computers Tuesday from the Las Vegas office of an organization that tries to get low-income people registered to vote, after fielding complaints of voter fraud.

    Bob Walsh, spokesman for the Nevada secretary of state's office, told FOXNews.com the raid was prompted by ongoing complaints about "erroneous" registration information being submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also called ACORN.

    The group was submitting the information through a voter sign-up drive known as Project Vote.

    "Some of them used nonexistent names, some of them used false addresses and some of them were duplicates of previously filed applications," Walsh said, describing the complaints, which largely came from the registrar in Clark County, Nev.

    Secretary of State Ross Miller said the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

    "Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada, and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4," Miller said.

    Walsh said agents from both the secretary of state's office and Nevada attorney general's office conducted the raid at 9:30 a.m. local time, and "took a bunch of stuff." Miller's office reported seizing eight computer hard drives and about 20 boxes of documents.

    Bertha Lewis, interim chief organizer for ACORN, released a statement saying the group has for months been turning over any suspicious registration information to elections officials. She said those officials routinely ignored their tips, and called the raid a "stunt."

    "When we have identified suspicious applications, we have separated them out and flagged them for election officials. We have zero tolerance for fraudulent registrations. We immediately dismiss employees we suspect of submitting fraudulent registrations," she said. "Today's raid by the secretary of state's office is a stunt that serves no useful purpose other than discredit our work registering Nevadans and distracting us from the important work ahead of getting every eligible voter to the polls."

    Neither the group, which hires canvassers to register voters, nor any employees have been charged or arrested for fraud or other crimes, said Miller, a Democrat.

    But it's not the first time ACORN's been under investigation for registration irregularities. The raid is the latest of at least nine investigations into possible fraudulent voter registration forms submitted by ACORN -- the probes have involved ACORN workers in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Indiana and other states.

    In response to the Las Vegas raid, Republican Nevada Sen. John Ensign and seven other senators penned a letter to the Federal Housing Finance Agency calling for the suspension of taxpayer dollars to "controversial groups like ACORN." The letter referred to contributions that potentially could come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

    In 2006, ACORN also committed what Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed called the "worse case of election fraud" in the state's history.

    In the case, ACORN submitted just over 1,800 new voter registration forms, and all but six of the 1,800 names were fake.

    More recently, 27,000 registrations handled by the group from January to July 2008 "went into limbo because they were incomplete, inaccurate, or fraudulent," said James Terry, chief public advocate at the Consumers Rights League.

    Once again, I'm going to say this; this calls into question why Barack Obama pays ACORN for his GOTV efforts. With criminal investigations underway in several states and now hopefully a federal investigation about to start, Obama shows extremely poor judgment in associating himself with such fraud — as well as paying $800,000 to fund it, unwittingly or not. As President, he would have the responsibility for enforcing voter-fraud laws. This doesn’t give much indication that he’d act to do so. So much for being a reformer.

    CNN: Obama’s lying about William Ayers

    From Hot Air; You’ll want to double-check the logo at the bottom left corner during this report. It really is CNN and Anderson Cooper fact-checking Barack Obama’s claims to have barely known William Ayers — and calling it dishonest. Stanley Kurtz even gets to make an appearance on a network other than Fox for this report (via Dirty Harry’s Place):



    Drew Griffin runs down most of the salient points raised by people like Kurtz, David Freddoso, Jerome Corsi, and others. Obama’s admission in a debate that he briefly served on “a board” with Ayers with little contact gets shot down. CNN followed up on Kurtz’ work with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and debunks that notion. They also — amazingly — report on the nature of the grants made by the CAC while Obama ran it to Ayers’ favored schools with radical agendas.

    Griffin also tells a somewhat nonplussed Cooper that Obama has lied about his “coming out party” at the home of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in 1995. Obama has said that Alice Palmer arranged the fundraiser and the venue, but Griffin spoke to two people who attended the event, who claim Obama lied. Palmer had nothing to do with that event outside of being invited to it. Obama and Ayers planned the event themselves.

    Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist. He spent years working for Ayers, promoting Ayers’ causes. Even CNN won’t buy the Obama line any longer. Expect John McCain to raise this point tonight in the debate.

    Oct 7, 2008

    More Bogus Obama Donors Surface

    From CBS; CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their contributions under fake names that look like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed their employer as DASADA/SAFASF. CBS News did not find any records of these last names, towns or employers anywhere else. Newsweek reported two questionable Obama donors over the weekend named “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will”. Contributions from the two donors Hdusahfd and Hduadh were made on the same day starting on July 16, 2008. Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show the campaign began refunding the donations as early as August 6, 2008.

    Despite numerous refunds from the Obama campaign, Hdusahfd still has a record of giving a total of $7500 to Obama which is well over the legal limit for the primary and general election of $4600. Hduadh gave $14,200 but the Obama campaign returned all but $222.00. The Obama campaign says “out of an abundance of caution” all of these donations are in the process of being returned. Obama spokesperson Bill Burton sent CBS News the following email statement, “We constantly review our donors for any issues and while no organization is completely protected from internet fraud, we will continue to review our fundraising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available step to root-out improper contributions.” Burton pointed to Harry Sargeant, one of McCain’s donors who is now the subject of a Congressional investigation. McCain returned $50,000 to Sargeant in early August.

    The Republican National Committee (RNC) has asked the FEC to look into foreign donations to the Obama campaign. The FEC told CBS News they would not comment on the RNC’s complaint.

    Other donors who gave over the legal limit to the Obama campaign contacted by CBS News said their money was refunded promptly by the campaign. Of those who spoke to CBS News, it seems their only mistake was that of enthusiasm.

    Felicity Nitz, 60, of Brooklyn says she kept on clicking on Obama’s online fundraising appeals, “I just kept punching it when I got the emails,” she said, “I’m an insane supporter.”

    Christian Skeem from Chicago says he got a letter back from the campaign with a check, “I couldn’t give them more than the limit because they kept sending it back, it wasn’t like they weren’t on the ball.” The reason he gave so much? “Cause I’m a fan,” he said.

    Video: Palin nails heckler at rally

    The moment comes at the end of this Fox News report, when an anti-war protester tries to disrupt her speech. The SarahCuda doesn’t get mad, but she shuts him down using her Absolute Moral AuthorityTM:



    Palin doesn’t get flustered or sidetracked, either. She shows poise and command at the podium, which emphasizes the mistake Team McCain made in keeping her in a bit of a media bubble after the convention. Palin can handle herself when she’s allowed to be herself.

    Oct 5, 2008

    The SarahCuda on the attack

    From ED Morrissey;

    The Free Sarah Palin strategy has already begun to pay dividends. Palin returned to the traditional running-mate role of attack dog, reminding voters of Barack Obama’s accusation that American troops had a strategy in Afghanistan of “air-raiding villages and bombing civilians”. Palin considers that a disqualifying event for a person seeking the position of Commander in Chief:

    Speaking to Fox News on Friday, Sarah Palin indicated for the first time that she does not consider Barack Obama qualified to be commander in chief and sharply criticized him for saying last year that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are “just air raiding villages and killing civilians.”

    Calling Obama “reckless,” Palin said that where she comes from Obama’s remarks “disqualify someone from consideration for the next commander-in-chief.”

    “Some of his comments that he’s made about the war, that I think, in my world disqualify someone from consideration for the next commander-in-chief,” said Palin. “Some of the comments he’s made about Afghanistan, what we are doing there, ‘just air raiding villages and killing civilians.’ That’s reckless.”

    Those comments came in August 2007, when Obama tried criticizing the Bush administration’s military strategy in Afghanistan. Here’s the video:

    We’ve gotta get the job done there,and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

    For some, that recalled the accusations made against the military during the Vietnam War. The NATO effort in Afghanistan doesn’t involve “just air-raiding villages and bombing civilians”, certainly not as a strategy. Obama essentially accused the US and its allies of committing war crimes, although he appeared completely ignorant of the implications of his own accusation.

    Interestingly, Adam Gadahn has just resurfaced in a 30-minute video, and he makes the same accusations. “Azzam al-Amriki” talks about “carpet bombing” at about the 6-minute mark. Gadahn, thought to be dead, appears to have lost a lot of weight. Maybe he was on the Al-Qaeda Fat Farm for the last few months.Watch the video here.

    Palin does a good job in bringing this back to the forefront. Either Obama meant to smear the military leadership in Afghanistan, including that of our allies, or he didn’t have the first clue what he was saying. Neither commends itself for someone who would command our military during this war, especially the fact that Obama made that accusation without ever having traveled to Afghanistan to see the situation for himself

    Oct 3, 2008

    Saying Anything To Get Elected

    I peruse the Gretawire.com blogs, and while they used to be heavy on the side of Obama supporters posting everything from respectful debate to outright trash, the momentum has definitely shifted to the McCain/Palin camp as more of Obama's policies are held out in the harsh light of intense scrutiny. I've always felt that Obama would say anything to get elected - a fact he proves each time he's caught in yet another lie. Heaven forbid the mainstream media actually call them lies...why their poor candidate is being unfairly treated because of skin color!

    Stow that crap, Senator. Lies are lies, and saying one thing to a group of blue-collar workers, and then ridiculing those same blue-collar workers in front of your rich, white, Marin County wine-tasting crowd is just as appalling as your bald-faced lies, Senator Obama. You should be ashamed of yourself, if you had the capacity to be anything but narcissistic. At the very least, you should be ashamed of your VP running mate, who had the audacity (and not of hope, Senator) to stand in front of millions and spout off his own lies.

    A McCain/Palin supporter took the time to put together this list of Biden-spouted lies during the debate last night. Look them over carefully, for the Socialistic/Democratic Party now thinks that it's ok to lie to the American public. Is the Obama/BidenNation the "change we've been waiting for"?

    I think not. My thanks to Anna for this list.

    Comment by Anna McCain/Palin '08 "Cleaning Up Washington One Liberal At A Time"
    October 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
    Joe Biden’s Debate Lies

    1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

    2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

    3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

    4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

    5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

    6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

    7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false.

    8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.

    9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

    10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

    11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

    12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

    13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

    14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

    15. RESOLUTION ON IRAQ WAR: Biden said he only voted to force UN to participate in removing Saddam Hussein. That is a lie. The resolution hevoted yes on was to invade Iraq with military force.

    16. THE CONSTITUTION: Biden: “Vice President Cheney’s been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. He has — he has — the idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.” Article I of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the Vice President of the United States. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.

    17. IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN SPENDING: Biden said that the U.S. spends more in Iraq in one month than it has in Afghanistan in six or seven years.That figure is off by 2000 percent.

    18. ‘KICKED HEZBOLLAH OUT OF LEBANON’: Biden: When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Reuters thinks he meant to refer to Syria, it still would not be accurate to say the U.S. kicked Syria out of Lebanon. The Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon.

    19. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT: Biden’s statement that McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act is accurate. But as Robert Byers notes, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled that much of Biden’s law was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress of rights reserved to the states. Nobody voted against the WAWA because they support violence against women; they objected over constiutional concerns that a Supreme Court majority validated.

    20. RESTAURANT: “Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years.” According to this Delaware site, Katie’s Restaurant is no longer in business; locals remember it on Union Street 25 to 30 years ago.

    21. ARMS CONTROL TREATY: Biden: “Number two, with regard to arms control and weapons, nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported.” I have no idea where Biden gets this “every Republican has supported” claim, as 49 other Republican senators voted ‘no’ with McCain.When the roll was finally called on October 13, the resolution to ratify the CTBT (including the six safeguards that Daschle had submitted as an amendment) was defeated by a 51-48 vote with one abstention. (See the voting record.) Forty-four Democrats voted for ratification as did four Republicans: John Chafee (R-RI), James Jeffords (R-VT), Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). Fifty Republican senators and one independent (Robert Smith of New Hampshire) voted against ratification, and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) voted “present.” The treaty fell 19 votes short of achieving the necessary two-thirds majority necessary for ratification.

    22. WEST BANK ELECTIONS: Biden: President Bush insisted on elections in the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, ‘Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.’” The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler notes that “Obama had been a senator for only a few days when the election took place, but if he made such statements, they did not appear in news reports or transcripts that are contained in the Nexis or Factiva databases.”

    23. PAKISTANI WEAPONS: “Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean.” Biden is on shaky ground here. The distance between Israel and Pakistan is 2,085 miles, or 3355 kilometers. The longest-range existing strategic missile in the Pakistani arsenal has a range of 1000 miles, off by over 1000 miles.

    Are you "unpatriotic"?

    In last night's VP debate, Senator Biden called anyone seeking to protect their money in offshore accounts "unpatriotic". You can hear his statements on YouTube, if you doubt my words or feel that I'm twisting them, as so many Obama followers just know that those of us opposed to their candidate does in order to ~le gasp~ lie about the Messiah. Here is the YouTube.com link to how the esteemed Senator from Delaware calls us unpatriotic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSiSYJSdBG0

    How dare Senator Biden call any American "unpatriotic" for finding ways to protect our hard-earned money from the greedy little hands of the Socialistic/Democratic party. How dare Senator Obama call any American "unpatriotic" for finding ways to protect our hard-earned money from the greedly little hands of his party. How dare they - and how dare the Democrats in control of Congress feel that our personal decisions about how our earned income is protected agree with those two Senators.

    I am the daughter of a WW II Navy veteran. My father served in the South Pacific. I am the niece of a now-deceased WW II and Korea paternal uncle who served in the Army. Also on my father's side, I am the cousin of a much-loved (in both life and death) Vietnam Marine who, while performing his duties as a LRRP, never quite adjusted to being home from that hell. I bonded with him, while I was a child, because he never felt threatened by my presence. I never pressed him to talk about those things he could not talk about. We had "slumber parties" out in the pool yard behind my aunt's house, sleeping under chaise loungers in sleeping bags, while we took turns "standing watch". I never found that odd - I thought we were playing a game. I didn't understand until I was older that David only felt safe outside, where he could tell who was the "enemy" and who was not. On my father's side, I am the cousin of many airmen, Marines, sailors, and soldiers who fought in wars from WW II on through the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On my mother's side, although I can't trace them as easily because our ties to her hometown are all in the grave, many served in WW II and on through the First Gulf War, at the very least. Some may be serving in the current wars, but I have no contact with much of that side of the family any longer. My Marine boyfriend is currently on his fourth tour over in Iraq, and has told me of rumors that he will be sent on to Afghanistan before his tour is finished.

    Yet, because I protest against 55% taxes, health care for illegal immigrants under the Obama health care plan, and because I'm looking at protecting my money, I'm "unpatriotic"? Senators, I can surely suggest a few options of where you can shove your line of thinking...

    I was given a link to a blog on Digg.com. I posted my remarks, which I will repeat here just in case my post is removed for not toeing the Socialistic (formerly known as the Democratic) Party line.

    Here is the link: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Joe_Biden_at_VP_Debate_Offshore_Accounts_are_Unpatriotic
    Here is my post:

    Wow.

    I hope everyone who thinks that his words are wonderful don't mind being called "unpatriotic" when your taxes go up to a minimum of 55%, or the "wonderful Obama tax plan" means that small businesses - you know, those "rich folks" who make $250,000 or more/year - start laying off folks and cutting off benefits (like heath insurance). You can't complain about that or you're "unpatriotic".

    I hope everyone who thinks that his words are wonderful don't mind being called "unpatriotic" when you say that it's simply not feasible for you to ride your bike to work when the Obama/BidenNation tells you that you've used up too many carbon credits...oh, and there's no public transportation available in your neck of the woods (like there's none for me to get me to and from my job 'cause trust me, I don't like driving in rush hour twice/day).

    I hope that you don't mind the Obama/BidenNation's version of health care that will have the middle class paying for the health care coverage of some what....12 million or more?....illegal aliens. Read the fine print, folks, read the fine print and quit listening to the fancy rhetoric.

    I hope that you all don't mind being called "unpatriotic" when you wake up one day and realize that Socialism coated in smarmy rhetoric with a bad attempt at a Martin Luther King, Jr. cadence style of speech has arrived in America .... and you don't like what's occurred.

    Democracy is Dead, courtesy of the Socialist...errr....Democratic Party of America. Long live Democracy!

    By the way, I absolutely resent Biden calling me - the daughter of a WW II Veteran who fought for the Obama/BidenNation's right to speak without thinking first - unpatriotic because I don't agree with the Obama/BidenNation's line of thinking for this country. I have family and friends fighting - and dying - to preserve the rights of this country, and they have done so on my family's side of things since WW II. How dare the Democratic Party call me, my family, and my friends "unpatriotic".

    How dare they.

    Wake up, America...Socialism is coming, and it's name is Barack Obama.

    Wake up, America. A vote for the Obama/BidenNation is a vote for Socialism in America. If you don't believe me, just read the fine print behind his "hope and change" policies that plan on putting the screws to you, me, and small businesses around the country. Say goodbye to our free market society. Say goodbye to being able to manage your money how you want to manage it. Say goodbye to smaller government and lower taxes. Say goodbye to the American way of life.

    Obama and his wife do not like this country. The very facts of her past statements, of their membership for 20 years in a church that promotes hatred of America and the rebuilding of Africa by use of the very dollars from the country that Wright and his congregation hate, the constant lies told by Obama as he tries to cover his own unpatriotic behind, and his policies that will destroy this nation are clear fact as to how much he and his wife hate America. Obama is in this election not for his promised "hope and change" - he is in it for himself. Narcissism at it's finest. He doesn't care a whit for me, you, or this country. If you think I'm kidding, then by all means, vote for the Obama/BidenNation - just don't come to this blog whining and crying when all of my statements have come true and you are suffering because of your Messiah.

    ~from one very patriotic Jersey gal living in Texas~
    McCainACE

    Awesome: New GOP ad lowers the boom on Dems over subprime disaster