Palin Attacks Obama’s ‘Appalling’ Refusal to Defend Babies Who Survive Abortion
Monday, October 13, 2008
By Terry Jeffrey
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin with 5-year-old Michael George on Friday, Oct. 10, 2008, in North Olmsted, Ohio. Palin attended a ribbon cutting ceremony at the Michael T. George Center, a community center for the disabled. (AP Photo/Tony Dejak)(CNSNews.com) - Three times over the last several days, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has focused her attention on what she described as Sen. Barack Obama’s “appalling” and “absolutely atrocious” refusal to support legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would have required medical care for a baby who survived an abortion and would have defined such a baby—alive and fully outside its mother’s womb—as a person.
Palin’s focus on the issue began with her appearance Thursday on Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated talk radio show. It then continued later Thursday at a joint rally with Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Wisconsin, and culminated in Johnstown, Pa., on Saturday, with a sustained and personalized defense of the right to life.
On Thursday morning, Ingraham presented Palin with a quote from a speech Obama gave on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001.
As reported by CNSNews.com last Wednesday, Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate who rose that day in 2001 to speak against a package of three bills designed to protect babies who survived late-term abortions.
“Back in March of 2001, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was one of--actually the only--senator to speak against legislation to protect infants who were born alive after an abortion,” Ingraham said to Palin. “He called them ‘pre-viable fetuses’ because if you call them people, he said directly, ‘I mean, it would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause doesn’t allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.’ Governor, what is your reaction to that?”
“It is absolutely atrocious,” said Palin. “And, you know, as we go around in our rallies and when I talk about John McCain and me and our desire for, and our commitment to, a culture of life and we are interrupted with huge applause, I think, you know, I wish I had more time to explain to people what Barack Obama’s position has been on this. Because I think, Laura, it has been missing out there in the discussion, in the debate, about the choices that they have in candidates on November 4th.
Noting first that Obama has said abortion is “a fundamental right” and that he “opposes banning partial-birth abortion,” Palin said that “more telling … has been his vote against legislation--three times voting against legislation--that would provide medical care to a baby born having been a survivor of a abortion. It is very appalling. And I think that if more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is, there would be a heck of a lot more outrage than we already see.”
A moment later on the Laura Ingraham show, Palin returned to the issue.
“Again, let me go back to this Born Alive legislation that Barack Obama could not support,” said Palin. “It is appalling enough, I think, even for those who are pro-abortion to understand that Barack Obama opposes banning partial-birth abortion--because that is quite extreme. But for him to have had an opportunity to vote to allow a child born as a result of a botched abortion to receive the medical care that he or she deserves--born with that inalienable right to life--and yet, he has sided on the wrong side three times, voting against legislation that would provide that medical care to the baby -- is the extreme position on abortion. Americans need to know that.”
In 2001, then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley proposed three bills in the Illinois Senate to protect babies who survived abortions.
O’Malley’s legislation was inspired by nurse Jill Stanek, who went public about the “induced-labor abortions” that were taking place at the Chicago-area hospital where she worked. These abortions, often done on babies with Down syndrome, involved a mother who was medicated to induce premature labor. At Stanek’s hospital, when a baby was born alive as a result of this induced premature labor, Stanek testified before the U.S. Congress, the baby was often placed in a laundry room to die without care.
When O’Malley was told by the state attorney general’s office that no existing state laws protected these babies as citizens of the State of Illinois and the United States, he drafted a set of bills. One mandated that any time a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a reasonable likelihood that a baby might be born alive as a result of the abortion, a second physician had to be present to assess the viability of the baby and provide medical care for him or her.
A second bill gave the parents of the baby or a state-appointed guardian the right to sue to protect the baby’s interests.
The third bill defined any baby who had fully emerged alive from his mother’s womb as a “person,” “child,” “human being,” and “individual.”
Obama voted present--which in the Illinois senate has the same effect as a “no” vote--on all three bills in 2001. In 2002, he opposed them again. In 2003, the bill defining a baby born alive as a “person” came up in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama then chaired. The year before, an identical bill had been enacted into federal law along with an amendment that pro-abortion members of the U.S. Senate, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), said protected Roe v. Wade from being abridged in any way because of the bill.
In his Illinois committee, Obama first voted to add the language of this Roe-v-Wade-protecting amendment to the Illinois bill. Then he voted against the amended bill, which was defeated 6-4.
After appearing on Laura Ingraham’s show last Thursday, Palin appeared with Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Waukesha, Wisconsin. An audience member at this town hall gathering brought up the fact that NBC’s Tom Brokaw had asked no questions about abortion in last Tuesday’s debate.
“I wanted to ask you about the issue of abortion and specifically about the debate a couple of nights ago,” the audience member said to McCain. “The moderator cleverly never brought this--the question up. And with the debate coming up again, I would ask if you're going to find a way to bring the subject up, even if it's not asked about, because I firmly believe it's an issue which you have the advantage.”
“I am proud of my pro-life record for many years. I believe that life begins at conception. And I don't know if you heard Senator Obama when Rick Warren asked him and he said, quote, ‘It's above my pay grade.’ It's above Senator Obama's pay grade, the issue of the rights of the unborn. Remarkable,” said McCain.
“So I believe that the most noble words ever written are that all of us are ‘created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life’--and that means the unborn child as well as the born child,” McCain continued. “Now Senator Obama has a clear, radical, far-left pro-abortion record--and you should examine it and his votes.”
McCain then talked about how he and his wife had adopted their daughter Bridget from Mother Theresa’s orphanage in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
When McCain was done, Palin added her own comments on the issue.
“And John, may I add also, too, as someone who believes that the most promising and precious ingredient in this sometimes mixed-up world of ours is a child. And I appreciate your reminder of the compassion needed in this issue,” said Palin. “What I don't find compassionate is Barack Obama's vote, as an Illinois senator, when three times he had the chance to vote to be able to provide health care for a child who was born alive as a result of a botched abortion.
I would just ask you, sir, to go online and look at his record on that one, also,” said Palin. “Thank you for the question.”
In Johnstown, Pa., on Saturday, Palin again brought up Obama’s unwillingness to support legislation that would protect babies who were born alive after botched abortions.
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's daughters Piper, right, and Willow, and their brother Trig, during a rally in Anchorage, Alaska on Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008. Trig, who has Down syndrome, was born in April. (AP Photo)This time, she went on at length, framing the issue in terms of her personal experience with her baby son, Trig, who has Down syndrome.
“When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, to be honest with you, I had to pray that my heart would be prepared for the challenges to come. It was a shock, I wasn't ready for this. I had to ask for that strength. And at first I was very scared, and Todd and I we did have to ask for that strength and understanding. But let me tell you a few things that I’ve learned already,” said Palin.
“Yes, every innocent life does matters. And everyone belongs in the circle of protection. And every child has something to contribute to our world if we give them that chance,” she said. “Now, there are the world’s standards of perfection, and then there are God’s standards, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.
“And as for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and for me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable,” said Palin. “And in some ways, you know I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. So, when we hold Trig and when we care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore, we feel blessed.
“It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t, who is granted life and who is denied it. So, when our opponent speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully,” she said.
After discussing Obama's position on partial-birth abortion, and citing his remark that a woman should not be "punished" with a baby, she moved back to his opposition to the Illinois born-alive legislation.
“Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, had described partial-birth abortion as ‘too close to infanticide.’ Senator Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong,” said Palin.
“Most troubling even is as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants, these infants, often babies with special needs, they're simply left to die,” said Palin.
“In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care--imagine that, requiring a law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as ‘pre-viable.’ Now, this merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, and Illinois had a version of the same law. And Obama voted against it,” said Palin.
“Asked about his vote, he assured a reporter that he’d have voted yes on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story though: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical,” said Palin.
“So, in short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He's sided with those who won’t protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promise to move beyond the old politics,” said Palin.
“So, ladies and gentlemen in both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and financial crisis, I know that it may be easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems that our opponent kind of hopes that you will forget that. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes that you won’t notice how radical--how absolutely radical--his ideas on this and record is until it’s too late,” said Palin.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 13 Comments 1 2 3 Next Loading...
thewaiting at 08:16 PM - October 14, 2008
I hope Obama will enjoy his stay in hell. He will be joined by all those who leave babies in laundry rooms to die. It takes a sick sob to sleep at night to vote against care for babies who survive abortion, to then suffer in a dam laundry room. There is a special place in hell just for you Barrack!
Charles H. Garrido at 05:21 PM - October 14, 2008
Hello! 10/14/ 4:41 PM' Mr.Terry Jeffrey thanks by your Column.- Sorry always individuals must be as the present Pragmatic).- Others will give you " some understanding" Its you're AMERICA with Ideas, Words, Speeches,Liberals Socialism, Radicals.- Money $$$$.Money.-- "QUOTE"(and short)But and Please Thinks.- . "IT IS A POVERTY TO DECIDE THAT A CHILD MUST DIE, THAT YOU MAY LIVE AS YOU WISH" (MOTHER TERESA) Thanks & Cooperation. Charles H. Garrido. Miami Fla.-
socialmedic at 03:09 AM - October 14, 2008
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS PALIN. Where is all of this money going to come from???? We don't believe in TAXES do we Sarah? Does it come out of YOUR pocket? Who PAYS the BILLS for all of the unwated and unsupported babies you force into the world Sarah? TAXES? The TAXES you don't beleive in? Does it come from YOUR wallet? Once again Palin is a MOUTH, a BIG MOUTH WITHOUT A PLAN. Big clue for you Sarah Palin::: Babies, as cute as they are, as a collective make populations that cost money, require education and eventually require jobs. And disabled babies, even failed abortions are not appropriate battlegrounds for self-centered opportunistic power abusing politicians like YOU!!! Does it go any lower than this or has the McCain bid for presidency hit rock bottom?
The7Sticks at 12:18 AM - October 14, 2008
I guess I'm going to have to take the politically incorrect approach on this and say that if it weren't for abortion, I wouldn't be alive. My mother had to terminate one of her pregnancies a few years before I was born. From what my father told me, she was forced by her mother (my grandmother) to abort that baby because she was apparently in a life or death situation. All I know is, if she weren't alive, then I would never have been able to exist in the first place. Do I feel sorrow that she had to abort an older brother or sister I could have had? Sure I do. But am I thankful that I am alive to be able to write this? Absolutely. I may not agree on all of Obama's positions towards abortion, but I am certainly less frightened by that than I would be under the prospect of having Roe vs. Wade overturned. I'm conflicted by these two positions and it might have to come down to deciding in the voting both if worse comes to worse.
Belchmaster at 12:09 AM - October 14, 2008
Tosh, it's amazing you advocate abortion... especially when your mother chose to give you life when you are clearly a defective retard. Sorry, that wasn't politically correct, let me re-phrase that so you will understand, you are a fetophobic mentally challenged hateful bigot.
Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.
October 19, 2008
DICK MORRIS
McCain Closing Gap
Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:31 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
While we don’t know the impact of the last debate, the polling indicates that McCain has been able to close the gap with Obama markedly in the past week.
Realclearpolitics.com lists six polls with a field date ending on 10-13. Their average gave Obama a margin of 8.3 percent. There are seven subsequent surveys with a field date ending on 10-16 and their average is an Obama lead of 5.1.
The seven polls whose field date ended on the 16th only include one night of post debate polling (usually of a three night sample). As the next few days of polling comes in, the situation should clarify itself.
But we can say that Obama has lost more than a third of his lead in the last week.
If the financial markets stop hogging the headlines and McCain exploits the tax and spending issue he developed (with the considerable aid of Joe the Plumber) it is very possible that he could close the race further, perhaps bringing it to a tie in the next ten days.
This race is far, far from over!
*************************************************************************************
ACORN Could Cause Obama's Fall
************************************************************************************
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:04 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
As Obama lengthens his lead, the Republicans are praying that the election becomes close enough for the Democrats not to steal. But meanwhile, ACORN, the radical community group, is becoming an embarrassment for Obama.
It is not as if its shenanigans are likely to tip the result, with the Democrats so far ahead. But as it is raided by the FBI in state after state (11 so far), it is becoming identified as the electoral equivalent of Greenpeace, extremists who will stop at nothing to get their way.
What makes ACORN particularly embarrassing for Obama is that he used to be one of them. He served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois, channeled millions to the organization from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (whose funds he distributed) and has lately spent $800,000 of his campaign money to subsidize the group's activities.
For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed the graveyards for votes, and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale.
With friends like this, Obama doesn't need enemies. As their radical activities make headlines every day, Obama's intimate involvement with these radicals becomes more and more of a political liability.
The other Obama scandals have no topical relevance. The Rev. Wright no longer spews hatred from the pulpit and has apparently been persuaded to stay away from media interviews. William Ayers is likewise making himself scarce, and the Obama/Ayers relationship, whatever it may have been, is clearly in the past.
Rezko is facing sentencing in his own corruption case, but isn't likely to turn on the one man who may acquire the power to pardon him.
But, as Election Day approaches and early balloting proceeds in many states, ACORN's tactics will get more and more media attention. As election officials discover ACORN frauds, the association will become more injurious to Obama, particularly when it is his own campaign that is funding many of the fraudulent activities.
At the very least, the negative publicity ACORN will attract will paint Obama as a radical with questionable judgment. At the most, it might cause voters to wonder if he is not himself involved in electoral fraud.
The recent book by Wall Street Journal editor John Fund, "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy," discusses the prevalence of voter fraud, made newly possible by lax enforcement of laws requiring identification to vote. As Fund indicates, the motor/voter laws have encouraged waves of new voters, many of them ineligible to participate. Let us remember that eight of the Sept. 11 hijackers were registered to vote!
So ACORN is the gift that will keep on giving as its activities attract attention while Election Day nears. But are these McCain attacks on Obama going to work?
Clearly they have not so far. Obama has lower negatives than McCain, and his unfavorable rating has not risen despite the avalanche of attack advertising to which he has been subjected.
Possibly, voters are just inured to the attacks and disregard them. But more likely they are just distracted by the financial meltdown all around them. We have never had a presidential race, since 1944, where the contest was not the most important news in the four weeks before the election. (In 1944, the war overshadowed the election, much to the frustration of the Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey.)
The candidates seem unable to get a word in edgewise as the financial news dominates. People follow the Dow Jones more than the Gallup, Rasmussen, or Zogby polls.
If the presidential race remains an afterthought, crowded out by the financial news, Obama will waltz into the White House by a comfortable margin. But if the stock market stops its gyrations for a while and no new household name/corporation or bank goes broke, the negatives against Obama will compel attention at last.
And then the race may close swiftly and dramatically.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:31 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
While we don’t know the impact of the last debate, the polling indicates that McCain has been able to close the gap with Obama markedly in the past week.
Realclearpolitics.com lists six polls with a field date ending on 10-13. Their average gave Obama a margin of 8.3 percent. There are seven subsequent surveys with a field date ending on 10-16 and their average is an Obama lead of 5.1.
The seven polls whose field date ended on the 16th only include one night of post debate polling (usually of a three night sample). As the next few days of polling comes in, the situation should clarify itself.
But we can say that Obama has lost more than a third of his lead in the last week.
If the financial markets stop hogging the headlines and McCain exploits the tax and spending issue he developed (with the considerable aid of Joe the Plumber) it is very possible that he could close the race further, perhaps bringing it to a tie in the next ten days.
This race is far, far from over!
*************************************************************************************
ACORN Could Cause Obama's Fall
************************************************************************************
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:04 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
As Obama lengthens his lead, the Republicans are praying that the election becomes close enough for the Democrats not to steal. But meanwhile, ACORN, the radical community group, is becoming an embarrassment for Obama.
It is not as if its shenanigans are likely to tip the result, with the Democrats so far ahead. But as it is raided by the FBI in state after state (11 so far), it is becoming identified as the electoral equivalent of Greenpeace, extremists who will stop at nothing to get their way.
What makes ACORN particularly embarrassing for Obama is that he used to be one of them. He served as general counsel for ACORN in Illinois, channeled millions to the organization from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (whose funds he distributed) and has lately spent $800,000 of his campaign money to subsidize the group's activities.
For this emolument, ACORN has registered voters 15 times over, canvassed the graveyards for votes, and prepared to commit electoral fraud on a massive scale.
With friends like this, Obama doesn't need enemies. As their radical activities make headlines every day, Obama's intimate involvement with these radicals becomes more and more of a political liability.
The other Obama scandals have no topical relevance. The Rev. Wright no longer spews hatred from the pulpit and has apparently been persuaded to stay away from media interviews. William Ayers is likewise making himself scarce, and the Obama/Ayers relationship, whatever it may have been, is clearly in the past.
Rezko is facing sentencing in his own corruption case, but isn't likely to turn on the one man who may acquire the power to pardon him.
But, as Election Day approaches and early balloting proceeds in many states, ACORN's tactics will get more and more media attention. As election officials discover ACORN frauds, the association will become more injurious to Obama, particularly when it is his own campaign that is funding many of the fraudulent activities.
At the very least, the negative publicity ACORN will attract will paint Obama as a radical with questionable judgment. At the most, it might cause voters to wonder if he is not himself involved in electoral fraud.
The recent book by Wall Street Journal editor John Fund, "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy," discusses the prevalence of voter fraud, made newly possible by lax enforcement of laws requiring identification to vote. As Fund indicates, the motor/voter laws have encouraged waves of new voters, many of them ineligible to participate. Let us remember that eight of the Sept. 11 hijackers were registered to vote!
So ACORN is the gift that will keep on giving as its activities attract attention while Election Day nears. But are these McCain attacks on Obama going to work?
Clearly they have not so far. Obama has lower negatives than McCain, and his unfavorable rating has not risen despite the avalanche of attack advertising to which he has been subjected.
Possibly, voters are just inured to the attacks and disregard them. But more likely they are just distracted by the financial meltdown all around them. We have never had a presidential race, since 1944, where the contest was not the most important news in the four weeks before the election. (In 1944, the war overshadowed the election, much to the frustration of the Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey.)
The candidates seem unable to get a word in edgewise as the financial news dominates. People follow the Dow Jones more than the Gallup, Rasmussen, or Zogby polls.
If the presidential race remains an afterthought, crowded out by the financial news, Obama will waltz into the White House by a comfortable margin. But if the stock market stops its gyrations for a while and no new household name/corporation or bank goes broke, the negatives against Obama will compel attention at last.
And then the race may close swiftly and dramatically.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Lee Iacocca: he's back and he is da*n mad
Subject: Fw:Lee Iacocca: he's back and he is da*n mad
The two party system????
Remember Lee Iacocca, the VP at Ford credited with the birth of the Mustang, the man who rescued Chrysler, Corporation from their death throes, and the owner of the famous quote 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way'? Well, he's back! He has a new book, and here are some excerpts.
Lee Iacocca writes:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned 'Titanic' I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
The Biggest 'C' is Crisis !
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. George Bush, Dick Chaney and who it this Bozo
coming up next? One of the most Liberal Idiots in the U. S. Senate and he is talking about disarming America . I can't believe the American people are seeing what he is about to do to this country. May God have mercy on us all.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess. So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great Companies are all moving offshore. We're getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are the worst in the world. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed ! every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership and we are getting ready to put the most Liberal Senator in the U. S. Senate in as our next President because we want to be fair and elect someone just because of his race. We don't have time to be fair, we need a strong leader.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I hope you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Well guess what people? We are having more floods right now. What are we doing to help these people out. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time. Why are we allowing people to build in flood plains anyway? If you build in a flood area, expect to be flooded and deal with it. Don't expect the Government to bail you out.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. All they seem to be thinking now-days is getting themselves bigger salaries and bonuses. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this ! happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it? likely nothing!
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress and the Senate. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change? I honestly don't think any of you have one!
Had Enough?
Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope; I believe in America ... In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the 'Great Depression', 'World War II', the 'Korean War', the 'Kennedy Assassination', the 'Vietnam War', the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this:
'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to 'Action' for people who, like me, believe in America . It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'
Make a 'real contribution' by sending this to everyone you know and care about......our future is at stake!"
The two party system????
Remember Lee Iacocca, the VP at Ford credited with the birth of the Mustang, the man who rescued Chrysler, Corporation from their death throes, and the owner of the famous quote 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way'? Well, he's back! He has a new book, and here are some excerpts.
Lee Iacocca writes:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned 'Titanic' I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
The Biggest 'C' is Crisis !
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. George Bush, Dick Chaney and who it this Bozo
coming up next? One of the most Liberal Idiots in the U. S. Senate and he is talking about disarming America . I can't believe the American people are seeing what he is about to do to this country. May God have mercy on us all.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess. So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great Companies are all moving offshore. We're getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are the worst in the world. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed ! every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership and we are getting ready to put the most Liberal Senator in the U. S. Senate in as our next President because we want to be fair and elect someone just because of his race. We don't have time to be fair, we need a strong leader.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I hope you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Well guess what people? We are having more floods right now. What are we doing to help these people out. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time. Why are we allowing people to build in flood plains anyway? If you build in a flood area, expect to be flooded and deal with it. Don't expect the Government to bail you out.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. All they seem to be thinking now-days is getting themselves bigger salaries and bonuses. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this ! happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it? likely nothing!
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress and the Senate. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change? I honestly don't think any of you have one!
Had Enough?
Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope; I believe in America ... In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the 'Great Depression', 'World War II', the 'Korean War', the 'Kennedy Assassination', the 'Vietnam War', the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this:
'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to 'Action' for people who, like me, believe in America . It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'
Make a 'real contribution' by sending this to everyone you know and care about......our future is at stake!"
The Sims recovery plan,
submitted by Cynthia our thanks. Mr/Ms Sims should be rewarded.
The Sims recovery plan, I was against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG..
Instead, I was in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonifide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child.
So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So letʼs assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam .
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage and housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans.
What a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college and it'll be there.
Save in a bank and" create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car and create jobs.
Invest in the market and capital drives growth.
Pay for your parent's medical insurance and health care improves .
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean or else ..
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who
lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.
And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 (vote buy) economic incentive that is
being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult US Citizen 18+!
As for AIG and liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go
back to being American General. Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that they could never make work.
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party?!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend
more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .
And remember, The Bill plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5
billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam .
That was then... This is now!
Now we have a 700 BILLION DOLLAR "BAILOUT" in the making... apply the
same math.. what could WE REALLY DO WITH 700 BILLION of OUR MONEY!!??
Forward this to everyone and every politician you can make it get to .
This insanity must end.
We need to FORCE them to do what is right... they still work for us.
The Sims recovery plan, I was against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG..
Instead, I was in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonifide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child.
So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So letʼs assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam .
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage and housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans.
What a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college and it'll be there.
Save in a bank and" create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car and create jobs.
Invest in the market and capital drives growth.
Pay for your parent's medical insurance and health care improves .
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean or else ..
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who
lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.
And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 (vote buy) economic incentive that is
being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult US Citizen 18+!
As for AIG and liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go
back to being American General. Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that they could never make work.
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party?!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend
more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .
And remember, The Bill plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5
billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam .
That was then... This is now!
Now we have a 700 BILLION DOLLAR "BAILOUT" in the making... apply the
same math.. what could WE REALLY DO WITH 700 BILLION of OUR MONEY!!??
Forward this to everyone and every politician you can make it get to .
This insanity must end.
We need to FORCE them to do what is right... they still work for us.
Obama’s Tax Cut is Actually a Spending Increase
Obama’s Tax Cut is Actually a Spending Increase, Says Non-Partisan Group
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
By Matt Cover
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama boards his campaign plane. (AP Photo.) (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.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-3 of 3 Comments Loading...
denialator at 06:57 AM - October 17, 2008
What a unique way of using taxpayer funds to buy more votes. Amazing! We should be so lucky as to have such an economic genius in the office of President. With friends like this guy, who needs enemies? Unrepentant terrorists who get off on technicalities and loopholes in the law may not be such a bad M.O. to live with, compared to this new "spread the wealth" strategy. At least you would know who your enemy is.
kenb at 02:40 PM - October 15, 2008
Payments to people that don't pay taxes are not refunds, they are welfare, or as he recently stated a 'spreading of wealth'. When he rolls back the Bush tax cuts the standard deduction will be less, the marriage tax penalty will be back, and the tax rates will be back to 15/39% instead of the current 10/36%. So Obama is only playing word games with "TAX CUT ON THE RICH". Everyone will see an increase except those that do not pay taxes. Also, with Obamas tax plan, the number of people that do not pay taxes will be reduced. Add to all these tax increases Harry Reid is planning to reinstate the offshore drilling ban, this will increase the price we pay for gas, and therefore, everything else we purchase. Pelosi is planning to call Congress into session if Obama is elected with the intent of spending $300 billion right off the bat. She was against the Bush economic package last year because she said it would hurt the ecomomy (DID NOT)so now with the crisis she wants to pull another?
websmith at 01:19 PM - October 15, 2008
The spending involved with the tax cuts and programs proposed by Obama and McCain will effectively raise taxes on everyone through inflation. http://ewebsmith.com/self/StandUp.html
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
By Matt Cover
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama boards his campaign plane. (AP Photo.) (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.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-3 of 3 Comments Loading...
denialator at 06:57 AM - October 17, 2008
What a unique way of using taxpayer funds to buy more votes. Amazing! We should be so lucky as to have such an economic genius in the office of President. With friends like this guy, who needs enemies? Unrepentant terrorists who get off on technicalities and loopholes in the law may not be such a bad M.O. to live with, compared to this new "spread the wealth" strategy. At least you would know who your enemy is.
kenb at 02:40 PM - October 15, 2008
Payments to people that don't pay taxes are not refunds, they are welfare, or as he recently stated a 'spreading of wealth'. When he rolls back the Bush tax cuts the standard deduction will be less, the marriage tax penalty will be back, and the tax rates will be back to 15/39% instead of the current 10/36%. So Obama is only playing word games with "TAX CUT ON THE RICH". Everyone will see an increase except those that do not pay taxes. Also, with Obamas tax plan, the number of people that do not pay taxes will be reduced. Add to all these tax increases Harry Reid is planning to reinstate the offshore drilling ban, this will increase the price we pay for gas, and therefore, everything else we purchase. Pelosi is planning to call Congress into session if Obama is elected with the intent of spending $300 billion right off the bat. She was against the Bush economic package last year because she said it would hurt the ecomomy (DID NOT)so now with the crisis she wants to pull another?
websmith at 01:19 PM - October 15, 2008
The spending involved with the tax cuts and programs proposed by Obama and McCain will effectively raise taxes on everyone through inflation. http://ewebsmith.com/self/StandUp.html
$49 Million But Had 'Little Impact' on Improving Chicago Schools
Obama-Led Foundation Spent $49 Million But Had 'Little Impact' on Improving Chicago Schools
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the former chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (AP Photo.) (CNSNews.com) – Despite six years and $49.2 million spent to improve schools in the Chicago area, an education reform initiative run by Barack Obama was less than effective, according to two studies, with one in particular describing the grant program as a “failure” that had "little impact on school improvement and student outcomes."
The initiative to improve the schools was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). The Challenge was brought to Chicago by Ayers, a University of Illinois-Chicago education professor and former domestic terrorist, and was chaired by Obama from 1995 to 2001. Over those years, the Challenge distributed millions of dollars to non-profit organizations working with Chicago public schools.
“Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistical differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in the rate of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy and social competence,” the August 2003 report by the Consortium of Chicago School Research said of the CAC.
The CAC began with a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation in 1995. It was one part of a $500 million distributed by the Foundation to 18 school districts across the United States, including Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and South Florida. Like Chicago, each of these Annenberg Challenge programs was run at the local level.
Annenberg grant money went to 210 different schools in the Chicago area, about 90 percent of which were elementary schools, according to the report by the Consortium of Chicago School Research.
Illinois standardized reading and math test scores improved city wide in Chicago by about one point, according to the report. The schools that received Annenberg grants saw no more improvement than the Chicago schools that received no grants.
“Across Annenberg schools, student engagement was only slightly greater in 2001 than before the Challenge,” the report said. “Although some measures of organizational capacity were slightly stronger or weaker in 2001 than at the beginning of the Challenge, there was little net change. In all, the organizational capacity of the Annenberg schools at the end of the Challenge looked much like it did at the beginning.”
The report was written by Mark A. Smylie and Stacy A Wenzel.
Smylie stressed that Annenberg should not be viewed as a complete failure, as public schools need time to improve.
“It was an important piece of a long-term process,” Smylie told CNSNews.com. “It’s a very hard nut to crack. Reforming education is a lot of hard work.”
Others agreed that, despite the reports, the CAc’s efforts should not be dismissed.
John Simmons, with the Strategic Learning Initiative, said he saw the CAC initiative work.
The Learning and Sharing Connection program, for example, run by Simmons’s group, was funded with $665,000 in Annenberg grants from 1998 through 2001. The program helped turn around one of the poorest, worst-performing schools in the United States. Test scores there improved by 11 times in a single year over other schools in the Chicago region, Simmons said.
Simmons thinks the Annenberg program deserves more credit than it has received.
“You read the Annenberg report and it says there wasn’t much progress, but Annenberg did help schools,” Simmons said. “What people miss is that Annenberg took on a bold move nobody ever did before.”
However, according to the report, the Annenberg-funded schools were weaker than other schools in some measurements.
“Student classroom behavior in Annenberg schools declined between 1994 and 2001 at a small but steady rate, although it stayed within the ‘moderately positive’ category,” the Consortium report said. “In 2001, students in Annenberg schools were somewhat less inclined than in 1994 to respect each other, work well together and help each other learn.”
“They were somewhat less likely to report that students who do well in school are not made fun of; that students work together to solve problems; and that they get along well, care about each other and treat each other with respect,” the report continued.
Further, the report said social competence declined. That means students were less likely to help people, to take turns, and listen to what others said.
In the final summary, the report assessed why the Annenberg grants were not more successful.
“The failure of the Challenge to achieve an overall effect on school improvement could be due to a number of shortcomings in the design and implementation of the challenge itself,” the report said. “These include the breadth of its goals and the vagueness of its strategies for school development; the number of participating schools and the inadequacy of the resources they received; and general weaknesses in the levers for change that it developed, particularly with regards to accountability.”
The conclusion continues: “Failure to achieve an overall effect could also be due to weaknesses in the capabilities and resources of external partners and the organizational capacities of Annenberg schools to engage effectively in the Challenge’s approach to reform.”
Coinciding with reforms already in place at the Chicago level was a problem, according to a national report by the Annenberg Foundation that assessed all 18 school districts and how well the initiative worked.
“In Chicago, the Challenge geared up to strengthen parents’ involvement in running neighborhood schools, but the Illinois legislature moved in the opposite direction, giving the mayor sweeping authority in 1995 to run the local schools,” the 2002 Annenberg report said.
“The mayor installed the city’s former budget director as the chief executive officer. The new chief restored the schools’ financial health, built dozens of new schools and repaired hundreds of old ones, but departed finding it considerably more difficult to remedy academic failings,” the report said.
The 2002 report failed to find major improvements across the country in the school districts that received Annenberg money.
“The Challenge did not work miracles, but it breathed new life into American education. It brought hope to schools that had been all but abandoned,” the national report said. “It helped educators who accepted mediocrity and failure to make a new commitment to excellence.”
On the positive side, the national report said that Chicago elementary students at the targeted schools went from being half a grade behind students in the average Chicago schools to being a quarter of a grade ahead of the average. The report said the average grant for a school was $39,000 for schools with an average operating budget of $3.8 million.
While Obama was chairman of the CAC board of directors, Ken Rolling served as the executive director of the organization working there on a day-to-day basis.
Rolling was quoted in the report about Chicago, concluding, “at the end of the day, all fingers point to teacher and principal professional development as the main priority we needed to address.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-3 of 3 Comments Loading...
denialator at 05:42 AM - October 17, 2008
It would be enlightening and helpful to know just on what $49 Million was actually spent.
From the sound of this program CAC (Annenberg Challenge), it is just another bureaucratic black hole in which to pour taxpayers' money. $49 Million would pay 6-figure salaries to 490 people for a year.
Relative to the utilization of public funds in modern terms, $49 Million is a lot of money, the effects of which, positive or negative, would require some analysis based on its practical applications. Clearly, this information is seldom discussed...the reason for which may be intentionally avoided.
ricon at 04:16 PM - October 16, 2008
mec says; Besides, if all those school children actually learned to think, they probably wouldn't vote for democrats. I agree. And, they probably wouldn't be standing in some ACORN line waiting to register to vote 72 times. Barack Obama has yet to prove he has done anything positive in all his time in any office.When asked about his empty resume, he never gives an answer.He just blows so much smoke that the idiots listening can't tell anyone what he actually had to say. If this man gets to the presidency, God help this country. Scares the crap outta me for sure.
mec at 01:35 PM - October 15, 2008
Spending all that money was a grand gesture underlining the importance of education. Democrats like grand and empty gestures. They are emblematic of the democrat devotion to democrat ideology. Besides, if all those school children actually learned to think, they probably wouldn't vote for democrats.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the former chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (AP Photo.) (CNSNews.com) – Despite six years and $49.2 million spent to improve schools in the Chicago area, an education reform initiative run by Barack Obama was less than effective, according to two studies, with one in particular describing the grant program as a “failure” that had "little impact on school improvement and student outcomes."
The initiative to improve the schools was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). The Challenge was brought to Chicago by Ayers, a University of Illinois-Chicago education professor and former domestic terrorist, and was chaired by Obama from 1995 to 2001. Over those years, the Challenge distributed millions of dollars to non-profit organizations working with Chicago public schools.
“Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistical differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in the rate of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy and social competence,” the August 2003 report by the Consortium of Chicago School Research said of the CAC.
The CAC began with a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation in 1995. It was one part of a $500 million distributed by the Foundation to 18 school districts across the United States, including Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and South Florida. Like Chicago, each of these Annenberg Challenge programs was run at the local level.
Annenberg grant money went to 210 different schools in the Chicago area, about 90 percent of which were elementary schools, according to the report by the Consortium of Chicago School Research.
Illinois standardized reading and math test scores improved city wide in Chicago by about one point, according to the report. The schools that received Annenberg grants saw no more improvement than the Chicago schools that received no grants.
“Across Annenberg schools, student engagement was only slightly greater in 2001 than before the Challenge,” the report said. “Although some measures of organizational capacity were slightly stronger or weaker in 2001 than at the beginning of the Challenge, there was little net change. In all, the organizational capacity of the Annenberg schools at the end of the Challenge looked much like it did at the beginning.”
The report was written by Mark A. Smylie and Stacy A Wenzel.
Smylie stressed that Annenberg should not be viewed as a complete failure, as public schools need time to improve.
“It was an important piece of a long-term process,” Smylie told CNSNews.com. “It’s a very hard nut to crack. Reforming education is a lot of hard work.”
Others agreed that, despite the reports, the CAc’s efforts should not be dismissed.
John Simmons, with the Strategic Learning Initiative, said he saw the CAC initiative work.
The Learning and Sharing Connection program, for example, run by Simmons’s group, was funded with $665,000 in Annenberg grants from 1998 through 2001. The program helped turn around one of the poorest, worst-performing schools in the United States. Test scores there improved by 11 times in a single year over other schools in the Chicago region, Simmons said.
Simmons thinks the Annenberg program deserves more credit than it has received.
“You read the Annenberg report and it says there wasn’t much progress, but Annenberg did help schools,” Simmons said. “What people miss is that Annenberg took on a bold move nobody ever did before.”
However, according to the report, the Annenberg-funded schools were weaker than other schools in some measurements.
“Student classroom behavior in Annenberg schools declined between 1994 and 2001 at a small but steady rate, although it stayed within the ‘moderately positive’ category,” the Consortium report said. “In 2001, students in Annenberg schools were somewhat less inclined than in 1994 to respect each other, work well together and help each other learn.”
“They were somewhat less likely to report that students who do well in school are not made fun of; that students work together to solve problems; and that they get along well, care about each other and treat each other with respect,” the report continued.
Further, the report said social competence declined. That means students were less likely to help people, to take turns, and listen to what others said.
In the final summary, the report assessed why the Annenberg grants were not more successful.
“The failure of the Challenge to achieve an overall effect on school improvement could be due to a number of shortcomings in the design and implementation of the challenge itself,” the report said. “These include the breadth of its goals and the vagueness of its strategies for school development; the number of participating schools and the inadequacy of the resources they received; and general weaknesses in the levers for change that it developed, particularly with regards to accountability.”
The conclusion continues: “Failure to achieve an overall effect could also be due to weaknesses in the capabilities and resources of external partners and the organizational capacities of Annenberg schools to engage effectively in the Challenge’s approach to reform.”
Coinciding with reforms already in place at the Chicago level was a problem, according to a national report by the Annenberg Foundation that assessed all 18 school districts and how well the initiative worked.
“In Chicago, the Challenge geared up to strengthen parents’ involvement in running neighborhood schools, but the Illinois legislature moved in the opposite direction, giving the mayor sweeping authority in 1995 to run the local schools,” the 2002 Annenberg report said.
“The mayor installed the city’s former budget director as the chief executive officer. The new chief restored the schools’ financial health, built dozens of new schools and repaired hundreds of old ones, but departed finding it considerably more difficult to remedy academic failings,” the report said.
The 2002 report failed to find major improvements across the country in the school districts that received Annenberg money.
“The Challenge did not work miracles, but it breathed new life into American education. It brought hope to schools that had been all but abandoned,” the national report said. “It helped educators who accepted mediocrity and failure to make a new commitment to excellence.”
On the positive side, the national report said that Chicago elementary students at the targeted schools went from being half a grade behind students in the average Chicago schools to being a quarter of a grade ahead of the average. The report said the average grant for a school was $39,000 for schools with an average operating budget of $3.8 million.
While Obama was chairman of the CAC board of directors, Ken Rolling served as the executive director of the organization working there on a day-to-day basis.
Rolling was quoted in the report about Chicago, concluding, “at the end of the day, all fingers point to teacher and principal professional development as the main priority we needed to address.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-3 of 3 Comments Loading...
denialator at 05:42 AM - October 17, 2008
It would be enlightening and helpful to know just on what $49 Million was actually spent.
From the sound of this program CAC (Annenberg Challenge), it is just another bureaucratic black hole in which to pour taxpayers' money. $49 Million would pay 6-figure salaries to 490 people for a year.
Relative to the utilization of public funds in modern terms, $49 Million is a lot of money, the effects of which, positive or negative, would require some analysis based on its practical applications. Clearly, this information is seldom discussed...the reason for which may be intentionally avoided.
ricon at 04:16 PM - October 16, 2008
mec says; Besides, if all those school children actually learned to think, they probably wouldn't vote for democrats. I agree. And, they probably wouldn't be standing in some ACORN line waiting to register to vote 72 times. Barack Obama has yet to prove he has done anything positive in all his time in any office.When asked about his empty resume, he never gives an answer.He just blows so much smoke that the idiots listening can't tell anyone what he actually had to say. If this man gets to the presidency, God help this country. Scares the crap outta me for sure.
mec at 01:35 PM - October 15, 2008
Spending all that money was a grand gesture underlining the importance of education. Democrats like grand and empty gestures. They are emblematic of the democrat devotion to democrat ideology. Besides, if all those school children actually learned to think, they probably wouldn't vote for democrats.
October 14, 2008
CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
This is very interesting and we all need to read it
from start to finish and send it on to anyone who will read
it. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and
not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be
a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend
who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is
to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously - no. . . Because no other religion is
accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to
the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to
Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam
forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews .
Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the
mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of
Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . Because he is instructed to
marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she
disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the
American Constitution since it is based on Biblical
principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
< BR>
Philosophically - no. . . Because Islam, Muhammad,
and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and
expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every
Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. . . Because when we declare
'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is
loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The
Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS
in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both
'good ' Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You
had better believe it. The more who understand this, the
better it will be for our country and our future. The
religious war is bigger than we know or understand. .. ...
And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our
President? You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America !
Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be
sworn in on the Quran---not a Bible!
Footnote: He was sworn in on the Quran for his
current office and he refuses to pledge allegiance to the
United States or put his hand over his heart when the National
Anthem is played! The Muslims have said they will
destroy us from within. Hello! Having a Muslim president
would seem to fit the bill! Will you trust this man with
our national secrets?
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
Please don't delete this until you send it on.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains
information which may be legally confidential and/or privileged and
does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer
relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional
express written confirmation to that effect. The information is
intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the
contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you have received this electronic transmission in error, please
reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message
in error, and delete it. Thank you.
This is very interesting and we all need to read it
from start to finish and send it on to anyone who will read
it. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and
not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be
a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend
who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is
to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously - no. . . Because no other religion is
accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to
the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to
Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam
forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews .
Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the
mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of
Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . Because he is instructed to
marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she
disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the
American Constitution since it is based on Biblical
principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
< BR>
Philosophically - no. . . Because Islam, Muhammad,
and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and
expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every
Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. . . Because when we declare
'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is
loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The
Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS
in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both
'good ' Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You
had better believe it. The more who understand this, the
better it will be for our country and our future. The
religious war is bigger than we know or understand. .. ...
And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our
President? You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America !
Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be
sworn in on the Quran---not a Bible!
Footnote: He was sworn in on the Quran for his
current office and he refuses to pledge allegiance to the
United States or put his hand over his heart when the National
Anthem is played! The Muslims have said they will
destroy us from within. Hello! Having a Muslim president
would seem to fit the bill! Will you trust this man with
our national secrets?
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
Please don't delete this until you send it on.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains
information which may be legally confidential and/or privileged and
does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer
relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional
express written confirmation to that effect. The information is
intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the
contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you have received this electronic transmission in error, please
reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message
in error, and delete it. Thank you.
October 12, 2008
Obama in Battle Creek, MI
Subject: Obama in Battle Creek, MI
From the original sender:
As many of you know, I have several friends in law enforcement here in town. This was written by some one in the MI state police that worked at the local rally when Obama came to town. It's worth taking the time to read it.
Please pass this along to everyone that you have on your e-mail list because this is just the beginning if this arrogant, egotistical, super liberal, president wannabe gets into office....
To all,
I have read all of the emails from not only some of the MTOA board members, but from other Law Enforcement & Military personnel about Barack Obama's rudeness and what seems to be disgust for basically anyone in uniform. Well, it's my turn to add to the list of emailers and here it is:
So members of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Department, MSP, and other local agencies inside Calhoun County are working with Secret Service in the security of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's bus arrives in Battle Creek and pulls into the stadium area. Before Mr. Obama exits the bus, he has the Secret Service get off and tell all Law Enforcement personnel in uniform that they now have to stand behind the bus so Mr. Obama is not seen with anyone in a Law Enforcement uniform before he gets off or while in the public view. < /EM>
So, everyone from MSP, Sheriff's Dept., and other agencies looks at each other for a brief second, goes and stands behind the bus out of sight so Mr. Obama does not have to see, or been seen with, what to him is 'undesirables' since he refuses to been seen or even acknowledge Military or Law Enforcement.
At a time of war and terrorism in our world, this presidential candidate who is being protected by various branches of the military & law enforcement at the tax payers expense, refuses to acknowledge, be seen with, have in his photographed background, any type of Military or Law Enforcement in uniform.
But this is not in the media or headlines in the news. Why? I wonder what the story or media frenzy would be if it was muslims, blacks, whites, jews, or any other race, gender, religion, and/or occupation, that Mr. Obama refuses to be seen with or have around him.
Why would Law Enforcement branches make this up? Law Enforcement traditionally has had more funding under Democrats.
Just food for thought leading up to November 4th.
Jason Kern
Michigan Tactical Officer's Association
Executive Board Member
Training Committee
jason.kern@mtoa.org
http://www.mtoa.org/
From the original sender:
As many of you know, I have several friends in law enforcement here in town. This was written by some one in the MI state police that worked at the local rally when Obama came to town. It's worth taking the time to read it.
Please pass this along to everyone that you have on your e-mail list because this is just the beginning if this arrogant, egotistical, super liberal, president wannabe gets into office....
To all,
I have read all of the emails from not only some of the MTOA board members, but from other Law Enforcement & Military personnel about Barack Obama's rudeness and what seems to be disgust for basically anyone in uniform. Well, it's my turn to add to the list of emailers and here it is:
So members of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Department, MSP, and other local agencies inside Calhoun County are working with Secret Service in the security of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's bus arrives in Battle Creek and pulls into the stadium area. Before Mr. Obama exits the bus, he has the Secret Service get off and tell all Law Enforcement personnel in uniform that they now have to stand behind the bus so Mr. Obama is not seen with anyone in a Law Enforcement uniform before he gets off or while in the public view. < /EM>
So, everyone from MSP, Sheriff's Dept., and other agencies looks at each other for a brief second, goes and stands behind the bus out of sight so Mr. Obama does not have to see, or been seen with, what to him is 'undesirables' since he refuses to been seen or even acknowledge Military or Law Enforcement.
At a time of war and terrorism in our world, this presidential candidate who is being protected by various branches of the military & law enforcement at the tax payers expense, refuses to acknowledge, be seen with, have in his photographed background, any type of Military or Law Enforcement in uniform.
But this is not in the media or headlines in the news. Why? I wonder what the story or media frenzy would be if it was muslims, blacks, whites, jews, or any other race, gender, religion, and/or occupation, that Mr. Obama refuses to be seen with or have around him.
Why would Law Enforcement branches make this up? Law Enforcement traditionally has had more funding under Democrats.
Just food for thought leading up to November 4th.
Jason Kern
Michigan Tactical Officer's Association
Executive Board Member
Training Committee
jason.kern@mtoa.org
http://www.mtoa.org/
Obama's Principles (Or Lack Of Same)
Obama's Principles (Or Lack Of Same) Are As 'Real' As Issues Get This Year
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:30 PM PT
A recent Republican campaign ad sarcastically described as Barack Obama's "one accomplishment" his support of a bill to promote sex education in kindergarten.
During an interview of a Republican spokesman, Tom Brokaw of NBC News replayed that ad and asked if that was something serious to be discussed in a presidential election campaign.
It was a variation on an old theme about getting back to "the real issues," just as Brokaw's question was a variation on an increasingly widespread tendency among journalists to become a squad of Obama avengers, instead of reporters.
Does it matter if Obama is for sex education in kindergarten? It matters more than most things that are called "the real issues." Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character.
For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.
Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?
Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the president of the United States.
It would be hard to imagine any of Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades — whether Republicans or Democrats — who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.
This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.
There is no more real issue today than, "Who is the real Barack Obama behind the image?"
What does being in favor of sex education in kindergarten tell us about the outlook and character of this largely unknown man who has suddenly appeared on the national scene to claim the highest office in the land?
It gives us an insight into the huge gulf between Sen. Obama's election year image and what he has actually been for and against over the preceding decades. It also shows the huge gulf between his values and those of most other Americans.
Many Americans would consider sex education for kindergartners to be absurd, but there is more to it than that.
What is called "sex education," whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities.
Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early start.
The arrogance of third parties, who take it upon themselves to treat other people's children as a captive audience to brainwash with politically correct notions, while taking no responsibility for the consequences to those children or society, is part of the general vision of the left that pervades our education system.
Sex education for kindergartners is just one of many issues on which Barack Obama has lined up consistently on the side of arrogant elitists of the far left. Sen. Obama's words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists.
Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years.
The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible, but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
Email To Friend |
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:30 PM PT
A recent Republican campaign ad sarcastically described as Barack Obama's "one accomplishment" his support of a bill to promote sex education in kindergarten.
During an interview of a Republican spokesman, Tom Brokaw of NBC News replayed that ad and asked if that was something serious to be discussed in a presidential election campaign.
It was a variation on an old theme about getting back to "the real issues," just as Brokaw's question was a variation on an increasingly widespread tendency among journalists to become a squad of Obama avengers, instead of reporters.
Does it matter if Obama is for sex education in kindergarten? It matters more than most things that are called "the real issues." Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character.
For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.
Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?
Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the president of the United States.
It would be hard to imagine any of Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades — whether Republicans or Democrats — who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.
This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.
There is no more real issue today than, "Who is the real Barack Obama behind the image?"
What does being in favor of sex education in kindergarten tell us about the outlook and character of this largely unknown man who has suddenly appeared on the national scene to claim the highest office in the land?
It gives us an insight into the huge gulf between Sen. Obama's election year image and what he has actually been for and against over the preceding decades. It also shows the huge gulf between his values and those of most other Americans.
Many Americans would consider sex education for kindergartners to be absurd, but there is more to it than that.
What is called "sex education," whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities.
Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early start.
The arrogance of third parties, who take it upon themselves to treat other people's children as a captive audience to brainwash with politically correct notions, while taking no responsibility for the consequences to those children or society, is part of the general vision of the left that pervades our education system.
Sex education for kindergartners is just one of many issues on which Barack Obama has lined up consistently on the side of arrogant elitists of the far left. Sen. Obama's words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists.
Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years.
The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible, but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
Email To Friend |
October 11, 2008
Obama Overseas Money Could Total $3.3 Million
Obama Overseas Money Could Total $3.3 Million
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 7:30 PM
Article Font Size
\Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission.
Most of those contributors did identify themselves as living abroad in foreign cities. Under federal law, foreign citizens cannot make political contributions, but U.S. citizens living abroad can.
The Republican National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday asking for an investigation of Obama's foreign contributions, among other things.
The FEC on Monday provided The Associated Press with a spread sheet of potential overseas donors that did not include contributors who left their state designation blank. As a result, the list was incomplete.
The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors. Republican John McCain's campaign lists all his donors, even those who give less than $200, on his Web site.
The Obama campaign has begun to request passport numbers from donors to verify their citizenship.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 7:30 PM
Article Font Size
\Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission.
Most of those contributors did identify themselves as living abroad in foreign cities. Under federal law, foreign citizens cannot make political contributions, but U.S. citizens living abroad can.
The Republican National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday asking for an investigation of Obama's foreign contributions, among other things.
The FEC on Monday provided The Associated Press with a spread sheet of potential overseas donors that did not include contributors who left their state designation blank. As a result, the list was incomplete.
The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors. Republican John McCain's campaign lists all his donors, even those who give less than $200, on his Web site.
The Obama campaign has begun to request passport numbers from donors to verify their citizenship.
Counterrevolution To Hush The Alternative Media
The Coming Counterrevolution To Hush The Alternative Media
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Signs of what the new environment will be like for the right are already evident:
• When the National Rifle Association recently released television and radio ads in Pennsylvania targeting Obama's history of anti-gun votes, the Obama campaign's general counsel fired off bullying letters to stations that ran the spots, implying that they may have violated public-interest obligations.
• When the 527 group, the American Issues Project, came out with a commercial linking Obama to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the campaign (unsuccessfully) complained to the Department of Justice that AIP had broken campaign finance laws, and managed to spook some stations away from the ad.
• When two different conservative writers looking into Obama's background appeared on Chicago's WGN-AM Radio, the campaign's "action wire" energized its activists to bombard the station with rage-filled phone calls and e-mails, making the program more difficult to conduct.
(The show, hosted by the eminently reasonable Milt Rosenberg, had on both occasions invited the Obama campaign to send a representative to respond; the campaign preferred to answer with digital brownshirts.)
These crude efforts are only a start.
A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.
Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if — as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date — it can't find any listeners or sponsors.
Then there are all the lawyers you'd have to hire to fend off the government regulators. Too much hassle, many radio executives would conclude; better switch to entertainment coverage or some other anodyne format. In 1980, it's worth recalling, talk shows of any kind numbered fewer than 100 nationwide, not thousands like today.
And Obama does say he wants to tighten media ownership regulations and expand the public interest duties of broadcasters, including by imposing greater "local accountability" on them — that is, forcing stations to carry more local programming, even if the public isn't demanding it (which it isn't).
This measure — aimed at national syndicators like Salem Radio that make conservative shows available from coast to coast — is just a sneakier way of shrinking the listenership of hosts like William Bennett or Hugh Hewitt, or even getting them off the air altogether.
Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.
The means here: something called "network neutrality." Neutrality, if enacted, would give government overseers at the FCC the power to ensure that Internet providers treated equally all the information bits surging across the Web's "pipes" — its cables, fiber optics, phone lines and wireless connections.
This measure makes zero economic sense. Broadband providers want to manage more actively — and thus profitably — those information bits. They'd like to offer, for instance, new superfast delivery for sites or users willing to pay more (not unlike how FedEx speeds delivery of packages for a fee), or other new services such as online video or telephony.
Network neutrality would render all that illegal. But why, then, should broadband investors keep building the Web infrastructure needed to keep pace with surging use? Where's their financial incentive?
Yet if that infrastructure isn't in place soon, the vast amount of data pouring online will begin to slow the Web to a crawl, many experts believe. Needless to say, neutrality also will be a gold mine to telecom lawyers, who'll have their hands full figuring out what constitutes "digital discrimination."
But the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned — and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for.
Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered.
Given how the "MSM" has covered this presidential race — fawning over Obama and pummeling John McCain and especially his charismatic running mate Sarah Palin at every opportunity — it's easy to see why many liberals may be hoping for a media restoration.
Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter.
Email To Friend |
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Signs of what the new environment will be like for the right are already evident:
• When the National Rifle Association recently released television and radio ads in Pennsylvania targeting Obama's history of anti-gun votes, the Obama campaign's general counsel fired off bullying letters to stations that ran the spots, implying that they may have violated public-interest obligations.
• When the 527 group, the American Issues Project, came out with a commercial linking Obama to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the campaign (unsuccessfully) complained to the Department of Justice that AIP had broken campaign finance laws, and managed to spook some stations away from the ad.
• When two different conservative writers looking into Obama's background appeared on Chicago's WGN-AM Radio, the campaign's "action wire" energized its activists to bombard the station with rage-filled phone calls and e-mails, making the program more difficult to conduct.
(The show, hosted by the eminently reasonable Milt Rosenberg, had on both occasions invited the Obama campaign to send a representative to respond; the campaign preferred to answer with digital brownshirts.)
These crude efforts are only a start.
A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.
Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if — as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date — it can't find any listeners or sponsors.
Then there are all the lawyers you'd have to hire to fend off the government regulators. Too much hassle, many radio executives would conclude; better switch to entertainment coverage or some other anodyne format. In 1980, it's worth recalling, talk shows of any kind numbered fewer than 100 nationwide, not thousands like today.
And Obama does say he wants to tighten media ownership regulations and expand the public interest duties of broadcasters, including by imposing greater "local accountability" on them — that is, forcing stations to carry more local programming, even if the public isn't demanding it (which it isn't).
This measure — aimed at national syndicators like Salem Radio that make conservative shows available from coast to coast — is just a sneakier way of shrinking the listenership of hosts like William Bennett or Hugh Hewitt, or even getting them off the air altogether.
Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.
The means here: something called "network neutrality." Neutrality, if enacted, would give government overseers at the FCC the power to ensure that Internet providers treated equally all the information bits surging across the Web's "pipes" — its cables, fiber optics, phone lines and wireless connections.
This measure makes zero economic sense. Broadband providers want to manage more actively — and thus profitably — those information bits. They'd like to offer, for instance, new superfast delivery for sites or users willing to pay more (not unlike how FedEx speeds delivery of packages for a fee), or other new services such as online video or telephony.
Network neutrality would render all that illegal. But why, then, should broadband investors keep building the Web infrastructure needed to keep pace with surging use? Where's their financial incentive?
Yet if that infrastructure isn't in place soon, the vast amount of data pouring online will begin to slow the Web to a crawl, many experts believe. Needless to say, neutrality also will be a gold mine to telecom lawyers, who'll have their hands full figuring out what constitutes "digital discrimination."
But the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned — and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for.
Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered.
Given how the "MSM" has covered this presidential race — fawning over Obama and pummeling John McCain and especially his charismatic running mate Sarah Palin at every opportunity — it's easy to see why many liberals may be hoping for a media restoration.
Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter.
Email To Friend |
October 10, 2008
Lieberman Calls Obama 'Naïve,' May Bolt Party
Lieberman Calls Obama 'Naïve,' May Bolt Party
By: Tim Collie and David Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s “naïve” world view could embolden America’s enemies during one of the most dangerous periods for America since the 1930s, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Newsmax in an exclusive television sit-down interview Tuesday.
Lieberman, visiting Fort Lauderdale, Fla., also told Newsmax that he is so disappointed with the Democratic Party, he will consider whether to bolt the Democratic Senate caucus next session.
[You can see the full video broadcast on Newsmax.tv — Go Here Now].
“I believe he’s naïve to think that people like [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Tehran will somehow become America’s friends by talking to them — a warm embrace and a cup of tea. It’s not going to work that way,” said Lieberman.
McCain’s recent decline in the polls was “unfair” and “not rational,” Lieberman said, referring to the negative economic news that has impacted the McCain campaign.
The Connecticut senator suggested that many Americans don’t realize that the global economic crisis is also a security crisis—one that will require an experienced foreign policy hand like McCain to navigate.
“Frankly, he has to convince the American people that Barack Obama is not ready for prime time, that he’s not ready to be president of the United States,’’ Lieberman said. “Particularly not now, when we’re in two wars abroad and facing the most serious economic crisis we’ve faced since the Great Depression.”
McCain’s recent drop in the polls, Lieberman said, stems from voter reaction to the subprime meltdown.
“The economy has had such a crisis the past couple of weeks, that for reasons that I don’t think are fair or rational, Senator McCain seems to be losing as a result, and Senator Obama seems to be gaining. It’s the only thing that’s really changed,” he said.
“The very fact that the American people clearly trust John McCain more in a national security crisis is exactly the reason why they should have more confidence in him in an economic security crisis than Senator Obama,” said Lieberman.
In a wide-ranging interview, Lieberman also said:
• It’s important for the political process to question Obama’s ties to former Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers: “I think these are very fair questions and it’s now up to Senator Obama to answer them.”
• Barack Obama is clearly ‘not ready’ yet to be commander in chief, and the country’s adversaries, including Iran “will not fear him” if he were to become president.
• McCain needs to persuade voters that “based on his record, that he really is the one who will change Washington, and Washington truly needs to be changed.”
• McCain should tout his economic plan that will emphasize tax cuts and job creation — exactly what a troubled economy needs. He said it would be foolhardy to raise taxes in a recession, as Obama has promised.
• The Republicans must emphasize that his plan for energy independence will create “hundreds of thousands, I think millions of new jobs.”
Asked if he may leave his party and join with Senate Republicans, Lieberman said he had no immediate plans to make that move, but said he would consider it at a later date.
“The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that I joined in the '60s under my hero President Kennedy, and it’s not the Democratic Party of my dear friend Bill Clinton,” Lieberman said.
Still, Lieberman insists his main focus today is to get McCain elected president and has spent the past several months traveling the campaign trail on McCain’s behalf. On Monday night, he introduced McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to a Boca Raton audience at an event that raised more than $1 million.
By: Tim Collie and David Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s “naïve” world view could embolden America’s enemies during one of the most dangerous periods for America since the 1930s, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Newsmax in an exclusive television sit-down interview Tuesday.
Lieberman, visiting Fort Lauderdale, Fla., also told Newsmax that he is so disappointed with the Democratic Party, he will consider whether to bolt the Democratic Senate caucus next session.
[You can see the full video broadcast on Newsmax.tv — Go Here Now].
“I believe he’s naïve to think that people like [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Tehran will somehow become America’s friends by talking to them — a warm embrace and a cup of tea. It’s not going to work that way,” said Lieberman.
McCain’s recent decline in the polls was “unfair” and “not rational,” Lieberman said, referring to the negative economic news that has impacted the McCain campaign.
The Connecticut senator suggested that many Americans don’t realize that the global economic crisis is also a security crisis—one that will require an experienced foreign policy hand like McCain to navigate.
“Frankly, he has to convince the American people that Barack Obama is not ready for prime time, that he’s not ready to be president of the United States,’’ Lieberman said. “Particularly not now, when we’re in two wars abroad and facing the most serious economic crisis we’ve faced since the Great Depression.”
McCain’s recent drop in the polls, Lieberman said, stems from voter reaction to the subprime meltdown.
“The economy has had such a crisis the past couple of weeks, that for reasons that I don’t think are fair or rational, Senator McCain seems to be losing as a result, and Senator Obama seems to be gaining. It’s the only thing that’s really changed,” he said.
“The very fact that the American people clearly trust John McCain more in a national security crisis is exactly the reason why they should have more confidence in him in an economic security crisis than Senator Obama,” said Lieberman.
In a wide-ranging interview, Lieberman also said:
• It’s important for the political process to question Obama’s ties to former Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers: “I think these are very fair questions and it’s now up to Senator Obama to answer them.”
• Barack Obama is clearly ‘not ready’ yet to be commander in chief, and the country’s adversaries, including Iran “will not fear him” if he were to become president.
• McCain needs to persuade voters that “based on his record, that he really is the one who will change Washington, and Washington truly needs to be changed.”
• McCain should tout his economic plan that will emphasize tax cuts and job creation — exactly what a troubled economy needs. He said it would be foolhardy to raise taxes in a recession, as Obama has promised.
• The Republicans must emphasize that his plan for energy independence will create “hundreds of thousands, I think millions of new jobs.”
Asked if he may leave his party and join with Senate Republicans, Lieberman said he had no immediate plans to make that move, but said he would consider it at a later date.
“The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that I joined in the '60s under my hero President Kennedy, and it’s not the Democratic Party of my dear friend Bill Clinton,” Lieberman said.
Still, Lieberman insists his main focus today is to get McCain elected president and has spent the past several months traveling the campaign trail on McCain’s behalf. On Monday night, he introduced McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to a Boca Raton audience at an event that raised more than $1 million.
Is ACORN Stealing The Election?
Is ACORN Stealing The Election?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election Fraud: A radical group Barack Obama used to work for is committing voter-registration fraud in several states, ahead of the election. What does Obama know about this scam?
It's a legitimate question to raise now that the FBI has raided the offices of the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in Nevada and North Carolina, two states where Obama and John McCain are running neck-and-neck. ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.
The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.
"Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada," Secretary of State Ross Miller said, "and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4."
While those names will be flagged on Election Day, felonious voters may have better luck using other cutouts. Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote.
In North Carolina, where Obama has been running nonstop ads, ACORN has registered a record number of new voters, many of them suspicious. Statewide, Democrats are doing better than the GOP in new converts — even in traditionally Republican counties.
There have been 218,749 newly registered Democrats in North Carolina since January — more than five times the 38,337 new Republicans, state records show.
The numbers show a startlingly close political battle even in Republican-dominated Union County, with 4,233 new voters registering as Democrats and 4,362 as Republicans. In previous election years, new Republicans have outnumbered Democrats 2-to-1 in the fast-growing Charlotte-area county.
In Missouri, one ACORN registrant named Monica Rays showed up on no less than eight forms, all bearing the same signature.
Suspicious election officials sent letters to some 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis, asking the letter recipients to contact them.
Fewer than 40 reponded.
In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.
In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
ACORN has also been registering convicted felons — including inmates — in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?
For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
What's more, Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year.
The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud.
Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters.
Meantime, New Orleans-based ACORN maintains that it has no control over volunteers who are falsifying application forms, that they're like employees who steal from the store.
But the fraud is widespread and not isolated. It also turns out that some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago.
ACORN's corruption is not just out in the field, as they claim. There's a pattern of corruption from the top down.
McCain would be wise to start preparing a challenge to voter registration rolls should he lose the race in a close contest. He'd be crazy not to contest the results in light of these events.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election Fraud: A radical group Barack Obama used to work for is committing voter-registration fraud in several states, ahead of the election. What does Obama know about this scam?
It's a legitimate question to raise now that the FBI has raided the offices of the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in Nevada and North Carolina, two states where Obama and John McCain are running neck-and-neck. ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.
The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.
"Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada," Secretary of State Ross Miller said, "and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4."
While those names will be flagged on Election Day, felonious voters may have better luck using other cutouts. Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote.
In North Carolina, where Obama has been running nonstop ads, ACORN has registered a record number of new voters, many of them suspicious. Statewide, Democrats are doing better than the GOP in new converts — even in traditionally Republican counties.
There have been 218,749 newly registered Democrats in North Carolina since January — more than five times the 38,337 new Republicans, state records show.
The numbers show a startlingly close political battle even in Republican-dominated Union County, with 4,233 new voters registering as Democrats and 4,362 as Republicans. In previous election years, new Republicans have outnumbered Democrats 2-to-1 in the fast-growing Charlotte-area county.
In Missouri, one ACORN registrant named Monica Rays showed up on no less than eight forms, all bearing the same signature.
Suspicious election officials sent letters to some 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis, asking the letter recipients to contact them.
Fewer than 40 reponded.
In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.
In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
ACORN has also been registering convicted felons — including inmates — in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?
For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
What's more, Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year.
The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud.
Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters.
Meantime, New Orleans-based ACORN maintains that it has no control over volunteers who are falsifying application forms, that they're like employees who steal from the store.
But the fraud is widespread and not isolated. It also turns out that some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago.
ACORN's corruption is not just out in the field, as they claim. There's a pattern of corruption from the top down.
McCain would be wise to start preparing a challenge to voter registration rolls should he lose the race in a close contest. He'd be crazy not to contest the results in light of these events.
Email To Friend |
Obama’s Radical Agenda Exposed
An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a donation today to help our cause
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.
We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
We plan to target key states that can make a difference — But we need your help to do it.
As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.
A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.
But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — Any amount you can afford will help.
Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.
Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.
Please help today – Donate by Going Here Now
It will most certainly help our great nation.
Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Election Day is just weeks away. Your support today can make a huge difference – donate today -- Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.
An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a donation today to help our cause
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.
We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
We plan to target key states that can make a difference — But we need your help to do it.
As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.
A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.
But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — Any amount you can afford will help.
Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.
Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.
Please help today – Donate by Going Here Now
It will most certainly help our great nation.
Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Election Day is just weeks away. Your support today can make a huge difference – donate today -- Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.
October 9, 2008
NOT WHAT WAS ANSWERED BUT NOT ASKED?
IT IS NOT WHAT WAS ANSWERED OR MISSTATED BUT RATHER WHAT WAS NOT ASKED.
NAT A SINGLE QUESTION ON IMMIGRATION, IRAQ, CORRUPT POLITICIANS, AND OTHERS. DAA
(CNSNews.com) - Neither Tom Brokaw of NBC News, who moderated Tuesday night’s presidential debate, nor any of the “townhall” audience members Brokaw pre-selected to ask questions of the two presidential candidates asked a single question about immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage or the war in Iraq.
The pretext of the debate was that the questions would come from a “townhall” audience and from Americans all across the nation sending in questions via the Internet. All issues would be inbounds.
Ultimately, however, all questions were screened and chosen by NBC’s Brokaw, who kept the focus almost exclusively on the economy and foreign policy.
In commentary on Fox News after the debate, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard observed that there had been no questions about immigration and abortion. He was correct.
None of the questions in the debate referenced immigration, abortion or same-sex marriage, issues that have been prominent in American public policy debates in recent years.
Not one question directly mentioned Iraq, a nation where America is currently involved in a congressionally authorized war. Both candidates, however, brought up Iraq and discussed it in the course of their answers to questions that did not reference Iraq.
In his introduction to the debate, which was held at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., Brokaw explained that he was the final decider of questions.
“Tonight's debate is the only one with a town hall format,” Brokaw said. “The Gallup Organization chose 80 uncommitted voters from the Nashville area to be here with us tonight. And earlier today, each of them gave me a copy of their question for the candidates. From all of these questions--and from tens of thousands submitted online--I have selected a long list of excellent questions on domestic and foreign policy. Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen the questions. And although we won't be able to get to all of them tonight, we should have a wide-ranging discussion one month before the election.”
But this “wide-ranging” discussion in fact centered almost entirely on the economy and foreign policy which together were the theme of 16 of the 21 distinct questions asked. The only other issues featured in debate questions were the environment, energy and health care.
An analysis of a complete transcript of the debate posted by CNN shortly after the debate ended, indicated that of the 21 distinct debate questions, 9 focused on the economy, 7 on foreign policy, 2 on health care, 1 on the environment, and 1 on energy.
An additional question—the last one in the debate—came from a woman in Amherst, New Hampshire, and was characterized by Brokaw as having a “Zen-like” quality. It was: “"What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
A statement put out by the Commission on Presidential Debates on September 21 said the commission hailed the formats of this year’s presidential debates as an “historic breakthrough.”
It pitched Tuesday night’s debate as one that would allow “all topics in town meeting format, moderated by Tom Brokaw.”
“This year the moderator will include questions submitted by Internet at MyDebates.org with questions from the citizen participants,” the statement said.
The next and final presidential debate will be held next Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The commission says it will be on “the economy and domestic policy, moderated by Bob Schieffer.” Schieffer works for CBS News.
That debate will allow each candidate to spend 2 minutes answering a question followed by five minutes of discussion between the candidates.
Here are the 21 distinct questions asked in Tuesday night’s debate arranged by issue category:
Economy (9):
Audience member: “With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?”
Tom Brokaw: “Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?”
Audience member: “Through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.”
Tom Brokaw: “Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?”
Audience Member: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?”
Tom Brokaw: “There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?”
Tom Brokaw: “We're going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don't get this under control here before too long. Sen. McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiora (ph) from Chicago. Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?”
Tom Brokaw: “President Bush, you'll remember, last summer, said that "Wall Street got drunk." A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk. How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?”
Tom Brokaw: “Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.”
Environment (1):
Audience member: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”
Energy (1):
Tom Brokaw: “Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?”
Health Care (2):
12. Audience Member: “Senator, selling health care coverage in America as the marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?”
13. Tom Brokaw: “Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?”
Foreign Policy (7):
Audience Member: “How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?”
15. Tom Brokaw: “Let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security. Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?”
Audience Member: “Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?”
17. Tom Brokaw: “Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan. The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator. If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.”
18. Tom Brokaw: “How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?”
Tom Brokaw: “This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?”
20. Audience Member: “If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?”
Zen-Like Question (1):
21. Tom Brokaw: “We've come to the last question. And you'll both be interested to know this comes from the Internet and it's from a state that you're strongly contesting, both of you. It's from Peggy in Amherst, New Hampshire. And it has a certain Zen-like quality, I'll give you a fair warning. She says, "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
Sean777 at 06:12 PM - October 08, 2008
Vote for change, vote for OBAMA/BIDEN!!!! Vote for equal rights for all, not special rights for rich white men. Tax the rich, re-distribute to the middle and lower classes. The Buybull has no place in a secular government, esp., this one! I have the right to marry whomsoever I love, regardless of gender or gender identity/expression. I have the same rights as str8's, but they don't have to fight for theirs, no, they live in the lap of heteroprivilege, then have the chutzpah to say **anything against** when we demand the same. The democrats at the DNC were the only ones to bring up GLBT equality. The GOP, due to their enslavement to evangelicals, didn't dare. So, in closing, if you support equal rights for ALL people, all considerations aside, vote for Obama/Biden, NOT Mcsame/Caribou Barbie.
Ender Wiggin at 02:40 PM - October 08, 2008
Gun rights? I love the quote from the movie "The American President," when Michael Douglas says that for some reason that surpasses understanding the American people don't equate guns with gun-related crime. As for Brokaw not mentioning gay marriage or abortion, THANK GOD!!!!! We need to keep our eye on the ball here, folks. Talk about religion in your church and let the national politicians talk about national politics. Trying to use mythology as a basis for running a government is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to protect us from when they separated church and state.
stovebolt at 02:18 PM - October 08, 2008
Why would they ask the important questions when they can ask the same ones over and over again. The press is afraid if they ask about immigration, that the hispanics will raise holy hell. We live in fear of racism which has been embedded so deep that no one will bring up the true and important issues. We can't ask about anything that relates to religion, race or illegal immigrants.We have now become France.
shark60 at 01:23 PM - October 08, 2008
Did you really expect NBC to ask their poster child anything that he couldn't use his baffle them with BS eloquence. This whole thing was set up to put McCain on the spot and highlight Obama without allowing any of his ignorance to show through. Even with the unfair questions and he could do is double speak and never give direct answers.
MomInTheFlyOverZone at 01:21 PM - October 08, 2008
Well, I guess we need to get our information about the issues via the internet - the MSM is in the tank for Obama and there is no well in he** that any of those issues will be covered. For the conservatives like me, this is very troubling. I am very disappointed in what I see for the future of my daughter and her friends. I've pretty much given up on getting any correct answers via the debates. Like I said, do your own research and don't take either one of them at their word, but especially Obama.
NAT A SINGLE QUESTION ON IMMIGRATION, IRAQ, CORRUPT POLITICIANS, AND OTHERS. DAA
(CNSNews.com) - Neither Tom Brokaw of NBC News, who moderated Tuesday night’s presidential debate, nor any of the “townhall” audience members Brokaw pre-selected to ask questions of the two presidential candidates asked a single question about immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage or the war in Iraq.
The pretext of the debate was that the questions would come from a “townhall” audience and from Americans all across the nation sending in questions via the Internet. All issues would be inbounds.
Ultimately, however, all questions were screened and chosen by NBC’s Brokaw, who kept the focus almost exclusively on the economy and foreign policy.
In commentary on Fox News after the debate, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard observed that there had been no questions about immigration and abortion. He was correct.
None of the questions in the debate referenced immigration, abortion or same-sex marriage, issues that have been prominent in American public policy debates in recent years.
Not one question directly mentioned Iraq, a nation where America is currently involved in a congressionally authorized war. Both candidates, however, brought up Iraq and discussed it in the course of their answers to questions that did not reference Iraq.
In his introduction to the debate, which was held at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., Brokaw explained that he was the final decider of questions.
“Tonight's debate is the only one with a town hall format,” Brokaw said. “The Gallup Organization chose 80 uncommitted voters from the Nashville area to be here with us tonight. And earlier today, each of them gave me a copy of their question for the candidates. From all of these questions--and from tens of thousands submitted online--I have selected a long list of excellent questions on domestic and foreign policy. Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen the questions. And although we won't be able to get to all of them tonight, we should have a wide-ranging discussion one month before the election.”
But this “wide-ranging” discussion in fact centered almost entirely on the economy and foreign policy which together were the theme of 16 of the 21 distinct questions asked. The only other issues featured in debate questions were the environment, energy and health care.
An analysis of a complete transcript of the debate posted by CNN shortly after the debate ended, indicated that of the 21 distinct debate questions, 9 focused on the economy, 7 on foreign policy, 2 on health care, 1 on the environment, and 1 on energy.
An additional question—the last one in the debate—came from a woman in Amherst, New Hampshire, and was characterized by Brokaw as having a “Zen-like” quality. It was: “"What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
A statement put out by the Commission on Presidential Debates on September 21 said the commission hailed the formats of this year’s presidential debates as an “historic breakthrough.”
It pitched Tuesday night’s debate as one that would allow “all topics in town meeting format, moderated by Tom Brokaw.”
“This year the moderator will include questions submitted by Internet at MyDebates.org with questions from the citizen participants,” the statement said.
The next and final presidential debate will be held next Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The commission says it will be on “the economy and domestic policy, moderated by Bob Schieffer.” Schieffer works for CBS News.
That debate will allow each candidate to spend 2 minutes answering a question followed by five minutes of discussion between the candidates.
Here are the 21 distinct questions asked in Tuesday night’s debate arranged by issue category:
Economy (9):
Audience member: “With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?”
Tom Brokaw: “Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?”
Audience member: “Through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.”
Tom Brokaw: “Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?”
Audience Member: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?”
Tom Brokaw: “There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?”
Tom Brokaw: “We're going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don't get this under control here before too long. Sen. McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiora (ph) from Chicago. Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?”
Tom Brokaw: “President Bush, you'll remember, last summer, said that "Wall Street got drunk." A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk. How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?”
Tom Brokaw: “Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.”
Environment (1):
Audience member: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”
Energy (1):
Tom Brokaw: “Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?”
Health Care (2):
12. Audience Member: “Senator, selling health care coverage in America as the marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?”
13. Tom Brokaw: “Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?”
Foreign Policy (7):
Audience Member: “How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?”
15. Tom Brokaw: “Let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security. Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?”
Audience Member: “Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?”
17. Tom Brokaw: “Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan. The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator. If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.”
18. Tom Brokaw: “How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?”
Tom Brokaw: “This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?”
20. Audience Member: “If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?”
Zen-Like Question (1):
21. Tom Brokaw: “We've come to the last question. And you'll both be interested to know this comes from the Internet and it's from a state that you're strongly contesting, both of you. It's from Peggy in Amherst, New Hampshire. And it has a certain Zen-like quality, I'll give you a fair warning. She says, "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
Sean777 at 06:12 PM - October 08, 2008
Vote for change, vote for OBAMA/BIDEN!!!! Vote for equal rights for all, not special rights for rich white men. Tax the rich, re-distribute to the middle and lower classes. The Buybull has no place in a secular government, esp., this one! I have the right to marry whomsoever I love, regardless of gender or gender identity/expression. I have the same rights as str8's, but they don't have to fight for theirs, no, they live in the lap of heteroprivilege, then have the chutzpah to say **anything against** when we demand the same. The democrats at the DNC were the only ones to bring up GLBT equality. The GOP, due to their enslavement to evangelicals, didn't dare. So, in closing, if you support equal rights for ALL people, all considerations aside, vote for Obama/Biden, NOT Mcsame/Caribou Barbie.
Ender Wiggin at 02:40 PM - October 08, 2008
Gun rights? I love the quote from the movie "The American President," when Michael Douglas says that for some reason that surpasses understanding the American people don't equate guns with gun-related crime. As for Brokaw not mentioning gay marriage or abortion, THANK GOD!!!!! We need to keep our eye on the ball here, folks. Talk about religion in your church and let the national politicians talk about national politics. Trying to use mythology as a basis for running a government is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to protect us from when they separated church and state.
stovebolt at 02:18 PM - October 08, 2008
Why would they ask the important questions when they can ask the same ones over and over again. The press is afraid if they ask about immigration, that the hispanics will raise holy hell. We live in fear of racism which has been embedded so deep that no one will bring up the true and important issues. We can't ask about anything that relates to religion, race or illegal immigrants.We have now become France.
shark60 at 01:23 PM - October 08, 2008
Did you really expect NBC to ask their poster child anything that he couldn't use his baffle them with BS eloquence. This whole thing was set up to put McCain on the spot and highlight Obama without allowing any of his ignorance to show through. Even with the unfair questions and he could do is double speak and never give direct answers.
MomInTheFlyOverZone at 01:21 PM - October 08, 2008
Well, I guess we need to get our information about the issues via the internet - the MSM is in the tank for Obama and there is no well in he** that any of those issues will be covered. For the conservatives like me, this is very troubling. I am very disappointed in what I see for the future of my daughter and her friends. I've pretty much given up on getting any correct answers via the debates. Like I said, do your own research and don't take either one of them at their word, but especially Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
