Morris' Political Insider RSS ARCHIVE
McCain's Brilliant Bailout Strategy
Friday, September 26, 2008 4:34 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
McCain has transformed a minority in both houses of Congress and a losing position in the polls into the key role in the bailout package, the main man around whom the final package will take shape.
He arrived in Washington to find the Democrats working with the Bush administration to pass an unpopular $700 billion bailout. The Democrats had already cut their deal with Bush. They agreed to the price tag while Bush agreed to special aid to families facing foreclosure, equity for the taxpayers, and limits on executive compensation. But no sooner had McCain arrived than he derailed the deal.
Knowing how unpopular the bailout is with the American people, the Democrats are not about to pass anything without broad Republican support even though their majorities permit them to act alone. Instead of signing on with the Democratic/Bush package, the House Republicans are insisting on replacing the purchase of corporate debt with loans to companies and insurance paid for by the companies, not by the taxpayers.
That, of course, is a popular position. McCain would be comfortable to debate this issue division all day. And, if the Democrats don't cave in to the Republican position, that's probably exactly what he'll do on Friday night's scheduled debate in Mississippi.
But the Democrats are not about to be stubborn. They know their package is a lemon and need the political cover of Republican support. So the Republicans can write their own ticket — and they will. John McCain will be at the center of the emerging compromise while Obama is out on the campaign trail kissing babies.
If the deal is cut before Friday's debate, my bet is that McCain shows up in triumph. If it isn't, he shows up anyway and flagellates Obama over the differences between the Democratic package and McCain's.
By Monday, at the latest, the Democrats have to cave in and pass the Republican version. They don't dare pass their own without GOP support, so they will have to acquiesce to the Republican version.
Then McCain comes out of the process as the hero who made it happen when the president couldn't and Obama wouldn't. He becomes the bailout expert. And, of course, the bailout will work.
With the feds standing behind the bad debt, whether by purchase or loans and insurance, Wall Street will breathe a sigh of relief. Bears won't dare bet against the economy with the entire weight of the federal government on the other side. They may be bears but they are not rabid.
Finally, McCain, as the reigning expert on bailouts, then can take the tax issue to Obama, saying that a tax increase, such as the Democrat is pushing, would destroy the bailout, ruin the economy, and trigger a collapse.
This bold move by McCain is about to work. Big time.
September 26, 2008
What Is An “Islamophobe?”
I FEEL THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL ENLIGHTEN ALL OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM AND THE GOOD AND UGLY POINTS ALSO.
Dear Dave,
Prior to the release of Brigitte Gabriel’s new book, They Must Be Stopped, Brigitte did an interview for the New York Times magazine. You may recall that when the interview appeared, Brigitte was labeled a “radical Islamophobe.”
In response, Brigitte wrote the piece below, and it was pitched to numerous newspapers around the country. As far as we know, FrontPageMagazine was the only outlet that published it.
If you haven’t yet done so, to get a copy of the book that’s creating so much of a stir, click here!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is An “Islamophobe?”
By Brigitte Gabriel
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/26/2008
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63E81FA2-BB8A-466C-9BC4-7CF20C272431
For the past five years, I’ve been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam. I have often been accused of “hate speech” and “Islamophobia.” The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an “Islamophobe,” but a “radical Islamophobe.” This made me question what those terms really mean. What is the difference between “hate speech” and “free speech”? What is “Islamophobia” and who are the true “Islamophobes?”
“Hate speech” verses “free speech” is easy to define. All over the United States, so-called “progressive” individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries. That’s called “free speech.” When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that’s labeled “hate speech” by many of these “progressives.”
But what is “hate speech” and what is “Islamophobia”? When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources. When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest “hatefulness?” Certainly.
However, it’s not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate. I wish they didn’t. But wishing doesn’t make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times). The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’" (Koran 8:12)
The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes. In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated. It is the Koran that is guilty of “hate speech.” I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.
Which brings us to “Islamophobia” and “radical Islamophobes.” According to the dictionary, the suffix “-phobe” comes from the Latin phobos, which means “fearing.” Do I fear radical Islam? You bet. Do any of these locales ring a bell? London subways. Madrid train stations. Bali night clubs. Beslan elementary school. They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed. I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world. If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I am an “Islamophobe” in its healthiest manifestation. In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.
Things get a little more complicated when we get to “Islamophobia.” The dictionary defines a “phobia” as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.” Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is “exaggerated,” “inexplicable” and/or “illogical” is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level. If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT “Islamophobia.”
If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix “-phobia” can include “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes, I am. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes, I do. According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be “Islamophobia.” However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a “Islamophobe,” then I submit that my so-called “Islamophobia” is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.
The next question must be: what distinguishes a “radical” Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill Islamophobe? Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamphobia affects their behavior. My “Islamophobia” motivates me to stand up and speak out about the threat of radical Islam. My “Islamophobia” motivates me to tell-the-truth. This definitely makes me a “radical.” Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound. Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation.
The best-known example is the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the details. There was much hand wringing in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them.[1] Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of “fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do….”[2] The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were “offensive,” and they were being “respectful” of Muslim “sensitivity.” Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, “insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish.”[3]
The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper.[4] The Times could have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans. Instead, the Times’ fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead. This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia.
And the Times is still playing dead. It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry. Random House has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad’s wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction.[5] The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc. They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia. They’ve become like slaves, so accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand. No one rings the alarm at the Times when a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting.
Am I afraid of those Muslims who do not use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism? No. Do I fear radical Islam? I already admitted that I did. Maybe that makes me a “radical Islamophobe.” But am I cowed by my fear of radical Islamists? Absolutely not. I will continue to stand up and tell the truth. Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear? Almost certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe.
If I were a New York Times Islamophobe instead of a Brigitte Gabriel Islamophobe, I could no longer say I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Dear Dave,
Prior to the release of Brigitte Gabriel’s new book, They Must Be Stopped, Brigitte did an interview for the New York Times magazine. You may recall that when the interview appeared, Brigitte was labeled a “radical Islamophobe.”
In response, Brigitte wrote the piece below, and it was pitched to numerous newspapers around the country. As far as we know, FrontPageMagazine was the only outlet that published it.
If you haven’t yet done so, to get a copy of the book that’s creating so much of a stir, click here!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is An “Islamophobe?”
By Brigitte Gabriel
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/26/2008
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63E81FA2-BB8A-466C-9BC4-7CF20C272431
For the past five years, I’ve been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam. I have often been accused of “hate speech” and “Islamophobia.” The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an “Islamophobe,” but a “radical Islamophobe.” This made me question what those terms really mean. What is the difference between “hate speech” and “free speech”? What is “Islamophobia” and who are the true “Islamophobes?”
“Hate speech” verses “free speech” is easy to define. All over the United States, so-called “progressive” individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries. That’s called “free speech.” When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that’s labeled “hate speech” by many of these “progressives.”
But what is “hate speech” and what is “Islamophobia”? When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources. When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest “hatefulness?” Certainly.
However, it’s not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate. I wish they didn’t. But wishing doesn’t make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times). The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’" (Koran 8:12)
The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes. In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated. It is the Koran that is guilty of “hate speech.” I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.
Which brings us to “Islamophobia” and “radical Islamophobes.” According to the dictionary, the suffix “-phobe” comes from the Latin phobos, which means “fearing.” Do I fear radical Islam? You bet. Do any of these locales ring a bell? London subways. Madrid train stations. Bali night clubs. Beslan elementary school. They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed. I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world. If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I am an “Islamophobe” in its healthiest manifestation. In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.
Things get a little more complicated when we get to “Islamophobia.” The dictionary defines a “phobia” as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.” Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is “exaggerated,” “inexplicable” and/or “illogical” is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level. If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT “Islamophobia.”
If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix “-phobia” can include “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes, I am. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes, I do. According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be “Islamophobia.” However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a “Islamophobe,” then I submit that my so-called “Islamophobia” is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.
The next question must be: what distinguishes a “radical” Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill Islamophobe? Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamphobia affects their behavior. My “Islamophobia” motivates me to stand up and speak out about the threat of radical Islam. My “Islamophobia” motivates me to tell-the-truth. This definitely makes me a “radical.” Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound. Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation.
The best-known example is the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the details. There was much hand wringing in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them.[1] Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of “fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do….”[2] The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were “offensive,” and they were being “respectful” of Muslim “sensitivity.” Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, “insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish.”[3]
The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper.[4] The Times could have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans. Instead, the Times’ fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead. This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia.
And the Times is still playing dead. It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry. Random House has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad’s wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction.[5] The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc. They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia. They’ve become like slaves, so accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand. No one rings the alarm at the Times when a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting.
Am I afraid of those Muslims who do not use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism? No. Do I fear radical Islam? I already admitted that I did. Maybe that makes me a “radical Islamophobe.” But am I cowed by my fear of radical Islamists? Absolutely not. I will continue to stand up and tell the truth. Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear? Almost certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe.
If I were a New York Times Islamophobe instead of a Brigitte Gabriel Islamophobe, I could no longer say I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
September 25, 2008
Status Quobama
Status Quobama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Media caricatures make John McCain the tired, old candidate of standing pat and Barack Obama the agent of change. But it's becoming ever clearer that Obama is the typical politician.
Sen. McCain suspended his campaign because he thought his place as a U.S. senator was in Washington during a big financial crisis. The Republican presidential nominee also said he wouldn't be showing up for the first debate.
Call it a gimmick if you like, but you can bet Sen. Obama wishes he'd thought of it first. Instead, the Democratic nominee lamely retorted that the debate, set for Friday at the University of Mississippi and focusing on foreign policy, should not be delayed because "it makes sense for us to present ourselves before the American people" and "we've both got big planes." But that falls flat.
McCain long ago challenged Obama to 10 freewheeling debates without the usual constraints. Obama, who is clearly ill at ease in the absence of a teleprompter, refused. Why didn't it "make sense for us to present ourselves before the American people" then?
Was it Obama who reached out his hand to McCain and President Bush to meet and, along with congressional leaders, come to agreement on legislation to put an end to the crisis?
No, it was the Republicans who were building bridges between the parties this week — even if the ultimate solution is too light on budget cuts and reform and too heavy on increased debt and, ultimately, higher taxes.
Repeatedly, it has been McCain, not Obama, who has exhibited creativity and a willingness to adapt to events.
At the instant the establishment media's talking heads were revving up to spend days waxing on about the greatness of Obama's acceptance speech, he was upstaged the next morning by his GOP opponent's naming of Gov. Sarah Palin to the ticket.
Unlike the last female running mate for a major party — little-known three-term House member Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Walter Mondale in 1984 — McCain's choice for veep actually has experience running a government and won't put you to sleep with her speeches.
It's in regard to the global war on terror that the difference between McCain and Obama really hits you. McCain bucked the Washington establishment of both parties by insisting that we must win and we can win in Iraq. Both he and the president resisted the defeat-with-dignity notions contained in the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, and the resulting surge strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus fundamentally transformed the conflict there for the better.
Obama, by contrast, continues with little alteration the Democrats' years-old mantra that U.S. troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan so we can catch the ailing Osama bin Laden.
With an electorate sick of the status quo, the choice in November is between the same liberal ideology Democratic presidential candidates have offered us for years and an open-minded, maverick Republican.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Media caricatures make John McCain the tired, old candidate of standing pat and Barack Obama the agent of change. But it's becoming ever clearer that Obama is the typical politician.
Sen. McCain suspended his campaign because he thought his place as a U.S. senator was in Washington during a big financial crisis. The Republican presidential nominee also said he wouldn't be showing up for the first debate.
Call it a gimmick if you like, but you can bet Sen. Obama wishes he'd thought of it first. Instead, the Democratic nominee lamely retorted that the debate, set for Friday at the University of Mississippi and focusing on foreign policy, should not be delayed because "it makes sense for us to present ourselves before the American people" and "we've both got big planes." But that falls flat.
McCain long ago challenged Obama to 10 freewheeling debates without the usual constraints. Obama, who is clearly ill at ease in the absence of a teleprompter, refused. Why didn't it "make sense for us to present ourselves before the American people" then?
Was it Obama who reached out his hand to McCain and President Bush to meet and, along with congressional leaders, come to agreement on legislation to put an end to the crisis?
No, it was the Republicans who were building bridges between the parties this week — even if the ultimate solution is too light on budget cuts and reform and too heavy on increased debt and, ultimately, higher taxes.
Repeatedly, it has been McCain, not Obama, who has exhibited creativity and a willingness to adapt to events.
At the instant the establishment media's talking heads were revving up to spend days waxing on about the greatness of Obama's acceptance speech, he was upstaged the next morning by his GOP opponent's naming of Gov. Sarah Palin to the ticket.
Unlike the last female running mate for a major party — little-known three-term House member Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Walter Mondale in 1984 — McCain's choice for veep actually has experience running a government and won't put you to sleep with her speeches.
It's in regard to the global war on terror that the difference between McCain and Obama really hits you. McCain bucked the Washington establishment of both parties by insisting that we must win and we can win in Iraq. Both he and the president resisted the defeat-with-dignity notions contained in the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, and the resulting surge strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus fundamentally transformed the conflict there for the better.
Obama, by contrast, continues with little alteration the Democrats' years-old mantra that U.S. troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan so we can catch the ailing Osama bin Laden.
With an electorate sick of the status quo, the choice in November is between the same liberal ideology Democratic presidential candidates have offered us for years and an open-minded, maverick Republican.
Hey folks...facts are facts!!
Hey folks...facts are facts!!
This has to make you think a little bit, if not then keep your blinders on!
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A littl e over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low 11,100-- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE!... AND WE SURE GOT IT!!!....NOW OBAMA, the DEM'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT--AND THE POLLS SAY HE'S GONNA BE 'THE MAN'--CLAIMS HE'S GONNA REALLY GIVE US CHANGE!!....
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND???....
This has to make you think a little bit, if not then keep your blinders on!
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A littl e over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low 11,100-- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE!... AND WE SURE GOT IT!!!....NOW OBAMA, the DEM'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT--AND THE POLLS SAY HE'S GONNA BE 'THE MAN'--CLAIMS HE'S GONNA REALLY GIVE US CHANGE!!....
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND???....
Sarah Palin Mythology Debunked
Sarah Palin Mythology Debunked
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:56 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
With George Bush soon leaving office, what will Bush bashers do with themselves? If Sarah Palin is elected vice president, it appears they will target her.
Already, with the help of the media, they have managed to obfuscate the record of John McCain’s vice presidential nominee and create a string of myths about her. To set the record straight, here are the chief myths, along with the facts.
Myth: As governor of Alaska, Palin put the governor’s plane up for sale on eBay but did not really sell it.
Fact: After she did not find a buyer on eBay, she sold the plane eight months later through a broker for $2.2 million.
Myth: Palin did not really stop the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Fact: During her gubernatorial race in 2006, she endorsed the bridge but as governor rejected it, allocating the federal earmark money elsewhere. Meanwhile, in 2005, Barack Obama voted against a Senate amendment to stop funding for the project.
Myth: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin banned nearly 100 books, including “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” and “Death of a Salesman.”
Fact: Palin never banned any books. An emailed list of books she supposedly banned included Harry Potter books that had not yet been published when she was in office.
Myth: Palin fired her public safety commissioner because he would not terminate a trooper who was her former brother-in-law after he had been suspended for five days for misconduct.
Fact: Palin did want Walt Monegan to fire her former brother-in-law. But extensive emails from Palin and her aides show she was upset with him because he repeatedly defied her instructions on a string of budget requests. He was offered another job but declined to take it.
Myth: Palin cut funding for special needs education by 62 percent.
Fact: Funding for the program in question was actually tripled thanks to legislation signed by Palin.
Myth: Palin wanted Alaska to secede from the U.S.
Fact: A member of the Alaskan Independence Party incorrectly told the New York Times that Palin at one time had been a member. She later recanted this claim and issued a public apology to the governor.
Myth: Palin left Wasilla residents disenchanted with her.
Fact: In subsequent elections, Wasilla residents voted for Palin by 70 percent or more.
Myth: Palin has no experience.
Fact: As noted in the Newsmax article, “McCain Shows He Is the Genuine Article,” Palin has a string of accomplishments to show for her herself. As mayor, she cut property taxes by 75 percent and reduced her own salary by 10 percent. After joining the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2003, she led an ethics probe of the commission's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, who also was the state GOP chairman. Facing conflict-of-interest-allegations, Ruedrich admitted ethics violations and resigned.
Besides opposing the $400 million “Bridge to Nowhere,” Palin as governor used her veto power to cut nearly $2 billion from the state budget. She was successful in enacting ethics reform legislation. While pushing to develop more energy resources, she reformed the system for paying Alaskans royalties from oil production. That will enable her to deliver a rebate of $1,200 — in addition to $2,069 in dividends — to each resident of the state.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:56 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
With George Bush soon leaving office, what will Bush bashers do with themselves? If Sarah Palin is elected vice president, it appears they will target her.
Already, with the help of the media, they have managed to obfuscate the record of John McCain’s vice presidential nominee and create a string of myths about her. To set the record straight, here are the chief myths, along with the facts.
Myth: As governor of Alaska, Palin put the governor’s plane up for sale on eBay but did not really sell it.
Fact: After she did not find a buyer on eBay, she sold the plane eight months later through a broker for $2.2 million.
Myth: Palin did not really stop the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Fact: During her gubernatorial race in 2006, she endorsed the bridge but as governor rejected it, allocating the federal earmark money elsewhere. Meanwhile, in 2005, Barack Obama voted against a Senate amendment to stop funding for the project.
Myth: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin banned nearly 100 books, including “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” and “Death of a Salesman.”
Fact: Palin never banned any books. An emailed list of books she supposedly banned included Harry Potter books that had not yet been published when she was in office.
Myth: Palin fired her public safety commissioner because he would not terminate a trooper who was her former brother-in-law after he had been suspended for five days for misconduct.
Fact: Palin did want Walt Monegan to fire her former brother-in-law. But extensive emails from Palin and her aides show she was upset with him because he repeatedly defied her instructions on a string of budget requests. He was offered another job but declined to take it.
Myth: Palin cut funding for special needs education by 62 percent.
Fact: Funding for the program in question was actually tripled thanks to legislation signed by Palin.
Myth: Palin wanted Alaska to secede from the U.S.
Fact: A member of the Alaskan Independence Party incorrectly told the New York Times that Palin at one time had been a member. She later recanted this claim and issued a public apology to the governor.
Myth: Palin left Wasilla residents disenchanted with her.
Fact: In subsequent elections, Wasilla residents voted for Palin by 70 percent or more.
Myth: Palin has no experience.
Fact: As noted in the Newsmax article, “McCain Shows He Is the Genuine Article,” Palin has a string of accomplishments to show for her herself. As mayor, she cut property taxes by 75 percent and reduced her own salary by 10 percent. After joining the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2003, she led an ethics probe of the commission's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, who also was the state GOP chairman. Facing conflict-of-interest-allegations, Ruedrich admitted ethics violations and resigned.
Besides opposing the $400 million “Bridge to Nowhere,” Palin as governor used her veto power to cut nearly $2 billion from the state budget. She was successful in enacting ethics reform legislation. While pushing to develop more energy resources, she reformed the system for paying Alaskans royalties from oil production. That will enable her to deliver a rebate of $1,200 — in addition to $2,069 in dividends — to each resident of the state.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
Zogby: McCain Seen as 'Commander in Chief'
Zogby: McCain Seen as 'Commander in Chief'
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:50 PM
Twice as many likely voters see Republican John McCain as a better commander in chief of America's armed forces than Democrat Barack Obama, but they prefer Obama as a competent manager, problem solver and as someone who understands the average person, the latest Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 2,331 likely voters nationwide, conducted Sept. 19-20, 2008, carries a margin of error of +/- 2.1 percentage points. The same survey showed the Obama-Biden ticket leading McCain-Palin 47 percent to 44 percent in the straight-up horserace question, with 9 percent other/not sure.
The four qualities mentioned above were all rated as very or somewhat important by more than 93 percent of voters. The two other qualities we asked about, having Christian values and being able to win the support from the other party in Congress, rated lower in importance. Here is how the qualities and candidates were rated:
Best at being a competent manager: Obama 46 percent, McCain 40 percent.
Best at commanding the military: McCain 61 percent, Obama 29 percent.
Best at understanding people like you and me: Obama 47 percent, McCain 34 percent.
Best at winning support from other party in Congress: McCain 47 percent, Obama 42 percent.
Best at being a problem solver: Obama 46 percent, McCain 42 percent.
Best at having Christian values: McCain 40 percent, Obama 36 percent.
Said pollster John Zogby: "A nation at war and in economic turmoil is focusing on those candidate qualities that address those concern - hence the drop in importance for Christian values. The McCain advantage as commander in chief is a given, even among many Obama supporters. Obama's 11-point lead on the question of 'who best understands the average person' could be significant when the economy is Issue Number One. He also leads, but by smaller margins, as a problem solver and manager, which also are very important to voters who are worried about pocketbook issues. McCain's base voters are clearly frequent church-goers, seniors and upper middle income earners."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:50 PM
Twice as many likely voters see Republican John McCain as a better commander in chief of America's armed forces than Democrat Barack Obama, but they prefer Obama as a competent manager, problem solver and as someone who understands the average person, the latest Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 2,331 likely voters nationwide, conducted Sept. 19-20, 2008, carries a margin of error of +/- 2.1 percentage points. The same survey showed the Obama-Biden ticket leading McCain-Palin 47 percent to 44 percent in the straight-up horserace question, with 9 percent other/not sure.
The four qualities mentioned above were all rated as very or somewhat important by more than 93 percent of voters. The two other qualities we asked about, having Christian values and being able to win the support from the other party in Congress, rated lower in importance. Here is how the qualities and candidates were rated:
Best at being a competent manager: Obama 46 percent, McCain 40 percent.
Best at commanding the military: McCain 61 percent, Obama 29 percent.
Best at understanding people like you and me: Obama 47 percent, McCain 34 percent.
Best at winning support from other party in Congress: McCain 47 percent, Obama 42 percent.
Best at being a problem solver: Obama 46 percent, McCain 42 percent.
Best at having Christian values: McCain 40 percent, Obama 36 percent.
Said pollster John Zogby: "A nation at war and in economic turmoil is focusing on those candidate qualities that address those concern - hence the drop in importance for Christian values. The McCain advantage as commander in chief is a given, even among many Obama supporters. Obama's 11-point lead on the question of 'who best understands the average person' could be significant when the economy is Issue Number One. He also leads, but by smaller margins, as a problem solver and manager, which also are very important to voters who are worried about pocketbook issues. McCain's base voters are clearly frequent church-goers, seniors and upper middle income earners."
The Real Bill O'Reilly
The Real Bill O'Reilly
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:56 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Before or after every speech I give, somebody always asks me, "What is O'Reilly really like?"
My answer is always the same: "What you see on television is what you get off camera. It's the same guy." That much is obvious to anyone who knows him. But what was less clear to me is where he came from.
"A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," O'Reilly's memoir, answers the question. O'Reilly, it seems, was made not born into his philosophy; rather, his values and personae were hammered into shape like a horseshoe, the blows coming not from a blacksmith's hammer, but from life on the quintessentially American streets of Levittown.
Interspersing stories of his youth with bloviation on topics like the quality of courage and the necessity for self-reliance, O'Reilly makes it clear that his experiences are his philosophy; his biography is his message.
Does he believe in resourcefulness and ingenuity? Does he look down on the nanny state? It all harks back to his job as a kid painting houses.
When his buddy dropped a bucket of white paint on a client's bush, he sawed down the newly decorated plant, replaced it with various branches he collected, quickly cashed the check and was off. When the client noticed that something about the front of his house looked different, O'Reilly hastened to credit his paint job, not the missing bush.
O'Reilly was not the bookish sort. He had no particular interest in anything having to do with the outside world as he grew up. He was a borderline hooligan who Irish mothers must have suspected of "devilment." The title of his book comes from how Sister Lurana described him in grade school.
Most autobiographies relate uncommon stories of great men and women.
We ponder how the extraordinary influences of their early life matured them and led to who they have become since. In O'Reilly's case, his Levittown upbringing was the suburban equivalent of Tom Sawyer's. Instead of painting fences, as Mark Twain's character did, he paints houses "coated with slatelike shingles" leaving very little wood trim to work with.
But Levittown was a suburban jungle, the very sameness of its houses seeming to spur rebellion in its youth. O'Reilly was one of those kids who led adults to despair of the coming generation: out for trouble and self-absorbed, a restless rogue.
Yet each of his experiences seems to have spawned a philosophy which, in turn, shaped a political outlook. He is not driven by polls, but by personal experience. His background has left him with an internal compass that always helps him find his way.
Al Gore grew up in a Washington D.C. hotel room while his dad served in the Senate. Bill O'Reilly grew up in a small house in Levittown while his father was exploited by the Calltex Oil Company, trapped in a badly paying job he hated. And that has made all the difference for both men.
Denied any exposure to reality as he grew up, Gore substituted ideology for experience, science for reality. O'Reilly lived a life just like those he calls the "folks" and always roots his spiels in the world from whence he came.
What is Bill O'Reilly really like? Levittown.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:56 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Before or after every speech I give, somebody always asks me, "What is O'Reilly really like?"
My answer is always the same: "What you see on television is what you get off camera. It's the same guy." That much is obvious to anyone who knows him. But what was less clear to me is where he came from.
"A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," O'Reilly's memoir, answers the question. O'Reilly, it seems, was made not born into his philosophy; rather, his values and personae were hammered into shape like a horseshoe, the blows coming not from a blacksmith's hammer, but from life on the quintessentially American streets of Levittown.
Interspersing stories of his youth with bloviation on topics like the quality of courage and the necessity for self-reliance, O'Reilly makes it clear that his experiences are his philosophy; his biography is his message.
Does he believe in resourcefulness and ingenuity? Does he look down on the nanny state? It all harks back to his job as a kid painting houses.
When his buddy dropped a bucket of white paint on a client's bush, he sawed down the newly decorated plant, replaced it with various branches he collected, quickly cashed the check and was off. When the client noticed that something about the front of his house looked different, O'Reilly hastened to credit his paint job, not the missing bush.
O'Reilly was not the bookish sort. He had no particular interest in anything having to do with the outside world as he grew up. He was a borderline hooligan who Irish mothers must have suspected of "devilment." The title of his book comes from how Sister Lurana described him in grade school.
Most autobiographies relate uncommon stories of great men and women.
We ponder how the extraordinary influences of their early life matured them and led to who they have become since. In O'Reilly's case, his Levittown upbringing was the suburban equivalent of Tom Sawyer's. Instead of painting fences, as Mark Twain's character did, he paints houses "coated with slatelike shingles" leaving very little wood trim to work with.
But Levittown was a suburban jungle, the very sameness of its houses seeming to spur rebellion in its youth. O'Reilly was one of those kids who led adults to despair of the coming generation: out for trouble and self-absorbed, a restless rogue.
Yet each of his experiences seems to have spawned a philosophy which, in turn, shaped a political outlook. He is not driven by polls, but by personal experience. His background has left him with an internal compass that always helps him find his way.
Al Gore grew up in a Washington D.C. hotel room while his dad served in the Senate. Bill O'Reilly grew up in a small house in Levittown while his father was exploited by the Calltex Oil Company, trapped in a badly paying job he hated. And that has made all the difference for both men.
Denied any exposure to reality as he grew up, Gore substituted ideology for experience, science for reality. O'Reilly lived a life just like those he calls the "folks" and always roots his spiels in the world from whence he came.
What is Bill O'Reilly really like? Levittown.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:56 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Before or after every speech I give, somebody always asks me, "What is O'Reilly really like?"
My answer is always the same: "What you see on television is what you get off camera. It's the same guy." That much is obvious to anyone who knows him. But what was less clear to me is where he came from.
"A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," O'Reilly's memoir, answers the question. O'Reilly, it seems, was made not born into his philosophy; rather, his values and personae were hammered into shape like a horseshoe, the blows coming not from a blacksmith's hammer, but from life on the quintessentially American streets of Levittown.
Interspersing stories of his youth with bloviation on topics like the quality of courage and the necessity for self-reliance, O'Reilly makes it clear that his experiences are his philosophy; his biography is his message.
Does he believe in resourcefulness and ingenuity? Does he look down on the nanny state? It all harks back to his job as a kid painting houses.
When his buddy dropped a bucket of white paint on a client's bush, he sawed down the newly decorated plant, replaced it with various branches he collected, quickly cashed the check and was off. When the client noticed that something about the front of his house looked different, O'Reilly hastened to credit his paint job, not the missing bush.
O'Reilly was not the bookish sort. He had no particular interest in anything having to do with the outside world as he grew up. He was a borderline hooligan who Irish mothers must have suspected of "devilment." The title of his book comes from how Sister Lurana described him in grade school.
Most autobiographies relate uncommon stories of great men and women.
We ponder how the extraordinary influences of their early life matured them and led to who they have become since. In O'Reilly's case, his Levittown upbringing was the suburban equivalent of Tom Sawyer's. Instead of painting fences, as Mark Twain's character did, he paints houses "coated with slatelike shingles" leaving very little wood trim to work with.
But Levittown was a suburban jungle, the very sameness of its houses seeming to spur rebellion in its youth. O'Reilly was one of those kids who led adults to despair of the coming generation: out for trouble and self-absorbed, a restless rogue.
Yet each of his experiences seems to have spawned a philosophy which, in turn, shaped a political outlook. He is not driven by polls, but by personal experience. His background has left him with an internal compass that always helps him find his way.
Al Gore grew up in a Washington D.C. hotel room while his dad served in the Senate. Bill O'Reilly grew up in a small house in Levittown while his father was exploited by the Calltex Oil Company, trapped in a badly paying job he hated. And that has made all the difference for both men.
Denied any exposure to reality as he grew up, Gore substituted ideology for experience, science for reality. O'Reilly lived a life just like those he calls the "folks" and always roots his spiels in the world from whence he came.
What is Bill O'Reilly really like? Levittown.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:56 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Before or after every speech I give, somebody always asks me, "What is O'Reilly really like?"
My answer is always the same: "What you see on television is what you get off camera. It's the same guy." That much is obvious to anyone who knows him. But what was less clear to me is where he came from.
"A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," O'Reilly's memoir, answers the question. O'Reilly, it seems, was made not born into his philosophy; rather, his values and personae were hammered into shape like a horseshoe, the blows coming not from a blacksmith's hammer, but from life on the quintessentially American streets of Levittown.
Interspersing stories of his youth with bloviation on topics like the quality of courage and the necessity for self-reliance, O'Reilly makes it clear that his experiences are his philosophy; his biography is his message.
Does he believe in resourcefulness and ingenuity? Does he look down on the nanny state? It all harks back to his job as a kid painting houses.
When his buddy dropped a bucket of white paint on a client's bush, he sawed down the newly decorated plant, replaced it with various branches he collected, quickly cashed the check and was off. When the client noticed that something about the front of his house looked different, O'Reilly hastened to credit his paint job, not the missing bush.
O'Reilly was not the bookish sort. He had no particular interest in anything having to do with the outside world as he grew up. He was a borderline hooligan who Irish mothers must have suspected of "devilment." The title of his book comes from how Sister Lurana described him in grade school.
Most autobiographies relate uncommon stories of great men and women.
We ponder how the extraordinary influences of their early life matured them and led to who they have become since. In O'Reilly's case, his Levittown upbringing was the suburban equivalent of Tom Sawyer's. Instead of painting fences, as Mark Twain's character did, he paints houses "coated with slatelike shingles" leaving very little wood trim to work with.
But Levittown was a suburban jungle, the very sameness of its houses seeming to spur rebellion in its youth. O'Reilly was one of those kids who led adults to despair of the coming generation: out for trouble and self-absorbed, a restless rogue.
Yet each of his experiences seems to have spawned a philosophy which, in turn, shaped a political outlook. He is not driven by polls, but by personal experience. His background has left him with an internal compass that always helps him find his way.
Al Gore grew up in a Washington D.C. hotel room while his dad served in the Senate. Bill O'Reilly grew up in a small house in Levittown while his father was exploited by the Calltex Oil Company, trapped in a badly paying job he hated. And that has made all the difference for both men.
Denied any exposure to reality as he grew up, Gore substituted ideology for experience, science for reality. O'Reilly lived a life just like those he calls the "folks" and always roots his spiels in the world from whence he came.
What is Bill O'Reilly really like? Levittown.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
McCain's Best Foot Forward: Taxes, Economy
McCain's Best Foot Forward: Taxes, Economy
Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:31 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The primaries are over. Obama's European tour is over. The conventions are over. The VP selections have been made and, incredibly, this race is right back where it has been since the spring: a narrow Obama lead.
When the financial crisis overshadowed the Palin bounce, you could almost hear the race clicking back into its former position with Obama between one and three points ahead of McCain. (Don't worry about the margin of error. With 50 polls showing the same thing, the cumulative chance of error is negligible).
Except for an Obama bulge after Hillary's withdrawal and on his return from Europe, and a McCain bounce after his convention and the Palin selection, Obama has remained slightly ahead for five months. Because the race has been in this holding pattern for so long, it will be very hard for McCain to break into the lead.
The debates present a great opportunity.
If McCain can resume the lead he had held during early September, he can set a new pattern for the race. But if he fails to break through, Obama's lead will just harden all the more.
To appreciate how McCain could surge into the lead in the debates, we need to focus on what has changed about the race in the past few months.
McCain has emerged from the exchange of convention oratory with a much more solid reputation for reliability and judgment than Obama. Remember the Fox News poll that showed voters — by 50-34 — turning to McCain, not to Obama, for advice when facing "the toughest decision of your life." And McCain, largely due to the selection of Palin, has recovered his maverick status and is no longer seen as a Bush clone.
But the financial crisis has given Obama a way to recover from the beating he took when McCain chose Palin and he opted for Biden. It reminds people of the mess into which they feel Bush has plunged this country and makes his message of change that much more attractive.
The debates offer McCain an opportunity to push past the recognition of the crisis and strike two themes:
(a) that, as a populist, he objects to the golden parachutes offered the Wall Street executives who mismanaged their firms and required a federal bailout, and
(b) he wants to warn voters of impending doom if Obama's proposed tax increases ever become law.
Obama is in a tough position. He entered the race with three issues: to end the war in Iraq, to change Washington, and to restore fairness to our tax system by eliminating the Bush tax cuts that favor the wealthy.
Now, the war in Iraq appears to have been won and Republicans get much higher marks than Democrats on which party would be most effective in dealing with the situation. And, with the designation of Palin, McCain has offered a credible vision of change that Obama will have a hard time disputing.
But now Obama has a new problem. His campaign is based on tax proposals that may have made sense in normal times but are distinctly dangerous now that the financial crisis is gripping America.
Even a liberal would have to concede that as we watch Wall Street each day and hope and pray that more money will flow in to keep stock prices high enough to allow companies to stay alive and keep millions employed, it is no time to raise taxes on invested capital. Such taxes now seem like a tax on water in the desert.
But Obama can hardly back off one of the main tenets of his campaign. He can't say that he didn't realize that his tax proposal would be harmful in a financial crisis.
He can, and has, scaled back the doubling of the capital gains tax that he proposed during the primaries and now wants only a 33 percent hike (from 15 percent to 20 percent). But, in his reflective moments, he must realize that this is the wrong tax at the wrong time.
But he is stuck with this lemon of a proposal and McCain can use the debates to make him pay for it — before we have to!
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:31 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The primaries are over. Obama's European tour is over. The conventions are over. The VP selections have been made and, incredibly, this race is right back where it has been since the spring: a narrow Obama lead.
When the financial crisis overshadowed the Palin bounce, you could almost hear the race clicking back into its former position with Obama between one and three points ahead of McCain. (Don't worry about the margin of error. With 50 polls showing the same thing, the cumulative chance of error is negligible).
Except for an Obama bulge after Hillary's withdrawal and on his return from Europe, and a McCain bounce after his convention and the Palin selection, Obama has remained slightly ahead for five months. Because the race has been in this holding pattern for so long, it will be very hard for McCain to break into the lead.
The debates present a great opportunity.
If McCain can resume the lead he had held during early September, he can set a new pattern for the race. But if he fails to break through, Obama's lead will just harden all the more.
To appreciate how McCain could surge into the lead in the debates, we need to focus on what has changed about the race in the past few months.
McCain has emerged from the exchange of convention oratory with a much more solid reputation for reliability and judgment than Obama. Remember the Fox News poll that showed voters — by 50-34 — turning to McCain, not to Obama, for advice when facing "the toughest decision of your life." And McCain, largely due to the selection of Palin, has recovered his maverick status and is no longer seen as a Bush clone.
But the financial crisis has given Obama a way to recover from the beating he took when McCain chose Palin and he opted for Biden. It reminds people of the mess into which they feel Bush has plunged this country and makes his message of change that much more attractive.
The debates offer McCain an opportunity to push past the recognition of the crisis and strike two themes:
(a) that, as a populist, he objects to the golden parachutes offered the Wall Street executives who mismanaged their firms and required a federal bailout, and
(b) he wants to warn voters of impending doom if Obama's proposed tax increases ever become law.
Obama is in a tough position. He entered the race with three issues: to end the war in Iraq, to change Washington, and to restore fairness to our tax system by eliminating the Bush tax cuts that favor the wealthy.
Now, the war in Iraq appears to have been won and Republicans get much higher marks than Democrats on which party would be most effective in dealing with the situation. And, with the designation of Palin, McCain has offered a credible vision of change that Obama will have a hard time disputing.
But now Obama has a new problem. His campaign is based on tax proposals that may have made sense in normal times but are distinctly dangerous now that the financial crisis is gripping America.
Even a liberal would have to concede that as we watch Wall Street each day and hope and pray that more money will flow in to keep stock prices high enough to allow companies to stay alive and keep millions employed, it is no time to raise taxes on invested capital. Such taxes now seem like a tax on water in the desert.
But Obama can hardly back off one of the main tenets of his campaign. He can't say that he didn't realize that his tax proposal would be harmful in a financial crisis.
He can, and has, scaled back the doubling of the capital gains tax that he proposed during the primaries and now wants only a 33 percent hike (from 15 percent to 20 percent). But, in his reflective moments, he must realize that this is the wrong tax at the wrong time.
But he is stuck with this lemon of a proposal and McCain can use the debates to make him pay for it — before we have to!
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
CAIR files FEC complaint
CAIR files FEC complaint
Dear Dave,
The commentary below, from Jihad Watch, discusses the Federal Election Commission complaint that has been filed by CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR has filed the complaint alleging that the national distribution this month of the film “Obsession” is an Israeli plot to help get John McCain elected president.
In other words, CAIR is using a government agency to try to punish the free speech rights of those who would distribute this must-see film. As far as we can gather, there is no “vote for McCain” messages, either explicitly or implicitly, attached or connected to the distribution. Given the timing of the distribution, it would appear that it was intended to coincide with the 7th anniversary of 9/11.
This is not the first action CAIR has taken in its ongoing efforts to suppress our cherished right to free speech. What is most telling is CAIR’s “obsession” with shutting down any speech that would let the American people see the truth about radical Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIR files FEC complaint: Obsession distribution a Zionist plot
Jihad Watch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022817.php
Despite the fact that the film Obsession contains no political content and was made well before the 2008 election cycle began, CAIR, those paragons of Islamic moderation and honesty, would now have you believe that the national distribution of the DVD was an Israeli plot to elect John McCain.
This is a very revealing action for CAIR to take. It reveals in particular two key aspects of CAIR's mindset:
It shows that CAIR is fully aware that the jihad against Israel is an integral part of the global jihad, and is not just a struggle to recover Palestinian "stolen land." Thus a film that reveals the nature and goals of that global jihad -- Obsession -- benefits Israel.
It also shows that CAIR believes that John McCain will fight against the global jihad in a way that Barack Obama will not -- and that it believes therefore the distribution of an anti-jihad film, which in a sane world would be welcomed by both the Left and the Right since the global jihad wishes to destroy and remake the West utterly, must be some partisan plot.
It further shows CAIR yet again on the wrong side of the jihad, as they are again and again. The Flying Imams threaten the ability of airline passengers to report suspicious behavior without getting harassed legally, and CAIR is right there. Sami Al-Arian for years bamboozles the Left into thinking he is a gallant freedom fighter for the Palestinians without the shadow of a hint of support for terrorism, and CAIR backs him all the way. The Patriot Act? CAIR was against it -- and not just the legitimately questionable parts, either. Has CAIR ever sponsored a single anti-terror initiative that would actually make it easier for law enforcement to identify and apprehend jihad terrorists? Nope.
Yet this shady group still enjoys mainstream media support, and is routinely depicted as a neutral "civil rights" organization.
"CAIR Asks FEC to Probe Anti-Muslim DVDs Sent to Swing States," from MarketWire, September 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON, DC - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today announced that it has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over the distribution of an anti-Muslim film to 28 million homes in presidential election swing states.
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is urging the FEC to investigate whether the Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that distributed DVDs containing "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," is really a front for an Israel-based group seeking to help Sen. John McCain win the U.S. presidential election. (No information about a board of directors, staff or even a physical address is offered on the fund's website.)
In its complaint to the FEC, CAIR wrote in part:
"The Clarion Fund recently financed the distribution of some 28 million DVDs containing the film 'Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West' in what many political analysts describe as 'swing' states in the upcoming presidential elections. Those same analysts say the distribution of the 'Obsession' DVD was designed to benefit a particular presidential candidate, namely Sen. John McCain...
"According to the website for the Secretary of State for New York, Clarion Fund Inc. is incorporated in New York as a Delaware-based foreign not-for-profit corporation. According to the Delaware Department of Corporations, Robert (Rabbi Raphael) Shore, Rabbi Henry Harris and Rebecca Kabat incorporated Clarion Fund. All three of whom are reported to serve as employees of Aish HaTorah International, an organization apparently based in Israel. Also according to the Delaware Department of Corporations, the incorporators of the Clarion Fund used Aish HaTorah's New York City address (150 West 46th Street, New York) to incorporate Clarion Fund in Delaware... [SEE: http://www.aish.com/aishint/wwprogram.asp]
"It appears that the funding for the production, marketing and distribution of 'Obsession' may have originated from Israel-based Aish HaTorah International." [...]
"American voters deserve to know whether they are the targets of a multi-million-dollar campaign funded and directed by a foreign group seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad....
American voters also deserve to know whether they are the targets of a campaign, multimillion-dollar or no, funded and directed by Islamic supremacists to mislead and deceive them about Islamic jihad terrorism as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election, and to influence much more besides.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
September 24, 2008
LARGEST REENLISTMENT CEREMONY EVER
I googled (July 4th,2008 military reenlistment) and it brought up the actual swearing in on Utube. It really is too bad the evening news, or the morning shows don't show us what is really happening. It was pretty emotional to listen to. bg
Some try to explain the why of our not having enough troops early in the Iraq war by pointing out that we shouldn't be there.
The information below will help explain the commitment to democracy which is alive today in the hearts of our troops and most Americans. This commitment is what actually drives troop strength.
If you visit those places around the world which do have and those which do NOT have democratic governments, you will begin to understand why if often falls to the United States and our military to make a difference...... because we understand the difference.
Largest Re-enlistment Ceremony - Ever
I'm sure you already know about this. It was shown over and over on TV, right?
OK, so maybe it wasn't shown over and over, but surely it was shown on TV at least one time, wasn't it ?
This was the largest re-enlistment ceremony ever held in military history. The ceremony was held on the 4th of July, 2008 at Al Faw Palace, Baghdad , Iraq . General David Petraeus officiated. This amazing story was ignored by the 'mainstream' media.
For those who have been in the Al Faw Palace, you'll have a better appreciation of the number of people crammed around the rotunda supporting the re-enlisting soldiers.
A merican men and women volunteering to stay longer in Iraq, so that when we leave, the new democracy will have a chance of surviving, is the exact opposite of what the media wants you to think about Iraq. If only a bomb had killed 5 civilians in a marketplace - now that's the kind of news the media is eager to tell you about.
A pizzeria in Chicago donated 2000 pizzas that were made and shipped to Baghdad , and were delivered on the 4th.
The media did report that 2000 pizzas were sent to Iraq on July 4th... The only part they left out of the report was the event for which the pizzas were sent.
I can't help but wonder...
What would the opinion of Americans be if they weren't getting such obviously biased 'news?'
Pass this on and we will do the work for the Media.
Some try to explain the why of our not having enough troops early in the Iraq war by pointing out that we shouldn't be there.
The information below will help explain the commitment to democracy which is alive today in the hearts of our troops and most Americans. This commitment is what actually drives troop strength.
If you visit those places around the world which do have and those which do NOT have democratic governments, you will begin to understand why if often falls to the United States and our military to make a difference...... because we understand the difference.
Largest Re-enlistment Ceremony - Ever
I'm sure you already know about this. It was shown over and over on TV, right?
OK, so maybe it wasn't shown over and over, but surely it was shown on TV at least one time, wasn't it ?
This was the largest re-enlistment ceremony ever held in military history. The ceremony was held on the 4th of July, 2008 at Al Faw Palace, Baghdad , Iraq . General David Petraeus officiated. This amazing story was ignored by the 'mainstream' media.
For those who have been in the Al Faw Palace, you'll have a better appreciation of the number of people crammed around the rotunda supporting the re-enlisting soldiers.
A merican men and women volunteering to stay longer in Iraq, so that when we leave, the new democracy will have a chance of surviving, is the exact opposite of what the media wants you to think about Iraq. If only a bomb had killed 5 civilians in a marketplace - now that's the kind of news the media is eager to tell you about.
A pizzeria in Chicago donated 2000 pizzas that were made and shipped to Baghdad , and were delivered on the 4th.
The media did report that 2000 pizzas were sent to Iraq on July 4th... The only part they left out of the report was the event for which the pizzas were sent.
I can't help but wonder...
What would the opinion of Americans be if they weren't getting such obviously biased 'news?'
Pass this on and we will do the work for the Media.
Snarky Media Hide Palin Policy News
Snarky Media Hide Palin Policy News
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The press spent so much time sniping at Sarah Palin for her visits with global leaders that in the end it babbled about itself. What it missed was news on John McCain's foreign policy. Who are the real rubes?
Palin's meetings with foreign heads of state in New York this week sent a stark message to the world's tyrants: If she and John McCain are elected to the highest office in the land, America will stand by the embattled nations it calls friends.
Not those nations with the most money, prestige or radical think tanks lobbying Congress on their behalf. Just friends.
What's more, by visiting with leaders of Colombia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and India, Palin and McCain showed that premium attention will be paid to the friends undergoing the biggest tests and trying hardest to embrace markets.
Dictators and terrorists won't miss that memo. They will adjust their calculations accordingly. But the media are another matter.
Palin met Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday. Yet not one media outlet caught this undercurrent of McCain's foreign policy to stand by committed allies, derived from President Bush's drive to spread democracy.
Instead, outlets from AP to Newsday to even Fox News busied themselves hollering about access. They made themselves the story. Then they conjectured that these were "tutorials" and "burnishings of resumes" instead of messages to the world.
Obsessed with pink sofas and Alaska-shaped earrings, and on lookout for a mispronounced word, they complained that they got only a briefing, not a seat at the table. In the end, their braying only underlined their lack of interest in foreign affairs.
How do we know this? Because there really was news out there about what was discussed in Palin's meetings, like the one she had with Uribe. Details were reported in Colombian newspapers like El Tiempo, agencies like EFE and other Spanish-language press, where interest in what a President McCain means for a nation like Colombia is very real. Any American who wanted to know that was out of luck unless he could read Spanish.
This emphasis on our strongest allies is a stark contrast with Barack Obama's academic tack on foreign policy, centered on former power centers of Europe and along the beaten track of the Mideast. Those are the places where he chose to visit and meet leaders. And most of the media didn't insist on access to his private sessions.
Palin is denounced as "inexperienced" by these media, but she's no rube in grasping an emerging new world with implications for U.S. policy. In fact, she is looking at the picture with fresh, non-Beltway eyes. Countries like Colombia will grow more relevant as its economy expands, its internal war is won and the threat builds from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, armed to the teeth with big new weapons.
Obama has never set foot in Latin America. He has yet to sit down with any Latin American leader in person, though he's made the offer to Venezuela's Chavez and Cuba's Castro brothers.
His running mate, Joe Biden, reaps hay for his foreign policy experience but has only managed to set foot in two Latin American countries during his 35 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Obama has yet to negotiate with a foreign government. Palin did so with Canada, our top energy supplier and largest trading partner, to create a 1,700-mile natural gas pipeline. Obama, in fact, discounted Canada's importance in a campaign vow to break the 1994 trade ties forged in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Meanwhile, as Palin assured our Colombian and Afghan allies, McCain threw attention to another media-ignored friend, Australia. The Australian on Tuesday published a 1,298-word essay by McCain on what Australia means to him and what his U.S. foreign policy means for them. The newspaper noted that Obama had also been asked to submit a piece but hadn't bothered.
That's the real shame of it all. Palin's visit with Colombia's Uribe, our battered ally surrounded by a hostile Marxist state, sends a major message to the entire region about McCain's commitment to our loyal new friends.
Obama, meantime, imagines that hate-filled, obscenity-spewing Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez will turn docile if he sits down to tea with him without preconditions. Even with that offer on the table to Chavez, he didn't bother meeting with Uribe. Don't think that a tyrant like Chavez didn't notice.
The self-absorbed media missed the real story about McCain and Palin's foreign intentions that the rest of the world is watching and reporting on. Who, again, are the real rubes?
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The press spent so much time sniping at Sarah Palin for her visits with global leaders that in the end it babbled about itself. What it missed was news on John McCain's foreign policy. Who are the real rubes?
Palin's meetings with foreign heads of state in New York this week sent a stark message to the world's tyrants: If she and John McCain are elected to the highest office in the land, America will stand by the embattled nations it calls friends.
Not those nations with the most money, prestige or radical think tanks lobbying Congress on their behalf. Just friends.
What's more, by visiting with leaders of Colombia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and India, Palin and McCain showed that premium attention will be paid to the friends undergoing the biggest tests and trying hardest to embrace markets.
Dictators and terrorists won't miss that memo. They will adjust their calculations accordingly. But the media are another matter.
Palin met Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday. Yet not one media outlet caught this undercurrent of McCain's foreign policy to stand by committed allies, derived from President Bush's drive to spread democracy.
Instead, outlets from AP to Newsday to even Fox News busied themselves hollering about access. They made themselves the story. Then they conjectured that these were "tutorials" and "burnishings of resumes" instead of messages to the world.
Obsessed with pink sofas and Alaska-shaped earrings, and on lookout for a mispronounced word, they complained that they got only a briefing, not a seat at the table. In the end, their braying only underlined their lack of interest in foreign affairs.
How do we know this? Because there really was news out there about what was discussed in Palin's meetings, like the one she had with Uribe. Details were reported in Colombian newspapers like El Tiempo, agencies like EFE and other Spanish-language press, where interest in what a President McCain means for a nation like Colombia is very real. Any American who wanted to know that was out of luck unless he could read Spanish.
This emphasis on our strongest allies is a stark contrast with Barack Obama's academic tack on foreign policy, centered on former power centers of Europe and along the beaten track of the Mideast. Those are the places where he chose to visit and meet leaders. And most of the media didn't insist on access to his private sessions.
Palin is denounced as "inexperienced" by these media, but she's no rube in grasping an emerging new world with implications for U.S. policy. In fact, she is looking at the picture with fresh, non-Beltway eyes. Countries like Colombia will grow more relevant as its economy expands, its internal war is won and the threat builds from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, armed to the teeth with big new weapons.
Obama has never set foot in Latin America. He has yet to sit down with any Latin American leader in person, though he's made the offer to Venezuela's Chavez and Cuba's Castro brothers.
His running mate, Joe Biden, reaps hay for his foreign policy experience but has only managed to set foot in two Latin American countries during his 35 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Obama has yet to negotiate with a foreign government. Palin did so with Canada, our top energy supplier and largest trading partner, to create a 1,700-mile natural gas pipeline. Obama, in fact, discounted Canada's importance in a campaign vow to break the 1994 trade ties forged in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Meanwhile, as Palin assured our Colombian and Afghan allies, McCain threw attention to another media-ignored friend, Australia. The Australian on Tuesday published a 1,298-word essay by McCain on what Australia means to him and what his U.S. foreign policy means for them. The newspaper noted that Obama had also been asked to submit a piece but hadn't bothered.
That's the real shame of it all. Palin's visit with Colombia's Uribe, our battered ally surrounded by a hostile Marxist state, sends a major message to the entire region about McCain's commitment to our loyal new friends.
Obama, meantime, imagines that hate-filled, obscenity-spewing Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez will turn docile if he sits down to tea with him without preconditions. Even with that offer on the table to Chavez, he didn't bother meeting with Uribe. Don't think that a tyrant like Chavez didn't notice.
The self-absorbed media missed the real story about McCain and Palin's foreign intentions that the rest of the world is watching and reporting on. Who, again, are the real rubes?
Email To Friend |
Drilling Forward
Drilling Forward
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy: In a stunning defeat, congressional Democrats were forced to allow the quarter-century-old offshore drilling ban to expire. But the fight has only begun, with the struggle now shifting to state legislatures.
Funny how the Democrat-controlled Congress can't get the things it wants enacted, can't even get a single appropriations bill passed, yet minority Republicans this week succeeded in ending a supposedly sacrosanct ban on oil and gas offshore drilling that dates back to the early 1980s.
It was an unexpectedly powerful knockdown of Democrats and their enviro-extremist allies, but they are not yet counted out.
GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina noted in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the possibility that Democrats would "use environmental lawsuits to block exploration until they can reinstate these energy bans after the November elections." DeMint warned Reid that it "would be a major mistake."
So with the ban ending, what are the next moves toward reducing America's dependence on oil from hostile regimes in places such as the Middle East, Russia and leftist Venezuela?
DeMint has introduced a bill to expedite drilling leases, ensure that states share in oil and gas revenues, and prevent frivolous litigation designed to delay exploration for and production of oil.
Meanwhile, some state officials are already looking forward to the benefits for their citizens.
"The potential royalties to our state could be significant and could jump-start our economy in the midst of rising unemployment rates," South Carolina State Sen. Shane Massey, a Republican, told the Greenville News.
Massey noted that Virginia has already made moves to get into the U.S. Interior Department's five-year offshore drilling plan.
In California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and leading Golden State Democrats adamantly oppose offshore production, a majority of Californians now favor drilling. Even the board of supervisors of Santa Barbara County, site of an infamous 1969 oil spill, last month voted to support drilling.
There are tens of billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in our Outer Continental Shelf waiting for American consumers. That doesn't include the 10 billion barrels of oil in the North Slope of Alaska. The oil shale in our Western states could provide hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of barrels of oil, dwarfing the crude reserves of current No. 1 Saudi Arabia.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, is calling the end of the ban just the beginning of a new comprehensive energy policy. The House Republicans' American Energy Act would expand drilling in remote areas, both on land and at sea, plus employ conservationist measures and promote alternative fuels.
It would also establish a "renewable energy trust fund" financed by oil revenues and use revenue sharing to give states an incentive for increased oil production.
According to Boehner, "If Democrats continue to block a vote on this plan, just as they blocked a real debate and vote on the outdated drilling bans for months on end, Republicans and the American people will hold them accountable."
Republicans are obviously basking in a congressional victory few expected. With public opinion so transformed, and oil drilling now an issue that Republicans have proved they can use to embarrass Democrats, can this year's presidential and congressional elections also be transformed to the GOP's advantage?
The answer will have huge implications not just for energy, but for both our economy and our national security.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy: In a stunning defeat, congressional Democrats were forced to allow the quarter-century-old offshore drilling ban to expire. But the fight has only begun, with the struggle now shifting to state legislatures.
Funny how the Democrat-controlled Congress can't get the things it wants enacted, can't even get a single appropriations bill passed, yet minority Republicans this week succeeded in ending a supposedly sacrosanct ban on oil and gas offshore drilling that dates back to the early 1980s.
It was an unexpectedly powerful knockdown of Democrats and their enviro-extremist allies, but they are not yet counted out.
GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina noted in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the possibility that Democrats would "use environmental lawsuits to block exploration until they can reinstate these energy bans after the November elections." DeMint warned Reid that it "would be a major mistake."
So with the ban ending, what are the next moves toward reducing America's dependence on oil from hostile regimes in places such as the Middle East, Russia and leftist Venezuela?
DeMint has introduced a bill to expedite drilling leases, ensure that states share in oil and gas revenues, and prevent frivolous litigation designed to delay exploration for and production of oil.
Meanwhile, some state officials are already looking forward to the benefits for their citizens.
"The potential royalties to our state could be significant and could jump-start our economy in the midst of rising unemployment rates," South Carolina State Sen. Shane Massey, a Republican, told the Greenville News.
Massey noted that Virginia has already made moves to get into the U.S. Interior Department's five-year offshore drilling plan.
In California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and leading Golden State Democrats adamantly oppose offshore production, a majority of Californians now favor drilling. Even the board of supervisors of Santa Barbara County, site of an infamous 1969 oil spill, last month voted to support drilling.
There are tens of billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in our Outer Continental Shelf waiting for American consumers. That doesn't include the 10 billion barrels of oil in the North Slope of Alaska. The oil shale in our Western states could provide hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of barrels of oil, dwarfing the crude reserves of current No. 1 Saudi Arabia.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, is calling the end of the ban just the beginning of a new comprehensive energy policy. The House Republicans' American Energy Act would expand drilling in remote areas, both on land and at sea, plus employ conservationist measures and promote alternative fuels.
It would also establish a "renewable energy trust fund" financed by oil revenues and use revenue sharing to give states an incentive for increased oil production.
According to Boehner, "If Democrats continue to block a vote on this plan, just as they blocked a real debate and vote on the outdated drilling bans for months on end, Republicans and the American people will hold them accountable."
Republicans are obviously basking in a congressional victory few expected. With public opinion so transformed, and oil drilling now an issue that Republicans have proved they can use to embarrass Democrats, can this year's presidential and congressional elections also be transformed to the GOP's advantage?
The answer will have huge implications not just for energy, but for both our economy and our national security.
Email To Friend |
September 23, 2008
Obama’s Harvard Years: CAN'T PASS SMELL TEST
Obama’s Harvard Years: Questions Swirl
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:11 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
How exactly did Barack Obama pay for his Harvard Law School education?
The way the Obama campaign has answered the question was simply hard work and student loans.
But new questions have been raised about Obama’s student loans and Obama’s ties to a radical Muslim activist who reportedly was raising money for Obama’s Harvard studies during the years 1988 to 1991.
The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.
In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.
Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.
Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.
As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.
“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that Sutton’s account was “bogus” and a “fabrication that has been retracted” by a spokesman for the Sutton family.
He referred Newsmax to a pro-Obama blog published on Politico.com by reporter Ben Smith.
In a September 3 blog entry, Smith wrote that “a spokesman for Sutton’s family, Kevin Wardally” said that Sutton had been mistaken when he made those comments about Obama and Khalid Al-Mansour.
Smith suggested the retraction “put the [Obama/Al-Mansour] story to rest for good.”
Wardally told Smith that the “information Mr. Percy Sutton imported [sic] on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”
Asked which parts of Percy Sutton’s statements were a “fabrication,” LaBolt said “all of it. Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama. And Sutton’s spokesman retracted the story. The letter [to Harvard, which Percy Sutton says he wrote on behalf of Obama], the ‘payments for loans’ — all of it, not true,” he added.
Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally’s claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton’s original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was “raising money” for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.
Sutton’s personal assistant told Newsmax that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.
”Who is this person?” asked Sutton’s assistant, Karen Malone.
When told that he portrayed himself as a “spokesman” for the family, Malone told Newsmax, “Well, he’s not.”
According to a 2006 New York magazine profile, Wardally is part of a “New New Guard” in Harlem politics that has been challenging the “lions” of the old guard, Charles Rangel and Percy Sutton. That makes him an unlikely candidate to speak on behalf of Sutton.
Sutton maintains an office at the Manhattan headquarters of the firm he founded, Inner City Broadcasting Corporation. ICBC owns New York radio stations WBLS and WLIB.
Sutton’s son Pierre (“Pepe”) runs ICBC along with his daughter, Keisha Sutton-James. Malone told Newsmax that she had consulted with Sutton’s family members at the station and confirmed that no one knew Kevin Wardally or had authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.
For someone claiming to be a “spokesman” for the Sutton family, who was authorized to call Percy Sutton a liar, Wardally even got Percy Sutton’s age wrong.
Sutton is not 86, as Wardally said, but close to 88. He was born on Nov. 24, 1920.
Wardally responded to a several Newsmax phone messages and emails with a terse one-line comment, maintaining his statement that Percy Sutton “misspoke” in the television interview.
“I believe the statement speaks for itself and the Sutton Family and I have nothing further to say on the topic,” he wrote in an email.
Asked to explain why it was that no one at Inner City Broadcasting Corp. knew of him or accepted him as a family spokesman, Wardally responded later that he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who “is in our office almost every week.”
Wardally works for Bill Lynch Associations, a Harlem political consulting firm. The nephew, Chuck Sutton, no longer works with the elder Sutton at Inner City Broadcasting, but for a high-tech start-up called Synematics.
“Percy Sutton doesn’t go out idly on television saying things he doesn’t mean,” a well-connected black entrepreneur who knows Sutton told Newsmax.
Ben LaBolt’s claim that “Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama” was contradicted by Al Mansour himself in an extended interview with Newsmax.
Comparing the revelation of his ties to Obama to the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Al Mansour said that he was determined to keep a low profile to avoid embarrassing Obama.
“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him… I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation,” he told Newsmax.
Al Mansour said he was deliberately avoiding any contact with the candidate. “I’m not involved in any way in celebrity sweepstakes,” he said. “I wish him well, anything I can do if he lets me know, I’ll let him know what I think I can do or can’t. But I don’t collect autographs. I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election.”
He repeatedly declined to comment on the Percy Sutton allegations, either to confirm or to deny them.
“Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone,” Al Mansour said.
Unanswered Questions
Sen. Obama has refused to instruct Harvard Law School to release any information about his time there as a student, or about his student loans.
Newsmax contacted the Dean of Students, the Director of Student Financial Services, the Registrar, and the Bursar of Harvard Law School. None would provide any specific information on Barack Obama’s time at Harvard, except for his dates of attendance (1988-1991) or his year of graduation, 1991.
A spokesman for the law school, Michael Armini, said it was Harvard policy not to divulge information on alumni without their approval.
“There are lots of reporters nosing around the library,” he acknowledged. So far, none had turned up any new information.
Law professors Lawrence Tribe and Charles Ogletree have both said publicly that they were “impressed” by Obama when he was a student.
Sources close to the Sutton family told Newsmax that Percy Sutton wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Ogletree at Khalid Al-Mansour’s request, but Ogletree declined to answer Newsmax questions about this.
Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Armini said that Harvard was “very generous” with financial aid, but only on the basis on need.
The Obama campaign told Newsmax that Obama self-financed his three years at Harvard Law School with loans, and did not receive any scholarship from Harvard Law school.
LaBolt denied that Obama received any financial assistance from Harvard or from outside parties. “No - he paid his way through by taking out loans,” he said in an email to Newsmax.
At the time, Harvard cost around $25,000 a year, or $75,000 for the three years that Obama attended. And as president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, Harvard spokesman Mike Armini said.
“That is considered a volunteer position,” Armini said. “There is no salary or grant associated with it.”
So if the figures cited by the Obama campaign for the Senator’s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.
Where did he find the money? Did it come from friends of Khalid Al Mansour? And why would a radical Muslim activist with ties to the Saudi royal family be raising money for Barack Obama?
That’s the question the Obama campaign still won’t answer.
Michelle Obama Speaks Out
Speaking at a campaign event in Haverford, Pa, in April of this year, Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had “just paid off his loan debt” for his Harvard Law School education.
In an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio, in February she bemoaned the fact that many American families were strapped with student loan payments for years after graduation.
“The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books,” she said. The first of those best-sellers netted the couple $1.2 million in royalties in 2005.
In response to Newsmax questions about the Obama’s college loans, a campaign spokesman cited a report in The Chicago Sun claiming that Obama borrowed $42,753 to pay for Harvard Law School, and “tens of thousands” more to pay for undergraduate studies at Columbia.
The same report said that Michelle Obama borrowed $40,762 to pay for her years at Harvard Law School.
But a Newsmax review of Senator Obama’s financial disclosures found no trace of any outstanding college loans, going back to 2000.
As a United States Senate candidate, Barack Obama was required to file a financial disclosure form in 2004 detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities.
Obama listed “zero” under liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms.
Under the Senate ethics rules, he is required to disclose any loan, including credit card debt, of $10,000 or more. The only exception to the reporting requirement is mortgage debt on a principal residence.
The Senate reports also directly contradict Michelle Obama’s claim that the couple had “only just” paid off their student loans after receiving book royalties paid out in 2005 and 2006 – well after her husband had been ensconced in the Senate.
Apparently, Michelle Obama misspoke, according to the version provided by the Obama campaign.
Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt now tells Newsmax that the loans Sen. Obama took out to pay for Harvard Law School “were repaid in full while he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate [in 2004], and under the rules, the modest outstanding balance he repaid was not reportable as a liability on his personal financial disclosure reports.”
The Senator repaid the loans on “the expectation of a significant increase in family income” as a result of the paperback edition of his 1995 book, Dreams of My Father, LaBolt said.
Obama acknowledges that sales of the hard cover edition of the book were “underwhelming.” But in the spring of 2004,when Obama won the Democrat U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, Rachel Klayman, an editor at Crown Publishers in New York, read an article about Obama and became interested in his memoir, only to discover that Crown now owned the rights.
She asked Obama to write a new forward, and Crown then decided to re-issue Dreams as a paperback in July 2004, just as Obama made his historic speech to the Democrat National Convention.
The paperback eventually sold over one million copies, which under the standard industry royalty for trade paperbacks of 7.5%, earned him $1.2 million. However, Obama didn’t report income from the book until 2005, so it’s unclear how he was able to repay his student loans in 2004.
Responding to attacks from the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, Obama released seven years of tax returns on March 25 of this year.
The returns, dating back to 2000, indicate that the couple paid no interest on their student loans. The interest from such loans would have been deductible on their joint income tax returns.
For 2000 through 2004, taxpayers declared student loan interest as a deduction on line 24 of federal form 1040. After 2004, the deduction can be taken on Line 33.
But the Obamas never declared a dime of interest in student loans on their return, most likely because they simply earned too much money to be able to take the deduction under the IRS rules.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt had no answer as to why the Obamas’ failed to declare the loans, stating the obvious that “because interest on the loans was not deducted, it would not appear on the Obamas’ personal return.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:11 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
How exactly did Barack Obama pay for his Harvard Law School education?
The way the Obama campaign has answered the question was simply hard work and student loans.
But new questions have been raised about Obama’s student loans and Obama’s ties to a radical Muslim activist who reportedly was raising money for Obama’s Harvard studies during the years 1988 to 1991.
The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.
In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.
Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.
Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.
As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.
“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that Sutton’s account was “bogus” and a “fabrication that has been retracted” by a spokesman for the Sutton family.
He referred Newsmax to a pro-Obama blog published on Politico.com by reporter Ben Smith.
In a September 3 blog entry, Smith wrote that “a spokesman for Sutton’s family, Kevin Wardally” said that Sutton had been mistaken when he made those comments about Obama and Khalid Al-Mansour.
Smith suggested the retraction “put the [Obama/Al-Mansour] story to rest for good.”
Wardally told Smith that the “information Mr. Percy Sutton imported [sic] on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”
Asked which parts of Percy Sutton’s statements were a “fabrication,” LaBolt said “all of it. Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama. And Sutton’s spokesman retracted the story. The letter [to Harvard, which Percy Sutton says he wrote on behalf of Obama], the ‘payments for loans’ — all of it, not true,” he added.
Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally’s claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton’s original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was “raising money” for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.
Sutton’s personal assistant told Newsmax that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.
”Who is this person?” asked Sutton’s assistant, Karen Malone.
When told that he portrayed himself as a “spokesman” for the family, Malone told Newsmax, “Well, he’s not.”
According to a 2006 New York magazine profile, Wardally is part of a “New New Guard” in Harlem politics that has been challenging the “lions” of the old guard, Charles Rangel and Percy Sutton. That makes him an unlikely candidate to speak on behalf of Sutton.
Sutton maintains an office at the Manhattan headquarters of the firm he founded, Inner City Broadcasting Corporation. ICBC owns New York radio stations WBLS and WLIB.
Sutton’s son Pierre (“Pepe”) runs ICBC along with his daughter, Keisha Sutton-James. Malone told Newsmax that she had consulted with Sutton’s family members at the station and confirmed that no one knew Kevin Wardally or had authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.
For someone claiming to be a “spokesman” for the Sutton family, who was authorized to call Percy Sutton a liar, Wardally even got Percy Sutton’s age wrong.
Sutton is not 86, as Wardally said, but close to 88. He was born on Nov. 24, 1920.
Wardally responded to a several Newsmax phone messages and emails with a terse one-line comment, maintaining his statement that Percy Sutton “misspoke” in the television interview.
“I believe the statement speaks for itself and the Sutton Family and I have nothing further to say on the topic,” he wrote in an email.
Asked to explain why it was that no one at Inner City Broadcasting Corp. knew of him or accepted him as a family spokesman, Wardally responded later that he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who “is in our office almost every week.”
Wardally works for Bill Lynch Associations, a Harlem political consulting firm. The nephew, Chuck Sutton, no longer works with the elder Sutton at Inner City Broadcasting, but for a high-tech start-up called Synematics.
“Percy Sutton doesn’t go out idly on television saying things he doesn’t mean,” a well-connected black entrepreneur who knows Sutton told Newsmax.
Ben LaBolt’s claim that “Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama” was contradicted by Al Mansour himself in an extended interview with Newsmax.
Comparing the revelation of his ties to Obama to the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Al Mansour said that he was determined to keep a low profile to avoid embarrassing Obama.
“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him… I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation,” he told Newsmax.
Al Mansour said he was deliberately avoiding any contact with the candidate. “I’m not involved in any way in celebrity sweepstakes,” he said. “I wish him well, anything I can do if he lets me know, I’ll let him know what I think I can do or can’t. But I don’t collect autographs. I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election.”
He repeatedly declined to comment on the Percy Sutton allegations, either to confirm or to deny them.
“Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone,” Al Mansour said.
Unanswered Questions
Sen. Obama has refused to instruct Harvard Law School to release any information about his time there as a student, or about his student loans.
Newsmax contacted the Dean of Students, the Director of Student Financial Services, the Registrar, and the Bursar of Harvard Law School. None would provide any specific information on Barack Obama’s time at Harvard, except for his dates of attendance (1988-1991) or his year of graduation, 1991.
A spokesman for the law school, Michael Armini, said it was Harvard policy not to divulge information on alumni without their approval.
“There are lots of reporters nosing around the library,” he acknowledged. So far, none had turned up any new information.
Law professors Lawrence Tribe and Charles Ogletree have both said publicly that they were “impressed” by Obama when he was a student.
Sources close to the Sutton family told Newsmax that Percy Sutton wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Ogletree at Khalid Al-Mansour’s request, but Ogletree declined to answer Newsmax questions about this.
Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Armini said that Harvard was “very generous” with financial aid, but only on the basis on need.
The Obama campaign told Newsmax that Obama self-financed his three years at Harvard Law School with loans, and did not receive any scholarship from Harvard Law school.
LaBolt denied that Obama received any financial assistance from Harvard or from outside parties. “No - he paid his way through by taking out loans,” he said in an email to Newsmax.
At the time, Harvard cost around $25,000 a year, or $75,000 for the three years that Obama attended. And as president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, Harvard spokesman Mike Armini said.
“That is considered a volunteer position,” Armini said. “There is no salary or grant associated with it.”
So if the figures cited by the Obama campaign for the Senator’s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.
Where did he find the money? Did it come from friends of Khalid Al Mansour? And why would a radical Muslim activist with ties to the Saudi royal family be raising money for Barack Obama?
That’s the question the Obama campaign still won’t answer.
Michelle Obama Speaks Out
Speaking at a campaign event in Haverford, Pa, in April of this year, Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had “just paid off his loan debt” for his Harvard Law School education.
In an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio, in February she bemoaned the fact that many American families were strapped with student loan payments for years after graduation.
“The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books,” she said. The first of those best-sellers netted the couple $1.2 million in royalties in 2005.
In response to Newsmax questions about the Obama’s college loans, a campaign spokesman cited a report in The Chicago Sun claiming that Obama borrowed $42,753 to pay for Harvard Law School, and “tens of thousands” more to pay for undergraduate studies at Columbia.
The same report said that Michelle Obama borrowed $40,762 to pay for her years at Harvard Law School.
But a Newsmax review of Senator Obama’s financial disclosures found no trace of any outstanding college loans, going back to 2000.
As a United States Senate candidate, Barack Obama was required to file a financial disclosure form in 2004 detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities.
Obama listed “zero” under liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms.
Under the Senate ethics rules, he is required to disclose any loan, including credit card debt, of $10,000 or more. The only exception to the reporting requirement is mortgage debt on a principal residence.
The Senate reports also directly contradict Michelle Obama’s claim that the couple had “only just” paid off their student loans after receiving book royalties paid out in 2005 and 2006 – well after her husband had been ensconced in the Senate.
Apparently, Michelle Obama misspoke, according to the version provided by the Obama campaign.
Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt now tells Newsmax that the loans Sen. Obama took out to pay for Harvard Law School “were repaid in full while he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate [in 2004], and under the rules, the modest outstanding balance he repaid was not reportable as a liability on his personal financial disclosure reports.”
The Senator repaid the loans on “the expectation of a significant increase in family income” as a result of the paperback edition of his 1995 book, Dreams of My Father, LaBolt said.
Obama acknowledges that sales of the hard cover edition of the book were “underwhelming.” But in the spring of 2004,when Obama won the Democrat U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, Rachel Klayman, an editor at Crown Publishers in New York, read an article about Obama and became interested in his memoir, only to discover that Crown now owned the rights.
She asked Obama to write a new forward, and Crown then decided to re-issue Dreams as a paperback in July 2004, just as Obama made his historic speech to the Democrat National Convention.
The paperback eventually sold over one million copies, which under the standard industry royalty for trade paperbacks of 7.5%, earned him $1.2 million. However, Obama didn’t report income from the book until 2005, so it’s unclear how he was able to repay his student loans in 2004.
Responding to attacks from the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, Obama released seven years of tax returns on March 25 of this year.
The returns, dating back to 2000, indicate that the couple paid no interest on their student loans. The interest from such loans would have been deductible on their joint income tax returns.
For 2000 through 2004, taxpayers declared student loan interest as a deduction on line 24 of federal form 1040. After 2004, the deduction can be taken on Line 33.
But the Obamas never declared a dime of interest in student loans on their return, most likely because they simply earned too much money to be able to take the deduction under the IRS rules.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt had no answer as to why the Obamas’ failed to declare the loans, stating the obvious that “because interest on the loans was not deducted, it would not appear on the Obamas’ personal return.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
COLLAGE OF GOODIES
1.Limbaugh: McCain Throws Cox 'Under the Bus
2,Michael Reagan: Wall Street Bailout 'Robbery'
3.Palin Bans Reporters From Meetings With Leaders
4.McCain, Palin Disagree on Global Warming
5.Al-Qaida Threatens 'October Surprise' Attack
SCROLL DOWN TO YOUR SUBJECT
*************************************************************************************
1.Limbaugh: McCain Throws Cox 'Under the Bus'
Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:53 AM
Rush Limbaugh wishes John McCain’s economic proposals would stop bashing Wall Street, thinks the Arizona senator is running against the wrong people, and deplores his demand that SEC Chairman Chris Cox be fired -- and he wants everybody to know it.
Speaking to Greta Van Susteren on her Fox News show “On The Record” Friday, Limbaugh ripped into McCain, saying he understands what he called “the populist tendency to bash Wall Street because people are upset and to join the chorus that Wall Street is corrupt and full of a bunch of people, but that’s not the case.
“I don't think bashing Wall Street, with the Democrats already doing that, is a way for Sen. McCain to separate himself. What he ought to be doing is what he did in Green Bay this morning, which is attack the people responsible for the Fannie Mae disaster -- and that’s all Democrats. It’s Chris Dodd, it’s Barney Frank, it is Barack Obama, it’s Franklin Raines, and Jim Johnson -- people associated with the Obama campaign.
"I understand the temptation to start ripping into Wall Street, because people instinctively fall into that so-called class envy susceptibility for this. I think it's a mistake. I think he can distinguish himself better by attacking the people he's running against -- he's running against Democrats, he’s running against Obama, he’s running against Wall Street.
“Wall Street is probably going to finish the week higher than when it started … There’s a lesson here to stay calm and cool."
Limbaugh addressed McCain’s attack on Cox, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman.
“I also wish he hadn’t thrown Chris Cox under the bus, the Securities and Exchange Commission guy, [saying] he would have fired him. Cox had nothing to do with this. This is a tendency of Sen. McCain's to look at himself as Teddy Roosevelt and take on anybody he thinks is a robber baron. I wish that he would take some of that back and just focus on who he's really running against -- the people trying to destroy him.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
************************************************************************************
2. Michael Reagan: Wall Street Bailout 'Robbery'
Sunday, September 21, 2008 7:08 PM
By: Phil Brennan
The runaway government bailout of Wall Street at taxpayer expense is nothing less than "robbery,” according to Michael Reagan.
The top-rated talk-show host and Newsmax columnist told the 5 million listeners of "The Michael Reagan Show" on Friday that their pockets and those of their fellow Americans were being picked clean by the panic-driven bailout.
"Democrats Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Penny Pritzker, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are robbing the American taxpayer, and Republicans in the House and Senate had been tapped to drive the getaway car," said Reagan.
“In a political system where well-paid Democrat operatives can enrich themselves at the expense of the American people with zero downside, there is no incentive to behave properly, when the taxpayer will bail you out. Enough is enough, bad decisions have consequences and those consequences ought to include indictments and jail time for those who cashed in."
Speaking to Newsmax.com, Reagan added: “I hope John McCain will not shrink from pointing the finger of blame where it belongs – at Barack Obama, who fed greedily at the trough of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while their top people, including two of his own campaign associates, were flim-flamming the American people. It’s a Democratic scandal from beginning to end, and the American people deserve to know it.”
2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved
************************************************************************************
3.Palin Bans Reporters From Meetings With Leaders
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:30 AM
NEW YORK — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is banning reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew.
Palin plans to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in New York on Tuesday.
The TV producer, print and wire reporters in the press pool that follows the Alaska governor were told at the start of the day they would not be admitted with the photographers and camera crew when they are taken in to photograph the meetings.
At least two news organizations, including The Associated Press, objected and were told that the decision had already been made and was not subject to discussion.
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved
************************************************************************************
4.McCain, Palin Disagree on Global Warming
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:59 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s position on the causes of global warming stand in sharp contrast to those of her running mate John McCain, with the Alaska governor expressing skepticism that it’s man-made.
McCain has consistently asserted that people are driving global warming and supports a cap on greenhouse gases.
He said in July that “the science of man-made global warming has really been proven,” citing the “preponderance of scientific evidence.”
But Palin “has publicly questioned scientists’ near-consensus that human activity plays a role in the rising temperatures,” The Washington Post reported.
[Editor's Note: “Sarah Palin Speaks to Newsmax — Read It!” — )
She opposed the Bush administration’s listing of polar bears as threatened with extinction because of shrinking sea ice, and sued to overturn the decision, claiming it would adversely affect Alaska’s commercial fisheries, transportation, and tourism, and would deter oil and gas exploration.
According to The Post, the reasons for Palin’s resistance to measures favored by environmentalists did not become clear until Newsmax magazine published an exclusive interview with the Alaska governor in the September issue, in which Palin said: “A changing climate will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being mad-made.”
The rest of the media jumped all over the Newsmax story, which hit the stands just as McCain announced that Palin would be his running mate.
The interview was cited by The Washington Post, ABC News, Newsday, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, CNN.com, Time magazine, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel, The National Review Online, the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, Portfolio.com, and Media Life Magazine.
Palin also said in the Newsmax interview that the U.S. has “billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas,” and that Alaska’s resources can be tapped “with minimum environmental impact.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
************************************************************************************
5.Al-Qaida Threatens 'October Surprise' Attack
Monday, September 22, 2008 11:49 AM
By: Tim Collie
After two major terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Yemen — along with a new U.S. push at insurgent strongholds along the Afghan border — U.S. intelligence is worried about a massive "October surprise" attack geared to sway the U.S. elections.
America's military and intelligence agencies intercepted a series of messages from al-Qaida's leadership last month that seemed designed to warn local cells to prepare for imminent attacks. One such operation may have been the attack that brought down a Marriott Hotel in Islamabad where the newly inaugurated president of Pakistan was scheduled to dine.
The attacks would likely be at American bases or allies abroad, since most experts think the group’s ability to penetrate the U.S. homeland has deteriorated since 9-11. Still, al-Qaida is aggressively recruiting both North African and European operatives who may have a greater ability to enter the United States and blend in before launching an attack, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
“We are not aware of any specific, credible al-Qaida plot to attack the U.S. homeland, but we do receive a steady stream of threat reporting from sources of varying creditability,” said Ted Gistaro, U.S. national intelligence officer (NIO) for transnational threats. “As the election nears, we expect to see an uptick in such threat reporting — of varying credibility — regarding possible attacks.“
Other intelligence experts agreed, adding that a pre-election attack would probably occur overseas.
“There is an expectation that al-Qaida will try to influence the November elections by attempting attacks globally," said Roger Cressey, a former Bush and Clinton White House counterterrorism official.
An official familiar with the new intelligence told the The New York Sun that the intercepted messages amounted to “Be on notice. We may call upon you soon.” It was sent out through many channels, ranging from couriers to encrypted electronic communications to other means. There were no specifics as to where or when.
Though some might scoff at the quadrennial worry of the October surprise in U.S. elections, al-Qaida has attacked other nations on the eve of major elections. On March 11, 2004, the group carried out a series of bombings on Madrid commuter trains. Three days later, the party aligned with the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq was defeated.
But al-Qaida’s ultimate goal is to launch another major attack on the U.S. homeland — preferably with nuclear or biological weapons. Whether that hurts the Republican or Democrats seems beside the point, according to one expert.
Last year, Osama bin Laden labeled the entire American system a failure, Gistaro told a panel at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in August. He called on Americans to convert to Islam, and not cast a vote one way or the other in elections.
“He [bin Laden] claimed that there is no difference between Democratic or Republican candidates winning presidential or congressional elections so long as ‘big corporations’ support candidates,” Gistaro said.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
*************************************************************************************
2,Michael Reagan: Wall Street Bailout 'Robbery'
3.Palin Bans Reporters From Meetings With Leaders
4.McCain, Palin Disagree on Global Warming
5.Al-Qaida Threatens 'October Surprise' Attack
SCROLL DOWN TO YOUR SUBJECT
*************************************************************************************
1.Limbaugh: McCain Throws Cox 'Under the Bus'
Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:53 AM
Rush Limbaugh wishes John McCain’s economic proposals would stop bashing Wall Street, thinks the Arizona senator is running against the wrong people, and deplores his demand that SEC Chairman Chris Cox be fired -- and he wants everybody to know it.
Speaking to Greta Van Susteren on her Fox News show “On The Record” Friday, Limbaugh ripped into McCain, saying he understands what he called “the populist tendency to bash Wall Street because people are upset and to join the chorus that Wall Street is corrupt and full of a bunch of people, but that’s not the case.
“I don't think bashing Wall Street, with the Democrats already doing that, is a way for Sen. McCain to separate himself. What he ought to be doing is what he did in Green Bay this morning, which is attack the people responsible for the Fannie Mae disaster -- and that’s all Democrats. It’s Chris Dodd, it’s Barney Frank, it is Barack Obama, it’s Franklin Raines, and Jim Johnson -- people associated with the Obama campaign.
"I understand the temptation to start ripping into Wall Street, because people instinctively fall into that so-called class envy susceptibility for this. I think it's a mistake. I think he can distinguish himself better by attacking the people he's running against -- he's running against Democrats, he’s running against Obama, he’s running against Wall Street.
“Wall Street is probably going to finish the week higher than when it started … There’s a lesson here to stay calm and cool."
Limbaugh addressed McCain’s attack on Cox, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman.
“I also wish he hadn’t thrown Chris Cox under the bus, the Securities and Exchange Commission guy, [saying] he would have fired him. Cox had nothing to do with this. This is a tendency of Sen. McCain's to look at himself as Teddy Roosevelt and take on anybody he thinks is a robber baron. I wish that he would take some of that back and just focus on who he's really running against -- the people trying to destroy him.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
************************************************************************************
2. Michael Reagan: Wall Street Bailout 'Robbery'
Sunday, September 21, 2008 7:08 PM
By: Phil Brennan
The runaway government bailout of Wall Street at taxpayer expense is nothing less than "robbery,” according to Michael Reagan.
The top-rated talk-show host and Newsmax columnist told the 5 million listeners of "The Michael Reagan Show" on Friday that their pockets and those of their fellow Americans were being picked clean by the panic-driven bailout.
"Democrats Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Penny Pritzker, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are robbing the American taxpayer, and Republicans in the House and Senate had been tapped to drive the getaway car," said Reagan.
“In a political system where well-paid Democrat operatives can enrich themselves at the expense of the American people with zero downside, there is no incentive to behave properly, when the taxpayer will bail you out. Enough is enough, bad decisions have consequences and those consequences ought to include indictments and jail time for those who cashed in."
Speaking to Newsmax.com, Reagan added: “I hope John McCain will not shrink from pointing the finger of blame where it belongs – at Barack Obama, who fed greedily at the trough of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while their top people, including two of his own campaign associates, were flim-flamming the American people. It’s a Democratic scandal from beginning to end, and the American people deserve to know it.”
2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved
************************************************************************************
3.Palin Bans Reporters From Meetings With Leaders
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:30 AM
NEW YORK — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is banning reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew.
Palin plans to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in New York on Tuesday.
The TV producer, print and wire reporters in the press pool that follows the Alaska governor were told at the start of the day they would not be admitted with the photographers and camera crew when they are taken in to photograph the meetings.
At least two news organizations, including The Associated Press, objected and were told that the decision had already been made and was not subject to discussion.
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved
************************************************************************************
4.McCain, Palin Disagree on Global Warming
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:59 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s position on the causes of global warming stand in sharp contrast to those of her running mate John McCain, with the Alaska governor expressing skepticism that it’s man-made.
McCain has consistently asserted that people are driving global warming and supports a cap on greenhouse gases.
He said in July that “the science of man-made global warming has really been proven,” citing the “preponderance of scientific evidence.”
But Palin “has publicly questioned scientists’ near-consensus that human activity plays a role in the rising temperatures,” The Washington Post reported.
[Editor's Note: “Sarah Palin Speaks to Newsmax — Read It!” — )
She opposed the Bush administration’s listing of polar bears as threatened with extinction because of shrinking sea ice, and sued to overturn the decision, claiming it would adversely affect Alaska’s commercial fisheries, transportation, and tourism, and would deter oil and gas exploration.
According to The Post, the reasons for Palin’s resistance to measures favored by environmentalists did not become clear until Newsmax magazine published an exclusive interview with the Alaska governor in the September issue, in which Palin said: “A changing climate will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being mad-made.”
The rest of the media jumped all over the Newsmax story, which hit the stands just as McCain announced that Palin would be his running mate.
The interview was cited by The Washington Post, ABC News, Newsday, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, CNN.com, Time magazine, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel, The National Review Online, the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, Portfolio.com, and Media Life Magazine.
Palin also said in the Newsmax interview that the U.S. has “billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas,” and that Alaska’s resources can be tapped “with minimum environmental impact.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
************************************************************************************
5.Al-Qaida Threatens 'October Surprise' Attack
Monday, September 22, 2008 11:49 AM
By: Tim Collie
After two major terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Yemen — along with a new U.S. push at insurgent strongholds along the Afghan border — U.S. intelligence is worried about a massive "October surprise" attack geared to sway the U.S. elections.
America's military and intelligence agencies intercepted a series of messages from al-Qaida's leadership last month that seemed designed to warn local cells to prepare for imminent attacks. One such operation may have been the attack that brought down a Marriott Hotel in Islamabad where the newly inaugurated president of Pakistan was scheduled to dine.
The attacks would likely be at American bases or allies abroad, since most experts think the group’s ability to penetrate the U.S. homeland has deteriorated since 9-11. Still, al-Qaida is aggressively recruiting both North African and European operatives who may have a greater ability to enter the United States and blend in before launching an attack, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
“We are not aware of any specific, credible al-Qaida plot to attack the U.S. homeland, but we do receive a steady stream of threat reporting from sources of varying creditability,” said Ted Gistaro, U.S. national intelligence officer (NIO) for transnational threats. “As the election nears, we expect to see an uptick in such threat reporting — of varying credibility — regarding possible attacks.“
Other intelligence experts agreed, adding that a pre-election attack would probably occur overseas.
“There is an expectation that al-Qaida will try to influence the November elections by attempting attacks globally," said Roger Cressey, a former Bush and Clinton White House counterterrorism official.
An official familiar with the new intelligence told the The New York Sun that the intercepted messages amounted to “Be on notice. We may call upon you soon.” It was sent out through many channels, ranging from couriers to encrypted electronic communications to other means. There were no specifics as to where or when.
Though some might scoff at the quadrennial worry of the October surprise in U.S. elections, al-Qaida has attacked other nations on the eve of major elections. On March 11, 2004, the group carried out a series of bombings on Madrid commuter trains. Three days later, the party aligned with the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq was defeated.
But al-Qaida’s ultimate goal is to launch another major attack on the U.S. homeland — preferably with nuclear or biological weapons. Whether that hurts the Republican or Democrats seems beside the point, according to one expert.
Last year, Osama bin Laden labeled the entire American system a failure, Gistaro told a panel at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in August. He called on Americans to convert to Islam, and not cast a vote one way or the other in elections.
“He [bin Laden] claimed that there is no difference between Democratic or Republican candidates winning presidential or congressional elections so long as ‘big corporations’ support candidates,” Gistaro said.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
*************************************************************************************
Time to Slam Obama's Tax Plan
Time to Slam Obama's Tax Plan
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:40 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Whatever is left of the economy after the current round of crisis interventions by the Fed could go down the drain if Obama is elected and carries out his plans for sharp increases in taxation.
Even if Obama does not understand the linkage, most Americans do and will turn sharply against Obama's tax plans if McCain hammers away at the risk they pose for us all.
During the Great Depression, Congress raised taxes sharply in the Revenue Act of 1932. The top rate went from 25 percent to 63 percent. As a result, the real GDP dropped by 13.3 percent, and unemployment rose from 15.9 percent to 23.6 percent.
In 1990, Bush-41 famously broke his "Read my lips — no new taxes" pledge of the 1988 campaign and raised the federal gasoline tax, federal excise taxes, and imposed 10 percent surtax on the top income bracket, raising its taxes to 31 percent. The recession that followed in 1991-1992 cost him re-election.
It is obvious that increasing capital gains taxes by a minimum of one-third and possibly doubling them, both of which Obama has proposed during his campaign, would send a clear signal to investors to keep their money under the mattress.
Who would buy stock now knowing that the tax on any profits is going to go up sharply if Obama becomes president?
Look at what happened just last year in Michigan. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm raised taxes on almost everything in 2007. Income taxes shot up 11.5 percent and the state's 6 percent sales tax was expanded to dozens of new services like investment advice, janitorial services, landscaping, ski lifts, carpet cleaning, and tanning.
The $1.75 billion tax package shook the economy to its foundations. Michigan became the only one of the 50 states with a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). The value of all goods and services produced in the state fell by .5 percent while the national GDP rose by 3.4 percent. The state fell from 23rd in GDP to 35th. Taxes caused a disaster.
In a strong economy, Obama's tax hikes would raise questions. In a weak economy, they portend a catastrophe. It would be like bleeding a sick patient, the medicine of 200 years ago, depriving him of blood even as he needs more not less circulating through his arteries.
McCain's populist rhetoric, including his pledge to fire SEC chairman former Rep. Christopher Cox, is important for a Republican candidate. But his focus should shift to the tax issue.
With firms suffering, withering, and dying for a lack of capital, tax increases on those who invest would be a horrible mistake. Americans will realize this obvious fact and McCain should use it to gain the advantage in discussing the economy.
There is no reason for the economy to work to Obama's advantage when he is committed to a doctrinaire program of tax increases and spending hikes. McCain can use the issue to run rings around him.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:40 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Whatever is left of the economy after the current round of crisis interventions by the Fed could go down the drain if Obama is elected and carries out his plans for sharp increases in taxation.
Even if Obama does not understand the linkage, most Americans do and will turn sharply against Obama's tax plans if McCain hammers away at the risk they pose for us all.
During the Great Depression, Congress raised taxes sharply in the Revenue Act of 1932. The top rate went from 25 percent to 63 percent. As a result, the real GDP dropped by 13.3 percent, and unemployment rose from 15.9 percent to 23.6 percent.
In 1990, Bush-41 famously broke his "Read my lips — no new taxes" pledge of the 1988 campaign and raised the federal gasoline tax, federal excise taxes, and imposed 10 percent surtax on the top income bracket, raising its taxes to 31 percent. The recession that followed in 1991-1992 cost him re-election.
It is obvious that increasing capital gains taxes by a minimum of one-third and possibly doubling them, both of which Obama has proposed during his campaign, would send a clear signal to investors to keep their money under the mattress.
Who would buy stock now knowing that the tax on any profits is going to go up sharply if Obama becomes president?
Look at what happened just last year in Michigan. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm raised taxes on almost everything in 2007. Income taxes shot up 11.5 percent and the state's 6 percent sales tax was expanded to dozens of new services like investment advice, janitorial services, landscaping, ski lifts, carpet cleaning, and tanning.
The $1.75 billion tax package shook the economy to its foundations. Michigan became the only one of the 50 states with a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). The value of all goods and services produced in the state fell by .5 percent while the national GDP rose by 3.4 percent. The state fell from 23rd in GDP to 35th. Taxes caused a disaster.
In a strong economy, Obama's tax hikes would raise questions. In a weak economy, they portend a catastrophe. It would be like bleeding a sick patient, the medicine of 200 years ago, depriving him of blood even as he needs more not less circulating through his arteries.
McCain's populist rhetoric, including his pledge to fire SEC chairman former Rep. Christopher Cox, is important for a Republican candidate. But his focus should shift to the tax issue.
With firms suffering, withering, and dying for a lack of capital, tax increases on those who invest would be a horrible mistake. Americans will realize this obvious fact and McCain should use it to gain the advantage in discussing the economy.
There is no reason for the economy to work to Obama's advantage when he is committed to a doctrinaire program of tax increases and spending hikes. McCain can use the issue to run rings around him.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
A BUMBLED DEMOCRATIC AD
A BUMBLED DEMOCRATIC AD
THE ITEM BELOW TELLS ME THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS LOST IN IT'S QUEST TO REGAIN THE STATURE IT ONCE HAD. NOW IT IS A "WIN NO MATTER WHO GETS HURT". UNFORTUNATELY IT IS THE COUNTRY THAT IS GOING TO BE HURT IF THIS COMMUNISTIC SOB (FACT NOW KNOWN)
IS ELECTED.
DECIMATION OF THE MILITARY.
OUT OF SIGHT TAXATION. (SINCE WHEN DID THE GOVERNMENT DO A BETTER JOB OF SPENDING MY MONEY.
WELFARE PLANS THAT WILL TOTALLY RUIN THE ECONOMY.
AND ABOVE ALL THINK WHO REALLY WANTS OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT, THE ARAB LEAGUE, THE MUSLIMS, AND DON'T FORGET THE CLINTONS FOR AFTER HE FAILS HILLARY WILL OFFER TO SAVE US, AND WE AGAIN SAY "GOD HELP US".
I DOUBT SERIOUSLY IF YOU HAD MANGLED HANDS (FROM TORTURE) THAT YOU WOULD DO ANY TYPING. DAVE ANDERSON
************************************************************************************
Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, launched the ad earlier this month, part of an aggressive push to slow McCain's rise in the polls after he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It included unflattering footage of Sen. McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.
"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," the ad says.
Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.
"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.
Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."
THE ITEM BELOW TELLS ME THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS LOST IN IT'S QUEST TO REGAIN THE STATURE IT ONCE HAD. NOW IT IS A "WIN NO MATTER WHO GETS HURT". UNFORTUNATELY IT IS THE COUNTRY THAT IS GOING TO BE HURT IF THIS COMMUNISTIC SOB (FACT NOW KNOWN)
IS ELECTED.
DECIMATION OF THE MILITARY.
OUT OF SIGHT TAXATION. (SINCE WHEN DID THE GOVERNMENT DO A BETTER JOB OF SPENDING MY MONEY.
WELFARE PLANS THAT WILL TOTALLY RUIN THE ECONOMY.
AND ABOVE ALL THINK WHO REALLY WANTS OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT, THE ARAB LEAGUE, THE MUSLIMS, AND DON'T FORGET THE CLINTONS FOR AFTER HE FAILS HILLARY WILL OFFER TO SAVE US, AND WE AGAIN SAY "GOD HELP US".
I DOUBT SERIOUSLY IF YOU HAD MANGLED HANDS (FROM TORTURE) THAT YOU WOULD DO ANY TYPING. DAVE ANDERSON
************************************************************************************
Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, launched the ad earlier this month, part of an aggressive push to slow McCain's rise in the polls after he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It included unflattering footage of Sen. McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.
"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," the ad says.
Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.
"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.
Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."
WHAT "IF"
WHAT IF THIS COMES TO PASS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weelll If it does will it be a surprise?? I think not>
On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing
health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur
after the VP debate on 10/2.
There have been talks all weekend about how to proceed with this info.
Generally, the feeling is that we should all go ahead and get it out there
to as many blog sites and personal email lists as is possible. I have
already seen a few short blurbs about this - the 'health problem' cited in
those articles was aneurysm. Probably many of you have heard the same
rumblings.
However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks like
this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best
strategy is to get out in front of this Obama maneuver, spell it out in
detail, and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is.
So, let's start mixing this one up and cut the Obamites off at the pass -
send this info out to as many people as you can - post about it on websites
and blogs - etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weelll If it does will it be a surprise?? I think not>
On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing
health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur
after the VP debate on 10/2.
There have been talks all weekend about how to proceed with this info.
Generally, the feeling is that we should all go ahead and get it out there
to as many blog sites and personal email lists as is possible. I have
already seen a few short blurbs about this - the 'health problem' cited in
those articles was aneurysm. Probably many of you have heard the same
rumblings.
However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks like
this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best
strategy is to get out in front of this Obama maneuver, spell it out in
detail, and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is.
So, let's start mixing this one up and cut the Obamites off at the pass -
send this info out to as many people as you can - post about it on websites
and blogs - etc.
BARACK OBAMA AND 2ND AMMENDMENT
BARACK OBAMA WOULD BE THE MOST
ANTI-GUN PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.
Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04
Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99
Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05
On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!
Senator Obama says “words matter.” But when it comes to your Second Amendment rights, he refuses to speak honestly about where he stands. In fact, Obama hides behind carefully chosen words and vague statements of support for sportsmen and gun rights to sidestep and camouflage the truth. But even he can’t hide from the truth forever…his voting record, political associations, and long standing positions make it clear that, if elected...
Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history.
Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
ANTI-GUN PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.
Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04
Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99
Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05
On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!
Senator Obama says “words matter.” But when it comes to your Second Amendment rights, he refuses to speak honestly about where he stands. In fact, Obama hides behind carefully chosen words and vague statements of support for sportsmen and gun rights to sidestep and camouflage the truth. But even he can’t hide from the truth forever…his voting record, political associations, and long standing positions make it clear that, if elected...
Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history.
Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
September 22, 2008
ABOUT ACTIONS
FROM A FRIEND LIVING IN HOUSTON
10 days without electric power. I finally gave up on the second Saturday without power when it got 88.
I'm at my oldest son's house who had his power restored on Sat.
My son's house now has cable TV and later this afternoon he has internet access.
Houston is a mess. Galveston is an almost hopeless disaster some beyond repair. Homeowners in some parts of Galveston will be allowed back in this Wed.
Curfew times vary by locations but even in Houston the strictly enforced curfew is midnight until 5 AM tonight. All vehicles at midnight as well as all people on the street stopped and many put in jail.
My power previously promised for Monday afternoon is now Tuesday afternoon.
Full power for Houston is estimated as Oct 2, 2008
Some service stations have power and gasoline is available at those stations. Delivery to gas stations to refill tanks is almost complete and when power is restored they can pump.
Clean Up will take a long time and cut tree limbs are on the front of most lots close to the curb. My last garbage collection was the Tuesday before the Hurricane.
Massive Large Electric Power Co equipment trucks and crews are here from 20 states and a tent city has been established at the Horse racing track. The work day is 16 hours for the Electric crews of many thousands of people.
It will take months to restore buildings downtown.
The reason that electric power is not installed outside of the downtown area is that it cost 10 times more. However we will pay a higher electric bill to pay for cost of repair beginning with the next billing cycle.
The financial condition of the top financial Institutions are in a disaster mode and even the US Government is not to big to fail.
No one is going to jail for their failure/fraud and the taxpayers have to foot the bills. My opinion is that the top brass of these institutions should be held responsible which they are not. The Democrats and Republicans in Congress seem equally to blame and should all be replaced.
GUESS WHO WAS #2?
FYI/OFE
The 3 senators who received more money from Freddie/Fannie were all Democrats. And guess who was #2? Barack Hussein Obama!
What a hypocrite!
See the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA
10 days without electric power. I finally gave up on the second Saturday without power when it got 88.
I'm at my oldest son's house who had his power restored on Sat.
My son's house now has cable TV and later this afternoon he has internet access.
Houston is a mess. Galveston is an almost hopeless disaster some beyond repair. Homeowners in some parts of Galveston will be allowed back in this Wed.
Curfew times vary by locations but even in Houston the strictly enforced curfew is midnight until 5 AM tonight. All vehicles at midnight as well as all people on the street stopped and many put in jail.
My power previously promised for Monday afternoon is now Tuesday afternoon.
Full power for Houston is estimated as Oct 2, 2008
Some service stations have power and gasoline is available at those stations. Delivery to gas stations to refill tanks is almost complete and when power is restored they can pump.
Clean Up will take a long time and cut tree limbs are on the front of most lots close to the curb. My last garbage collection was the Tuesday before the Hurricane.
Massive Large Electric Power Co equipment trucks and crews are here from 20 states and a tent city has been established at the Horse racing track. The work day is 16 hours for the Electric crews of many thousands of people.
It will take months to restore buildings downtown.
The reason that electric power is not installed outside of the downtown area is that it cost 10 times more. However we will pay a higher electric bill to pay for cost of repair beginning with the next billing cycle.
The financial condition of the top financial Institutions are in a disaster mode and even the US Government is not to big to fail.
No one is going to jail for their failure/fraud and the taxpayers have to foot the bills. My opinion is that the top brass of these institutions should be held responsible which they are not. The Democrats and Republicans in Congress seem equally to blame and should all be replaced.
GUESS WHO WAS #2?
FYI/OFE
The 3 senators who received more money from Freddie/Fannie were all Democrats. And guess who was #2? Barack Hussein Obama!
What a hypocrite!
See the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA
Another National News Media Oversight....
FROM A FRIEND THANKS ALICE:
Subject: Fw: Another National News Media Oversight....
Found this on a board that was discussing the recent hurricanes. It's from
an RN that wrote a letter to her paper in Texas:
Dear Editor,
I am a nurse who has just completed volunteer working approximately 120
hours as the clinic director in a Hurricane Gustav evacuation shelter in
Shreveport, Louisiana over the last 7 days. I would love to see someone look
at the evacuee situation from a new perspective. Local and national news
channels have covered the evacuation and "horrible" conditions the evacuees
had to endure during Hurricane Gustav.
True - some things were not optimal for the evacuation and the shelters need
some modification. At any point, does anyone address the responsibility (or
irresponsibility) of the evacuees?
Does it seem wrong that one would remember their cell phone, charger,
cigarettes and lighter but forget their child's insulin?
Is something amiss when an evacuee gets off the bus, walks immediately to
the medical area, and requests immediate free refills on all medicines for
which they cannot provide a prescription or current bottle (most of which
are narcotics)?
Isn't the system flawed when an evacuee says they cannot afford a $3 copay
for a refill that will be delivered to them in the shelter yet they can take
a city-provided bus to Wal-mart, or package store to buy 5 bottles of Vodka,
and return to consume them secretly in the shelter?
Is it fair to stop performing luggage checks on incoming evacuees so as not
to delay the registration process but endanger the volunteer staff and other
persons with the very realistic truth of drugs, alcohol and weapons being
brought into the shelter?
Am I less than compassionate when it frustrates me to scrub emesis from the
floor near a nauseated child while his mother lies nearby, watching me work
26 hours straight, not even raising her head from the pillow to comfort her
own son?
Why does it incense me to hear a man say "I ain't goin' home 'til I get my
FEMA check" when I would love to just go home and see my daughters who I
have only seen 3 times this week?
Is the system flawed when the privately insured patient must find a way to
get to the pharmacy, fill his prescription and pay his copay while the FEMA
declaration allows the uninsured person to acquire free medications under
the disaster rules?
Does it seem odd that the nurse volunteering at the shelter is paying for
childcare while the evacuee sits on a cot during the day as the shelter
provides a "daycare"?
Have government entitlements created this mentality and am I facilitating it
with my work? Will I be a bad person, merciless nurse or poor Christian if
I hesitate to work at the next shelter because I have worked for 7 days
being called every curse word imaginable, feeling threatened and fearing for
my personal safety in the shelter?
Exhausted and battered,
Sherri Hagerhjelm, RN
Subject: Fw: Another National News Media Oversight....
Found this on a board that was discussing the recent hurricanes. It's from
an RN that wrote a letter to her paper in Texas:
Dear Editor,
I am a nurse who has just completed volunteer working approximately 120
hours as the clinic director in a Hurricane Gustav evacuation shelter in
Shreveport, Louisiana over the last 7 days. I would love to see someone look
at the evacuee situation from a new perspective. Local and national news
channels have covered the evacuation and "horrible" conditions the evacuees
had to endure during Hurricane Gustav.
True - some things were not optimal for the evacuation and the shelters need
some modification. At any point, does anyone address the responsibility (or
irresponsibility) of the evacuees?
Does it seem wrong that one would remember their cell phone, charger,
cigarettes and lighter but forget their child's insulin?
Is something amiss when an evacuee gets off the bus, walks immediately to
the medical area, and requests immediate free refills on all medicines for
which they cannot provide a prescription or current bottle (most of which
are narcotics)?
Isn't the system flawed when an evacuee says they cannot afford a $3 copay
for a refill that will be delivered to them in the shelter yet they can take
a city-provided bus to Wal-mart, or package store to buy 5 bottles of Vodka,
and return to consume them secretly in the shelter?
Is it fair to stop performing luggage checks on incoming evacuees so as not
to delay the registration process but endanger the volunteer staff and other
persons with the very realistic truth of drugs, alcohol and weapons being
brought into the shelter?
Am I less than compassionate when it frustrates me to scrub emesis from the
floor near a nauseated child while his mother lies nearby, watching me work
26 hours straight, not even raising her head from the pillow to comfort her
own son?
Why does it incense me to hear a man say "I ain't goin' home 'til I get my
FEMA check" when I would love to just go home and see my daughters who I
have only seen 3 times this week?
Is the system flawed when the privately insured patient must find a way to
get to the pharmacy, fill his prescription and pay his copay while the FEMA
declaration allows the uninsured person to acquire free medications under
the disaster rules?
Does it seem odd that the nurse volunteering at the shelter is paying for
childcare while the evacuee sits on a cot during the day as the shelter
provides a "daycare"?
Have government entitlements created this mentality and am I facilitating it
with my work? Will I be a bad person, merciless nurse or poor Christian if
I hesitate to work at the next shelter because I have worked for 7 days
being called every curse word imaginable, feeling threatened and fearing for
my personal safety in the shelter?
Exhausted and battered,
Sherri Hagerhjelm, RN
Palin's Foreign-Policy Chops
Palin's Foreign-Policy Chops
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Leadership: If anything shows how Democrats are beneath their office, it's how they snubbed the visiting leader of Colombia on his current trip. Sarah Palin, by contrast, shows respect.
Based on their treatment of President Alvaro Uribe, who is here to plead for a free trade pact, it's almost as if Democrats don't want the U.S. to have allies. Uribe made a rare visit to Washington, and shamefully few Democrats agreed to meet him.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, largely snubbed by Democrats, will meet with the more cordial Republican Sarah Palin.
Uribe didn't come asking for much — only that Congress keep its word on an agreement that will drop tariffs on American goods sold in Colombia and help his country develop and prosper as a bulwark of democracy in a battered region.
"We consider that in the coming years if the free-trade agreement were approved . . . the main economic result could be the increase in investments in our country," Uribe told the Brookings Institution.
"And the more we increase legal investments in our country, the less difficult our task to defeat terrorist groups, to defeat illegal drugs."
Uribe also heads a country that last July put its own men in harm's way to free three innocent Americans held hostage by FARC Marxist terrorists. The rescue came off without a hitch or a shot being fired.
For that alone, Uribe should get his trade pact — with maybe a ticker tape parade thrown in for good measure.
But what he's getting from the Washington establishment is a lot less. President Bush did extend a warm welcome on Saturday, and Uribe also met with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and some CEOs in Atlanta.
But Democrats did all they could to slight him, generally hiding and making lame excuses for doing so.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who arbitrarily iced Colombia's free trade deal last April, refused to meet Uribe and didn't acknowledge a White House invitation to an event in his honor. Later, her staff regally complained that Uribe didn't call her.
This is part of a pattern. For years, Pelosi has insulted, slighted, road blocked and now ignored Uribe, the most valuable ally the U.S. has ever had in Latin America. Her motives are constantly shifting.
One minute she's complaining about human rights abuses in Colombia, despite an 86% drop in the murder rate of union activists. Then she says it's all about passing stimulus packages first. The common thread is serving Big Labor special interests at election time.
This is what passes for Democratic leadership these days. Uribe urged nonpartisanship in considering Colombia's case for free trade, but lesser Democrats were just as craven and irresponsible as Pelosi.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama only grudgingly permitted Uribe to talk with him by telephone, afterward disclosing no news about why he still opposes cutting tariffs on American goods to Colombia as the free trade pact provides. Nor did he make any public statements, seemingly to make the call go unnoticed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who's fond of junketing to the luxury locales in South America, had no time to repay the hospitality to Uribe. And two Democrats held out as Latin experts, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, couldn't give Uribe the time of day.
Some pro-free-trade Democrats, including Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, were notable exceptions and did welcome Uribe. But none of the Democrats billed as foreign-policy heavy hitters could see that the implications of snubbing Colombia send a message to the region that it pays more to be America's enemy than its friend.
Into the vacuum, however, has stepped in Gov. Sarah Palin. The supposedly foreign-policy-challenged vice presidential candidate asked to meet with Uribe on Tuesday in New York to support our ally.
As chief executive of Alaska, Palin knows what it's like to deal with a Congress that dismisses her state as distant, lectures it on ecological virtue and then denies its citizens development. She understands perfectly how it must feel to be Uribe, who's gotten the exact same treatment from a Washington establishment.
Palin's reception of Uribe is a far more serious statement than Obama's visits to the tourist spots of Europe that he chalked up as foreign policy experience.
Palin's meeting with Uribe shows a commitment to American interests over Washington politics. Thank goodness Palin knows how to act when an important leader and true friend comes calling.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Leadership: If anything shows how Democrats are beneath their office, it's how they snubbed the visiting leader of Colombia on his current trip. Sarah Palin, by contrast, shows respect.
Based on their treatment of President Alvaro Uribe, who is here to plead for a free trade pact, it's almost as if Democrats don't want the U.S. to have allies. Uribe made a rare visit to Washington, and shamefully few Democrats agreed to meet him.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, largely snubbed by Democrats, will meet with the more cordial Republican Sarah Palin.
Uribe didn't come asking for much — only that Congress keep its word on an agreement that will drop tariffs on American goods sold in Colombia and help his country develop and prosper as a bulwark of democracy in a battered region.
"We consider that in the coming years if the free-trade agreement were approved . . . the main economic result could be the increase in investments in our country," Uribe told the Brookings Institution.
"And the more we increase legal investments in our country, the less difficult our task to defeat terrorist groups, to defeat illegal drugs."
Uribe also heads a country that last July put its own men in harm's way to free three innocent Americans held hostage by FARC Marxist terrorists. The rescue came off without a hitch or a shot being fired.
For that alone, Uribe should get his trade pact — with maybe a ticker tape parade thrown in for good measure.
But what he's getting from the Washington establishment is a lot less. President Bush did extend a warm welcome on Saturday, and Uribe also met with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and some CEOs in Atlanta.
But Democrats did all they could to slight him, generally hiding and making lame excuses for doing so.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who arbitrarily iced Colombia's free trade deal last April, refused to meet Uribe and didn't acknowledge a White House invitation to an event in his honor. Later, her staff regally complained that Uribe didn't call her.
This is part of a pattern. For years, Pelosi has insulted, slighted, road blocked and now ignored Uribe, the most valuable ally the U.S. has ever had in Latin America. Her motives are constantly shifting.
One minute she's complaining about human rights abuses in Colombia, despite an 86% drop in the murder rate of union activists. Then she says it's all about passing stimulus packages first. The common thread is serving Big Labor special interests at election time.
This is what passes for Democratic leadership these days. Uribe urged nonpartisanship in considering Colombia's case for free trade, but lesser Democrats were just as craven and irresponsible as Pelosi.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama only grudgingly permitted Uribe to talk with him by telephone, afterward disclosing no news about why he still opposes cutting tariffs on American goods to Colombia as the free trade pact provides. Nor did he make any public statements, seemingly to make the call go unnoticed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who's fond of junketing to the luxury locales in South America, had no time to repay the hospitality to Uribe. And two Democrats held out as Latin experts, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, couldn't give Uribe the time of day.
Some pro-free-trade Democrats, including Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, were notable exceptions and did welcome Uribe. But none of the Democrats billed as foreign-policy heavy hitters could see that the implications of snubbing Colombia send a message to the region that it pays more to be America's enemy than its friend.
Into the vacuum, however, has stepped in Gov. Sarah Palin. The supposedly foreign-policy-challenged vice presidential candidate asked to meet with Uribe on Tuesday in New York to support our ally.
As chief executive of Alaska, Palin knows what it's like to deal with a Congress that dismisses her state as distant, lectures it on ecological virtue and then denies its citizens development. She understands perfectly how it must feel to be Uribe, who's gotten the exact same treatment from a Washington establishment.
Palin's reception of Uribe is a far more serious statement than Obama's visits to the tourist spots of Europe that he chalked up as foreign policy experience.
Palin's meeting with Uribe shows a commitment to American interests over Washington politics. Thank goodness Palin knows how to act when an important leader and true friend comes calling.
Email To Friend |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
