Friday, October 31, 2008
Oct 31 02:06 PM US/Eastern
The world faces a growing risk of conflict over the next 20 to 30 years amid an unprecedented transfer of wealth and power from West to East, according to the US intelligence chief.
Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence, predicted rising demand for scarce supplies of food and fuel, strategic competition over new technologies, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
"What I'm suggesting -- there's an increased potential for conflict," McConnell said in a speech Thursday to intelligence professionals in Nashville, Tennessee.
"During the period of this assessment, out to 2025, the probability for conflict between nations and within nation-state entities will be greater," he said.
Conditions for "large casualty terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, or less likely, nuclear materials" also will increase during that period, he said.
McConnell described a multi-polar world in 2025 shaped by the rise of China, India and Brazil, whose economies will by then match those of the western industrial states.
"In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power, now underway, as noted from West to East is without precedent in modern history," McConnell said.
Territorial expansion and military rivalries are not likely but cannot be ruled out, he said.
"We judge these sweeping changes will not trigger a complete breakdown of the current international system, but the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks and many, many challenges," he said.
By 2025, China is likely to have the world's second largest economy and to have emerged as a major military power, the largest importer of natural resources and the largest contributor to world pollution.
"China is poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country," he said.
India will have either the third or second largest economy and will press to become "one of the significant poles of this new world," he said.
Russia also will be part of that group but only if it expands and diversifies its economy and integrates it with the world global economy, he said.
"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, demographics, access to natural resources, investments and technological innovation. There will be a struggle to acquire technology advantage as the key enabler for dominance," he said.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
10/31/2008 11:51:12 AM
Based on media coverage, conventional wisdom suggests Wall Street would favor Republican Party candidates when donating to campaigns. But that’s not the case.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site OpenSecrets.org, out the top 25 political contributors for the 2008 election cycle, nine were Wall Street banking or investment firms, including the now defunct firm Lehman Brothers. Employees at eight of those nine firms gave more money to Democratic candidates – nearly $17 million to Democratic candidates versus only $11 million to their Republican counterparts. That’s 60 percent for Democrats to only 40 percent for Republicans.
Four of the top six overall donors are Wall Street financial firms participating in part of the recently passed $850 billion bailout – Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), Citigroup (NYSE:C), JP Morgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS). Employees of those firms gave $10.4 million to Democrats and $6 million to Republicans or 63 percent Democrat. Employees of bank Goldman Sachs alone gave $3.6 million to Democrats and $1.3 million to Republicans, a nearly 3-to-1 ratio.
Still, the Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican President George W. Bush for putting Wall Street before Main Street with the blame for the crisis. “Now, this didn’t happen by accident. Our falling GDP is a direct result of eight years of the trickle down, Wall Street first/Main Street last policies that have driven our economy into a ditch,” Obama said at a speech in Sarasota, Fla., on Oct. 30.
And, Obama has had his blame game message conveyed by the media in many cases – that “Republican policies” are behind the financial crisis.
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden – they deliver a tag team attack on John McCain,” CNN “The Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer said on Sept. 15. “They say Republican policies are to blame for this latest financial blow and they’re accusing the McCain camp of smears and deception.”
Although Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has had harsh words for “Wall Street greed,” the media in many instances have linked the GOP to the Wall Street crisis, despite donations from Wall Street being a huge part of funding for the Obama campaign.
“I was just in Ohio this past week and I can tell you in small towns in Ohio, the economic debate is dominating and it’s not so much that they are in love with Obama plan but they are tired of Republican policy and saying they are though the hearing much different from John McCain,” CNN’s John King said on the Oct. 7 “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” “So that is his challenge to prove he has an economic plan and prove it is different from the current administration.”
And that echo of the Democratic candidates by the media has had an effect on public opinion. According to a Sept. 22 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 47 percent of registered voters polled blamed Republicans for the problems facing financial institutions and the stock market versus only 24 percent that have blame Democratic candidates.
Even when companies outside the top 25 are counted, Democratic support is strong. Out of the top 100 political contributors for the 2008 election cycle, 16 were Wall Street banking or investment firms, including Bear Stearns. Employees of those 16 firms gave more to Democratic candidates – $22 million versus $16 million to GOP candidates. That’s 58 percent for Democrats.
The data from the Center for Responsive Politics are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more to federal candidates and parties as reported to the Federal Election Commission, released on Oct. 19.
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OUT... ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.
Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.
After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing any party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to a video posted on the Internet.
"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.
Libi, one of the top al Qaeda commanders believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.
The remarks were the first comments from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.
In 2004 al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the elections to deride President Bush and warn of possible new September 11-style attacks.
Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."
By Rick C. Hodgin
Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55
Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
Methane - powerful greenhouse gas
The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.
Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.
Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."
The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.
One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years.
Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network
Oct 30 01:02 PM US/Eastern
For five years Ali and Mohammed have lived alongside US soldiers in their Baghdad neighbourhood near Rasheed Street, a prominent commercial artery running through the heart of the Iraqi capital.
During that time American culture and politics have become familiar to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week's US presidential election.
"McCain would be best for Iraq because he would ensure stability," said Ali, 66, an expert on the Sumerian era.
The personal qualities and political platforms of McCain and his Democrat rival Barack Obama are of little import to Ali, however. His focus is on Iraq and its neighbours such as Iran.
"The Iranians believe that if Obama is elected he will not take action against them despite their nuclear ambitions. That worries me," said Ali, sitting on an old bench in Al-Zahawi coffee shop.
"If the Iranians get the bomb they will become the Tarzan of the region," said the former teacher and lecturer at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies.
Mohammed, also a professor at the university, said he too preferred McCain "because Obama supports a rapid withdrawal of US troops."
"Our army is still too weak and Turkey and Iran are threats. Iran's President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has warned Iran would fill the void left when US troops depart," he said.
Rasheed Street with its 1920s-style buildings is still closed to vehicles, and groups of anti-Al-Qaeda fighters guard the stretch that runs north to south.
The street was the scene of major attacks by insurgents after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003 to US-led invading forces. But even before that many business establishments had begun to move away from the thoroughfare.
Today, a few hundred metres (yards) from Al-Zahawi coffee shop, is the famous Al-Mutnabi books market, the only place where Baghdadis can find English books and magazines.
Booksellers display a range of computer publications, periodicals, works of fiction and school textbooks on wooden shelves.
Barack Obama's image peers out between two editions of "Vanity Fair" magazine kept next to the memoirs of former US president Bill Clinton.
But "The Audacity of Hope," one of Obama's books, has yet to find a buyer.
"I have no customer for this book. Iraqis are interested in the campaign, but they prefer to read texts translated into Arabic," said bookseller Shallan Zaidan.
Such Arabic versions, translated and published by Lebanese companies, include "My Year in Iraq" by Paul Bremer, the former US administrator of Iraq, and "Bush at War" by renowned investigative journalist Bob Woodward.
But there are no translations of books on the two candidates bidding to enter the White House.
Iraqis prefer instead to rely on the latest issues of weekly news publications such as Time and Newsweek, said government official Whamith Shadhan, who was browsing through second-hand books and magazines.
"I trust the Republicans more. They're more capable of establishing democracy in the world, especially in Arab countries," said the 33-year-old. "Obama is far too left."
Since the invasion more than five years ago, the Mutanabi market has been twice hit by bombs. The area is predominantly Sunni, and judging by some graffiti on the walls Al-Qaeda is never far away.
"The insurgents aren't bothered by political books sold on the street. They focus on religious ones," said Yasser Ali, an Obama supporter and seller of books for 22 years.
Obama "interrupted his campaign to visit his sick grandmother. That speaks volumes about the man," he said.
Back on Rasheed Street itself, Abu Ahmed waited at a men's hairdresser as his friend got a shave.
"We accept black people more readily in the Middle East. We feel closer to them. We have common sufferings," said the long-time sports coach.
"It would be nice if the Americans elected a black person. And Obama seems less inclined to engage in another war."
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.
Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.
Never in my life have I seen a presidential front-runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.
Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s.
Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on ' the rich.'
How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing.
His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr.Obama is an easy target for the general election. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of '''bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or war-mongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war.
By Campbell Brown
Editor's note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN's "Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull" at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the "Cutting through the Bull" segment of Tuesday night's broadcast.
(CNN) -- You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.
He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.
Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.
Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.
One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.
The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.
The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.
On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."
For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Campbell Brown.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Obama campaign is already changing their tune on taxes. First Obama said those making less than $250K would get a tax cut, then last week he said those making less than $200K would get the tax cut and then yesterday in Pennsylvania, Biden said only the middle-class, those that make less than $150K a year would see tax cuts. Get the idea? You can't trust this guy. He can say what he wants but I think its pretty obvious where he wants to go with this. He made it clear when he said he wants to "spread the wealth around". Redistribution of wealth is from Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto! I don't know about you but that's not exactly the direction I want to see my country go.
Did you see that when McCain pointed out that Obama's "tax cuts" are actually "welfare" not tax cuts because under Obama's plan people would actually receive checks in the mail from the taxes paid by others, even though they didn't pay any taxes at all. Obama decided to change his plan a bit and added a "work requirement" for the bottom 2% that would be receiving those checks. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to receive a check in the mail that I didn't ask for and then be told I have to go to work for it. Especially since his tax policies are job killers so where are these folks that don't want jobs to begin with going to find jobs that Obama killed?
It is pretty obvious that Obama is creating a "class-war" here even though the average American, I believe, wants to know that if they work hard and succeed, they won't be punished for it. Obama will push American businesses in Exodus for more business friendly environments. AKA-Overseas!
Monday, October 27, 2008
1. The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oilmen knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ... check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,' reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada.. For years, U.S.oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.
2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO, people!
U.S.Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
-8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
-18-times as much oil a s Iraq
-21-times as much oil as Kuwait
-22-times as much oil as Iran
-500-times as much oil as Yemen- and it's all right here in the Western United States.
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this!? Because the democrats, environmentalists and left wing republicans have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil.
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.
Got your attention fired up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it ... and hopefully so.. do this:
Since the '70s, America has created 57 million new jobs, compared with just four million in Europe (with most of those jobs in government). In France and much of Western Europe, the economic system is weighted toward the already employed (the overwhelming majority native-born whites) and the growing mass of retirees. Those ensconced in state and corporate employment enjoy short weeks, early and well-funded retirement and first dibs on the public purse. So although the retirement of large numbers of workers should be opening up new job opportunities, unemployment among the young has been rising: In France, joblessness among workers in their 20s exceeds 20%, twice the overall national rate. In immigrant banlieues, where the population is much younger, average unemployment reaches 40%, and higher among the young.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Next up...Peter Jenning's former Assistant Barbara West of WFTV Channel 9 in Orlando. West calls out Obama by quoting Karl Marx and then quoting Obama. West goes on to ask Joe Biden about the remarkable similiarities and Biden is stunned. How can spreading the wealth be a marxist philosophy?! Note the sarcasm!!! ;-) So what does Obama's campaign do...they turn to more marxist principles by attempting to control the media by cutting off the tv station from further interviews. Next up...smear tactics!!! Is this a nice taste of what's to come? Count on it!!! Remember America...YOU ALLOWED YOUR RIGHTS TO BE TAKEN AND YOU BROUGHT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY BY IGNORING THE ENEMY WITHIN!
Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden
WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday.
West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.
"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.
West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.
"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.
Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."
Here's a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html .
WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."
Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.
"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."
Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."
Friday, October 24, 2008
- Mayor – Executive Branch on local level
- Governor – Executive Branch on state level
- Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard
- Defeated incumbent mayor
- Whistleblower who turned in the chairman of her own party
- Defeated the incumbent Governor of her own party
- Defeated former Democratic Governor in General Election
• Barack Obama has never held a position in the executive branch, has never blown the whistle on corruption in his own party, and has no experience with the military whatsoever.
“Name ONE political accomplishment of Obama? You can’t because all he has done successfully so far is TALK and WRITE!” – Newt Gingrich
And Obama is applying for the executive branch without any experience. Palin is just applying for the VP position and is far more qualified!
***I like the challenge though...it is easy to name tons of accomplishments of both Palin and McCain. Name even ONE accomplishment of importance of Barack Obama!!!
A letter from Ilinois
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign , Illinois . I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are "two Americas" but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it "change".
"Change what?", I ask.
"Well, we're going to change America", they say.
"In what way?", I query.
"We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they exclaim.
"So, someone who's not a politician?", I say.
"Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama", they state.
"So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all wrong?"
"No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot of change."
And so it goes. "Change we can believe in."
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff "Change, change, change." I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in- Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, "What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?"
Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
Here's a question - "Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take."
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of- war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT. ..", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change."
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them than "trust". Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
E-mail: ronald.hess@ alumni.purdue. edu
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sounds kind of like the plan that Obama and Hillary are proposing doesn't it?! Hmmm!
Hawaii ending universal child health care
By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer Mark Niesse, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 17, 3:29 am ET
HONOLULU – Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
State officials said Thursday they will stop giving health coverage to the 2,000 children enrolled by Nov. 1, but private partner Hawaii Medical Service Association will pay to extend their coverage through the end of the year without government support.
"We're very disappointed in the state's decision, and it came as a complete surprise to us," said Jennifer Diesman, a spokeswoman for HMSA, the state's largest health care provider. "We believe the program is working, and given Hawaii's economic uncertainty, we don't think now is the time to cut all funding for this kind of program."
Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn't already have health insurance — mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families.
It costs the state about $50,000 per month, or $25.50 per child — an amount that was more than matched by HMSA.
State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.
The Republican governor signed Keiki Care into law in 2007, but it and many other government services are facing cuts as the state deals with a projected $900 million general fund shortfall by 2011.
While it's difficult to determine how many children lack health coverage in the islands, estimates range from 3,500 to 16,000 in a state of about 1.3 million people. All were eligible for the program.
"Children are a lot more vulnerable in terms of needing care," said Democratic Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland. "It's not very good to try to be a leader and then renege on that commitment."
The universal health care system was free except for copays of $7 per office visit.
Families with children currently enrolled in the universal system are being encouraged to seek more comprehensive Medicaid coverage, which may be available to children in a family of four earning up to $73,000 annually.
These children also could sign up for the HMSA Children's Plan, which costs about $55 a month.
"Most of them won't be eligible for Medicaid, and that's why they were enrolled in Keiki Care,"
Diesman said. "It's the gap group that we're trying to ensure has coverage."
On the Net:
Hawaii Medical Service Association: http://www.hmsa.com/
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Biden goes on to claim "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities.
It is worth mentioning that FoxNews.com reported that Obama and McCain campaign reps received national security information from the White House last week (h/t Gary Hall):
For the first time in American history, the FBI is already vetting members of the next administration in an effort to make sure that whether John McCain or Barack Obama is the next president, their staffs will be ready to handle any national security threats.
Though no specific threats are evident at this time, some members of the intelligence community say terror groups love to target countries during transition periods. Those intelligence experts point to terror attacks that came as Gordon Brown took over as Britain's new prime minister, and the Madrid bombings of March 11, 2003, that happened just before a major election there as examples of the vulnerability of new administrations.
White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten reportedly held a meeting this week with senior White House staffers and representatives from both the McCain and Obama camps. The goal was to make sure everyone is up to speed on the latest threats and have the information they need to be ready come inauguration day, Jan. 20.
Might Biden be revealing national security secrets in order to further his campaign?
Furthermore, why should American voters elect a President that will be tested (MARK HIS WORDS) if they can elect a President that will NOT be tested because he already has?
Biden goes on to compare Obama's future international crisis test to the test that JFK received citing the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little did Biden know that he was actually stumping for McCain when he brought up the Cuban Missile Crisis. You see, it was Senator McCain who was personally tested by the same kind of crisis that Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden warned Barack Obama will almost certainly face if elected president.
McCain recalled being ready to launch a bombing run during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which Biden said over the weekend tested a new President John F. Kennedy and was the template for the kind of "generated crisis" the 47-year-old Obama would face within six months of taking office.
"I was on board the USS Enterprise," McCain, a former naval aviator, said in the capital city of Harrisburg. "I sat in the cockpit, on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, off of Cuba. I had a target. My friends, you know how close we came to a nuclear war." "America will not have a president who needs to be tested. I've been tested, my friends."
October 21, 2008 --
Joe Biden warned that America's enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if he's elected president - a shocking comment John McCain eagerly pounced on yesterday to claim Obama isn't ready to be commander-in-chief.
"Mark my words," Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.
"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.
"And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."
McCain treated Biden's comments as a gift while stumping across Missouri yesterday.
"The next president won't have time to get used to the office. We face many challenges here at home and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world," McCain said. "We don't want a president who invites 'testing' from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting two wars."
McCain said it was even "more troubling" that Biden suggested supporters stick by Obama if the actions he takes are wrong or unpopular.
"Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign," he said.
McCain ally Rudy Giuliani also piled on.
"It has to mean that Joe Biden continues to harbor serious doubts about whether Barack Obama is prepared to be commander in chief," Giuliani said.
Monday, October 20, 2008
An average American Mom like me.
Why I am voting Democrat!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending MY MONEY than I would. I think when you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody! It's Patriotic!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. All profits are evil and should be confiscated for Government Redistribution.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that MORE Government regulations and higher taxes on Business will stop Business from exporting their jobs to Countries with LESS Government regulations and lower taxes.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe terrorists should be allowed to have trials in American courts. And be able to subpoena top secret documents, soldiers, government officials, etc. to cross examine for their defense. They should have ACLU lawyers who can help intimidate Americans who serve on the juries!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe Gay Marriage should be the law of the land and will probably produce better children.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe English should not be the official language of the United States. I don't mind pushing one for English when I use the phone.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe partial birth abortion is okay but water boarding a terrorist is disgusting.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe having a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers as a close friend is a good thing. It allows for great relations with foreign terrorists.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe in a FREE government health care system. I believe doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, etc. will gladly donate their time, products, services, facilities, etc. for FREE and that will be a better system.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe in and support trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury verdicts.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe 9/11 was an inside job to con the American people to go to war for oil.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe social security is solvent and that there is a social security lock box and I don't believe social security is a Ponzi scheme.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe MOST AMERICANS are bitter and cling to their guns and religion. Let's rid our country of guns and religion!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe illegal aliens deserve all the rights of ordinary Americans plus some additional rights Americans do not have.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe corporations should pay higher taxes! I believe higher taxes on business will make the price of their products and services LESS EXPENSIVE.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe groups like ACORN who register felons, drug addicts, wino's, homeless drifters, illegal aliens, dead people, children, fictional Disney characters, etc. makes my vote count more.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe celebrating the winter solstice shows compassion for the small minority of people that do not celebrate Christmas.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe hard core criminal murders and rapists deserve life and that the innocent unborn deserve death. It's a choice I can live with.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe Bush caused Hurricane Katrina and he blew-up the levies in the ninth ward of New Orleans.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that any one who is not partaking in one of the many wonderful government programs obviously has too much money and should pay higher taxes.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq the terrorists will be happy and now think of us as good people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe our soldiers are AIR RAIDING villages and killing innocent people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe sex in the Oval Office with an intern is a private matter and that everybody lies under oath about sex.
I'm votin Demokrat becuse I wus edumkated at a publick sckrool. I lik da Natsionel Edukatshun Assoseeashun!
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as it does not offend people. Can't we all just get along?
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits are wrong. I believe higher taxes on oil companies will produce lower prices at the pump.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need to rid ourselves of dependency on foreign oil, BUT I AM AGAINST offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, drilling in Anwar, building nuclear power plants and clean coal technology.
And finally, I'm voting Democrat because I believe Reverend Wright when he said 'GODDAMN AMERICA' and 'OUR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST'. Hey let's make a comfortable nest for those chickens!
Why are you voting Democrat?
Posted by: Average American Mom Oct 20, 2008 8:56:30 AM
From The Sunday TimesOctober 19, 2008
Blow to image of ‘green’ reusable nappy
Marie Woolf, Whitehall Editor
A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed civil servants not to publicise the conclusions of the £50,000 nappy research project and to adopt a “defensive” stance towards its conclusions.
The report found that using washable nappies, hailed by councils throughout Britain as a key way of saving the planet, have a higher carbon footprint than their disposable equivalents unless parents adopt an extreme approach to laundering them.
To reduce the impact of cloth nappies on climate change parents would have to hang wet nappies out to dry all year round, keep them for years for use on younger children, and make sure the water in their washing machines does not exceed 60C.
The conclusions will upset proponents of real nappies who have claimed they can help save the planet.
Restricted Whitehall documents, seen by The Sunday Times, show that the government is so concerned by the “negative laundry options” outlined in the report, it has told its media managers not to give its conclusions any publicity.
The report found that while disposable nappies used over 2½ years would have a global warming , impact of 550kg of CO2 reusable nappies produced 570kg of CO2 on average. But if parents used tumble dryers and washed the reusable nappies at 90C, the impact could spiral to . 993kg of CO2 A Defra spokesman said the government was shelving plans for future research on nappies.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
This is a man who had prior to today, dedicated his life to upholding and defending the American principles of the GOP. Who had committed his life to preserving the free-market capitalism that our country had been built on. How easily Mr. Powell turned his support to the anti-American socialist policy pushed by Senator Obama. It concerns me how easy it was for Mr. Powell to sell-out on all of his convictions and to support what he had spent his life fighting against, over the color of skin.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Mr. Powell dislikes Senator McCain because of skin color, but it is clear to me that he overlooked his principles based on the color of Senator Obama's skin. And to make a decision based on the color of someone's skin rather than content of character IS racism! To me, this is the only clear explanation. If Mr. Powell was not motivated by racism then what? Had he accepted positions and defended GOP principles that he disagreed with for all of these years to advance his political career? Racism or hypocrisy?
I lean towards racism based on the commets that Mr. Powell made on Sept. 15th at George Washington University. Mr. Powell was quoted as saying, "electing an African-American US president would be “electrifying” for the world."
During his endorsement Sunday, Mr. Powell cited Gov. Palin's lack of experience for the VP position but didn't even touch on the subject that Gov. Palin actually has more experience for the Presidency (Executive Branch) than Senator Obama has. Was Mr. Powell so willing to overlook Obama's under-qualifications because of race?
Still doubt what Mr. Powell's decision was based on? Rush Limbaugh brings up a good point to consider: "Where are the inexperienced, white liberals Powell has endorsed?"
Oct 19, 6:34 AM (ET)
By ERIC GORSKI
DENVER (AP) - Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a "disservice to the church."
Chaput, one of the nation's most politically outspoken Catholic prelates, delivered the remarks Friday night at a dinner of a Catholic women's group.
His comments were among the sharpest in a debate over abortion and Catholic political responsibility in a campaign in which Catholics represent a key swing vote.
While Chaput has won praise from traditionalist Catholics for stressing opposition to abortion as a foundational voting issue, voices on the Catholic left have sought to apply church teachings to war, poverty, the environment and other issues.
Although the Catholic left is not new, several advocacy groups have either formed or ramped up activities since 2004. Partly, their efforts are a response to attention given to the pro-abortion rights stance of Democrat John Kerry, a Catholic who was criticized by a few bishops who suggested he should be denied or refrain from Communion.
Chaput, without getting into much detail, called Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights major-party presidential candidate since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in 1973.
"To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled "Little Murders."
Mark Linton, the Obama campaign's Catholic outreach coordinator, said in a statement Saturday that Obama is "proud to have the support of so many committed Catholics who are hungry for real change after eight years of failed policies. He has offered Americans real solutions even on tough issues like abortion, where we can come together to teach our kids responsibility and self-respect, to prevent unintended pregnancies, and offer strong support to women."
The Obama campaign has been promoting an unusual-suspect sort of endorsement from Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic law professor and former legal counsel in the Reagan administration.
Kmiec wrote a book making a Catholic case for Obama. He argues the Obama campaign is premised on Catholic social teaching like care for working families and the poor and foreign policy premised on peace over war. Democratic efforts to tackle social and economic factors that contribute to abortion hold more promise, Kmiec said, than Republican efforts to criminalize it.
While applauding Kmiec's past record, Chaput said: "I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn."
Pro-Obama Catholics "seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues," said Chaput, who wrote a book this year, "Render Unto Caesar," about Catholics and politics.
Chaput emphasized he was speaking as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Denver archdiocese. The IRS prohibits clergy, in their role as clergy, from supporting or opposing candidates. Chaput already has said that Obama running mate Joe Biden, a Catholic, should not present himself for Communion because of his abortion rights position.
Chris Korzen, executive director of Washington-based Catholics United, which has argued in direct mail and TV ads that taking the "pro-life" position means more than opposing abortion rights, criticized Chaput's statements.
"We are concerned that Archbishop Chaput's comments - even those made in his personal capacity - will have a chilling effect on this dialogue," Korzen said in a statement. "It is also profoundly unfortunate that Archbishop Chaput has chosen to make personal attacks on lay Catholics acting in good faith to promote Catholic values in the public square."
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every
day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said,
'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about t he other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized
that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from
everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid
to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out
the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20.00 declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. ' I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Friday, October 17, 2008
WHY I WON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA
This article is from Huntley Brown. He is a fabulous concert pianist, man of God and is a black man. I appreciate so much his reasoning for not voting for Obama.
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown
A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have
seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support.
Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads, I follow. I can't dictate the terms, He does because He is the leader.
I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian
because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning - to name a few, then wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama, so all I can go on is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted "No" on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted "No" on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted "No" on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue. The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse.
The dead baby is then removed.
God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
Think about this: You can' not give a child an aspirin without
parental notification but that same child can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason Obama went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment, but he sat under Jeremiah Wright's teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him.
A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discover he'd been going to a racist church. The TRUE church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandates. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church based on racial values, it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would
never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book "the goals of the black community". If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Then God says in 1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us.
20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD.
22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Here is what we know for sure. God is not schizophrenic.
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God. Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father ,based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions.
Finally, I have two questions for all my liberal friends. Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather
Craig Medred Anchorage Daily News
Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.
Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.
"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.
"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle. Read the complete story at
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
WRONG!!! The exact opposite is to blame for the failure of free-market capitalism in the United States. There was no hands-off approach by government. In fact, it was the very intervention of government into our free-market that caused this crisis!
And please explain to me how if it was socialism that got us into this mess, why do we turn to socialism to get us out of it?
(September 30, 1999 – The Clinton Administration pressures Fannie Mae to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people even after warnings that the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue.)
(In July of 1999, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.)
(September 11, 2003 - The National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats fear that tighter regulation of Fannie & Freddie could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'')
(September 11, 2003 - Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.)
The United States government had not only pressured Fannie and Freddie into pushing risky loans with low capital but also eased their worries about doing so by offering the knowledge that they are government subsidized and face no real risk. I don't agree with the Bush administration's 2003 proposal to regulate Fannie and Freddie or Bill S.190 co-sponsored by John McCain in 2005 to place regulations on Fannie and Freddie. The government has no business interfering in the private market. The Bush proposal and Bill S.190 were defeated by Democrats in the Senate who were paid off handsomely by Fannie and Freddie (Obama: $125,000) but NOT for the right reasons.
Fannie and Freddie NEVER should have been government sponsored companies to begin with. You see, whenever this country faces an economic crisis, the government takes the opportunity to socialize this country by seizing powers that it has no right to.
For example, in 1938 as part of FDR's "New Deal" during the Great Depression, Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in the name of facilitating liquidity. The government had no right to do so as America was and is no place for socialism. Of course to remove Fannie Mae's activities from the annual balance sheet of the Federal Budget, in 1968 the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation (still government backed of course). Ginnie Mae, Government National Mortgage Association was created to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages.
In 1970, in a government controlled attempt to immitate the competition of free-market capitalism, the government created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), commonly known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and, thus, facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.
Of course today's economic crisis (2008) was caused by the government interference mentioned above. As the economy tanked, on September 7th, the government seized the opportunity to once again push a socialist agenda on America by forcing taxpayers to fund a $700 billion dollar purchase of the mortgage market by the government. The government now owns half of all home loans in the United States.
Many claim that the US government placed no actual guarantees on the backing of Fannie Mae, however, it would take an ignorant person to believe that the government would encourage risky business practices out of Fannie and Freddie without a pretty solid backing. This implied federal guarantee is obvious when one looks at the sheer majority of investors before the collapse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to sell mortgage-backed securities with only half as much capital backing them up as would be required of other financial institutions. They are also tax exempt and are exempt from SEC filing requirements.
But the Marxist calls by government for the socialization of America didn't stop with the housing Market. On October 8, 2008, Senator John McCain called for a plan to order the federal government to spend $300 billion in federal funds to buy the bad home mortgages. A smiliar plan was proposed by Senatory Barack Obama in September. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93MG1U00&show_article=1
On October 9, 2008, the Bush administration began looking into nationalizing American banks by taking part ownership throug the purchase of stock. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93N27U01&show_article=1
Currently, American retirement plans are owned by the government in the form of Social Security. A plan which began in 1935 under FDR. Public Education is under government control. Where will it end? It seems there is an obvious pattern here. Every time the American economy faces a struggle, the government sounds out the alarm and seizes more power away from the American people.
With both the House and Senate under control of ultra-liberal leadership and likely the Executive Branch as well, if Barack Obama does indeed become the next President of the United States this November, where will this socialization end? Does anyone really doubt that our country's oil will be the next part of America to be nationalized? How about Obama's plan to nationalize healthcare? Where will it end? When will big government finally be TOO big? When will we draw the line and will we before it's too late? What's the next part of our country to be nationalized? The media? Property rights? The right to bear arms?
And to think that this all could have been avoided if our country had refused socialism and demanded that government stay out of the free-market to begin with. Instead of looking for the easy way out by trading rights and freedoms for security nets from our government during hard times, we need to pull each other up by the bootstraps and allow CAPITALISM, not socialism, lead us back to the promised land!
Friday, October 10, 2008
Obama tried to sway Iraqis on Bush deal
At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.
Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.
Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies.
Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari's request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling.
However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.
"In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States.
He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a new administration. "The new administration will have a free hand to opt out," he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.
Mr. Sumaidaie did not participate in the call, he said, but stood next to Mr. Zebari during the conversation and was briefed by him immediately afterward.
The call was not recorded by either side, and Mr. Zebari did not respond to repeated telephone and e-mail messages requesting direct comment.
Mr. Obama has called for a phased U.S. withdrawal of all but a residual force from Iraq over 16 months, a position the Iraqi government appears to have embraced.
U.S. and Iraqi officials have been struggling for months to finalize a deal that will allow U.S. troops to remain after Dec. 31, when a U.N. mandate sanctioning the military presence expires. Iraqi officials have said that the main impediment is agreement over a timeline for U.S. redeployment and immunity from Iraqi prosecution for U.S. troops and civilians.
Obama campaign spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Mr. Obama does not object to a short-term status of forces agreement, or SOFA.
Mr. Obama told Mr. Zebari in June that a SOFA "should be completed before January and it must include immunity for U.S. troops," Miss Morigi wrote in an e-mail.
However, the Democratic nominee said a broader strategic framework agreement governing a longer-term U.S. presence in Iraq "should be vetted by Congress," she wrote.
She said Mr. Obama said the same thing when he met in July with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mr. Zebari in Baghdad.
A recent article in the New York Post quoted Mr. Zebari as saying that Mr. Obama asked Iraqi leaders in July to delay any agreement on a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq until the next U.S. president takes office.
Miss Morigi denied this. She said the request for Senate vetting was bipartisan and noted that the first Obama-Zebari conversation took place 12 days after four other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - including Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging consultation over any agreements committing U.S. troops and civilian contractors to Iraq "for an extended period of time."
When Mr. Obama spoke to Mr. Zebari, he was speaking in his capacity as a senator and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Miss Morigi said. "It's obvious that others are trying to mischaracterize Obama's position, [but] on numerous occasions he has made it perfectly clear that the United States only has one president at a time and that the administration speaks with one voice."
Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who accompanied Mr. Obama in Iraq along with Mr. Hagel, said they made "no suggestion of any type of delay" in any agreements.
A congressional aide who was also present and spoke on the condition of anonymity said the senators asked for a congressional role similar to that required by the Iraqi Constitution for Iraq's parliament.
Still, the fact that the Illinois Democrat on June 3 clinched enough delegates to be assured the Democratic presidential nomination gives his comments special force - something that also applies to the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a key proponent of the surge of extra U.S. forces to Iraq last year.
As a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama "has a foot in both camps," said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. "It's within the jurisdiction of his committee and something he's entitled to speak about. It doesn't raise a red flag for me."
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on the matter.
Leslie Phillips, a press officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, also declined to comment even though an embassy note-taker was present during the senators' meeting in Iraq. "The embassy's role is purely to facilitate the meetings," she said.
Presidential nominees traditionally have not intervened personally in foreign-policy disputes, although campaign surrogates have done so.
Historian Robert Dallek has documented meetings with South Vietnamese diplomats in 1968 by Republican vice-presidential candidate Spiro Agnew and Anna Chennault, widow of Gen. Claire Chennault, the commander of "Flying Tiger" forces in China during World War II.
Mr. Dallek, author of "Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1961-1973," obtained tapes of the conversations from bugs the Johnson administration had placed in the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.
Negotiations to end the Vietnam War were taking place in Paris at the time between the Johnson administration and the North and South Vietnamese.
Mr. Agnew and Mrs. Chennault "signaled the South Vietnamese that they would get a better deal with Richard Nixon as president instead of the Democrat" Hubert Humphrey, Mr. Dallek said.
"Johnson was furious and said that Nixon was guilty of treason," Mr. Dallek said, but neither he nor Mr. Humphrey disclosed the matter before the election, which Mr. Nixon won.