From Their Own Mouths...

The Cult of Obama

2008-09-30T19:51:00.001-05:00

I feel bad for these kids. What are they going to do when he disappoints? Because he will if elected, as will Senator McCain if he's elected. Why? They are fallible human beings. Will they turn to despair?

For the record I would concerned if this were a McCain video. We should find hope in Jesus not a politician. Obama is being elevated to the point that he is becoming an object of worship which is truly, truly scary and truly sad.

HT: Matt Reisetter

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts.

Socialism Creeping In

2008-09-24T14:54:00.001-05:00

There is much that has me concerned with Federal plan to help fix the credit mess that we find ourselves in. The $700,000,000,000 price tag for this made my eyes pop. Then, as George Will expressed, there is a concern about proper oversight - should one person have this much control over this much money - elected or not?

Lawrence Kudlow said in his op/ed on Real Clear Politics that a clean bill requested by Treasury Secretary Paulson along with the oversight board that Senator McCain has called for should help fix this credit problem we have.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like Paulson is going to get that clean bill, Kudlow writes:

But after Tuesday's Senate hearing I'm very concerned. The bells and whistles that would be attached to Paulson's plan by our Democratic friends are anti-capitalist and anti-opportunity.

Capping compensation for both the selling and purchasing institutions? What? Salaries and bonuses are no business of the government. People go to work for profits. For opportunities. It's at the heart of our free-market capitalist system.

Now, I can understand companies like AIG, Fannie, and Freddie, which effectively have been nationalized. That's different. I don't care if they all make $75,000 a year, just like the regulators. But to stretch this to the banks that are selling or buying the assets goes beyond the pale. It's France. But it's France heading toward the old Soviet Union, or at least Tsar Putin's Russia.

And then there's the ownership question. Some Democrats want Uncle Sam to take an ownership position in all the selling and purchasing banks. This is nuts. In America, this is nothing but property confiscation. It also will sharply curb buyers of the distressed assets.

You think Henry Kravis or Steve Schwarzman are gonna take a salary cap and lose an ownership share of the private-equity funds they themselves created and built? They shouldn't and they won't. And these funds are crucial to the new process. The only banks that will sell in this over-regulatory environment are the absolute, near-bankruptcy turkeys.

Meanwhile, Sen. McCain apparently has proposed that the buying and selling banks have comp-levels no higher than the top paycheck in the U.S. government, which I guess is the president's at around $400,000 a year. Hey, I've got an idea. Let's raise the chief executive's pay to $50 million. He probably earns it anyway.

There is a word for what they are suggesting. It is socialism. What business does the government have in establishing what compensation levels should be for anybody but government employees? None. Does the government have any business in having an ownership position in selling and purchasing banks? Now way!

Not only does Kudlow not like it, neither does the stock market as it took a dive when the details of the behemoth bailout were shared. Not a good move. Some regulation is needed in this time these proposals are an overreaction and will make this proposal ineffective essentially wasting taxpayer money. Let's keep the marketplace free and not allow socialism to creep in.

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts.

Palin Interview Edits

2008-09-14T00:08:00.001-05:00

I thought when I watched ABC's Charles Gibson interview Alaska Governor and GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin this week that it seemed choppy in places. Now I now why. Below are excerpts from that interview. The text that is bold are parts of the interview that were edited out. This is pretty disturbing. When Bill O'Reilly interviewed Senator Barack Obama he was given a 1/2 hour. How much of the interview did he show? 100% of it.

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.

So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

Sarah Palin on God:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

HT: Mark Levin via Hugh Hewitt

Cross-posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

Al Franken Is A Scumbag

2008-09-12T18:18:00.000-05:00

Raise Taxes Because They Can Afford It

2008-09-09T21:57:00.001-05:00

In a recent interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly; Senator Barack Obama talks the economy and taxes. It is hard to fathom, but he actually advocates income redistribution. Incredible.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Bill O'Reilly,taxes,economy,income redistribution,socialism

Gov. Palin RNC Speech Highlights

2008-09-07T16:08:00.002-05:00

Obama and Biden Planning To Criminally Charge Bush

2008-09-03T22:50:00.001-05:00

From the British Paper "The Guardian:"

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.

"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."

Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".

"[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News..."

The Candidate With Class

2008-09-02T18:56:00.001-05:00

Congress Solves Energy Crisis

2008-08-22T11:21:00.000-05:00

Intellectually Bankrupt

2008-08-20T12:21:00.006-05:00

The following quote comes from Democrat lobbyist Michael Tobman writing in "The School Choice Advocate:"

"I'm a Democrat close to many Republicans and a generally savvy fellow. But even I have a difficult time seeing how a party that depends on the National Rifle Association to turn out in November is perceived as being the exclusive champion of, for example, tax credits designed to get children into private and religious schools and off streets plagued by handgun violence."

To claim to be close to Republicans and arrogantly proclaim yourself as "generally savvy" and follow up with the dumbest correlation possible is embarrasing for Tobman at best.

Although I appreciate his defense of School Choice in general, to blame the NRA for youth gun violence is asinine. If liberals would take off their traditional blinders and look at the rise in gun crime in countries with extensive gun control legislation (see Australia and Great Britain for prime examples), they would see how ignorant and blindly stubborn they look making statements like this. There will always be small arms. So to claim criminals (who by definition don't obey the law) are going to be disarmed by gun laws is not only dishonest but blatantly ignores the historical truth staring them in the face.

Obama Quells the Russians

2008-08-16T19:10:00.001-05:00

I can't believe I missed this gem. I must have been focused too on the Olympics.

According to Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (who is being discussed as a potential VP candidate for Obama), Obama quelled the Russians. You heard that right! Because of his request for a cease fire, the Bear lays down its arms and agrees to pull out of Georgia... well, sort of.

It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in. And I’m very, very happy that the Senator’s request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev.

HT: Hot Air

No, it wasn't President Bush, Secretary Rice, or even Senator John McCain. It was the request put forth by the silvery tongued former Illinois State Senator. I guess if he can navigate Chicago politics he can accomplish anything!

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Tim Kaine,Russia-Georgia conflict

Clinton's Name To Be On DNC Ballot

2008-08-15T01:28:00.001-05:00

Interesting... wonder if the DNC's going to have a little mutiny on their hands?

HT: Say Anything Blog

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton,Democratic National Convention

What is McCain Thinking?

2008-08-15T01:08:00.001-05:00

From Politico's Jonathan Martin:

Top social conservative leaders in key battleground states are urging John McCain not to pick a running mate who supports abortion rights, warning of dire consequences from a Republican base already unenthused about their nominee.

McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.

Personally, my support of McCain will be, in part, based on his VP pick. I want a solid, solid social conservative in this post. If he puts Tom Ridge or somebody like him on the ticket.... he's done. Hello President Obama.

Technorati Tags: John McCain,Vice Presidential Pick,Tom Ridge

What a Classy Guy!

2008-08-08T15:36:00.001-05:00

Edwards admits to having an affair and lying as a presidential candidate (I'm sure not the first to do either).

But... he says... I did not father that child! He also denies paying for his mistress to live under assumed names in expensive homes in North Carolina or California to keep her quiet. He does say that maybe it was some friends or supporters who did so without telling him.

I'm really impressed with the classiness of a presidential candidate who could sleep around while his wife is battling cancer. Ugh. Integrity folks is a needed quality for the job of POTUS. Why should we believe anything he says now?

Well good bye Senator Edwards, it was nice knowing you. I'm sure you can take comfort in the fact you can still chase ambulances now that your political career is definitely, positively over.

HT: Kevin McCullough

Technorati Tags: Johnathan Edwards,integrity,extra-marital affairs,political suicide

Dave Ramsey on Barack Obama

2008-08-06T23:50:00.001-05:00

Best selling author, syndicated columnist, popular radio talk show host, and Fox Business News contributor Dave Ramsey was asked his opinion on Senator Barack Obama and economic plan. Take a listen below.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Dave Ramsey,Fiscal Responsibility

No Refund Says Palestinians

2008-08-06T16:26:00.001-05:00

Monir and Hasam Edwan, the Palestinian brothers living in Hamas-controlled Gaza, made donations to the Obama campaign totalling $29,521.54. Another $4000 was given by a third brother, Yousef Edwan.

Barack Obama's campaign said it returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions. World Net Daily reports that the Edwan brothers are saying - they haven't seen any refund. Hmmmm.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,illegal campaign contributions,Monir and Hasam Edwan

Obama Compared Himself To Paris First

2008-08-04T18:31:00.001-05:00

Everybody on the left is mad about McCain comparing Obama to Paris Hilton. Kathy Hilton, Paris' mom, is even mad (I would be too - Paris is way classier than that!). The problem is that the whole point of the ad is: Obama did it first.

Newsbusters looked back at a Washington Post article from 2/24/05 where Senator Barack Obama is quoted as saying.

There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

HT: Say Anything Blog

For the record, I"m sure the McCain campaign could have found a better use for the money. I really, really don't think it was effective ad.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Paris Hilton,Kathy Hilton,John McCain's comparison ad

2008-08-04T08:58:00.003-05:00

Thanks to Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts for posting this video. I was happy the Republicans didn't let the Democrats get away with avoiding this crucial issue:

The Audacity of Obama

2008-08-03T19:20:00.001-05:00

HT: Layla Elizabeth Gonzalez

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Obama's racism

Huckabee Message On Facebook

2008-08-01T08:28:00.002-05:00

Got this today on my Facebook account and thought it worth sharing:

Barack Obama's Agenda
From Mike Huckabee
by Mike Huckabee

Someone asked me recently to describe Barack Obama's agenda. The question caught me off guard, because if you think about it, he's been running as the "change candidate" and yet no one I know understands what change he is aiming for. His Agenda remains shrouded in mystery. For instance, gasoline prices are at historic highs and yet he hasn't articulated a plan of action to help American families.

What we do know about Barack Obama's agenda, is that he favors higher taxes, supports abortion, believes the federal government should be bigger and has embraced a foreign policy that would make Jane Fonda proud. We also know he was rated by National Journal as the most liberal Senator because of his voting record. According to their ranking, even Bernie Sanders, Vermont's Socialist Senator, isn't as liberal as Barack Obama. No kidding.

So if the thought of President Obama working with a Democrat Senate and House makes you nervous, I urge you to take action now to keep this from becoming a reality in November. I urge you to make an immediate contribution of $10 or more to Huck PAC today.

We are supporting a great group of candidates committed to fighting for our ideals. Each of them needs your help. Huck PAC needs your help. Our goal is to identify 2,000 supporters who are willing to show their commitment to our cause by making an online contribution by August 21. May I count you as one of our key supporters?

http://www.HuckPAC.com

Bias Alert! They are illegal immigrants, not immigrant workers!

2008-07-30T02:22:00.001-05:00

I've never done a post on illegal immigration before... at least not that I can remember. Last Sunday there was a rally in Postville, IA to protest the treatment of the illegal immigrants who worked at Agriprocessors, Inc. They spoke out against poor working conditions, and to call for the legislation that would give legal status to illegal immigrants. This facility was raided back in May by ICE with 389 workers arrested.

When I saw the article regarding the rally in Monday's Des Moines Register something immediately jumped out at me:

More than 1,000 people from around the Midwest converged on this small town Sunday to show disdain for the treatment of immigrant workers arrested during a massive raid here in May (emphasis mine).

Immigrant workers... hmmmm could there be some editorializing going on in a news story? No way! The Register would never do that! The New York Times coverage was a little different:

The march was called to protest working conditions in the plant, owned by Agriprocessors Inc., and to call for Congressional legislation to give legal status to illegal immigrants. The four rabbis, from Minnesota and Wisconsin, attended the march to publicize proposals to revise kosher food certification to include standards of corporate ethics and treatment of workers (emphasis mine).

I think it is interesting that the New York Times would get this right, and the Des Moines Register wouldn't. It shows how slanted to the left the Register has become. I also found the make up of the protesters interesting:

The Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register reported:

More than 1,000 people from around the Midwest converged on this small town Sunday to show disdain for the treatment of immigrant workers arrested during a massive raid here in May.

The demonstrators included hundreds of people bused in from the Chicago and Minneapolis areas.

They carried signs reading, "Love thy neighbor" and "Build sense, not a fence." They chanted, "We are all immigrants" and "Si, se puede — Yes, we can." (obviously Obama backers, LOL) And they listened to religious leaders pray in English, Spanish and Hebrew.

Julia Preston of the New York Times wrote:

About 1,000 people, including Hispanic immigrants, Catholic clergy members, rabbis and activists, marched through the center of this farm town on Sunday and held a rally at the entrance to a kosher meatpacking plant that was raided in May by immigration authorities.

First off... how many was it? Again could it be that the New York Times was more accurate than the Register? Interesting. I also find it interesting that they had to ship the majority of people from out of state. Perhaps it is because Iowans know what a burden illegal immigrants have been on our economy? These people do not represent mainstream America by any means.

"Love thy neighbor." That is manipulative. To want the law to be enforced is not an act of hate. I agree with the group when they protest how these illegal immigrants were mistreated. That is deplorable, and we should stand against that. I also don't think it's helpful to protest ICE doing its job. Those arrested broke the law. Until the law is changed their status is illegal, and ICE was well within its rights to do what it did. I also feel that companies that break the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If companies wouldn't hire illegal immigrants there would be less incentive for them to come.

"Build sense, not a fence." I'm sorry, but that is stupid. So let's welcome the drug trafficking too? How about terrorists who want to come into the U.S. through our porous southern border? The border must be secured before any meaningful immigration reform can take place.

Then we can talk about visas. A path to citizenship for some, not all. I don't think it is fair to those immigrants who are here legally for amnesty to be given for all. Perhaps we need to look at quotas from different countries as well. Another thing too, I think the status of the children of illegal immigrants who are born on U.S. soil needs to be addressed.

The 14th Amendment was not seen to apply to children of aliens until the Supreme Court decided that should be the case in the 1898 Wong Ark Can decision. Since children born by illegal immigrants on U.S. soil are considered citizens this provides further motivation to come here illegally.

So I believe that with increased border control, punishing companies who break the law, and addressing the status of children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. (which I'm not sure would take a Constitutional Amendment or not) we should see, I believe, a drop in illegal immigration. Then we also need to make sure our legal immigration process is fair and fast, because it is part of our heritage and we need to honor it as such.

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

HuckPac Vertical Day

2008-07-23T20:17:00.001-05:00

I'd be remiss not mentioning that Vertical Day is going on today over at HuckPac, the political action committee that Governor Mike Huckabee established shortly after losing his bid to become the GOP nominee for President.

The group is promoting different conservative candidates in local, state, and congressional elections. Below is a video where Mike Huckabee explains the purpose for Vertical Day.

Different Blog Posts from Mike Huckabee and different candidates are being highlighted.

Looking for Don Cheadle by Mike Huckabee
A Truly Vertical Issue by Senator Lamar Alexander
Supporter Post: On Education by Brian Donegan
Montana's Bright Future by Steve Daines
The Right to LIfe by Bob Clegg
Federal Judges Appointed For Life by Senator John Cornyn
A Clear Threat by Congressman Sam Graves
Supporter Post: Improving Health Care by Nancy Hofman
A Precious Gift by Brian Walker
The Fair Tax by Rep. John Linder
Marriage Under Assault by State Senator Brad Lager
Supporter Post: On Education by Rev. Gregory Limongi
Frist: Why Africa Matters by Former Sen. Bill Frist, M.D.
Families of America Need Solutions by Luke Puckett
Pro-Life Without Apology by Senator Jim Inhofe
No Silver Bullet by Rep. Sam Graves
The Huck PAC Family by Sarah Huckabee
Americans Deserve Better on Energy by Senator Elizabeth Dole
The Time Has Come for a Fair Tax by Bob Clegg
Supporter Post: Answering the Questions by Jean Marcos
A Deep, Abiding Respect for Life by Senator Lamar Alexander
Another Blow to Common Sense Values by Rep. Sam Graves
Supporter Post: On Energy by Joshua Love

I'll update later today with links to other posts as well. Go check them out!

Technorati Tags: Mike Huckabee,HuckPac,Vertical Day,Conservatism,health care,national security,federal judges,education,Senator John Cornyn,Senator Lamar Alexander,Congressman Sam Graves,Bill Frist,Senator Jim Inhofe,Senator Elizabeth Dole,Pro-life,energy independence,working-class families

IceRocket Tags: Mike Huckabee,HuckPac,Vertical Day,Conservatism,health care,national security,federal judges,education,Senator John Cornyn,Senator Lamar Alexander,Congressman Sam Graves,Bill Frist,Senator Jim Inhofe,Senator Elizabeth Dole,Pro-life,energy independence,working-class families

Iowa Department Of Education On Ropes

2008-07-23T15:23:00.005-05:00

The Des Moines Register actually did a good thing today. In spite of calling the Iowa Core Curriculum "state standards" (which it is not), they did do a good job of summing up the lawsuit filed by Marvin Pomerantz and Doug Gross against the IA Dept. of Education and Gov. Culver.

Mr. Pomerantz and Doug Gross are suing because they feel the state is not doing what it is charged to do by the Iowa Constitution in giving each child a quality education. They have very specific charges and specific remedies.

Here is what is amusing:

The editorial says that the state is trying to get the court to throw the case out because they feel the court does not have jurisdiction since, one of their arguments goes, the Iowa Constitution doesn't guarantee an "effective education" t0 anyone.

Are you kidding me? Even if that was true, the only reason the state would use that argument to sidestep a lawsuit like this is if they knew they WEREN'T delivering an "effective education."

Am I wrong in surmising that the state is basically arguing for the right to deliver an ineffective education?! That's your tax dollars at work. There are three ways you can help if you are in Iowa, however:

1. Rush your kid to the nearest private school and sign him/her up. You can even contact your nearest School Tuition Organization to see if you qualify for financial assistance. No one deserves to send their kids to an education system that is fighting for the right to deliver an ineffective education to their child.

2. Support Professional Educators of Iowa with your donation or membership. They are one of the only sane voices in public education in Iowa today. They have some teachers from private schools and thousands of public school teachers that utilize their liability protection and their lobbying power. They really are fighting the good fight with classroom discipline and local control being two of the things they champion.

3. Send letters to the editor of your local paper in Iowa and tell them that you want to see the lawsuit move forward in order to force the legislature to deal with the proposals put forth by Pomerantz and Gross. You can also tell them that you are not fooled by the Iowa Core Curriculum, want it voluntary for private schools, and that you demand the type of state standards adopted by most every other state in the Union.

Our children deserve better.

The Media's Love Affair With Obama

2008-07-23T10:04:00.001-05:00

The McCain OP/Ed Rejected by NY Times

2008-07-21T17:39:00.001-05:00

They may not want to print it, but I will here.

HT: Greta Van Susteren

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation hard but not hopeless. Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there, he said on January 10, 2007. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress. Even more heartening has been progress thats not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Malikis new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obamas determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his plan for Iraq in advance of his first fact finding trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five surge brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his plan for Iraq. Perhaps thats because he doesnt want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be very dangerous.

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when weve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the Mission Accomplished banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it. But if we dont win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Senator McCain is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

You can write the NY Times to let them know how you feel about their bias.

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
publisher@nytimes.com.
Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager
president@nytimes.com.

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

Technorati Tags: John McCain,New York Times,Barack Obama,liberal media bias,Presidential Race '08,Iraq

IceRocket Tags: John McCain,New York Times,Barack Obama,liberal media bias,Presidential Race '08,Iraq