VOTER FRAUD IN NEW JERSEY

I know I promised no more postings but a story came to my attention this morning that has me fuming.

As most of you know my father suffers from macular degeneration - it's a genetic medical condition that slowly takes your vision as you age. As a result, he has trouble seeing and for years has asked my mother to accompany him into the voting booth to read him the questions, candidates and help him to cast his vote.

This morning at the polling place, my mother was stopped from entering the voting booth with my father by a woman who identified herself as a lawyer. This woman stated that my mother could not accompany my father into the voting both and said that she, as a lawyer, would have to accompany him. The woman went into the booth with my father, read him the questions and cast his vote for him. My father, unable to see, was forced to take this poll worker at her word that she cast his vote appropriately.

This did not sit well with my parents who called the board of elections immediately upon returning home. Five minutes of internet research proves that what this woman did was illegal - take a look at this letter from the New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, which clearly states,

A voter with a disability may have a person of his or her choosing assist them in the voting booth... if a voter asks for help in the voting booth from staff at the polling place, the poll workers may assign one person from each political party to help them... It is the voter's choice if they want help in the voting booth.

I want to give this poll worker the benefit of the doubt - that she cast my father's vote the way he wanted it to be cast but regardless, in refusing my mother admittance to the voting booth with my father, against his wishes, then entering the booth to cast his vote with no oversight, she broke the law.

Developing...

Vote

No matter what side you're on - it looks like we'll be sweating it out on Tuesday night. The most accurate pollster in the 2004 election, the TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPP) has the spread between the two candidates at 2%, well within their 3.4% margin of error. Their poll also indicates that 8.7% of voters are still telling pollsters that they are "undecided." All that's left now is to vote.

You've heard the punditry, the sound-bytes and the campaign ads but how much thought have you given to who you're voting for and why?

Unsurprisingly, I'll be casting my vote for John McCain - why?

I am voting for a man who has been a leader in the realm of Foreign Policy - a man who stood up to his President and his party in calling for the replacement of Donald Rumsfeld and the military strategy that has led to success in Iraq. To leave Iraq, as Senator McCain's opponent has suggested, would have been a disaster. It would have left a power-vacuum in the region, destabilized its security and cost us what now looks to be a powerful ally (the Iraqi's themselves) in a contentious part of the world. I believe we needed to finish what we started, so does John McCain. With his leadership on the issue we have seen success, to quote Barrack Obama, "beyond our wildest dreams". This success has allowed us to begin talks with the Iraqis to negotiate the withdrawal of American troops in victory.

I am voting for a man who has been an unwavering proponent of the Right to Life and, as an adoptive parent himself, a personal advocate of adoption. A man who chose as his running mate a woman who chose life in a circumstance in which 90% of women given the same diagnosis chose abortion. These are two people who have proven their commitment to this incredibly important issue through actions, not just words.

On Health Care I like the flexibility offered by the McCain plan - a $5,000 tax credit to purchase health care seems to me like a great way to kick start our economy while providing Americans with a wider range of choice and keeping us from having to institute a government run health care system.

I am voting for a man who served his country honorably during the Vietnam War though he received little credit for that at the time from his fellow-countrymen. A man who withstood years of torture though he was offered a chance at release. A man who put his life on the line for my freedom. And a man who knows what it is to watch his own
children go to war - John McCain has two sons in active duty - a fact you don't hear about much but one that, in part, explains why members of our armed forces are voting McCain/Palin by a margin of 3-1.

I am voting for a man who has made a career out of working toward bipartisan solutions - a man who, until this election, has been viewed as one who is above the political fray, who can claim friends on either side of the aisle, who is viewed as a statesman - even by the man who would be the Democratic nominee for Vice President

From the Politico - Joe Biden has called McCain a personal hero and proclaimed that he would run on a McCain ticket. Perhaps more substantively, Biden praised McCain's stances on climate change and troop levels in Iraq and has acknowledged that McCain's approach to foreign policy differs from President Bush's.

McCain has also drawn praise from both Clintons and many others from the left. He can bring this country together behind the moderate, conservative principles that have guided him throughout his career.

He has been a staunch advocate of responsible spending and has flatly rejected earmarks - a disgusting political practice that has become all to common in Washington and smacks of socialistic redistribution.

He believes, as I do, that the best way to grow an economy is to keep taxes low while implementing common sense regulations that guide but do not hinder business practices and individual liberties. He knows that raising taxes at a time like this would hurt more than it would help - he knows that because he is a student of this country's history.

He led the charge on campaign finance reform - a bill I admit I do not fully support, yet he saw the need to get special interests out of the election process and took steps to do something about it. His legislation, the result of a bipartisan effort, is not perfect, but it is a start. I respect that.

On energy I support McCain's "all of the above" approach. I see the next entrepreneur who comes up with the solution to our energy crisis as the next billionaire, not a lab coat in the employ of the government. McCain has been pro-nuclear, clean coal, biofuels and oil from day one. He supports drilling offshore and again, his position has not shifted on that claim. I believe that while we explore new technologies we must also ensure that no matter what their timeframe
for implementation that we have a steady and secure supply of fossil fuels to meet our demand.

John McCain has given his life in service to this nation. I am confident that he will be a humble, inspiring and fair leader and an excellent ambassador on this nation's behalf. John McCain is a good man and will make a great President.

On Tuesday, November 4 - the choice is clear - Vote McCain.

It's Inspiring Video Day

And this has nothing to do with politics but...

Negative Liberties

I was posed the question as to why I write this blog.

The answer is two-fold - the first is to provide Americans supporting McCain/Palin with the intellectual ammunition they need to combat the lies being spread by the Obama/Biden campaign and defend our shared positions in an increasingly hostile political environment - one that seeks to silence conservative values by dismissing them as "partisan talking points."

The second is to provide any individuals who may be undecided or voting for Obama with information on his background and political beliefs. I'm not looking to change any minds - should individuals reading this blog still choose to vote for Obama after learning the truth about his political and socioeconomic beliefs then so be it, but they should do so after learning the truth about him.

Today I'll be working off the second premise. Just yesterday tapes were released of an interview given by Barrack Obama in 2001 in which he discussed his interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the Civil Rights movement. Take a listen:



In the interview Obama states, in reference to the Warren court, "It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

That statement, by itself, is not radical; it's actually sound Constitutional analysis. What makes this interview disturbing is that Obama goes on to state that the, "great tragedy of the civil rights movement" was that it was court-centric and got away from "political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." In completing his thought, he makes clear his belief that the Constitution should contain some form of "positive" liberties and that the inability of the courts to bring about this change means that the necessary change, namely the redistribution of wealth, must come about through alternate means.

What does that mean? It's pure and simple socialism. While his interpretation of the court's decision is not radical, his assertion that the redistribution of wealth is a necessity through any means certainly is.

Now again, this analysis cannot be complete unless viewed through the spectrum of truth provided by Obama's current campaign. Obama has proposed tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (or $200,000, or $150,000 depending on the day) and tax increases for those making more than $250,000. When paired with his comments relating to "redistribution," these comments come into focus as potentially the most dramatic move toward socialism that our country has witnessed since the early 1930s. What makes this even more striking is that he admitted as much...



Again, if you believe in government-run redistribution of wealth and socialist policies then by all means, vote Obama - just don't act surprised when that's exactly what you get.

Barrack's Constitution

Don't have time to write a commentary on this and probably won't until tomorrow night but with one week and one day left in the Presidential election cycle this audio needs to be heard by every American voting in this election.

On November 4 America will vote. The winner of the election will, on January 20, 2009 swear, to the best of his ability, to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Today, tapes of an interview given by Senator Barrack Obama in 2001 surfaced in which he claims that the constitution reflects, "the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." Hard to believe right? Here's the audio.

In an even more shocking statement, Obama said the following...

The Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Again, the audio is here.

Fox News is reporting it, as is Drudge. As of 1:52 p.m. - nothing on CNN, ABCNews, CBSNews or MSNBC's mainpages.

Just one bit of analysis...

When it comes to negative liberties I guess he didn't read the preamble which clearly states some things the government, under the Constitution, should do for it's people, namely, "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

How is he gonna' pull it off...

Take good look at this map.



This is how I think the electoral map will look toward the end of the night on November 4.

Colorado is still a contest but their polling has been erratic. Putting them into the McCain column would not change the fact that he would still need to pick up at least two out of the three states I see as undecided to win the election.

If I'm right, based on this map, the electoral vote count will be Obama - 250, McCain - 227. There are three states that I see as "up for grabs" - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

If McCain sweeps these three states he'll win by 31 electoral votes.

He can afford to lose Virginia. So long as he carries Ohio and Pennsylvania and the map holds he'll be up by five and win the election.

If he loses Ohio McCain goes down by 9, to counteract that he would have to pick-up Nevada, a long shot, to win by 1 electoral vote.

If McCain loses Pennsylvania he stands to lose the election...

Why do I think PA is up for grabs?

Well our elected officials aren't exactly exhibiting a whole lot of faith in the electorate... Rep. Murtha Clarifies 'Racist' Remark, Calls Western Pa. 'Redneck'

The Politico sees a shot...

Fast Eddie is already lining up his excuses...

Obama's internal polling has him up by just two points in PA...

Get Angry

Two days ago I started a blog on why the liberal talking point, "The whole world hates us," is an absolutely ridiculous non-argument. After reams of research, pouring over immigration and emigration data, digging up obscure quotes and complicated election results I found myself with another long, but ultimately unsatisfying post. It took me a while to understand why, but then it came to me... I was unsatisfied because I was, I am, angry.

For years Democrats have been warning Republicans that we need to maintain a level of respect for the oppostition, that we need to keep an open mind and "reach across the aisle" to get things done. They've been telling us that getting angry, that getting tough on issues and explaining our disagreements with passion and confidence will, "cost Republicans the votes of undecided voters." And all the while they have been the ones setting the angry tone, they have been the ones hiding behind the thin veil of socialism - defining "reaching across the aisle" as compromising our core beliefs to cave to their failed policies and radical social views - even as they accuse us of being too committed to our conservative values.

Well I, for one, am sick of it.

I'm sick about the fact that it has gotten so bad, that we let as dangerous, anti-American, anti-millitary and anit-capitalist individual as Barrack Obama get as close as he has to our highest office. And when we question his policies, his statements, his associations - when we question anything about him, we're told that we're, "injecting race into the process." Meanwhile, we're expected to sit idly by as he and his party attack our country, our character, our finances and our security. Not to mention the terrible attacks launched against one of, if not the most, inspiring women ever to enter the political process.

It angers me because of what he stands for. Barrack Obama's values are radically different than the values held sacred by so much of this country and yet he has been given a pass by the "media," a conglomerate that has served more as wrote propagandists than as independent journalists.

Barrack Obama's values disgust, his lies enfuriate and his arrogance astounds.

DISGUST

Robert George, a professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, prolific writer, former fellow at the United States Supreme Court and proud Catholic, writes that, "Senator Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

He stated that signing the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first thing he'd do as president.



This is a bill that states, "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability" and will retroactively apply to, "...every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." It will effectively dismantle, in one fell swoop, every single gain the Pro-Life movement has made in the past forty years and sweep away bans on even the latest forms of Partial Birth abortions.

He argued and voted four times against providing medical care for abortion survivors, childen born of women induced to give birth to "previable" babies in the hope that the child would die during childbirth. When, miraculously, children survived, hospital workers would not provide medical care but instead, would leave them to die on metal shelves in storage closets.

ENFURIATING



But then when Hillary Clinton called him on it, Obama's advisor David Axelrod said, "What he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks." While at the same time barrackobama.com said, "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." But then Obama said, "I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America." Except he didn't say any of that in the debate!

The latest presidential debate featured the following exchange:

Obama: "And 100 percent, John, of your ads — 100 percent of them have been negative."

McCain: "It’s not true."

Obama: "It absolutely is true."

But how about this study which calls out Obama's forceful statement as a complete lie.

Or we could look at a few examples. How about this ad?

Or this one?

How about my personal favorite?

Or what about this one?!



ASTOUNDING


By astiron at 2008-10-19

The Terrorist

A lot has been made about Bill Ayers lately and you may be wondering why. After all most of the main-stream media outlets have been painting this as a last-ditch effort to steal the election from Obama with less than a month before the election but while this issue may be "new" to many independents and Obama supporters it comes as no surprise to those of us who have been watching this campaign for literally years now - the only question we have is, what took so long?

A few months ago a friend and Obama supporter asked me if I thought Barrack Obama loved his country, I said, "No." Bill Ayers is a big reason why I believe that.

Who is Bill Ayers?

Bill Ayers grew up in a life of privilege. His father was Thomas Ayers was President (1964-1980) and CEO (1973-1980) of Commonwealth Edison. He served as the Chairman of several the Boards, most notably at Northwestern and the Chicago Symphony, and sat on the Boards of a number of other successful businesses including Sears, Zenith and the Chicago Cubs.

His son Bill attended public school until High School when he transferred to the prestigious Lake Forest Academy. He went on to earn his B.A. in American studies from his mother, father & older brother's alma mater, the University of Michigan. Upon graduation he took a job teaching at a small, private, primary school that subscribed to the Summerhill method of teaching, a method that encouraged cooperation over competition and did not believe in issuing report cards or grades. Ayers became the director of the school at the age of twenty-one. Shortly after that he spent his first ten days in jail for participating in a sit-in at a local draft board.

In 1968 Ayers became involved with the New Left and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). When the SDS collapsed in 1969, Ayers and several former SDS members founded a group known as the Weathermen or the Weather Underground. By his own admission in his book "Fugitive Days" Ayers notes that he was responsible for the Weathermen's move toward militancy which first manifested itself in the form of riots known as the "Days of Rage" which took place in 1969 in coordination with the trial of the Chicago Eight, the alleged masterminds behind the 1968 riots held in coordination with the Democrats' National Convention.

In 1969 Ayers planted and detonated his very first bomb, destroying a statue dedicated to police officers killed in the line of duty. According to an FBI informant operating within the Underground, reported that Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "probably had the most authority within the Weathermen."

In 1970, while assembling a crude anti-personnel device in the basement of a townhouse in Greenwich Village, an accidental detonation killed three members of the Weather Underground including Ayers' girlfriend Diana Oughton and his roommate Terry Robbins. The device they were building was made of dynamite and roofing nails and, according to Mark Rudd, a leading activist in the SDS, was destined for Fort Dix, where it was to be detonated in the midst of a dance for troops headed to Vietnam and their dates.

Following the explosion, Ayers and Dohrn went underground along with several other associates. While living as a fugitive, Ayers continued his terror campaign. His highest profile bombings took place at New York City Police Headquarters, the United States Capitol and the Pentagon. Other actions by the Weathermen included but are not limited to:

December, 1969 - Bombing of Chicago police cars
March, 1970 - Breaking Timothy Leary out of jail
May, 1970 - Bombing National Guard HQ in Washington, D.C.
July, 1970 - Bombing MP Headquarters at Presidio Army Base
August, 1971 - Bombing several California prisons and Department of Corrections offices
March, 1974 - Bombing the San Francisco Federal Office of Health, Education & Welfare
January, 1975 - Bombing the United States State Department
September, 1975 - Bombing the Kennecott Corporation in Salt Lake City

Miraculously no one was killed in these attacks. The Weather Underground did the people in the buildings they bombed the "favor" of calling ahead before they detonated their devices.

The FBI put Ayers and Dohrn on their Most Wanted List (#2 & #1 respectively) but according to CNN, "Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago."

The end. Right? Not exactly.

The reason that the charges were dropped was not because Ayers was innocent, quite the contrary. The charges were dropped because the FBI obtained the evidence against Dohrn and Ayers through illegal wiretaps.

They resurfaced in 1980, cleared of all charges. Since then they have lived in Chicago - Ayers is a wealthy college professor and author.

In 2001, before the September 11 attacks, Ayers published his memoirs: Fugitive Days. While publicizing the book he was asked numerous times if he was sorry for his actions. The New York Times quoted him as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I don't feel we did enough."

In an article in the Chicago Tribune Magazine Dohrn bragged, "I was at the top of my field. I was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list."

Later in the same interview Ayers is quoted as saying, "The truth is, we weren't extreme enough in fighting against the war, and we weren't extreme enough in fighting racism, which is still a stain on America."

The Obama Connection

So what does any of this have to do with Barrack Obama? After all, Obama, when asked about Ayers responded, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

As a young lawyer and professor seeking the approval of his Chicago community and running for state office Obama, like many young, aspiring politicians, crafted a number of key alliances and placed himself at the forefront of as many charitable organizations as possible. Chief among these charitable organization was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). The founders of The CAC were Warren Chapman, Anne Hallett and Bill Ayers. The three were responsible for getting the organization off the ground and hand picked its initial board including its first chairman, Barrack Obama.

What took place in those initial meetings? No one is saying and those who are looking aren't getting very far. In August, Stanley Kurtz, a conservative journalist who writes for National Review, sought to access the CAC records held at the University of Illinois at Chicago library. He made the request, was granted access, arranged for the day and time of the meeting, then, the day he was to leave for Chicago, received a call from the library telling him that a "donor" had asked that the records not be opened.

Obama and Ayers met regularly in regard to the CAC between 1997 and 1999 and dozens of times more as board members of the Chicago Woods Fund between 1999 and 2002. During that time, they appeared together on at least two academic panels in 1997 and 2002. Obama even reviewed one of Ayers' books for the Chicago Tribune.

But let's go back to the CAC - how did he get to be chairman of the board at such a young age and with so little experience?

In 1995, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn held a political meeting in their home. The purpose of this meeting was reportedly so that Obama's predecessor, Alice Palmer, could introduce her chosen successor. The only problem is that Palmer later decided that she didn't want to step down and when she tried to reenter the race, Obama and his campaign contested the signatures on her petition to run and had her disqualified. For good measure, he had all of the other candidates thrown out of the race as well. In the end, he ran unopposed.

Palmer's not commenting on the meeting or the Ayers/Dohrn/Obama connection. She's not commenting on much of anything relating to Barrack Obama any more. This campaign cycle, Palmer actively campaigned for Hillary Clinton.

Obama's "Explanation?"

According to Reuters, "Obama has called Ayers, now a professor of education at a university in Chicago, "a guy in my neighborhood" and said he and Ayers are not close. McCain is trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers, Obama told ABC News on Wednesday."

He calls Ayers' acts "detestable" then mentions that he was eight years old when they took place.

Actually, in 1975 Obama was 15. Funny. I was about the same age when they caught the Unabomber...

Post-Script

The best reporting on this issue came from, beleive it or not, CNN - Anderson Cooper 360, just the other night. Check it out:

Principle

This week's Vice Presidential debate was less about substance and more about principle. Senator Biden flexed his experience and clearly dominated in the arenas of foreign affairs and inside-the-beltway know-how. Governor Palin fired back with details regarding her executive experience and an advanced understanding of energy issues.

Though many saw Senator Biden coming across as more "presidential," their argument falls apart when you point out that his forceful stances on many of the substantive issues were exagerations (in the case of Senator McCain's health care and tax record and plans), lies (Obama did agree to meet with Ahmadinejad without precondition) or significant yet unexplained flip-flops (the campaign's clean coal, off-shore drilling & nuclear policies to name three). Critics of Governor Palin point to the fact that Biden was undoubtably "holding-back" and how would Palin fare sitting across the negotiating table from a Vladimir Putin.

In the end, the same partisan lines held - if you loved Sarah, you still love her; if you thought Biden was a blowhard, you probably still think so. So what about those folks in the middle the "undecideds," what could this debate meant to them?

To me, in analyzing this competition, it came down to the core principles held by each candidate. Standing across the stage from each other were two individuals on polar opposite ends of the political spectrum and analyzing their core beleifs, the very stuff that makes them think and vote and govern the way that they do, is wildly interesting. For example...

In regards to the sub-prime lending crisis...

Governor Palin took the route of personal accountability. She placed a portion of the blame on predatory lenders, committed her ticket to increased regulation of financial markets, but also stressed that personal accountability on behalf of the consumer, a commitment to staying out of personal debt to educating ourselves about the economy, was the best way to avoid another crisis.

Senator Biden simply advocated more government control over the economy, at one point suggesting that bankrupcy courts should be able to adjust not only your mortgage interest rate but also your principle balance; a policy that, if implemented, would lead to the socialization of the entire mortgage industry.

In regards to taxes, Governor Palin pointed out that Senator Biden stated paying taxes was "patriotic." Senator Biden did not refute his stance, in fact, he went on to claim that a tax policy placing an significantly larger burden on families earning over $250,000 (increasing taxes to levels implemented by Jimmy Carter) was simply "fairness."

Palin stuck to her ticket's commitment to keep tax levels right where they are and advanced the traditionally conservative belief that the best way to spur economic growth was by lowering taxes on American workers and businesses while reigning in spending and promoting energy independence with an "all-of-the-above" approach.

Biden mocked the free-market approach to incentivizing businesses to drive progress as we've been doing in this country for 200+ years, Palin suggested her faith in it.

Palin pointed out McCain's once unpopular commitment to the strategy now succeeding in Iraq, Biden tried to dance around his on-again-off-again approach to the war and his running-mate's stuborn inability to accept its success.

Time and time again the candidates reinforced the ideals of their party's stated principles.

Biden - bigger government, more taxes, socializing economic markets, a commitment to defeat in Iraq

Palin - smaller governement, less taxes, common-sense regulation, a commitment to victory in Iraq

While their substance ran about equal, their principles could not be more different. And after tall, that's what this election has been about form the beginning.

Debate Transcript: The Sun Times

You Need to Know More...

The worst gaffes made by the candidates during the Vice Presidential debate?

Palin called the U.S. commander in Afghanistan "McClelland," his name is McKiernan.

Biden, a constitutional law professor & lawyer, identified Article I of the Constitution as the section laying out Executive Powers -- it's Article II.

I know I promised only two, but there's one more Biden gaffe worth mentioning. Biden invited the people of the electorate to, "go to Katie's Restaurant" with him. Problem is, according to Mike Krystopolski of Wilmington, Delaware, Katie's Restaurant closed about twenty years ago... Here's a Wilmington blog addressing the gaffe.

Stuff you Should Be Reading (or watching)

The McCain Campaign is finally talking about the Bill Ayers issue... REDSTATE.COM

The truth about the bailout and its root causes... REAL CLEAR POLITICS

...and VIDEO...



An excellent analysis of Governor Palin's performance during the debate... NATIONAL REVIEW

Earlier this week the Foreign Ministers of Venezuela and Iran got together for a friendly meeting... PHOTO

Honor & Virtue

This morning as I sat in the back of the basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul, in the midst of a grieving citizenry, waiting for the funeral mass of Officer Patrick McDonald to begin, I could not help but wonder why? I'm sure I wasn't alone in thinking that, there must have been thousands of men and women thinking the same thing at the very same moment, and yet I'm convinced that none of us came up with a suitable answer.

I'm a very pragmatic person. When I look to solve a problem I need the background, I need to know the root before I can begin to formulate an answer. In searching for the root of this problem it occurred to me that the very root of this problem is also at the root of this year's contentious presidential campaign and its a problem that stretches to the very root of our democratic system.

Richard Henry Lee, a Delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia, the delegate who proposed the resolution leading to the vote on independence, wrote, "a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people."

In 1779, the father of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams, wrote, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued..."

In support of our Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers pledged, "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor."

The works of our founders are filled with talk of honor and virtue. To our founders they were intangible values held above all others, yet they are values our current culture takes completely for granted.

Honor and virtue are not just words - they can and should mean something more. Whether in a community, tired of the violence taking place in its streets or on the campaign trail, stumping for votes - honor and virtue are values that can and should triumph over even the most insurmountable obstacles.

A person in possession of these characteristics would never lie to his fellow man, would never withhold information after witnessing a crime, would never ask the government to do for him what he is fully capable of doing himself. In fact, a person in possession of these characteristics has little need for government - he supplies his own; guided by his own moral compass, committed to justice and freed from an obligation to anything but the truth.

By the time Mayor Nutter took the podium this morning I had already formed most of these thoughts, but he helped to reinforce them. His tone was somber, resigned, defeated - he captured adequately what we were all feeling. He begged the forgiveness of a people he saw himself as failing but it seemed to me that his frustrations ran deeper. No single mayor can stem this tide, no one politician can save our nation. No amount of government spending will solve these crises. The despondence in his voice came not from his inability to act but from the knowledge that, until such honor and virtue takes hold in our communities no government program can bring them peace.

The foundations of conservatism are strong - until we start taking responsibility for our own actions, until we recapture our honor and virtue our nation will continue to suffer wanton acts of violence like the one that killed Officer McDonald, massive financial scandals like the one rocking our nation's economic system, and leaders who insist on lying to us in order to win control of our votes and pocketbooks.

There can be no bailout package for the soul of our nation.

You Need to Know...

Trying a new segment here. I'll share a few articles, videos & pieces I think aren't getting enough play in the media. If they won't do their job then we need to do it for them.

How did your representative vote? ROLL CALL

The Dems & the media are sticking to the party line and saying that the Republicans, led by John McCain, couldn't muster the votes to pass the bailout package, few are asking why 96 Democrats voted against the bill.

An eloquent, concise explanation of the current crisis and its political nature.

Pelosi's unifying speech just before the vote...


Another damning allegation blaming Dems for the current crisis - this one from the Boston Globe...

Palin came to Philly & took a jog, in the rain, in a McNabb jersey... hot (about 3:10 in to the clip).

The Economy

This is a long one and dry, very dry but it underlines in the best terms I can put-up with, what we're going through financial right now. I'm startled that no one in our main stream media is giving you this story, so I'll try...

Most Americans can barely make sense of the latest economic mess we're in. All most of us know is that, until this afternoon, it looked like the jerks in Washington were going to bail out the jerks in New York and they were going to use our money to do it. Turns out there's a lot more to it than that, and the longer this mess is drawn out, the more we learn about and the more it stinks.

In order to understand the problem we first need to identify the cause. For all the talk we've heard from politicans and pundits about how we need a deal and what that deal needs to entail and how we need to work quickly to acheive a deal, few are taking the time to explain what exactly went wrong.

There is no argument among economic experts that the current financial crisis took shape due to the market's realization that banks were issuing billions of dollars in conventionally bad loans but why would the banks make the bad loans in the first place? Well for that we need to go back to the Allan Greenspan era - the Federal Reserve cut the interest rates that governed the issuance of credit to banks and the banks used those lower rates to bring in customers who were willing to take on a higher level of risk than traditionally had been the case. Customers were willing to take the increased risk in part due to the fact that many Americans were making a lot of money in real estate investment - buying low and selling high, treating property as one might treat a stock. In the background, the market continued to work against itself. The reason that prices in real estate continued to rise exponentially was due to the increase in available credit, so the very thing that was allowing those to get into the market on the ground floor, buying starter homes, etc., was helping others to move up. For the nation, it seemed like a great thing - more homeownership bread personal responsibility causing an indirect decrease in property crime, increased credit availability made for increased investment, etc.

The old adage seemed true - a rising tide floats all boats. It looked like this was the reverse of trickle-down economics, a flood of capial at the bottom was resulting in a bullish market at the top. But there were cracks in the foundation. In an effort to get this credit into the hands of consumers, banks had been making bad loans to unqualified investors. These loans weren't an issue so long as the real estate markets kept increasing in value as they had been for some time, investors would be able to restructure their mortgages at a better price for a better rate down the road. But that brings us back to why they made the investments in the first place - why would banks make loans that they didn't think they could make money on - this is where the Republicans and Democrats diverge in opinion.

The Dems blame it on pure greed. They say the bad loans were made with the assumption that even if the loans failed - who cares? The banks could still sell the homes at the higher rate so long as the market stayed good but that logic just doesn't hold. It would denote a complete divergence from the rules that have governed financial markets for centuries. One or two banks making bad loans and going under, that's just bad judement... but all of them?

The Republicans have been saying, quietly, since 2003, that these bad loans were being made because of failed or failing Democrat policies. In 1977, Jimmy Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The Act dictated that banks must make loans to low-income borrowers, even if that meant ignoring many of the criteria they would use to make conventional loans, namely credit history. The CRA allowed the government to examine banking organizations to determine whether or not they were "meeting the needs of their communities."

George H.W. Bush tried to blunt the effects of the bad act by enacting sweeping oversight as part of the Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Act of 1989 which was created in response to the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s. This oversight included a rating system, accesible to the public, that would measure a bank's compliance with the CRA regulations.

But any modest gains made by Bush administration were erased by Bill Clinton in 1993. In a sweeping economic dictate from the Executive Office, Clinton established a series of quotas to hamstring H.W.'s CRA rating system. Banks were forced to make a number of these risky investments in order to obtain a favorable CRA rating. The direct result was that banks went out of their way to make these risky loans to obtain favorable CRA ratings - they also hired community groups to "consult" on the issue. In 2000, the Senate Banking Committee estimated that, as a result of Clinton's "reforms" in 1993, these community groups had received in excess of $9.5 billion in government salaries and services. Among them, receiving $760 million, was ACORN a group with strong ties to the group Barack Obama worked for during his days as a community organizer.

In 2002, the Bush administration oversaw an interagency review of Clinton's early '90s reforms. In response to the striking findings the administration tried to enact reforms and regulations that were opposed vehemently by the Democrats but passed in the Republican-controlled Senate. But the reforms didn't go far enough and in 2003, billion dollar accounting errors reported by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did little to slow the bad behavior promoted by the CRA.

What do Freddie & Fannie have to do with anything? Simple - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are entities created by the government but run as publicly traded businesses. Their express purpose is to buy-up mortgages from banks and lending institutions, repackage them into mortgage-backed securities then resell them to investors. For a better explanation of what went wrong, read this. This crisis - billions in bad assets uncovered, poorly kept books, a staggering amount of potentially unstable credit loosed on the market - should have produced the appropriate response. In the coming months and years Republicans would call for increased regulation of the markets while they were blocked by Democrats, charging racism and threatening to use their opposition as a potentially damning campaign issue. Let's face it - the Republicans have never had a good response for the charge that they don't care about poor people, especially poor minorities, despite the fact that poor minorities have been voting Democrat for fifty years and the vast majority of them are still poor. A damning video of this reverse-racism in practice can be found here.

So nothing gets done and here we are - saddled with the sins of 30 years of bad financial practices. And somehow, the guys among those who caused this crisis have the nerve to blame it on the other guys? The ones who, for at least six years have been calling for stricter regulation? Grated, the Republicans are, as usual, doing a terrible job on the PR end of this one, but you'd think the media would at least attempt to follow-up on this one - instead they cling to the line that eight years of Bush economic policy caused this problem... ridiculous line made moreso by the fact that in their TWO YEARS of control of the House & Senate they have yet to pass a single line addressing this financial issue. And yet, it's all the Republican's fault...

Freedom

Lindsay and I went over to the McCain/Palin rally in Media tonight. We weren't able to make it until later in the event and so we stood in the back and 'attempted' to hear as much of Senator McCain's speech as possible. In between us and Senator McCain were thousands of McCain/Palin supporters and a few dozen, very vocal Obama supporters.

The Obama supporters were there, of course, in protest of Senator McCain and Governor Palin. It was not lost on me that these men and women had the right to protest thanks to the sacrifice of brave American veterans like Senator McCain and current volunteers like Track Palin. I watched and listened as they shouted down McCain's words with angry slogans and hoisted signs like one featuring Governor Palin's face superimposed on a bikini model's body.

I am sure there are those out there who want to side with these angry individuals but the close-mindedness and apparent belief that freedom of speech seems only to apply to them is truly pathetic and only steels the reserve of McCain/Palin supporters.

90%

Many once-Republican-now-Obama supporters have told me that the reason they refuse to vote McCain is that he voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time. This is something they have seen in one of Senator Obama's very effective TV ads and latched on to as their strongest (sometimes only) reason to vote Obama.

Michael Smerconish, the morning talkshow host on 1210 is one of the most fair commentators on the air. The guy looks right at home sitting in for Glenn Beck or sitting next to Keith Olbermann. He took an interesting look at that 90% claim in his Daily News column today. It's worth a read.

Two Steps Forward!

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election."
- Otto von Bismarck

In my opinion, The Washington Post is a pinko-commie rag. If you don't beleive me, check out eyeonthepost.org. It's a huge website devoted entirely to misreporting, exageration and bias in the Washington Post. I don't always agree with their spin, a lot of it is subjective and it's obvious that in some cases they just have an ax to grind, but it's hard to disagree with pieces like '110 examples of Post Misreporting' which addresses some of the more damning allegations made by a former publisher and foreign editor of the Post.

I'm not alone in thinking that the Post leans dramatically to the left, just search for the term 'Washington Post Bias' in Google and you'll get over 2 million hits.

With that said I was surprised to find a number of pieces in their Op-Ed section this week criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of, as Stephen Colbert might say, "truthiness."

Take this piece: 'Always for Less Regulation'? John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama. In it, the Post calls out Senator Obama for the following quote:

When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal -- and I quote -- 'I'm always for less regulation.'

But instead of the period at the end of Obama's sentance there should have been an ellipsis (...) because Senator McCain went on to say,

...But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight."

So either Obama's speechwriters didn't read the whole article or they purposefully chose to ignore the truth for the sake of a juicy soundbyte. But the inaccuracies in his statement don't end there.

McCain's record in relation to fiscal market regulation and corporate oversight McCain is a proven champion of the cause, sometimes to the frustration of his republican allies.

During the 2002 aftermath of Enron, McCain crossed party lines and joined with Carl Levin (D-Michigan) a longtime thorn in the republican party's side, to press for tighter regulation of stock-option accounting against the longstanding wishes of corporate lobbyists.

He pissed a lot of people on either side of the aisle off for that one, especially members of his own party. The folks at National Review called him an outright hypocrite for trying to intervene - they even pointed out that his reelection campaign had received $9,500 from Enron executives - contributions that, in the end, earned McCain's donors no clemency.

In addition to regulation of the private sector, McCain called for greater regulation of government 'businesses' Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac... in 2006! He addressed the Senate on May 25, 2006 in support of a bill authored by Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and cosponsored by McCain, Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Sununu (R-NH), the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190. If you want to read the whole speech, check it out. I'll just give you the highlights...

...this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal... For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

As if Obama's exposure on that point weren't damning enough, the Post came back at him the very next day to call him to task on the second part of his quote. Obama kept-up with saying that he'd been warning about the market colapse for months now and then took it a step further, stating,

In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress.

Wow. That's impressive. Taking credit for the economic stimulus package... when he didn't even bother to vote on the final product... This one turned out to be more a gross exageration than an outright lie, but kudos to the Post for pointing it out.

So a hearty congratulations to the Washington Post for beginning to make ammends for your partisan wa... Wait. What? The Washington Post is criticizing John McCain for airing an ad that uses, as its source, the Washington Post? They're saying that he shouldn't have relied on the reporting of their own paper...

Well, you know what they say... two steps forward...

Treason?

It's one of the most taboo words in modern democracy. It is a crime so heinous that it bears the dubious distinction of being the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution, which states that:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

It's rarely charged -- there have been less than forty federal prosecutions of the crime since the founding of our nation; only one such charge seven years into the War on Terror. It's a word not easily spoken in the collegial halls Washington but it's been whispered lately in conjunction with the name of the Democratic presidential nominee.

On September 16, 2008, The New York Post published an opinion piece by Amir Taheri, a conservative, Iranian-born journalist and author. He has been one of the few Middle Eastern voices who has spoken out vociferously against Islamic-extremist terrorism and the oppressive regimes that exist in nations like his native Iran. As you can imagine, he's a very popular guy...

Taheri's September 16 article was titled simply, "Senator Barack Obama Tried to Stall GI's Iraq Withdrawl." Though his piece is largely opinion and features a number of loose quotations by unspecified sources, it does feature a previously unheard, directly quoted statement from Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

In reference to the agreement surrounding the United States presence in Iraq Zebari stated that, "[Obama] asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington."

In a follow-up to his article, Taheri quotes an interview Obama gave to NBC following his meeting with Zebari. NBC reported that, "Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement."

The bottom line: the Iraqi equivalent of the United States Secretary of State and a United States media-outlet both confirm that Senator Barack Obama, without the support or consent of the current, elected administration, engaged in negotiations with a formal representative of a foreign government during a time of war regarding the strategic deployment of US military personnel. In his "negotiations," he sought to postpone the renewal of a key diplomatic agreement between the Iraqi and American governments and, in doing so, forestall a potential draw-down of American troops from combat.

Now the waters here get a bit muddy, if you've followed me this far, you've got the meat of the matter but if you're still not convinced or get geeked-out about this stuff like I do, try to follow me on this one.

::The Inside Baseball::
You don't have to read this unless you really want the guts of just how bad this really is.

The troop presence in Iraq is legally justified by two statutes -- the Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA), an agreement reached between the Iraqi and American administrations regarding the governance of US troops on Iraqi soil and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) which provides the legal precedent for the US presence in Iraq. These agreements are founded on the UN mandate agreeing upon the legality of the continued presence of US troops in Iraq.

Though the two agreements are negotiated separately they are inextricably linked to one another. The troops have no legal precedent to be in Iraq without the Iraqi approved SFA and with the SFA intact, though they have the legal precedent to be in the country without the SoFA they have no legal precedent to do anything.

The Obama camp has claimed, in response to the article, that he was asking for a delay in renewing the SFA - thus erasing the Iraqi-American accord that defines the very legality of our troops' presence in a sovereign nation.

Why would he want this? Simple.

The SFA governs, in part, the number of troops we have on the ground. Any troop draw down would have to be mutually agreed upon by the Iraqi and American governments and reflected in the SFA. If President Bush wishes to decrease the number of troops in Iraq, as he stated he plans to just last week, such a draw-down would require a negotiated alteration of the SFA.

Now Obama's stated position is that he wants US troops out of Iraq. The Bush Administration agrees that its time to start doing just that.

But just as they begin the process of negotiating the agreement that would let them do just that Obama tries to pull the rug out from underneath the whole process by meeting with the Iraqi Foreign Minister and suggesting that he not agree to a change in the SFA.

I won't comment politically on this one, you folks are smart enough to draw your own conclusions... Please feel free to share them in the comments section if you'd like.

Selected Sources:
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL - Taheri, NY Post 9/16/08

OBAMA OBJECTS - Taheri, NY Post 9/17/08

OBAMA'S TALK WITH IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER - Jones, MSNBC 6/16/08

She should stay at home...

She should stay at home.

Even as 90% of parents given the same diagnosis she and her husband were given just ten months ago choose abortion instead of bringing a child with Down syndrome into the world.

She should stay at home.

Even as the Down syndrome population dwindles to around 350,000 and lower numbers herald warnings of less awarenss and money for medical research and institutional support.

She should stay at home.

Even as journalists in magazines like Newsweek label the latest tact aimed at exterminating children with Down syndrome a "search and destroy mission."

She should stay at home.

Even as the Democrat's candidate for President refers to teen pregnancies as punishments on par with Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

She should stay at home...

...and leave teaching her children about sex to the Democrats, whose candidate for President voted to support a sex education program, "...offered in any of grades K through 12 [that] shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections."

She should stay at home...

...and leave feminine leadership to women like Cintra Wilson who write of her, "What her Down syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter unequivocally prove... is that her most beloved child is the antiabortion platform..."

IF she stays at home...

...she sends a message to her teenage daughter, stating loud and clear that, "If you aborted this baby, we could have made a difference."

If she stays at home...

...she sends a message to parents faced with the prospect of aborting a child with Down syndrome, "You'll never be able to lead a 'normal' life. Your career ends with your child's birth."

If she stays at home...

...she sits on the sidelines of the energy debate. A debate she is more qualified to have than any of the men running for office. A debate that will have a direct impact on the very livelyhood of her family and closest friends. A debate that will have more of an impact on our economy and security than any other.

If she stays at home...

...the greatest loss will be ours.

His Story

Barack Obama recently sat down with Bill O'Reilly and took part in what will probably be the most thorough grilling he'll receive over the course of the campaign. A lot was said during the interview but one specific point Obama made intrigued me.

From the broadcast transcript.

O'Reilly: They [my viewers] want a president who they can identify with...

Obama: And they should be able to identify with me because my story is your story. My story is your story.

End transcript.

We've heard plenty about John McCain's story and while the DNC was centered on "introducing" America to Barack Obama and by most accounts they didn't do a very good job on that front.

So what is Obama's story?

He was born in 1961 in Hawaii.

His mother was Ann Dunham, an eighteen year-old anthropology major at the University of Hawaii who had moved to Hawaii with her parents in 1959. Her religious views are difficult to discern. Her daughter Maya Soetoro-Ng, described her mother as an agnostic. In Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote that he, "...was not raised in a religious household." But then, in 2007, on the campaign trail, Obama stated that, "My mother was a Christian from Kansas... I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian."

His father was Barack Obama, Sr. a twenty-five year old student from Kenya. When Obama met Ann Dunham he was already married and had already fathered four children to a wife he left in Kenya while studying in America. According his son Barack, he had abandoned his Islamic faith and had become an atheist by the time he arrived in the states.

Obama and Dunham married in February of 1961 after learning that Dunham was pregnant. Their son, Barack Obama, was born in August. Two years later, Obama's father was accepted to study at Harvard. He left his wife and son and filed for divorce in 1964. He would only see his son once again, when Barack was ten-years old. Barack Obama remarried at Harvard. He and his third wife, Ruth Nidesand would have two children together before divorcing after they moved to Kenya, where he was reunited with his first wife. He died in an automobile accident in 1982.

His mother married Lolo Soetoro in 1967 and they moved to Jakarta, Indonesia which had recently been placed under the rule of Lieutenant Governor Ali Sadikin, a socialist, Islamic dictator. Obama's family would grow in 1970, with the birth of a half-sister, Maya Kassandra Soetoro. During his time in Jakarta he attended Sekolah Dasar Nasional Menteng No. 1 - an Indonesian public school. Little else is known about his time in Indonesia.

Obama returned to Hawaii in 1971 - why he returned to Hawaii is not clear. Some reports say that his mother urged him to return for educational purposes, others suggest the ten-year-old Obama made the choice himself. Regardless, he returned in 1971 to Hawaii to live with his grandmother and grandfather. They enrolled him in the prestigious Punahou School, one of the states' most prestigious schools. His grandmother, the vice president of a bank and grandfather, a salesman, paid for his expensive education.

According to Obama's book "Dreams of my Father," towards the end of his high school career he let his grades slip and used alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Despite his poor grades he was accepted to and began his studies at Occidental College. Two years later he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He earned his BA in 1983.

After graduation he held two jobs in New York city, one with Business International Corporation as a finance analyst for companies operating abroad and the other with the New York Public Interest Research Group - from their website, they describe themselves as, "New York State's largest student-directed consumer, environmental and government reform organization."

He spent four years in New York then moved to Chicago, where he took a job as a community organizer with the Developing Communities Project. He worked for them for three years before beginning his studies at Harvard Law School in 1988. At Harvard, he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated in 1991.

During a summer internship at Chicago's premiere law firm, Sidley Austin, Obama met his wife Michelle. Michelle Obama was born and grew-up on the South Side of Chicago. She earned her degree in sociology from Princeton and went on to study law at Harvard, earning her J.D. in 1988. Michelle worked as a lawyer and mentor for summer interns at Sidley Austin. Barack and Michelle were married in 1992.

Obama left Harvard with a contract and a $40,000 advance to write a book on race relations. In order to work without interruption, he and Michelle travelled to Bali where he wrote for several months. His book was published in 1995.

Between 1992 and 2004, Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He worked for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a law firm specializing in civil rights law. They don't do business as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland anymore, Davis was drummed out of the firm and off the nameplate due to his ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago political fundraiser who was one of Obama's first financial contributors and who is under indictment for wire fraud. He served on the boards of the Woods Fund, The Joyce Foundation and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge among others.

He was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. He won his primary by disputing the signatures on both his opponents' petitions, both were disqualified and he ran unopposed. In the general election in the heavily Democratic 13th district of Chicago, he won by a large margin.

In 2000, Obama made a democratic primary run for Bobby Rush's House Seat. During the campaign, Rush implicated that Obama was not properly connected to Chicago's black neighborhoods and churches. Though he won among white voters, he was defeated by a vote of 2-to-1.

Catholic priest, Rev. Michael Pfleger was one of the few South-Side clergymen to support Obama's 2000 run. Later that year, Fr. Pfleger's church received a $100,000 earmark from the Illinois State Senate to build a community center.

In 2002 Barack Obama gave a speech to anti-Iraq war protesters in Chicago. He would later use this speech as a footnote to prove that he opposed the war from its start. He rarely mentions that he said that he opposed the war on the grounds that the war was being fought for, "... political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

In January 2003, Obama was named chairman of the Illinois' Senate Health and Human Services Committee. As chairman of this committee Obama heard the testimony of Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital who uncovered the truth in relation to babies being born alive and left to die as a form of late-term abortion. Obama voted three times against the bill that would have banned this procedure.

In 2002, Obama began his campaign for the United States Senate. The leading Democrat in the primary, Blair Hull, became embroiled in a domestic abuse scandal. Obama came from behind to win the primary. His republican opponent, Jack Ryan, husband of Jerri Ryan, withdrew from the race after The Chicago Tribune convinced a California court to release the details of allegations made by his wife during their divorce proceedings. The Republican Party replaced Ryan with Alan Keyes, a Maryland native who moved into an Illinois apartment three months before the election. Despite this fact, Keyes managed to garner 27% of the vote to Obama's 70%.

In July 2004, he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. In November, 2004 he won election to the United States Senate. He was sworn into office in January, 2005. He announced his run for the Presidency in February, 2007.

Obama on Bush's Tax Cuts

Senator Obama appeared on ABC's "This Week" this morning and stated that he would delay his tax increases on "wealthy" Americans if he is elected President and takes office when the economy is in a recession.

His latest stance is a shift from what he has repeatedly said in the past, as recently as the Democratic National Convention. Obama has promised to raise taxes on wealthy households (those making more than $250,000) by allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse for the top two tax percentiles. This would mean an increase of between 3% to 4.6%. (For those of us confused by this kind of stuff, I've done some research and posted my findings under the "Practical Explanation" section.)

Obama's stance doesn't make sense. He claims that raising taxes on the wealthy would benefit governmental coffers and not seriously impact the lives of "rich" Americans... Then why delay the cuts? Unless he thinks that raising taxes on wealthy Americans would slow or halt economic growth. In which case, why raise their taxes at all? Why not leave them the same or (better yet) cut them more, as McCain has been suggesting since the beginning of the campaign?

::Pracitcal Explanation::

A household earning $250,000 currently pays 33% of their income to the federal government. That's approx. $82,500 before deductions. Under Obama's plan, that 33% would rise to at least 36% (the pre-tax cut level), meaning that the same family would owe the government $90,000, a $7,500 increase.

This increase would also apply to S-Corps. S-Corps are usually small businesses incorporated to protect the business owner who still files business earnings or losses as personal income.

On the Issues :: Foreign Policy

My Top 3

It's rare that a voter will agree with his or her candidate of choice on every issue. I have three issues of greatest import relating to my choice for president. Over the next few weeks I'll outline them. If your priorities differ from mine, please note them in the comments and I'll try to address them to the best of my ability.

Issue #1 ::Foreign Policy Judgement::

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to pose a real challenge to the Western world. As recent as June, he predicted that the "satanic regime" of Israel would soon be "erased." He went on to say that the United States would be "annihilated." To quote him directly:

You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene.

According to recent reports, North Korea has begun to rebuild its nuclear program.
Russia's recent treatment of the situation in Georgia and continued provocation of the Ukraine points toward a period of difficult negotiation at best and a reopening of the Cold War at worst.
The next President of the United States will be forced to face these challenges and deal with the current military conflicts taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John McCain

On Russia & Vladimir Putin - May 30, 2007

Russia is probably the greatest disappointment in recent years. It has turned into a KGB oligarchy. Putin wants to restore the days of the old Russian empire, and he continues to repress democracy, human rights, and freedom of the press. Mysterious assassinations are even taking place. If oil were still $10 a barrel, Mr. Putin would not pose any kind of a threat.

McCain's statement relating to oil at $10 a barrel was made in reference to the fact that Russia controlled nearly every pipeline running between the Middle East and Europe. The largest pipeline terminated in Georgia, running through South Ossetia.

On Iraq, John McCain voted, with the vast majority of Republican and Democratic Senators to wage war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. From the beginning, Senator McCain disagreed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan to wage the war.

In defense of his continued support of the war, even after it became apparent that the primary reason for going to war (the apparent presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction) was no longer a factor, McCain said:

...whether or not Al Qaeda terrorists were a present danger in Iraq before the war, there is no disputing they are there now, and their leaders recognize Iraq as the main battleground in the War on Terror... Will this nation's elected leaders make the politically hard, but strategically vital decision to give Gen. Petraeus our full support and do what is necessary to succeed in Iraq? Or will we decide to take advantage of the public's frustration, accept defeat, and hope that whatever the cost to our security, the politics of defeat will work out better for us than our opponents? For my part, I would rather lose a campaign than a war. 4/11/2007

As early as November, 2003 John McCain claimed that, "Victory can be our only exit strategy." He went on to state that, "The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives." His charges drew sharp criticism from both parties. It would be nearly four years until McCain would be vindicated. In January, 2007 President Bush announced that he would send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. One year after the surge began the results were as follows:

Attacks in Anbar province decreased from 300 in 2007 to 30. The number of attacks decreased to an average of 20, and just last week, with little notice from the American media, the United States military turned control of security in Anbar province to their Iraqi counterparts.

Attacks in Baghdad decreased by 70%.

The surge was accompanied by a spike in troop casualties, precipitated by an increase in offensive operations. Since the surge high of 126 in May 2007, monthly casualties have decreased to 23 in August, 2008.

Barack Obama

In response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, Obama released a statement that said:

I condemn Russia's decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states and call upon all countries of the world not to accord any legitimacy to this action. The United States should call for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to condemn Russia's decision in coordination with our European allies. The U.S. should lead within the UN and other international forums to cast a clear and unrelenting light on the decision, and to further isolate Russia internationally because of its actions.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power. In order for the Council to condemn Russia's decision, Russia's representative would have to vote against his own country.

Obama later drew a parallel between Russia's invasion of Georgia and the US-led invasion of Iraq, "We’ve got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies. They can’t charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point." 8/21/08

In October, 2002, Barack Obama gave a speech to an anti-war rally announcing his opposition to the war in Iraq. He stated:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

In his book, The Audacity of Hope Obama confirmed that he shared the belief that Saddam Hussein was in possession of chemical and biological weapons. However, he sensed that, “the threat Saddam posed was not imminent.”

Senator Obama opposed the troop surge from its proposal. He stated that, "I personally think that, if there are ways that we can constrain and condition what the president is doing so that, four to six months from now, we are beginning a phased withdrawal while making sure that the troops on the ground have the equipment that they need to succeed, then that is going to be the area that I'm most interested in supporting."

In a recent interview with Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, Obama stated that the troop surge had been more successful than anyone could have ever imagined. He refused to retract his initial opposition to the surge and complained that not enough "political reconciliation" had taken place; though a July report indicates that the Iraqi government has met all but three of the eighteen benchmarks set by Congress just last year.