Tuesday, September 30, 2008

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.

Monday, September 29, 2008

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...

Monday, September 22, 2008

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.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

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...

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

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

Saturday, September 13, 2008

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.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

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.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

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.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

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.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Stand Up

John McCain is a man who beleives in the inherit goodness and overarching wisdom of his fellow Americans.

He trusts his fellow American to make the right decisions for himself and for his family. Senator McCain stands in stark opposition to his opponent, a candidate who refers to himself as his "brother's keeper"; a man who, as his wife says, "won't let you be the same"; who only speaks one language, yet pokes fun at "average" Americans for not speaking more; who perscribes for the people of America the temperature at which we should keep our homes and at what pressure we should inflate our tires. McCain's reply comes right from the hearts and souls of proud, independent men and women across America:

We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans, government that doesn’t make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself.
John McCain is a man who has a deep and abiding love and admiration for his country. He sees what is great about this nation in ways that few of us can and expresses that love in ways we may not always recognize. Senator McCain tried to put some of that love and admiration into words tonight. In perhaps the most eloquent and moving portion of his speech, McCain said:

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency, for its faith in the wisdom, justice, and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again; I wasn’t my own man anymore; I was my country’s.
My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.
He is in possession of none of his opponent's prowess for public speaking. He looks uncomfortable behind a podium and stumbles when reading from a teleprompter. Speaking is not his strong suit. Doing is.

This November our country can do no better than to elect her humble servent, a man who has given his life in service of her people, who has suffered greatly on our account and is rewarded most by our continued success. This November, our country can do no better than to elect John McCain.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

The Hits Keep on Coming

This morning the media has shifted their spin and is now criticizing the media for asking the questions they have of Sarah Palin and her family... you read that right.

What follows is a transcript of the most despicable attack on Palin and her family that I've seen to date. Run a Google search of this to see how its being praised on Liberal Blogs...

Sally Quinn to Soledad O'Brien (mother of three) - on CNN

I've been a working mother for 26 years and practically every friend I have is a working mother and works full time. So, uh, I think we are so far beyond that issue of whether women should work or not, in -- uh, certainly in your world and my world. But in the world of evangelicals, that's not the case. Women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands and they are meant to be stay-at-home moms. And women, in fact, are not allowed to be pastors in the Southern Baptist church.

NOTE: Prominent Southern Baptists include Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Bill Clinton

She continued...

It's one thing to have one or two or three children, especially if they're healthy children, and everyone knows that women and men are different and that moms and dads are different and that women -- the burden of child care almost always falls on the woman. But I think when you have five children -- one a four-month-old Down syndrome baby, and a daughter who's 17 who's also a child and who is going to need her mother very much in the next few months and years with her own baby coming -- that I don't see how you can not make your family your first priority.


It got worse...
We're supposed to say, at least in the old feminist world, that women and men are the same and they should be equal and that, you know, we have double standards. It's extremely time-consuming. We are talking about John McCain, who has chosen a woman with five children, one with special needs and a daughter, 17-year-old child who's pregnant. That is a distraction, and when you are in a position like that, suppose she became president in the next several months, she would have an enormous number of distractions on her hand. And I can't believe that she would be the dad and her husband would be the mom.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Taking Down Palin

God bless Todd Palin. If people said these things about my wife and family...

Kyra Phillips: CNN - Situation Room:
The governor has gone on the record and said that she is in full support of abstinence, and that she doesn't believe in contraception on school grounds and sex education. We had a chance to actually talk to someone just a short time ago that's involved with the Alliance for Reproductive Justice, and this is
an organization that says, "Abstinence doesn't work. We've got to have better sex education in schools, and this is just one example, this just underscores the pregnancy of the governor's daughter to why we need sex education in schools."
In response, CNN analyst and radio talk show host, Bill Bennett:
That first piece of attack journalism, Wolf, I gotta speak to. We all praised Barack Obama, myself included, for saying, do not use the case of this child to start to beat up Sarah Palin and to use this as an opportunity to make points for the Center for Reproductive Pregnancy. That was really out-and-out outrageous, and that should not happen on CNN.
Ruth Marcus - A guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe
I wrote about what Governor Palin was thinking when she knew her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant and decided to accept the vice presidential nomination, and my first comment was: "How could you go ahead and do this? You're exposing this poor child, who's already in a terrible situation -- not, probably, of her own choosing, to a lot of attention. You don't need to focus like that at a time like this."
Campbell Brown - CNN correspondent

In an ideal world, it would be private. But, you know, this is a
presidential campaign, and nothing is private. The world is
watching. And if we, you know, as much as everyone might want to give this young woman her privacy, you know that's not going to happen. And so you do risk putting her through an incredibly difficult process by accepting this job if you're her mother.

P. Diddy - You Tube Blog (Warning: Contains Profanity)
Alaska? Alaska? Alaska? Alaska. Ala-- Come on, man. I don't even know if there's any black people in Alaska. What in the [beep]? ALASKA? You're bugging the [beep] out. Sarah Palin, you ain't ready to be vice president. Alaska Mother[beep]er? What is the reality in Alas--? There's not even no crackheads in Alaska! There's not even no black people. There's not even
no like -- crime or, uh, uh like -- Foreign policies, you all may be versed on foreign -- foreign policies. You all need to get versed on black policies and youth policies. We the future. John, you're bugging the [beep] out, man.

John Roberts - CNN Newsroom
There's also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome.... Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her
newborn child?