Happy Thanksgiving

It seems as though not even Thanksgiving is immune from politicization this year. The right has taken this opportunity to make a "statement" on personal freedoms surrounding TSA agents, the left is trying to rewrite history by claiming that the first Pilgrims were Communists (I thought Commies didn't believe in God) and that the Pilgrims' first thanksgiving feast was a "secular" occurance (There is a particularly odious [and willfully inaccurate] article along those lines in today's Huffington Post).

Just a few points to put Thanksgiving in perspective. While there is considerable dispute as to whether the Pilgrims were the first to host a thanksgiving feast in the New World they have become synonymous with the holiday and for good reason. Their story of perseverance, survival and cooperation is nothing short of astounding. I'll even give you that they (initially) had some pretty socialistic tendencies (if you showed up in a largely unexplored and at times openly hostile foreign land with little more than a few tools and the clothes on your back, you'd probably want to work as a team too). The wholly unexpected alliance they formed with Massasoit and his Pokanoket tribe and first, bountiful harvest following a devastating winter that killed 46 of the original 102 settlers was, in actuality, a week-long celebration in 1621 attended by the 46 pilgrims and 90 Indians. While neither of the brief, two surviving original sources detailing this occasion directly mention God its patently foolish to assume the settlers did not offer thanks to Him for their Indian allies and overwhelmingly successful first harvest.

Many of the articles you read will probably give Abraham Lincoln credit for establishing the United States' first Thanksgiving holiday, and while it is true that Lincoln did establish the modern iteration (in 1863 proclaiming, "...the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.") it was our first President, George Washington (at the behest of Congress) who established the United States' first Thanksgiving celebration.

Washington's proclamation makes no reference to Pilgrims, Indians or a bountiful harvest. His words, written in 1789, call upon the American people to acknowledge, "...the many signal favors of Almighty God," chief among them in Washington's estimation, the opportunity to establish a form of government to provide for the people's "safety and happiness."

This year I hope that we, as Americans, will unite in celebrating the one factor uniting each of these distinct visions of Thanksgiving. An abiding faith in, devotion and thanks to God for all the many blessings He has bestowed upon us.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Post-Mortem

It's hard to understate just how dramatic a change took place on Tuesday, November 2, 2010. A few things to consider...

• While the networks focused (rightfully so) on federal races, Republicans' biggest wins of the day came at the state level. Republicans picked up an outright majority of the nation's legislative seats, amassing the party's largest plurality since 1928.
  Twenty years ago Democrats controlled every state legislature in the South. Last night, Republicans won back a majority of the region's chambers for the first time since the '60s... the 1860s.
  Nationally, the Republican party now controls both chambers of the state legislature in 25 states. In Texas, the legislative gains were so big that Republicans no longer need a single Democratic vote to pass state constitutional amendments.
• With five governors' races still too close to call, Democrats have taken governorships from Republicans in two states (CA & HI). Republicans have taken control from Democrat administrations in eleven, including Pennsylvania and Ohio, two states that have proven crucial in recent Presidential elections. Additionally, Republicans have kept control of the Governor's mansion in the integral swing state of Florida.
  By themselves, these are impressive numbers, but consider this: Republicans now control the governor's mansion and state legislatures in (among others) Alabama, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Maine (yes, that Maine), Texas and Pennsylvania.
• The Republican party gained more seats in the House of Representatives at any one time since 1948. So far, they've picked up 61 seats. Let's put that in perspective: in the 2006 Democratic "landslide," the left picked up 30 seats. In the 2008 Democratic "landslide," they tacked on an additional 24. Republicans completely erased those gains (and then some) in one day.

That's just the overview of yesterday's historic election. Next time, we'll take a closer look at some of the remarkable individual candidates who won elections yesterday...

In the year 2013...

Before we move forward I'm afraid we must first take a step back. It seems as though there are a number of provisions in the healthcare bill that did not receive, well, any press coverage prior to the bill's passage. One such provision is Section 2572 which outlines the new federal mandate that all restaurants with more than twenty locations and all vending machines must post nutritional information on their food.

This section must go into effect no less than one year after the passage of the healthcare bill. Much of the implementation is yet to be determined (the bill gives power to the Secretary of Health & Human Services to determine the standards governing large portions of this section) but it has restaurateurs scrambling to figure out what this will mean for their businesses.

One thing they are certain of is that this provision will cost - every menu must be reprinted, not to mention signage. A big question restaurant owners do not have the answer to is how the nutritional content must be determined - is it good enough for restaurateurs to simply add the nutritional information of the ingredients used in preparation or must they conduct lab testing on each of their menu items. Again, these questions have yet to be answered, but with restaurant owners already nervous about other portions of the bill there can be little doubt that this portion will, at best, lead to a slower expansion of the restaurant industry and at worst, cost people their jobs.

2012

In the year 2012... not much happens. Why? Well, it's a presidential election year and President Obama will be up for re-election. He certainly wouldn't want any new, inconvenient provisions popping up when he is up for re-election now would he?

2013

Health plans must implement uniform standards for electronic exchange of health information to reduce paperwork and administrative costs. It's a bit Big Brother for my tastes but I'm not going to rally against this one. In the end this may help to control costs and provide better services through privacy concerns weigh heavily on this portion of the legislation - can the government ensure that electronic records are safe and will be used only for the intended purposes?

A 2.9% excise tax will be imposed on medical devices. I read a great article on this one highlighting the case of Zoll Medical Corporation, a business just outside Boston that is the nation's leading manufacturer of heart defibrillators. Zoll employs about 1,600 people in the United States and last year posted a profit of $9.5 million. Richard Packer, Zoll's Chairman and CEO, estimates that the new tax will cost them, "...between $5 and $10 million."

The media has been reporting a "mixed" reaction on the tax from medical device manufacturers... that's generous. The most positive reaction I've heard is from those folks who thought it could be worse. Bill Hawkins, CEO of Medtronic, told the WSJ that his company could cut 1,000 jobs to absorb the cost of the tax increase.

Tom Sommer, president of the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council summed the industry's feelings up nicely when he said, "You're certainly going to see an impact on growth and expansion by medical device companies in this country that are going to be faced by a higher tax bill. In addition to job cuts and rollbacks on expansion plans, you're going to see a reduction in R&D spending. Innovation in this industry is definitely in jeopardy."

As all taxes on business are, this tax increase will be passed on to the consumer, in the end raising the cost of healthcare, which I thought was the exact thing this bill was trying to contain...

In the year 2011...

This is Part II...

Let's take a look at the provisions of Obama-care that take effect in 2011...

Medicare will provide free annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans. New plans will be required to cover preventive services with no co-pay. In the simplest of economic times this provision will drive up demand on physician services. Economics 101 tells you that if you increase demand while keeping supply static you will increase cost. In 2006, the United States Department of Health and Human Services published a study projecting physician supply and demand through the year 2020. Their findings? "The growth and aging of the United States population will cause a surge in demand for physician services..." while supply will remain relatively static. Proponents of this provision say that these preventative measures will yield a long-term decrease in other, move involved, more expensive forms of care. I would be inclined to beleive them (to a point) were it not for the the litigious nature of healthcare. One of the provisions Republicans pressed hardest for was tort reform to address these ballooning costs which, according to one University of Connecticut study costs $1.4 billion per year... in Massachusetts.


This bill increases the Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000. Two years later this segment of the population gets hit with an increase in the hospital insurance tax that accounts for a total tax hike of 3.8%. Soak the rich... except that most small business owners file through individual tax returns, so they will get hit with this even though that $250,000 return they filed may be getting pumped right back into the business they are trying to get off the ground or represent the first profitable year a business has had in several. Make no mistake - this is a job killer that will have a disproportionately negative impact on small business owners.


New taxes on Healthcare Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) take effect. This one gets a bit complicated so stick with me.

HSAs are a relatively new form of Health Insurance featuring very high deductibles (over $1,500 per person). The benefit is that it works on a fee for service basis. You can put money, as much as you want, into a tax-free account and withdraw those funds, again tax free, to pay for medical services and medications, including over the counter (OTC) medications. If you spend the money on unqualified expenses they are subject to a 10% tax... until 2011, when that tax goes up to 20% and the OTC benefit goes away. These provisions are expected to bring in at least $5 billion in revenue.

Now FSAs allow you to deposit pre-tax dollars into an account. These funds may then be spent, tax free, throughout the year on qualified medical expenses; things like co-pays, prescription contacts & eyeglasses and certain over the counter drugs. Anything left in the account at the end of the year you lose and contributions are unlimited... until 2011. When this portion of the bill takes effect annual FSA contributions will be limited to $2,500 and over the counter (OTC) medications will no longer be considered as qualified expenses. This second part is important because if you overbudget your FSA at the end of the year you can always use the money for OTC medications to avoid losing the money. But no big deal right, people will just get smarter about how they manage their FSAs right? Well Congress hopes not - they are counting on these two provisions raising more than $11 billion in revenue... That seems like a really sleazy way to steal people's money.

"What does Obama-care mean for me?"

Like it or not, health insurance reform as envisioned by the Democrat party is the law of the land.

But the fact remains that this is a remarkably unpopular bill. Democrats hoping that it would gain in popularity after passage have seen few rays of light in otherwise cloudy forecast. There are a smattering of polls that show the bill gaining in popularity, but no credible poll I have seen shows a majority of the American people supporting this legislation. Even those that draw the numbers closer to equal show disturbing trends in their underlying metrics - Democrats overwhelmingly support the change, Republicans overwhelmingly hate it and the ever elusive yet incredibly important Independents trend much closer to Republicans than Democrats.

What we can expect to follow is a lengthening of the conversation. President Obama and his allies will try to sell what is now the law of the land Republicans will try to pin what they see as a terrible piece of legislation to the Democrats any way they can and make it stick until November.
But while the politicians continue to pay politics, you may find yourself saying, "What does Obama-care mean for me?" Well I'm glad you asked because in this space over the next few days we are going to take a look at the key provisions of this bill as they will take effect in the coming months and years... We'll start with what we can expect to take place immediately:

Beginning in March, 2010...

Adults will be able to stay on their parent's insurance plans until they are 27 years old. Great news for kids living in their parents' basements still trying to "find themselves," not the best thing for those of us who think they would be better served simply getting a job.

Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. This is a good provision - you could argue against it but you would lose. There should be little argument that this part of the legislation should stand… that is if the Democrats can get it right. Turns out there is a loophole in the bill that means this provision doesn’t kick in until 2014. The President, as recently as last Friday in a speech at George Mason, said it would take effect immediately.

Insurers will not be able to rescind policies to avoid paying medical bills when a person gets sick. I have to check the language on this. It's my understanding that "rescission" mostly takes place if your insurance company finds out that you lied on your application to get insurance. For example, if you are getting treated for kidney failure and your insurance company learns that you "forgot" to tell them about your fifteen-year meth addiction - they can drop your coverage. If the bill prevents companies from dropping coverage in this case then I am against the provision. However, there have been cases where insurance companies have dropped sick patients using loopholes in policies they wrote to avoid paying for expensive treatments. If the bill protects consumers solely in this type of situation then I am all for it. Again, I have to read that section more closely.

Lifetime limits on coverage are now illegal. I think this is a dumb provision that will increase the cost of insurance. If I want to buy an insurance policy that limits the lifetime out-of-pocket expense of my insurer to, let's say, $100,000 in exchange for a dirt cheep policy I should be allowed to do so. If I get some catastrophic disease - well, that's my problem. I shouldn't have gone with the SafeAuto of health insurance. The government can and should only do so much to protect people from themselves.

New plans must provide coverage for preventive services without co-pays and all plans must be brought into compliance by 2018. Again, dumb. Co-Pays can bring down the cost of insurance considerably the same way that deductibles bring down home and auto-insurance. This will undoubtedly cause premiums to rise. The President says otherwise, but some of those in his own party, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D -IL), state that anyone who tells you insurance premiums will go down is not telling the truth.

A 10 percent tax will be imposed on amounts paid for indoor tanning services on or after July 1. Somewhere, the cast of Jersey Shore is taking a meeting with their financial planner to see how this will affect their bottom line. Does anyone want to argue against this one? I didn’t think so. I have no problem with a tax on tanning.

Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014. This is a good thing. We should be encouraging businesses to provide insurance for their employees (note I said "encouraging" not "mandating"). We should also be working to get more people gainfully employed, that way they can get health insurance without the government's help. The best way to do both is by cutting taxes.

Next time, we'll deal with 2011...

Insulation

In an article titled "Why do people often vote against their own interests?" the author (a Brit) opines, "There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots." He then proceeds to explain to his readers why American voters are idiots for choosing not to listen to "liberal elitists" even though they clearly know what is best for the country. To clearly illustrate his point he quotes two liberal elitists...

This site was linked to this evening by the Huffington Post.

A National Embarrassment

So the speech has been over for less than 45-minutes and I'm already being called a hate-monger for not liking it. Listen people, I took my lumps for supporting W for eight long years from people a helluva' lot less informed than me and made it my pledge to never subject someone from the opposing viewpoint to the disgust with which Republicans were treated during the Bush administration. That is why my opinion is informed and measured, so if you're like me and abhorred tonight's speech, maybe these thoughts will help put into words your distaste.

My primary complaint with the speech was that it was woefully un-presidential. Now that requires quantification because there are plenty on the left who would call W's speeches "un-presidential" because he was not as eloquent or skilled in the use of a teleprompter as is Obama. So what then, do I mean by "un-presidential?" Well the best (or worst) example was this:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

Apparently CNN has tape of Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing, "No" as Obama said this and the Justice is right. The Court struck down 2 USC Section 441a. That is the section that prohibits corporate political spending. It left untouched 2 USC Section 441e, which prohibits foreign nationals and corporations from making contributions to political parties and campaigns.

In one sentence the President blatantly misled the American people while slapping the face of a co-equal branch of government; two remarkably un-presidential things to do in a State of the Union. (And to those who will say, "So did Bush!" your response should be, "Does that make it right?")

But that's one example and by all accounts it's inside political baseball. Here is one that's easier to explain:

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.

The problem is, that's what we did for eight years.

He sets up a straw man then blows it over with a cheap, partisan line meant only to excite the base while at the same time claiming that it is his desire to bring the parties closer together... So let me get this straight... You hope to gain the Republican's cooperation by insulting them? That might work in Adam Sandler movies or fifth-grade lunch rooms but in the "real world" cooperation is a bit more complicated.

OK - to the issue, what do I mean by a "straw man?" Let's dissect his sentence.

First he claims the republicans want to, "make fewer investments in our people." That's a blatant lie that preys on peoples' ignorance of the differences between the two parties.

At their core, Democrats think that it is the government's job to take the money American citizens and businesses pay in taxes and use that money to fund governmental programs to make peoples' lives better. That's their political philosophy - their definition of an "investment" in the people.

Republicans believe that by keeping taxes low and not spending money on costly social programs, the money that people make by working (contributing to the economy goods and services that people need, want and desire) can be saved by the person who earned it and put to use as that person sees fit - by purchasing goods and services (thereby further stimulating the economy) or using that money for charitable purposes, to fund the kind of programs Democrats would fund through government.

It's a simple disagreement in philosophy - one that has existed for generations. The Republicans define an investment in the people as a tax cut the Democrats by a spending increase, either way they hope to achieve the same goal!

The President goes on to claim that Republicans want to "maintain the status quo on health care." If you believe that, you're not paying attention. Republicans want to reform health care as much as Democrats do - so why haven't you heard about an opposing Republican plan? The simple answer - the media! Why would they cover a story about the republicans talking about health care reform when the Democrats shut them out of the process from the beginning. It's a documented fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid crafted this health care legislation without republican input. Their plan was simple - create a bill that they can pass with their super majority - whip all their own people into line (hence the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback) and if a few Republicans want to jump on-board, great!

The truth is the Republicans have ideas on how to reform health care - the two leading calls for reform are addressing the Tort issue and opening up insurance for purchase across state lines, neither of which are even mentioned in the bill as it now exists.

In the end this was a campaign speech, delivered to pander to a flagging base. It was truly disappointing to hear this from a person who promised an "end to politics as we know it." It seems as though he's hell-bent on delivering more of the same. That is why YOUR voice is important - make it heard and don't let the opposition silence you simply because you disagree.

More than one revolution got its start in Massachusetts

In 1962 John F. Kennedy was President, John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth, the first WalMart opened in Rogers, Arkansas, John Carson took over as host of the Tonight Show and Ted Kennedy was elected United States Senator from the state of Massachusetts.

In 2008 President Obama carried the state of Massachusetts by 800,000 votes, a 26-point margin of victory, 62% to 36%. According to Gallup's exit polling in 2008, independents, which made up 40% of the electorate, favored the Democratic candidate by 17 points, 57% to 40%. During the Brown/Coakley race, Rasmussen's last poll before the one that counts had independents favoring the Republican by 48 points, 71% to 23%.

Had you told any reasonable political analyst, had you told anyone with a modicum of political knowledge that a Republican had a chance to win the Senate seat that for forty-seven years had been occupied by the "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy, you would have been laughed out of the room. And yet here we are and it's worth taking a minute to consider how we got here and reflect on the importance of political "independents" in our electoral process.

It is my opinion that President Obama was elected largely by independent and moderate Democrat voters drawn to the candidate's promise of running a transparent, non-partisan government. After six years of some of the most rancorous and mean-spirited political discourse in our nation's modern political history, the American people wanted a change. They wanted a candidate who was willing to reach across the aisle and work with his opposition, taking the "bit from column a, bit from column b" approach to government.

However, once elected Obama took a hard turn to the left. Angrily lecturing his opposition, closing them out of pressing negotiations and pushing an agenda seemingly more intereted in moving this country closer to European socialism than restoring a disenchanted public's confidence in a shaken economy and agressively waging a winning war on Islamic extremism. Many of those who voted for the President, particularly independents, must feel as though they were sold a bill of goods but there was no way to measure that sentiment... until now.

Brown's win tonight proves unequivocally that the United States of America is not interested in a slow march toward socialism and will not suffer disingenuous politicians leading them along said path. The Democrats ignore this message at their own peril.

P.S. - The Big Win tonight is that Obama-care is officially dead. If the Democrats try to use reconcilliation or delay seating Senator Brown in order to pass this bill they will suffer a political backlash the likes of which this nation has never seen and lock themselves out of power for generations.

Something to Think about this Christmas

Twenty eight years ago today an unconventional meeting took place in the Oval Office between the President of the United States and a Soviet defector.

On December 13, 1981 the government of the "People's Republic" of Poland declared martial law in an attempt to quell the growing opposition to communist rule. Pro-democracy movements were banned and their leaders, including Lech Walesa, were incarcerated. The action drew the sharp rebuke from leaders around the world including Margaret Thatcher.

Reacting to reports that the Communist government was employing "church watchers" to take down the names of those who were attending religious services for later persecution; the Pope, himself a Pole, used the influence of the church throughout the crisis to quietly sustain the work of Walesa's Solidarity movement in his absence but fearing that injecting the Vatican in the situation would only worsen matters, was careful about what he said in public

Meanwhile, across an ocean, another man was being deeply affected by the Catholic faith and worsening conditions in his homeland. Francis Romuald Spasowski was, by all accounts, a good and faithful Communist. His father, a university professor and leading intellectual, had taught his son the "virtues" of Marxism from birth. He served his government following World War II, believing that Communism held great promise for his fellow countrymen. Fluent in English and Spanish, he was appointed the Polish Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Argentina in the early 1950s before being sent to the United States to represent his country in 1955. He was recalled in the 1960s and sent on a number of other diplomatic missions on behalf of the Polish government.

In 1978, Spasowski returned to the United States, again as Poland's ambassador. Spasowski's wife, a practicing Roman Catholic, joined him during his assignment. For years, the ambassador's wife's religious beliefs had been slowly undermining his inclinations toward Communism. The day that a fellow Pole was elevated to the papacy was one of great joy for all Poles, especially Roman Catholics like Mrs. Spasowski. However, this appointment was of grave concern for the Communist government, itself at odds with religious institutions, particularly the Vatican.

On October 16, 1978, a special mass was held at Saint Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, D.C. to celebrate Karol Cardinal Wojtyła's elevation to the papacy. As Polish Ambassador to the United States, Romuald Spasowski and his wife were invited to attend, and they did - taking a place of honor in the first pew. This began Spasowski's contentious relationship with Poland's government.

In September of 1981, Spasowski's daughter and son-in-law, supporters of Walesa's Solidarity movement were forced to flee from Poland. Arriving in the United States they sought, and were granted, asylum. The next month, the Polish Foreign Ministry ordered the ambassador home, but he protested and was granted an extension pending review.

The imposition of Martial Law proved to be Spasowski's breaking point. On December 19, 1981, he contacted the United States' State Department and informed them of his intention to defect. The very next day, flanked by FBI agents and under the protection of the United States Goverment, the ambassador made clear his intentions to the world. The Polish government's response was swift and decisive; they confiscated his family's property, branded him a traitor and sentenced him to death.

President Ronald Reagan found himself in what we might consider a tough spot. He was disgusted by what the government was doing in Poland and certain that the Kremlin was behind it, but as with all things during the Cold War, he knew that appearances must be considered. Siding forcefully with Solidarity would be seen as an act of aggression toward the Polish government and Soviet Union. But Reagan saw the issue as a simple case of good vs. evil. Embracing the ambassador and siding with Solidarity, to the President, was simply the right thing to do. Undeterred by the message he would send, Reagan invited the defector and his wife to meet with him in the Oval Office.

Accounts of the meeting vary, some say Vice President George Bush was in attendance, others that Nancy was present, Reagan remembered it differently in his book, "An American Life," stating that he met with them alone. During that reportedly emotional meeting, Ambassador Spasowski told the President that the Polish people had taken to lighting candles and placing them in their windows to show that even in the face of oppression, the light of liberty still burns strong in their hearts. The Ambassador then made the unusual request that the President light a single candle on Christmas Eve and place it in a window at the White House as a sign of solidarity with the Polish people.

The next day, Reagan took to the airwaves with what was to be his Christmas address to the nation. Following his meeting with the Ambassador, he changed the speech entirely - devoting a full half of it to the worsening situation in Poland. He closed by telling the American people of the Ambassador's request, and asking that they join him in honoring it. In his words...

Let the light of millions of candles in American homes give notice that the light of freedom is not going to be extinguished. We are blessed with a freedom and abundance denied to so many. Let those candles remind us that these blessings bring with them a solid obligation, an obligation to the God who guides us, an obligation to the heritage of liberty and dignity handed down to us by our forefathers and an obligation to the children of the world, whose future will be shaped by the way we live our lives today.

Christmas means so much because of one special child. But Christmas also reminds us that all children are special, that they are gifts from God, gifts beyond price that mean more than any presents money can buy. In their love and laughter, in our hopes for their future lies the true meaning of Christmas.

The response to Reagan's call to action was immediate and forceful. The Soviets and Polish government condemned him immediately, but others found their voice. Perhaps most notably, Pope John Paul II closed his Christmas Eve address by stating in Polish that he was sending an embrace, "to all of Poland, our common homeland," including "those here in the square who represent Solidarity and all those listening on the radio."

That Christmas Eve, millions of candles found their way into windows around the world, but perhaps the two that burned brightest were the one on the second floor of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the one facing St. Peter's Square from a window in the Pope's private study.

EPILOGUE

Spasowski later converted to Catholicism under the spiritual direction of (who else?) the Jesuits. Read this beautiful homily dedicated to the Ambassador delivered by Rev. William Watson, S.J. during Gonzaga's Mass of the Holy Spirit in 1999.

Read about the event in Reagan's own words thanks to Google Books.

Before TIME magazine sold its editorial board to the Democrat party they were a reputable news magazine. Check out their reporting on the issue.

A transcript of Reagan's 1981 Christmas Speech to the nation courtesy of the Reagan Library at the University of Texas.

Sunday Rundown

The Big Story: With a commitment from Ben Nelson (D) Nebraska, Senate Democrats appear to have the sixty votes they need to override a Republican filibuster and pass their version of the Healthcare Bill.

Why you should care:
Obama will spend the remainder of his political capital on this bill. At his direction, his party will pass an incredibly unpopular (the RCP average is 38% favor, 52% oppose), remarkably large (fundamentally restructuing more than 17% of our nation's economy) bill on a straight party line vote. In doing so, he will condemn several Senators already facing tough reelection battles. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a 25+ year Senate alumnus, is down 13 points to his republican challenger. Arlen Specter (D-PA)is in a dead-heat with challenger Pat Toomey. Joe Biden's former seat is up for grabs - his son trailing in three of the latest four polls. Obama's seat is in trouble too - if Roland Burris (D-IL) wins the primary he will almost certainly lose the general. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), a late hold-out in going along with the Healthcare Bill, will lose her seat by casting her vote in favor of this piece of legislation. Right now there are four republicans running against each other in a primary election to see who will face her in the general - according to Rasmussen, she trails every single one of them. In short, passing this bill is political suicide for the Democrats.

This is of no consolation to those of us who oppose this bill, after all, we're convinced that this thing will bankrupt the country while dismantling the world's greatest healthcare system. What's worse, while the actual healthcare "reform" outlined in the bill won't happen for another four years, the taxes will take effect immediately and will be remarkably difficult to roll back once they have been put in place.

But what of the man himself? Obama's approval rating is hovering at an average of 48% - that tells us nothing (Reagan's approval rating after his first year was 49%). What is very telling are Obama's disappoval numbers. It's not a fair comparison to stack Obama against W at the same time in his presidency, not four month's after 9/11 (82% approve, 12% disapprove). One year in Clinton was looking at 54% approve, 38% disapprove; George H.W., 78% approve, 10% disapprove; Reagan, 49% approve, 38% disapprove and Carter, 54% approve, 26% disapprove. To find a President with disapproval numbers as high as Obama at the end of his first year... well, you can look, but you won't find him - the closest is Reagan and Obama's got him beat by 10.

Normally, you wouldn't think much of these numbers but Obama campaigned on the promise that he would bring the country closer together. Throughout the campaign, even in his inaugural speech, he promised to, "...end the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Countless commentators and admirers claimed he was the "post-partisan" candidate and his margin of victory among independents seemed to cement the claim. Indeed, most Obama voters with whom I spoke told me they were voting for him because they beleived he could bring the parties together far better than McCain/Palin. So the question remains - now that Obama has proven himself to be just as partisan (if not more so) than his predecessor, will those supporters who believed him to be the harbinger of "hope and change" continue to lend him their support? They clearly didn't earlier this year in New Jersey and Virginia, what they will do in the future no one knows. After all, we call them independents for a reason.

The Transparent Secret

President Obama vowed to usher in a new era of transparency in government - in that vein earlier this week he hosted a "closed-door meeting on openness" and then congratulated Senator Reid and his colleagues in the Senate on a "major breakthrough" in the health care reform -- even though no one could be bothered to tell the American people what said "major breakthrough" is... Instead Senator Reid asked for our trust stating that the "broad agreement" Democrats came to on Tuesday evening "moves this bill way down the road."

According to inside sources, the Democrat's agreement includes setting up some kind of non-profit overseen by the Federal Government that would replace the odious "Public Option." While there are few details at the moment I cannot help but wonder if said non-profit overseen by the Federal Government will look more like Fannie May or Freddie Mac, because we all know how well those two panned out.

Additional information indicates that the compromise will also decrease the minimum age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 55. So they are going to open-up a system whose trustees say will be bankrupt by 2017 to an additional +34 million people while at the same time cutting $50 billion in cost from said program AND guaranteeing that there will be no additional rationing or interruption of care AND promising that the entire project will come out budget neutral... If you believe that, I've got some moon rocks I'd like to sell you...

Write your Senators people, this is too important for them to screw up.

Health Care "Reform" - What you need to be reading today...

"Facts are stubborn things..."
- John Adams

Experts Dispute Some Points in Health Talk
By Robert Pear and Peter Baker
The New York Times
Published: July 22, 2009

The New York Times takes issue with some of the "facts" in President Obama's Wednesday evening news conference.

FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
By Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn
The Associated Press
Published: July 23, 2009

A more comprehensive look at the "facts" of the President's speech.

Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare
By Peggy Noonan
The Wall Street Journal
Published: July 24, 2009

Noonan writes of Obama's news conference, "...he didn’t seem to be telling the truth. We need to create a new national health-care program in order to cut down on government spending? Who would believe that? Would anybody?"

The Costs

Health Reform's Hidden Victims
By John Fund
The Wall Street Journal
Published: July 23, 2009

The Wall Street Journal examines the health care reform proposals currently on the table to identify some of those who stand to lose if the current plan passes.

Obama Overhaul Delay Makes Health a Buy, Say Analysts
By Lisa Rapaport
Bloomberg
Published: July 23, 2009

Analysts react favorably to news that Obama's plans to revamp health care may be stalling, lending considerable credence to the claims that this reform, if passed, will do irreparable damage to our health care industry.

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: