Friday, October 31, 2008

McCain Kudlow Interview - Keep Taxes Low Help the Economy

Excerpt from An Interview with Senator McCain by Larry Kudlow
McCain: Well, I try to talk about them more often. A lot of the people that come, frankly, are people that are having trouble staying in their homes, keeping their jobs, etcetera. But I think it goes back to all this business of Sen. Obama’s view of “fairness.” When Charlie Gibson said, why would you want to raise capital-gains taxes when you know it will decrease revenue? And he said in “fairness.” And he told Joe the Plumber — Joe the Plumber got the message through better, what we’ve been trying to do this whole campaign. [Obama] wants to “spread the wealth around.” That takes from the investor class. That takes money from one group of Americans and gives it to another.

Now that signal has been very clear. And I think people ought to pay attention to it, because it’s been tried before in other countries, and policies of other left-liberal administrations. It doesn’t work, and it’s bad for America. We want to encourage the investor class, and that means capital-gains and dividend taxes are low.

Kudlow: You’ve just unveiled a new tax cut on capital gains. Can you tell us about that? Because in some sense, that’s probably the most important investor class tax.

McCain: It’s the most important in many respects, Larry, and we want it low and we want it lowered. Every time — there’s one tax that there’s no argument about, that every time it’s been lowered since Jack Kennedy, we have seen an increase in revenues. Now, why anybody would argue, as Sen. Obama does, that we need to raise it, even if it’s — of course, the amount needed to raise it is varied with whatever poll he’s taken — but the point is that we want to lower it and keep it low and encourage investment, especially now in America in these difficult times.

Kudlow: But senator, what is — the current law rate is 15 percent.

McCain: Yeah, yeah.

Kudlow: You’re taking the cap-gains rate down to what?

McCain: First down to 10 percent, I would like to see it, and gradually even make it lower. Look, why should we tax people’s gains twice? Why should we tax them twice, okay? They make an investment, they should be able to get their returns on their investment. And capital gains is obviously — low capital-gains tax is probably the greatest incentive for investment that we have in America today. And so, look, I’ll be glad to listen to smart people like you, Larry, but the worst thing we can do is tell people we’re going to raise it, and that, obviously, would chill investment in America, right?

Promises of Redistribution and Spread the Wealth

David Harsanyi's article If It Redistributes Like a Duck... looks at Obama's plans to change the fundamental structure of the American economy by focusing tax codes on redistribution of wealth.
Obama is the first major presidential candidate in memory to assert that taxation's principal purpose should be redistribution.

The proposition that government should take one group's lawfully earned profits and hand them to another group -- not a collection of destitute or impaired Americans, mind you, but a still-vibrant middle class -- is the foundational premise of Obama's fiscal policy.

It was Joe Biden who said (not long ago, when he still was permitted to speak in public), "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." The only entity that "takes" money from the middle class -- or any class for that matter -- is the Internal Revenue Service. Other than that, there is nothing to give back.

And who knew we needed such a drastic renovation of an economic philosophy we've adhered to these past 25 years (yes, counting Bill Clinton's comparatively fiscally conservative record)? Despite a recent downturn and with all the serious tribulations we face, Americans have just lived through perhaps the most prosperous and peaceful era human beings ever have enjoyed.

From 1982 until now, every arrow on nearly every economic growth chart -- every health care chart, every chart that matters -- points in one general direction, and that's up.

Obama, who, it seems, is running not only for president but also for national baby sitter/accountant/daddy/icon, ignores this success and claims he can "invest" (will that euphemism ever go away?) and disperse your money more efficiently, smartly and fairly than you can. How could any American accept the absurdity of that position?

Promises of Redistribution and Spread the Wealth

Media's Bias At Unprecedented Levels

Diane West of writes in her article Media's O-Colored Glasses Blank Out Leftist Truth about a very disturbing element of this election cycle. The media has abandoned its responsibility to vet candidates, and have instead ignored a myriad of radical associates of Senator Obama's and dubbed them 'off limits' or 'dirty tricks'. The reality is that if an average person had the associations that Senator Obama has they would be classified as a security threat, and likely wouldn't even be able to attend events like the Democratic convention. It has been noted elsewhere that Senator Obama couldn't even be cleared to be his own Secret Service agent because of these associations. However, the media doesn't care, they are campaigning for their favorite candidate and these issues are dubbed off limits by the most biased media coverage in modern US history.

At the beginning of Obama's life, for example, there was "Frank," Obama's boyhood mentor who appears in his 1995 memoir "Dreams from My Father." Accuracy In Media's Cliff Kincaid has identified "Frank" as Frank Marshall Davis, a known Stalinist in a Soviet-sponsored communist network in Hawaii. But Obama obscures Frank's identity in his book, even, as Sean Hannity has reported, going so far as to drop passages about "Frank" from the more recent, recorded version of the book. Why? The media never asked.

Later in Obama's life there was Mike Klonsky, an unreconstructed Marxist and erstwhile leader of an honest-to-goodness Maoist splinter group in the United States. Klonsky, like his buddy, ex-Weatherman William Ayers, spreads Marxism through education "reform." As the National Review Online's Andrew C. McCarthy reported, Obama directed nearly 2 million foundation dollars to fund Klonsky's ideas in the 1990s. More recently, Klonsky wrote a "social justice education" blog on the official Obama campaign Web site -- at least until a blog named Global Labor and Politics pointed this fact out. Klonsky's musings were summarily scrubbed from the campaign Web site in June. Why? The media never asked.

And so it goes. The assorted radicals -- from ACORN to Ayers, from anti-white Jeremiah Wright to Saudi-adviser Khalid al-Mansour to former PLO associate Rashid Khalidi -- who have peopled Obama's ideological passage from rising leftist to post-ideological cipher, have been lost in the blur to a media focused solely on their own prize: Obama in the White House.

Such focus has created a drastically blinkered journalism, particularly in these final weeks. Take the fact that the supposedly "post-racial" Obama once funded Afrocentric, race-focused education programs supported by Jeremiah "G -- - D -- - America" Wright. That was a juicy blend of hypocrisy and extremism (dug up by Stanley Kurtz), but the media just averted their eyes.

Or how about good, ol' William "America Makes Me Want to Puke" Ayers, whose own relationship with Klonsky (the Maoist mentioned above) goes back to the days of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society)? Obama worked closely with Ayers to fund radical programs (such as Klonsky's) in Chicago, endorsed Ayers' work, and launched his political career in Ayers' home. This is the ideological and literal bomb-thrower Obama brushed off as just "a guy in my neighborhood." But the media saw nothing to it -- not even a piece of Obama's questionable pattern of collaboration with a series of people best described as unregenerate leftists.
Media's Bias At Unprecedented Levels

401K's in Jeopardy

Retirement funds, particularly 401K's, are at risk. As previously mentioned in the article Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's Democrats are looking to eliminate the tax break for 401K's and to subsidize a takeover of these savings plans. Investment New reports in their article House Democrats contemplate abolishing 401(k) tax breaks point out the problems with this plan.

"From where I sit that's just crazy," said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, N.Y. "A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer," he said. Mr. Belluardo's firm does not manage assets directly.

Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined contribution plans, he said.

"If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets," Mr. Belluardo said.

US News and World Report has also written articles on Democrats plans to target 401K's and retirement plans if they obtain control of the presidency and congress...
Why Democrats Will Target the Investor Class in 2009

Would Obama Dems Kill 401K Plans?

Hat Tip other bloggers covering this issue...

Smart Girl Politics Kiss Your 410K Good Bye

Ms Placed Democrat Obama's 401K Plan is Nothing More Than a Junk Bond

Say What You Really Mean Under President Obama Kiss Your 401K Goodbye, Your Net Pay Shrinks, And The Constitution Will Be Walked On Like It's His Daily Exercise Routine.

401K's in Jeopardy

Democrats Take Aim At Investments and Savings

US News and World Report is reports in their article Why Democrats Will Target the Investor Class in 2009 that a Democrat run government will target a government take over of savings and investments for political expediency. It should be noted that the 'investor class' includes people who put thier savings in IRA's and 401K's. This isn't the super wealthy, this is most often responsible middle class Americans that save for retirement and other needs. This not only threatens people's savings it is more evidence that a government fully controlled by the Democrats will result in a dramatic lurch to the left as thes are plans for more big government control.
1) Hike Investment Taxes. Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes even though he has kinda, sorta admitted that it might be bad for the economy and might actually decrease tax revenue to the government. For now, he's talking about raising the highest cap gains rate by one third to 20 percent, though earlier in the campaign, he floated pushing it as high as 28 percent, a near doubling. (Recall that Democratic presidential contender John Edwards wanted to raise it as high as 40 percent, a move that was applauded by liberals who want investment income to be taxed as onerously as labor income.) With the next administration facing a trillion dollar budget deficit—maybe more—there will certainly be pressure to raise taxes to higher levels than now being suggested.

2) Eliminate 401(k)'s, IRAs, and other retirement plans. Democrats in the House are now talking openly about the longtime liberal dream of repealing the tax advantages of putting money into a 401(k) plan or other tax-advantaged retirement account. "The savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should," said Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington at a recent hearing, according to an industry trade paper.

Indeed, House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" with a 3 percent real return.

Not only would removing the preferential tax treatment of these vehicles raise investment taxes by $100 billion a year and affect Americans making less than $100,000, it would surely prompt many Americans, already shell-shocked by the market's recent losses, to flee stocks. All this ignores the fact that there are trillions of dollars in American retirement accounts, and abandoning the higher-returning stock market at a probable bottom is classic financial foolishness. If you believe long term in the American economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. If you don't, then you have to admit the government won't be able to afford its promises anyway.

3) Replace private capital with public capital. But wouldn't a weak stock market hurt the economy by making it tougher to raise investment capital and lessen the return on risk? Surely, it would. But Obama is planning hundreds of billions of dollars of government "investment" in cutting-edge technology, particularly in the energy and healthcare sectors. One specific example: Obama wants to create something called a "Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund" and invest $10 billion a year in emerging energy technologies. Now, the private VC industry is already pouring billions into alternative energy, but Obama thinks that's not enough and wants Uncle Sam to get in on the action at taxpayer expense. Interestingly, a new study by the University of British Columbia looked at the performance of the Canadian government's venture capital efforts. It found that government venture capital isn't nearly as successful as private venture capital.

Democrats Take Aim At Investments and Savings

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's

If you don't think an Obama, Pelosi, Reid run government would result in a dramatic swing to the left, read US News and World Reports article on congress' discussion of takng over people's 401K's. 401K's are not 'rich people' savings plans they are middle America's retirement and savings plans, and Dems are looking to make them into 'government created' accounts. Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?
I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta's Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

Hat Tip to Smart Girl Politics original article Kiss Your 401k Goodbye!

Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's

Obama's Tax Plan and Income Redistribution Hurts the Economy and the Middle Class

Senator Obama's tax plan is packaged as tax cuts for the middle class when in reality there are numerous tax increases on the middle class and on small business owners. Senator Obama's tax policies are similar to those of Herbert Hoover who raised taxes, implement isolationist policies, and drove the American economy into a massive depression. Senator Obama claims that his tax policies that give a government check to people not paying anything in income taxes are done in the name of fairness. However, the economic depression that his policies would likely trigger is fair to no one. Investor's Business Daily lays out the problems with the Obama 'spread the wealth' tax plan in their article Investors Flee From 'Change' Obama Hypes
These tax credits are devised to phase-out based on income, which will ultimately increase marginal income tax rates for middle-class workers. In other words, as you earn more, you suffer a penalty in the phase-out of these credits, which has the exact effect of a marginal tax rate increase. That harms, rather than improves, the economy.

With the bottom 40% of income earners not paying any federal income taxes, such tax credits would not reduce any tax liability for these workers. Instead, since they're refundable, they would involve new checks from the federal government.

These are not tax cuts as Obama is promising. They are new government spending programs buried in the tax code and estimated to cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

Obama argues that while these workers do not pay income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes. True, but his planned credits do not involve cuts in payroll taxes. They are refundable income tax credits designed to redistribute income and "spread the wealth."

Meantime, Obama has proposed effective tax increases of 20% or more in the two top income-tax rates, phasing out the personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for top earners, as well as raising their tax rates.

He wants a 33% increase in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, an increase of 16% to 32% in the top payroll tax rate, reinstatement of the death tax with a 45% top rate, and a new payroll tax on employers estimated at 7% to help finance his health insurance plan. He's also contending for higher tariffs under his protectionist policies.

Finally, he would increase corporate taxes by 25%, though American businesses already face the second-highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, thus directly harming manufacturing and job creation while weakening demand for the dollar.

Obama argues disingenuously that his tax increases would only affect higher-income workers and "corporate fat cats." But it is precisely these top marginal tax rates that control incentives for savings, investment, entrepreneurship, business expansion, jobs and economic growth. While he wants to tax the rich, the burden will fall on the poor and the middle class.

Obama's Tax Plan and Income Redistribution Hurts the Economy and the Middle Class

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs

From Fox News - Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth
A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And 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," Obama said.

Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs

Sheridan Folger: LTC Allen West Special Guest On LGTR Radio

Join Us With Our Special Guest LTC Allen West and host Sheridan Folger.

If you have questions you would like asked of LTC West please message executivedirector on LGTR or send an email to

9:00 PM
60 Minutes

Call-in Number: (347) 945-6189

LTC Allen West has lived his life in service to America. In 2004, when it was time to retire from more than twenty years of service in the US Army, he brought his wife and two young daughters to Broward County, Florida, where he taught high school.

He then returned to Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan army, an assignment he finished in November 2007. Born and raised in Atlanta, Allen West received BS (UT) and MS degrees in political science (KSU).

He also holds a Master of Military Arts and Sciences from the US Army Command and General Staff Officer College in political theory and military history and operations. "Education is the great equalizer," he says. "With a good education, any child in America can live his dream."

Join us in supporting this Great American!


Sheridan Folger

Shared with the My Fellow McCain Victory 08 Bloggers at
84 Rules,Adam J Schmidt,Agkyra,Agora politikos,Ahwatukee Musings,America For John McCain,Americas Best Choice,Armchair Everything,ARRA News Service,Asian Americans For McCain,Asymmetric,AzaMatterofact,Basils Blog,
Blue And New,Blue Grass Red State,Blue Star Chronicles,Born Again Redneck,Brainster,BroadSideoftheBarn,But I Am A Liberal,California For McCain,Campaign2008VictoryA,Catskill commentator,Chas' compilation,coleCurtis-The McCain Monitor,College Republican Federation of Virginia,Conservative For Change,Curtis Schweitzer,DC Republican,Deomocrats & MediaSpin Vs. Facts,Democrats For Sale,Election 2008,Election Night HQ,Elyery Landavazo,EvangelicalsForMcCain,Falling Panda,Faultline USA,Frog Blog Of Louis la Vache,Generation X Dad,Georgians For McCain,GOP Convention Blog,Hoosiers4McCain,How I Lost My Heart,Il rumore Dei mie Venti-RDM20,Independent Jim,Iraqi For John McCain,Johnny Miller blog,Lee Volger's Political Points,Les Recettes de Louis la Vache,Liberal Republican,Liberalstein Political Limozeen,Libertas01,
M-J in the Republic,MacPac08,The Mad Irish Man's Conservative Consortium,The Mad Irish Man On,
Marathon Pundit,Mass For McCain,McCain Blogette,McCain Blogger Resources,McCain Blogs,McCain Jewish Coalition of Illinois,McCain Mondays,McCain Online Volunteer,McCain States,McCain Talk,McCain Volunteer,McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group,McCainiac,McCainocrats,McCainVictory08,Metaxupolis,
Michael Johns,Missourians for McCain,Moms for McCain,My vast right wing conspiracy,MyMcCainBlog,Myth Debunker,New Jersey for John McCain,New Mexico for John McCain,NH4McCAIN,NJ for McCain,NY for McCain,Official McCain Blog,Ohio for John McCain,Oklahoma for John McCain,Only Electable Conservative,PA Educators for McCain,Pajama Pack,Pardon My French,Partisan American,Pennsylvania for John McCain,Pink Flamingo,Pirate's Cove,Politico Mafioso,Porter County Politics,Primary Cuts,Provocateur,Purple People Vote,Real World Libertarian,Reality Bytes,Right Wing Nation,Right Wing Sparkle,Rudy Supporters for McCain Blog,Rudy Supporters for McCain Yahoo Group,San Francisco Bay Daily Photo,Sanity 102,StandUpForMcCain,Steve Maloney GOP,Thought Stew,Todd Biggs,Tree Hugging Republican,Unite McCain Campaign,Vets 4 McCain,Vets For McCain,Virginia 4 McCain,Voting McCain 08,watersblogged!,Why McCain?,Wisconsin4McCain,With Both Hands
Sheridan Folger,

Stand Up for Western Pennsylvania

Congressman John Murtha is just out of touch with his district and America. Please send him home to think about it. Elect William Russell!

Let's get This Right

Watch Out Georgia

Jim Martin voted for what was the largest tax increase in Georgia's history. And Martin voted to increase his own taxpayer funded expense check by 27 percent -- which amounted to a pay increase that he could spend on himself.

Georgia - Let's Get This Right!

Dear New Hampshire

As Governor, Jeanne Shaheen created New Hampshire's first statewide property tax, and also proposed a sales tax. Shaheen also agreed to support an income tax.

Let's Get This Right

We're Not All Like Al Franken

John Ratzenberger, Pat Boone, Stephen Baldwin, Robert Davi and Victoria Jackson speak out against Al Franken.

Let's Get This Right

IBD: Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

Investor's Business Daily's article Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism is definitely worth a read. An exerpt follows...

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

IBD: Barack Obama's Stealth SocialismIBD: Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

McCain the King of the Comeback

As the media tries to call this race over, it's worth noting that not only is this not the first time that the media has declared the McCain campaign dead. It is also worth noting that Senator McCain's underdog role is nothing new to him, and he has a penchant for pulling off upsets just as he's being counted out. In fact his odds in this race are remarkably good compared to other challenges he has faced in his life...

Now, as he presses against the strongest political headwinds in many, many years, he’s trying to follow his own advice. Looking back to the early days of the campaign, John Weaver told me that McCain, politically, was “facing a Category 1 hurricane” when he began his race. Now, Weaver says, “it’s a Category 5.”

Despite it all, McCain pushes on, propelled by a drive most people just don’t have. I remember traveling to Iowa in the fall of 2007, after McCain’s campaign meltdown had left him in dreadful financial straits. We were going to the farthest reaches of northwest Iowa, near the Minnesota border. McCain was staying in a Holiday Inn Express in the middle of nowhere — when you walked out the door, the smell of fertilizer got your attention pretty quickly — and he was traveling around in a minivan because his bus had broken down. He spent his days talking to small groups — sometimes really small groups — in diners and pizza joints.

He was 71 years old at the time, wealthy, with a safe and senior spot in the Senate and a career that few, if any, public servants could match. On top of that, his campaign had blown up in an explosion of mismanagement and bad feelings that had many political insiders and journalists writing its obituary. And yet there he was, plugging away, every day, animated by something that is unique to his character.

And why shouldn’t he feel that he can overcome just about anything? This is a man who has dodged death — real death, not political death — many times. There’s more to the story than his enduring five and a half years as a prisoner of war — just look at the fuzzy old black-and-white film of McCain on July 29, 1967, leaping off the refueling probe of his jet after it had been struck by a missile on the deck of the USS Forrestal. It was one of the worst disasters in Navy history, killing 132 men. McCain, miraculously, walked away from it. On one of those trips around Iowa, sitting in the back of his bus — after his campaign found one that worked — McCain described the days after the Forrestal fire. He was at a meeting in which the commanding officer asked if anyone would like to volunteer to transfer to another carrier, the USS Oriskany, which had itself undergone a fire, although a less serious one. Describing himself as if he had been an outside observer, McCain said that he saw his hand go up to volunteer when he could have sought out a less dangerous assignment; on that day in Iowa, 40 years later, he still seemed a little surprised by what he had done. But off he went, and it was from the Oriskany that he took off on the mission that led to his capture and imprisonment, events that would inform so much of his subsequent political career.

The lesson is that McCain is always searching for something new to overcome. Of course he would rather not be facing quite so many political adversities at once, but he is a man who, if he makes it out of one scrape, puts himself in position for another.

And now, he’s doing it again. “How many times, my friends, have the pundits written off the McCain campaign?” he asked a crowd in Wisconsin on October 10. “We’re gonna fool ‘em again. We’re gonna fool ‘em one more time.” A few days later, in Virginia, McCain described the forces arrayed against him and declared, “My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them.” People in the audience laughed. But in some sense, deep inside, McCain meant it.

From National Review John McCain Against the Wind

McCain the King of the Comeback

Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs

From Fox News - Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth

A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And 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," Obama said.

Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Sheridan Folger, Brad Marston McCain Super Saturday New Hampshire

McCain - Super Saturday

Okay. So I thought I would be live blogging our Mini-Super Saturday. Unfortunately we ran behind schedule almost from the start.

I got to Stratham, NH about 9:30 in the morning and met Eric Maurer, Field Director in Rockingham County as well as Let's Get This Right and members Ashley, Ray and Connor. We spent an hour making phone calls and then hit the road to Exeter for some door belling for McCain-Palin, John Sununu and Jeb Bradley.


McCain-Palin Events/Poll Update

I wanted to report to you that the McCain/Palin campaign is having a great week in Manchester and across New Hampshire. On Wednesday, thousands of New Hampshire voters came to St. Anselm’s College to hear Senator McCain speak. Even better, Rasmussen just released a poll that shows us within the margin of error in the state of New Hampshire! I encourage you to view the poll results here:

There is no doubt that New Hampshire is still in play, and we need your help for the next nine days. Our Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort is key to winning this state, and it will only be successful if we can count on dedicated Republicans like you. The work we do in New Hampshire these next nine days could very well determine what happens these next four years.

Voter contact is the key to winning this election, so I encourage you to visit one of our Victory Offices to make some phone calls or to go out knocking on doors. Our Manchester Victory office is located at 250 Commercial St., Suite 3007 in the Wambuec Mill Building. Our hours of operation are 9am until 9pm, every day from now until the election. If you’re interested in helping, feel free to contact me at 603-369-2202, or just come by the office. If you’re not close to Manchester, then you will be pleased to know that we have several other regional offices throughout the state, listed below.

I look forward to working with you these next 9 days to make sure we elect all of our good Republican candidates in New Hampshire and want to thank you again for all your work on behalf of the Republican Party.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Who Should Confront the Iranian Time Bomb - Obama or McCain

Dr. Bill SmithBill Smith, ARRA Editor: With the presidential election upon us, many people are also focused on the economy. However, we know from history that we will be able to correct our economic problem even if it takes longer than our American tendency to want instant solutions for everything. However, because of the economic crisis, many voters are ignoring the most significant issue that our next president is directly responsible to address. That issue is the very real global threat to America's very survival. Since confronting this threat every day is not part of our personal daily routine and responsibilities (until it is too late), we tend to be myopic and look at the "me things."

If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.

To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.

The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":
"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.

Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."
So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?

Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).

Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.

The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?

Friday, October 24, 2008

McCain Good for Business and Good for the Economy

Often times pro business even pro small business policies are looked upon with disdain as can be seen in Senator Obama recently comments criticizing Senator McCain for caring more about Wall Street than Main Street. However, this is a myopic view of the economy. Pro business policies create jobs, pro business policies help grow the economy. Putting the breaks on an already sagging economy with increased taxes does nothing for the American worker exept make life harder. CNBC notes that small business owners recognize that McCain Understands Small Business Owners
The following is a statement from American Small Business League (ASBL) President Lloyd Chapman: One look at Senator John McCain's website will tell you, this is a man that knows and cares about America's 27 million small businesses. He knows 56 percent of all Americans work for small businesses. John McCain is a small business guy through and through.

Time also reported on the 300+ professional economists that back McCain. Conversely the Union Leader disusses how Senator Obama's tax plan does not add up in their article It doesn't compute: Obama's tax plan a ruse.
Numerous organizations, including the Associated Press, have noted that Obama's proposals spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than his tax hikes raise. What is less well known is that Obama's tax plan itself sends out of Washington far more than it brings in. Obama's campaign twice admits that in the wording of the tax plan.

According to the plan, "his tax relief for middle-class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000." That sounds like he's giving a net tax cut. But much of what he calls "tax cuts" are actually cash payments to low- and middle-income Americans. Ultimately, he sends out of Washington hundreds of billions of dollars more than it takes in.

In other words, Obama promises more in benefits to low- and middle-income Americans than his plan can finance with his tax hikes on "families" making more than $250,000 a year. And note the word, "families." Even though Obama says that no "family" making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase, in fact his plan raises taxes on individuals making $200,000 a year or more.

The bottom line is that Obama is not being honest about his tax and spending plans. It is impossible -- impossible! -- for him to finance his giveaways by taxing only those making $250,000 or more. He will have to raise taxes substantially on people making much, much less than that.

Senator Obama's plans to "spread the wealth" are anti-growth measures done in the name of fairness. However, there is nothing fair about halting economic growth. There is also nothing fair about punishing success.
McCain Good for Business and Good for the Economy

Arkansas Resident Battles for Ohio Votes

Allan Hundley, Baxter County Arkansas works the phones for John McCain in OhioBill Smith, ARRA Editor: Al Hundley, a Baxter County, Arkansas resident, asked me "where can I best make a difference supporting John McCain for President." As National Political Director, Let's Get This Right, I asked "are you willing to travel and pay your expenses." As we talked, I emailed him a list of swing state offices and phone numbers. He said "yes I'm going!" and now he is in Ohio! Cleveland's WKYC TV 3 reported last night on Al Hundley's and Bob Klitzkie's work for the John McCain campaign in Ohio:
BRECKSVILLE -- Al Hundley and Bob Klitzkie are both a long way from home helping John McCain try to put Ohio in the victory column. Both men are retired, both are dedicated McCain backers, and both are bankrolling the cost of their travel, hotel room and food out of their own pocket. Both men asked to be assigned someplace where their work could make a difference.

Both are working at McCain's Brecksville campaign office for free, doing everything they are asked. That could include making calls, dropping off signs, running errands and helping set up rallies.

Hundley says, "I'm here to help John McCain win the Presidency. Whatever I can to to turn the tide and carry the day." Bob Klitzkie is from Guam in the Pacific. That means he cannot vote for President. Al Hundley is from Arkansas. Both men plan to stay through the election and both predict they'll be celebrating the outcome in Ohio. "The Klitzkie poll says Ohio's going for John McCain," Klitzkie predicts. [Video available]
Want to Help: Would you like to join Al, Bob and others in sharing John McCain’s plans for a prosperous America with Democrats and Independents? Citizen's for McCain will be knocking on doors, walking precincts and making phone calls in preparation for election day. You can join them in this effort through one of the many field offices in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida:
Northeast PA
420 North Main Ave
Scranton, PA 18504
(570) 951-9223

Southeast PA
420 Norristown Rd
Blue Bell, PA 19322
(717) 222-9804

East PA
2285 Schoenersvillle Rd,
Space 27
Bethlehem, PA 18017
(717) 644-8778

Southwest PA
23 North Maple St
Greensburg, PA 15601
(724) 836-0570

Northwest PA
125 Hillvue Lane
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
(414) 458-1562
Northeast OH
Near Youngstown)
621 Boardman-Canfield Rd
Boardman, OH
(330) 629-70006

Northeast OH
(Near Cleveland)
7630 Chippewa Rd
Brecksville, OH 44141
(440) 792-4704

Western OH
102 West Main St
Springfield, OH 45503
(937) 322-4223
Greater Orlando
234 South Semoran Blvd
Orlando, FL 32807
(407) 277-0880

Southern FL
2021 Tyler S.
Holywood, FL 33020
(954) 397-6369

Tampa – St. Petersburg
142 West Platt
Tampa, FL 33606
(813) 451-3857

4963 Beach Blvd
Jacksonville, FL 33207
(904) 716-0107

Charles Krauthammer - I am for McCain! Must Reading for Americans!

October 24, 2008
McCain for President
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Are These the McCain/Palin Supporters That The Media Is So Scared Of?

During the last debate Senator McCain stuck up for his supporters who attend his rallies and town halls. It struck me as sweet, but unnecessary. If McCain supporters are discouraged by being talked down to, or called names by the media or others we'd all be a fetal position by now. However, having attended a McCain rally and a Palin rally in the last two weeks, it is evident that the media has done a hatchet job in describing these crowds. First, any threat or vile language is inappropriate particularly at event of this size; and I heard none at either. In fact quite the opposite was true. People were extremely friendly courteous and well-behaved. In line at the Palin rally a fellow said, "I think this must be the nicest line I've ever been in."

Yet two incidents in particular stand out as possibly why Senator McCain felt compelled to stick up for his supporters. First, at the Palin rally the crowd chanted on and off 'Sa-rah, Sa-rah' for close to an hour prior to Governor Palin arriving. After one of these chants had stopped a little girl maybe five or six years who likely has autism or down syndrome was standing by a partition started quietly chanting on her own 'Sa-rah, Sa-rah' bringing a big smile to everyone within earshot.

At the McCain rally some volunteers who had made a number of calls or knocked on a number doors the prior weekend were allowed to go backstage and meet Senator McCain as he came off stage. As we stood in a line a cute little curly haired girl standing with her mother, who had been carrying a teddy bear backpack around, lit up as Senator McCain approached. After taking a group picture Senator McCain said, "there's my girl" and the little girl ran up to him and threw her arms around him as he bent down to give her a hug. After talking to him and giving him another hug, the little girl had tears in her eyes she was so happy to see him. It didn't dawn on me till later, but I believe this little girl during the primaries had saved up her allowance for several weeks to give to the campaign because she had heard they needed money.

Now I don't expect the media to report on cute kids that attend McCain/Palin rallies, and I don't expect reports on good behavior, but it would be nice if the media didn't paint everyone with the same brush. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and there is no excuse for shouting inappropriate remarks particularly in a crowed arena. However, assuming that all crowds at all McCain/Palin events either think or act as a very few actually do is misleading and inappropriate. It is also another example of the media campaigning for their favorite candidate by essentially denouncing McCain supporters as a hostile and angry mob. They have cameras at these events, and they know what they are reporting is false.

Are These the McCain/Palin Supporters That The Media Is So Scared Of?

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

I wish I could claim credit for this one--an analogy on taxation.

Suppose that every day ten friends go out for beer and fodder and that the tab for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes it would go something like this:

The first four (the poorest among them) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth (the wealthiest among them) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten friends drank in the bar every day trading fodder and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner of the establishment threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily tab by $20.'

Drinks for the ten would now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six friends - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided six ways is roughly $3.33 for each, however if they subtracted that from everybody's share the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink their beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

The breakdown was a follows:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3.
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7.
The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12.
The ninth man now paid $12 instead of $18.
The tenth man now paid $52 instead of $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the friends began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $7! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar too, it's unfair that he got seven times more than I did! ''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $7 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks! ''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers as they traded fodder without him. When it came time to pay the bill they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them to cover the bill. They were $52 dollars short.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


*Many false claims exist but no attribution has ever been credited for the above analogy, too bad ...

Matthew A. Opaliski

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Biden Says Obama Will Be Tested With A ‘Major International Crisis’

Barack Obama will need help in a crisis, says Joe Biden from Times Online UK...
Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, has told Americans to expect a “major international crisis” that will present an early test of a Barack Obama administration.

His comments were seized upon by the Republican campaign yesterday to raise fresh doubts about the prepared-ness of Mr Obama to be commander-in-chief.

Speaking at a fundraiser in Seattle on Sunday night, Mr Biden said: “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here . . . we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

He cited Russia and the Middle East as possible places that may cause problems, as well as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – “crawling with al-Qaeda” – as being of particular concern.

Mr Obama would need help and support, Mr Biden suggested, “because it’s not gonna be apparent, initially, that we’re right.” He then spotted the media in the room, “I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.”

Now why would anyone vote for Barack Obama when his own VP states that a vote for Obama is a vote for an international crisis? Why would anyone want to be a part of a ticket that one believes will lead the country to crisis? What an unbelievable statement. The only time a time camera falls on Senator Biden at this point is when he is trying to pull his foot out of his mouth. However, this is beyond a gaffe; this is disturbing. It appears Senator Biden sees Senator Obama as weak. It appears that Senator Biden, is not confident in Senator Obama's ability to handle a crisis, and it appears that Senator Biden would prefer a "major international crisis" that a Republican president.

Biden Says Obama Will Be Tested With A ‘Major International Crisis’

Monday, October 20, 2008

No Disrespect Meant - But Think About It

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: I received these first words from a reader and wondered how I could use them. Well this weekend's news provided the opportunity.
"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"
Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.

Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.

Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."

Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"

All Skilled Trades -An Endangered Species

Chicago Skilled Trades Get Schooled by The Chicago Tribune!
Denny Gannon! Welcome to school! The Tribune - a great and long-time friend of Labor is rewarding you for playing ball with the people who are hell-bent on destroying the skilled trades unions - The Good Folks of Redistribution of Wealth! Mr. Gannon, You and all skilled tradesmen are the goat that will be sacrificed. Collective Bargaining is not what Andy Stern calls ‘thinking out of the box.’ The Media – The Sun Times and Chicago Tribune have identified LABOR as whatever Andy Stern and SEIU decide labor to be and Real Labor will head to the Tar-Pits, while wages and benefits will become determined by legislation.

Play ball with Andy Stern and SEIU - The Change America Folks like you did in taking the lead in the Big Box Ordinance Scam and here is what you get -death by a thousand paper cuts. No one is better at destroying a target than the Chicago Tribune. Real Labor is a path to the Middle Class and Andy Stern wants the Middle Class deader than Kelsey’s Nuts – a fine product at one time.
Skilled Tradesmen pass drug tests, show proof of residency, pass examinations, pass apprenticeship programs, pay dues, vote and show solidarity. Then there is SEIU. The Tribune hates Labor –always did. The Tribune Loves SEIU. Obama loves SEIU. SEIU calls the shots. SEIU’s Anna Burger is on Obama’s Economic Advisers – at the moment.

Your Union Local 150 of the International Operating Engineers was placed squarely in the sights of the Tribune acting as apologists for Mayor Daley - not the bad Mayor Daley who helps his allies, but the good Mayor Daley who is co-opted and owned by the Lefty Redistribution of Wealth Artistes - the people to whom Frank 'Too Smart for Bridgeport' Krusei introduced the Mayor - U of C geniuses, Lefty Lawyers Leagues, UICC Distinguished Professors of Education.

Denny, you are in for a regular and sound beating from pencil geeks like Dan Mihalopoulos and the editors who sent him. Here is the opening whipping from The Tribune's Oct 6, 2008 explanation of why Mayor Daley can not pay everyone!

Skilled Trades Unions are to blame for the current Budget Crises ( plural).

Not Arne ' Take the Kids to Soldier Field' Duncan who wastes millions of dollars for a Clown Opera that is Chicago Public Education; Not the Lefty Lawyer Lotto League that Daley settles Millions of Dollars on every time a pigeon flies over G. Flint Taylor's Hybrid; Not 125 Plus Public Relations Firms; Not Every Room Temperature IQ six-figure relative of every Community Activist in Chicago; Nope you Denny and every skilled and talented middle class Tradesman.

The generous wages and benefits given to many in the roughly 38,000-strong municipal workforce amount to 80 percent of the cost of running the city's government, making it impossible to significantly cut the budget without reducing personnel costs.

Those expenses are only going up since Daley agreed last year to a 10-year contract with dozens of labor unions. The deal guarantees continued pay increases that far outstrip inflation.

Take for instance the city's hoisting engineers, members of clout-heavy Local 150. Their top hourly wage of almost $44 an hour has risen from $37.50 in three years.

Local 150's city contract also allows for double time for any work over eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.

They and other blue-collar workers, such as laborers, get 12 sick days a year, which they can carry over to future years if not used, in addition to 12 paid holidays.

If a relative dies, members of the biggest trade unions get three paid days off—rising to five if the funeral is held out of state.

"Tax increases don't get at the core problem that operating costs are rising far faster than what any revenues could pay for," said Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, a tax watchdog group.

But Dennis Gannon, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, said cutting hundreds of unionized city workers would inevitably have a negative impact on city services.

"At the end of the day, somebody has to do the work," Gannon said. "Take them out of the equation and who is going to pick up that slack?"

Yep, you are about to get it good and regular!

Somebody has to do the work. When Obama is President and Daley has the Olympics, it won't be skilled, trained and experienced Tradesmen. Welcome to School Denny.

SEIU owns you and the Tribune. You are expendable. You and every Tradesman.,0,6345754.story

Meghan McCain Getting New Hampshire Tattoo?

**Very Nifty, in fact...I'm In . . .I'll get a McCain Star with *Country First and Live free or die* on the same day** (hell, maybe from the same folks right here in NH)

Meghan McCain: NH, I'll get tattoo for you

Union Leader Correspondent

If Sen. John McCain wins the presidency in a little more than three weeks, his daughter said she'll tattoo "Live Free or Die" somewhere on her body.

Of course, he would have to win in New Hampshire, too, said Meghan McCain, who was in Nashua yesterday thanking volunteers at the McCain-Palin campaign office.

The tattoo, which would probably go on her wrist, would be her way of commemorating her father's run for the presidency, she said. It was in New Hampshire that McCain revived his faltering presidential bid during the presidential primary in January.

"New Hampshire is so important to me and my family," she said.

Earlier, McCain told a supporter that she would be "extremely depressed" if her dad loses in New Hampshire.

"More so than any other state," she said.

Made famous by her blog -- (click for link)-- Meghan McCain has also been on the road publicizing her book for children, "My Dad, John McCain," appearing on national news and talk shows.

McCain signed several of her books yesterday as she greeted supporters.

"Thank you for buying it. It's beating the Obamas' children's book," she told one woman, with a smile.

McCain drove to New Hampshire yesterday morning in a Straight Talk Express Bus. She was traveling from Hofstra University on Long Island, N.Y., after watching her dad aggressively take on Sen. Barack Obama at Wednesday night's presidential debate.

"I'm glad he took the gloves off," she said of her father's performance.

She said her favorite line of the debate was when her father said, "I'm not President Bush."


John McCain's daughter, Meghan, has her picture taken with Linda Twombly, who has made more phone calls for McCain than anyone else in the state. (SUZANNE BATES)

Most of the time the attacks on her father roll off her back, she said, but she said she was extremely angry about a photo shoot of her father for the magazine "The Atlantic." The magazine hired a stridently Democratic photographer, who later told a blog that she left his eyes looking red and his skin looking bad on purpose.

"It's one of the most disturbing things that's ever happened to me in politics," the junior McCain said.

She also defended her father's attacks on Obama. There would be fewer attacks if Obama had agreed to the 10 town hall debates her father had suggested, she said, reiterating a point her father made during Wednesday's debate. After appearing in Nashua, McCain was off to Dover to thank volunteers there.