We'll now hear from the Senators from Fannie and Freddie

The hypocrisy of the democratic party has no bounds. It became crystal clear that the only thing bipartisan about the 'economic recovery' package or whatever they are calling the 400lb gorilla now, is that No one from either party wanted to vote for it.

Watching the post vote press conference yesterday, my blood started to boil as Nancy Pelosi,(D-California)accused the GOP of killing the bill by not providing the additional 13 votes needed to pass. What she didn't mention is that 95 democrats helped to defeat the bill, some because Pelosi told them not to vote for it. According to numerous sources, Pelosi spoke with 16 freshman democratic senators and told them not to vote for the bill, as it could hurt their chances for re-election. So much for putting politics aside, eh Nancy?

You can argue for days about why this bill didn't pass, but a good rule of thumb for any leader is don't put something to a vote, when you know it's not going to pass. As I mentioned last week the passage of this bill wasn't going to be easy, but it was further complicated by the Democratic political posturing done by Speaker Pelosi, prior to the actual vote. Pelosi basically made the vote a condemnation of not only the Bush Administration but conservative ideals in general, labeling them "right-wing". There's a saying about this kind of behavior, something about counting chickens.....or in this case counting, cooking and eating the chicken.

What did cause those 12 House Republicans who had previously committed to holding their nose and voting to decide to just let the stink fill up the room? It could have been the bold face lies being told by the Speaker about how we got here in the first place all the while doing a live infomercial for Barrack Obama, I know it would have been enough for me.

Maybe it was that Obama had already written his speech to praise the passage of the bill while continuing to criticize the "failed bush policies". He didn't get to give that speech as just as he was about to go on, he found out the bill didn't pass. This is the guy who is the leader of his party? He didn't know they didn't have enough democrats to pass the bill? I guess he didn't have his ringer turned on when they hit him up on his cell...

Perhaps word or text had leaked into the house floor that Obama surrogates were already giving an interview on NPR where they criticized the Republicans who were supposed to vote for the bill. Anything is possible.

I will never know nor would I care to think what really goes on inside some of these politicians minds, but I will tell you what went through my mind when I watched her stand there...Liar. You should be tried for treason for lying to the American People from the floor of the House. What came next was what really got me going.....

At the previously mentioned press conference, Nancy Pelosi stood side by side with Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of the House Banking Committee and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, as they joked and made fun of those 12republicans that didn't fall for their tricks. Barney jovially suggested that he would "talk to them very nicely" doing his best Mr. Magoo impersonation.

While Barney Frank may look like a cartoon, there is nothing funny about his role in this mess. Since 1991, the "patron saint of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" as the Wall Street Journal referred to him, has worked tirelessly to build up and insulate these two monstrosities from scrutiny. Frank has long been a proponent of what the libs now call "predatory lending" practice, he just called it "affordable housing" before last week. Frank started the whole ball rolling in 1991 when he and Joe Kennedy pressed for softer rules for Fannie and Freddie, giving loans out to less qualified lenders. During the 1990's, the gilded age for Fannie and Freddie executives who ran roughshod, then snuck out of town under the cover a golden parachute, Barney Frank, one of only two openly gay congressional members, dated Herb Moses then executive for Fannie Mae.

Persistence pays off in Washington, because Frank and his buddies ultimately made it almost impossible for any bank to turn down a loan for any reason without risk of paying a $10,000 fine per application. When President Bush introduced legislation in 2003 to create more oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Frank told the New York Times ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." When John McCain introduced legislation in 2005 urging immediate oversight of the two "F's", Guess who blocked it along with a bunch of his Democratic friends? Yep, Barney Frank. Apparently, he's changed his mind now not only do they need more regulation, they need your money to fix the problem!

Rep. Frank's counterpart in the Senate, Christopher Dodd or the Senator from Countrywide as he's known in political circles doesn't fair any better as a Steward of the Tax payers money. Though he stood side by side with Nancy Pelosi claiming the moral high ground on this issue, his unethical dealings with Countrywide mortgage has led his own contituients to call for him " to just admit he was wrong". According to the Hartford Courant, Dodd took a "major hit to his credibility" when his unsavory relationship with Countrywide went public. Dodd and several other prominent democrats benefitted from their relationship with Countrywide CEO Angelo Mazilo, enjoying sweetheart mortgage deals under a clause for "friends of Angelo". In addition to his Countrywide connection, Dodd is the #1 recipient of campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie according to opensecrets.com. This reminds me of another saying...something about a Fox and a hen house....

What about Obama? Does he have his finger on the pulse of what this economy needs? Take a look at two of his financial advisors, then you tell me. You may remember a few weeks ago I wrote about Jim Johnson, the man Barrack Obama choose to head up his VP selection committee, who was forced to step down amid the Countrywide Scandal in June of this year. Another name that may not be as familiar to you, yet is Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie and Obama economic advisor according to the Washington Post. Both of these guys made Obama's short list for financial advisors, they made a list of mine as well, but it has nothing to do with advising and to be honest is no longer that short.

Then again, Barrack Obama has his own experience in corruption to draw from during his ACORN days. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN has benefitted immensely from the generosity of Barney Frank and others, one of the first sticking points for the House Republicans on this 'resue extravaganza was the $100 Million the Dems tried to tack on for organizations such as ACORN. The anti-capitalistic group has wielded power by extorting money from tax payers and bankers alike, by threatening to go public with accusations of racism if they don't bend to their will. Barrack Obama worked as a trainer for ACORN in his Chicago days, while sitting on numerous boards where money was 'awarded' to ACORN. ACORN is also currently under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states, not surprisingly though they've endorsed Barrack Obama for President.

Is anyone starting to see a pattern here? Now I don't know what will happen with this Billapalooza in Congress, but ridiculous legislation aside, Do these people have No Shame? The very people that are intimately responsible for the current economic situation, stand self righteously at the podium and point fingers at the Bush Administration and John McCain who tried on several occasions to stop this train before it went off the tracks?! There should be blood.

This Congress famous for their unrelenting search for the truth about steroids in Baseball, apparently didn't have nearly as much interest in policing their own ranks for inappropriate conduct as I have yet to see or hear anything about an ethics investigation into Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, and to be honest I won't be happy until I do. Nancy Pelosi got out in front of this idea today, saying she wouldn't be part of a witch hunt into the financial crisis. Doesn't seem like much of a hunt, Nancy, when you know exactly where to look.

The Great Debate: Obama Over-Promises, McCain Delivers

Watching the debate last night, I couldn't help but being frustrated with the "undecided" votes in the country. I don't know how anyone could watch these two men speak and have conflicting emotions on who to support. Either you believe in a strong national security and responsible fiscal policies, or you don't. If these people are still confused after watching last night, maybe they just shouldn't vote. To quote a friend of mine "if these people aren't willing to do the research and make an informed decision, they shouldn't be allowed to vote!"

In defense of these "confused" voters, Obama did concede that McCain was right eight times in a nine question debate session. But that is where the similarities end. Obama approaches foreign policy with an emphasis on what America can do to make the world like us better. McCain is much more interested in keeping Americans safe, while spreading democracy throughout the world. Obama speaks as though the middle east appeared on the world map on September 11th, 2001. But then again why would he have? He was a state senator at the time focusing on important issues like teaching six year olds about contraception.

Obama fails to recognize that Islamic Extremists first made headlines back in the 1970's under an appeasement first President Jimmy Carter. The movement continued to grow, as McCain rightly pointed out last night, when America under estimated the power vacuum that would be caused in Afghanistan after we supported the Afghan's in forcing back invading Russians in the 1980's. The terrorists grew bold under the Clinton administration's watch averaging one major strike every 18 months. Starting with the bombing of the world trade center towers in 1993, through the multiple attacks on soft military targets like those in Kenya and the USS Cole just to name a few. The attacks on 9/11 were the beginning of something though, it was the day the United States decided to fight back. There hasn't been a successful attempt on a US target since. Newsflash for Obama, the day the 'world sentiment' was most with the United States as you are so fond of saying was on 9/11, when the world perceived the United States to be at our weakest. Why do you think that is? Was it because they truly felt sorry for the US or because it made them feel better to know that US was vulnerable to attack? Discuss amongst yourselves...

I knew that McCain had knocked it out of the park last night when the Obama camps first response was to claim that the debate highlighted McCain as being stuck in the past, and that Obama was the forward looking candidate. Why did I know Obama was spinning? Time after time during the debate when Obama was forced to define his foreign policy,(I use that term loosely) he responded by discussing what he perceived as 'mistakes' by the Bush administration. Obama mentioned Bush by name just 1 minute and fifteen seconds into the debate,if he could have held out for another 15 seconds I would have won the poll at our debate party! John McCain put a very fine point on this issue by simply saying explaining the next president won't be deciding if we made a mistake by going into Iraq, they will be responsible for successfully resolving the conflict. As much as Barrack attempted to hang the unpopularity of the Bush administration around John McCain's neck, it was McCain who cited Obama's position to stand by his vote against the surge despite it's overwhelming success as evidence that Obama was 'stubborn' and "inflexible" in his thinking, a nod those that have accused President Bush of being both.

After John McCain explained the importance of knowing America's history and learning from past experiences, Obama did the only thing he could. He deferred to Joe Biden. I'm not kidding, Obama actually spent one of his two minute rebuttals struggling to explain that Biden's experience was more important than his own. Since when do Presidential candidates get a pass for saying, well my VP knows enough for both of us? Can you imagine if John McCain answered anything, including how to field dress a moose, with ask Sarah Palin, do you think that might make a few headlines?

The presidential debates are supposed to act as a job interview for the candidates. Based on what I saw last night, not only do I think that Obama is unqualified for the position he is seeking, I'm not even sure he knows what it is. He seems to think he's running for President of the World, I don't know if any one's told him this isn't the Miss America Pageant, you don't get to run for Miss Universe if you win. I know Obama has spent most of his career campaigning for higher office, but this time he will actually have to do the job. He can't campaign his way through a presidency.

One of my favorite moments of the night came after Barrack Obama again defended his ridiculous statement about bombing Pak-E-Stan as he called it. McCain retorted almost in disbelief at the level of naivety in Obama's stance "You don't say that out loud". This highlighted a side conversation that my friends and I were having, in that some of Obama statements were reckless coming from a man who claims to want to be President. Speaking of reckless and naive, a few days ago I wrote that I was sure Joe Biden had 'borrowed' a few lines from a speech Ahmadinejad gave at the General Assembly of the United Nations referring to what he sees as the negative results of the American presence in Afghanistan. The line hadn't appeared in any of the official press releases from Biden's speech which prompted me to think that the Obama camp had buried the line in order to avoid the embarassing comparisons. My mistake, they actually thought it was so good, Obama used it again last night.

While Barrack Obama may have enough general knowledge on foreign affairs to earn himself a couple thousand bucks on Jeopardy, he certainly doesn't know enough to be president. What is worse is that he doesn't seem all that interested in learning. Obama's surrogates are always pointing how old John McCain is hoping to capitalize on the stereotype that older Americans are 'set in their ways' and 'out of touch' with the 'times'. These comments are not only discriminatory but also flat out wrong when talking about John McCain. Bill Clinton and I agree on few things but he was accurate when he introduced McCain earlier this week, as a man who consistently seeks the truth on every issue, commending McCain on his open mindedness on issues ranging from global warming to national security. John McCain is a man that seeks knowledge, his career is filled with hallmark descentions from the republican party due to his own personal research and opinion. Obama seems to think he already has all the answers, which is where his naivety becomes dangerous.

The media will tell you that Obama won the economic portion of this debate, as it is always their sentiment that a bad economy is good for Obama, but I'm sure your not surprised to find out that I disagree. Here's why, when Jim Lehrer asked the candidates what programs or initiatives they would have to cut due to the economic rescue package, Obama listed $250,000 of additional spending he would retain, while McCain said that he would continue with his plan to increase corporate tax cuts making them competitive in the global marketplace which would create new jobs and preserve exising ones. McCain insisted the best way to balance the budget was to reduce wasteful government spending. So Obama's plan to reduce the deficit is to increase spending promising, "I will pay for every dime of it", what he means is You, the taxpayer will pay for every dime of it. Now we know that his plan exceeds the current budget, so how do think he'll generate the additional 'revenue' as he calls it? One guess. The Taxpayer or you! You get to foot the bill so that every man woman and child in American has free health care, a college education and a Playstation 3 even if that means you can't afford to buy one for your own kids.

Barrack's main mission is to promote class warfare. He steals a page from John Edwards with his assertions of two Americas, but does it hold water? America is the only country on the planet that has a line at the entrance gates. It's the Log Ride in the amusement park of the world. Why would immigrants from all over the globe risk life and limb to to get to the United States if they had no chance of success? Because what Barrack Obama will not tell you is that, Success is achieved through hard work, commitment and personal responsibility in America, not from complaining that other people have more money than you do. The immigrants that fill our nation own businesses that support not only themselves but entire communities. They are not sitting around waiting for a government handout, many of them fled to this country to escape government control. But Obama's "it's not your fault it's their fault" position apparently resonates with some Americans, so I guess he'll be getting that all important victim/whiner vote.

Prior to the debate a significant amount of chatter revolved around how McCain would control his temper if challenged by Barrack. The talking heads all predicted it would be bad for McCain if Obama got under his skin enough to get a reaction. The only person who appeared rattled last night was Obama, often interrupting, grimacing, and raising his finger in objection like the lawyer he is. One of these sophomoric outbursts came while John McCain explained the lessons he felt we've learned in Iraq, relating his own story of returning home from a war without victory, Obama became jumpy, then McCain continued saying that he wore a bracelet given to him from a mother of soldier killed in Iraq, he told the story of how the mother like so many others asked him to make sure that her son had not died in vain, that the United States must finish the mission that her son supported. As McCain finished saying he had met with service members and their families he felt it was imperative to return our troops home with honor, not defeat, Obama smirked,shifted and twitched to the point that I became curious about what it was that Barrack deemed so important he could hardly contain himself. Obama almost bursting with excitement announced: "I have a Bracelet too!" Huh? That's what you've been dancing around at the podium to say, you have a bracelet? I hope who ever gave it to him asks for it back, Obama clearly doesn't the capacity to understand the sacrifice that bracelet represents.

Although this is just round one in a three part process, I can't imagine that the candidates could define themselves more clearly for the "undecided" voters. John McCain presents himself as a competent leader who stands up for what he believes is best for America regardless of it's popularity in the 'world view'. While Barrack Obama says whatever is going to advance his career. I've got a prediction for you based on a few post debate interviews I watched with the Obama camp. The narrative for this debate will be people don't care when the candidates talk about their records, they want to know what you're going to do Now. This is a convenient talking point for the Obama campaign, they don't want you to judge him on what he's actually done, they want you to guess what he'll do next. They don't want Americans to make an informed choice in this election because if all Americans took the time to research the history, McCain would win by a landslide.

John McCain's campaign slogan is "Country First", which seems an to be an honest evaluation of not only his own personal life experience but also how he views the President's role. Our founding fathers seemingly agree since one key job description of the President, involves protecting the United States interests in the world. Based on his performance tonight and throughout his campaign Obama should change his slogan to reflect his honest view of the world: "Me First".

Ode to the House Republicans!

As everyone is gearing up for the big debate, I wanted to take a minute to recognize the efforts of the House Republicans. They have chosen not to act in panic, because the crisis is so large, but instead to act responsibly because the crisis is so large. When I heard about the showdown yesterday during that infamous four o'clock meeting, I thought our founding fathers would be so proud! Bravo!

Everyone pictures our founding fathers as quiet old white guys that spoke in the queen's English and had tea as they discussed the politics of the day. That could not be further from the truth. While these men were well manner and distinguished they were fighters. They were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed. The idea of open debate is what our entire political system is based upon. But it did not stop with debate, these men were willing to duel to the death in defense of their beliefs. I thought this spirit of fighting for the people of America was dead on Capital Hill. The House Republicans have restored my faith in our system. They are challenging the democrats to a modern day duel.

You see the Democrats could have and planned to slide this bill through without telling the American people what it contained. They thought if they had enough republican in the boat with them, that they could pass the bill throw on $58Million in earmarks. Then when the American people found out what happened, the Republicans couldn't hang it on the Dems. But Thank God, the House Republicans weren't on that boat. The media spotlight moved to Washington DC with the arrival of John McCain, allowing The House Republicans to take their case straight to the people, telling them this bill was not good for taxpayers. The people responded in overwhelming numbers calling their representatives from both houses of congress to demand a better bill.

Due to the unprecedented public outcry, and the effort of those brave enough to stand firm on behalf of American taxpayers, we may have to swallow this bitter pill, but at least the medicine will work. The House Republicans deserve the respect and gratitude of all Americans, for reminding us that We the People still means something, and the government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

Mr. McCain Goes To Washington

John McCain has done it again. He has put his country first. While the democrats are sitting around hand wringing and talking about solutions, McCain took action. The only person who seemed surprised by the announcement yesterday that John McCain would suspend his campaign to return to Washington to work out the deals of the hotly debated rescue package, was Obama. What? Obama cried, you want to go to work instead of self promotion? I won't hear of it. Obama himself called this the "greatest financial crisis in our lifetime" and yet his response to this great crisis seems to be "if you need me call me on my cell". McCain has put his political ambition aside many times before when he felt that it was more important that do what he believed to be as right for the country, rather than just doing what would curry popular opinion.

I will admit when I first heard the announcement yesterday I thought, McCain is setting himself up for ridicule. I was right of course, as the media pounced on the chance to call this a "stunt", but is it really a stunt when the majority leader of the senate, Harry Reid indicates that consensus can't be reached without McCain's help? Certainly we know Reid doesn't "know what to do" about the financial crisis, as he said that himself less than a week ago. What about his counterpart in the House, what was her initial response to the crisis? She went on TV and assured Americans that congress would still be taking their vacation on time. Whew. I feel better now. Maybe you can work yourselves a raise into this new bill for your time.

Since then of course the democrats have came out saying that McCain and Obama really didn't need to return to the Senate to help construct the bill. Oh Really? Tell me, Mr. Reid do you think the citizens of Arizona and Illinois would agree with you? Something the democrats forgot long ago is that they work for the people. They were elected to represent the people of their state in Washington, DC. They were not appointed by you, Mr. Reid or you Ms. Pelosi they were elected, just as you were and they can be voted out of office just as easily, as I hope and pray daily both of you will be.

McCain has made it clear that he believes it is his duty as a Senator of the United States to return to Washington to work out a deal that will get passed and get our economy moving again. He is taking a big risk considering house republicans are vehemently opposed to the current bill. If his return results in a bill that is acceptable to both parties, which gets signed into law: John McCain is the hero. However, if he makes his trip to Washington and the bill gets bogged down with partisan infighting McCain comes up looking like part of the problem. McCain takes a Big Risk, but it could pay out a Big Reward. Either way McCain has taken the position of a leader that is willing to put his country first and his political career second.

Barrack Obama on the other hand has tried to avoid making any decisions on the financial crisis since day one. He even called McCain yesterday morning to see if they could issue a joint statement, as though that would solve the problem. After McCain told Obama that he planned to head back to Washington during their heavily reported 2:30 phone conversation, Barrack thought McCain was "mulling it over" according to a statement he made during his press conference in reaction to McCain's announcement. Here in lies the real difference between Barrack Obama and John McCain, if McCain says he is going to do something, he does it. He doesn't just sit around 'mulling it over'! Obama also criticized McCain for his inability to "multi-task" what Obama clearly sees as equal priorities promoting himself and saving the country from economic collapse.

So what was it that is so important to Obama that he would be in dereliction of duty as a United States Senator during a time of crisis? Debate Prep. According to many reports on tuesday, Barrack Obama planned to hunker down during the next 48 hours to prepare for his foreign policy debate with John McCain. Stop! Read that sentence again. Barrack Obama thinks his 'training' for a debate is more crucial then his responsibilities as a US Senator. Interesting. I've got another catchphrase for Obama that I like more than "multi-tasking": "Prioritizing"

Does anyone remember the way the media went after President Bush on 9/11 simply because he sat calmly for a few moments in front of the classroom of children in an attempt to keep the children from panicking? Where is the Media outrage on this one? Warren Buffet said this was the equivalent of "Pearl Harbor", so why did it take a Presidential invitation to get Barrack Obama back to doing his job.

Now all the world is watching to see what happens when Mr. McCain goes to Washington. I think Sarah Palin said it best during her interview with Katie Couric last night, "they are waiting to see what John McCain will do".

Biden on "Barrack's Plan" to rewrite History

Accusations of plagiarism have followed Joe Biden throughout his life, first in law school then in 1988 his decision to borrow a few lines basically cost him his run at the presidency. Both of these indiscretions can be overlooked by most people as simple cases of 'forgetting' to cite the originator of the quote. But when he starts lifting lines from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I think we need to take a closer look at Good Ol' Joe.

I had planned to have a pop quiz here. Where you the reader would be asked to compare two quotes, one from Joe Biden and one from Ahmadinejad. The two quotes coming from speeches given in the last 24 hours. Joe Biden recited one of the quotes during his speech today on foreign policy in Cincinnati, OH. The other was translated from a speech given by Ahmadinejad yesterday addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations. I had planned to ask you to guess who said what. There would then be a clever moment when it became clear that it didn't matter who said what, as they were saying the same thing. Unfortunately I can't give you an official quote from Joe Biden at this time as the Obama camp has only released excerpts from the speech as a transcript. But I promise I'm working on it.

Today when I was watching Biden deliver his self titled Big Important Foreign Policy Speech, after listening to him lie about his voting record on Iraq and say he didn't support the invasion of Iraq, when according to votesmart.org and of course public records he did in fact vote to invade Iraq in 2002 it was starting to sound like the same old stump speech, but then Old Joe got rolling.

As Joe spun the tale of Barrack Obama's War, how seven years ago Obama voted against the war in Iraq, which is true, however Obama was a state senator at the time, not a US Senator so it didn't mean anything in the grand scheme but it did put Obama on the right side of the anti-war movement. Biden then extoles the virtues of Obama's voting against the surge, but in a strange twist then starts giving Obama credit for the growing success in Iraq. I know it's confusing. I got a bit lost myself. Biden starts referring to "Barrack's Plan", now I know Biden will say absolutely anything that Obama tells him to in order to get in the White House, but "Barrack's Plan"? It's as though he assumes no one will ever fact check him.

According to my calculations under "Barrack's Plan", Saddam Hussein have been in power for the last six years, the people of Iraq would still be living in fear of murder rape and worse from their government and Iraq would still be harboring and offering financial aid to terrorists. That's a bad plan. But that is exactly where we would have been if Obama was making the decisions, if Biden were calling the shots we would have gone in to Iraq in 2002,then we'd pull out a few months later, leaving destruction and chaos in our wake. I don't care who you are neither of these plans end well. Both leave us with enemies not allies in Iraq.

While many don't agree with the 'handling' of Iraq, it's many because they don't understand War. War is not for the weak of heart, it requires commitment, flexibility and resolve. I don't have the time nor the inclination for a history lesson on the challenges of winning a war, but suffice it to say, we've still got troops in the DMZ in South Korea and that war ended over 50 years ago. The people of a Free Iraq are our allies, they are just a young nation rising from the ashes of a cruel dictatorship. A people that were held hostage in their own country for over 30 years under Saddam Hussein. After 30 years of mistreatment by their own government, and a half hearted effort by the United States in 1991, the Iraqis were right to question our presence initially. It is our American soldiers on the ground that are winning the hearts and minds of the Iraq people through their continual presence and support. The Iraqis now believe they can be a democratic nation and they know American will stand by them. This plan sounds like a much better plan!

Back to the quotes, about three quarters of the way through the speech, Joe utters a line that now I wish I had DVR'd. He said something to the affect that In Afghanistan the production of opium has increased since we invaded. He then went on to say that terrorism was spreading in the region.

This is what Ahmadinejad said yesterday:
"In Afghanistan, production of narcotics is multiplied since the presence of NATO forces. Domestic conflicts continue. Terrorism is spreading.."


When the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Democratic party starts sounding eerily familiar to a vicous tyrant who savagely murders women in his own country for the unforgivable crime of being raped, I think its fair to start talking about why I will not vote for that candidate.

For those of you unacquainted with Ahmadinejad, please allow me to introduce you to the man that is belived to be responsible for the 1979 kidnapping of the American hostages in Iran, and has made it known that he believes his rise to power will bring about Armageddon. Just yesterday he began his speech on the floor of the United Nations by pleading with Allah to "hasten the arrival of the Imam-al Mahdi" for those non-muslim scholars this signals the beginning of the Apocolypse, Rapture to the Christians in the group. Sarah Palin gets chastised for praying, but this guy gets quoted by Biden after telling the UN that he is on a mission from God to bring about the end of the world?

This is the guy Barrack Obama through his surrogate Joe Biden has said that he will speak directly to without conditions? I bet he sends Biden first. People have an alarming tendency to go 'missing' while visiting Iran. Especially those that go there to promote freedom and democracy.

Joe Biden's speech was to set the tone for Obama's big debate this weekend. Biden was to lay out the vision of deliberate diplomacy while not appearing soft on our enemies all the while downplaying the fact that we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11. Throwing out words like "smart sanctions" in reference to Iran. Does that make the ones we've been using for the last several years stupid? What is utterly mind blowing is that he managed to condemn the decision to invade Iraq, while bragging about Obama's intentions to invade Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence". What does that mean to Obama? If twelve years and eighteen United Nations resolutions weren't enough diplomacy in Iraq, what is? Don't even get me started on teh intelligence... So let me get this straight it's ok to invade a sovereign allied nation, but not one that has threatened the United States? Interesting plan Obama has there and he's the one trying to "improve" our standing in the world?

Famous for political gaffes and hyperbole, Biden has provided plenty of fodder for the media during his career as well as this campaign. Whether it's insulting immigrants or asking a wheelchair bound man to stand to be recognized, the media just laughs it off cause it's "just Joe being Joe". His running mate may not be as forgiving however, after Biden commented that the democratic ticket didn't support clean coal, a public scolding was immediately issued from Obama.

Biden managed to work in a few personal stories just misleading enough to create the illusion of grandeur. He spoke of how his helicopter was 'forced down' over Afghanistan, which is true, but it was due to a snowstorm not to enemy fire. He also mentioned his recent trip to Tbilisi to visit the Georgian president, what he failed to mention is that he had to fly commercial for the photo op because the department of defense refused to authorize his trip. It almost makes you feel bad for Biden. Both he and Obama feel the need to embellish their roles on the world stage to feel deserved of the post they've been nominated, when all John McCain has to say is 'Look at my record, it's speaks for itself.' Biden's verbosity is infamous, unfortunately for him just saying something doesn't make it true. Even if you're not the first person to say it.

Deconstructing Bias or How To Think For Yourself

It has come to my attention in the last few days that a few of my liberal friends and readers misinterpret the title of this blog. Rest assured that while I offer my opinion which admittedly is with conservative bias (hence the title), I also offer up citations for the reader to follow up on and draw their own conclusions.

It's important to understand, when I started this blog about a year ago, it was because I was inspired by a friend after a discussion about my growing concern for the lack of public interest in what was happening in this country. In choosing a name I considered how most writers present themselves, and decided to take a fresh new approach, I'd tell the truth. Just put it out there, I am a conservative, therefore everything I write will probably reflect that stance. I saw this as an opportunity to be honest, something I wish those in the media would try occassionally.

The "With Bias" title is ironically amusing to me and I'm sorry if you don't get the joke. Allow me to explain. As I have stated previously I have been a republican since I first saw Ronald Reagan, and I've been a news junkie almost as long. In college I spent many an hour watching 24 hour coverage of whatever the news of the day. During the raid on the branch dividian complex, I barely made it to classes flipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC. While working at my first real job I took lunch breaks to watch the Clinton deposition hearings. I know I'm kind of a freak, I'm okay with that.

It wasn't until after 9/11 that I started to really notice a difference in the news coverage. I had primarily been a CNN or MSNBC viewer, but during the coverage of 9/11 I began introducing FoxNews into the rotation. I found myself drawn to the coverage on FoxNews, because they seemed to be on our side, and when I say our side I mean the American People, not Republicans. What I realized in watching them report stories side by side, is that they all three would cover the exact same story, but depending on the verbiage, tone or editing of the segment conveyed entirely different messages. When FoxNews presented an issue for discussion, they presented both positions. It was at this time I realized that Republicans have spokespeople too, and apparently a significant number of congressional members as well! (Who knew?) Because when you're watching any of the aforementioned 'news' reports with discussion panels, if they have a conservative voice at all it's either someone who voted republican once by mistake or a complete nut job.

As I became more committed to FoxNews as my television source for news, the outcry from the left and their gunslingers the mainstream media became louder. This was when it started to become more clear to me. The goal was to silence the one channel that dared to offer both sides of the story and allow the viewer to decide what to think about it. Bernard Goldberg blew the lid off the liberal infiltration of the mainstream media with the release of his 2001 book, Bias: A CBS Insider exposes how news media distorts the news. Goldberg was probably seen as traitor to many as he worked for CBS for over 20 years, but he brought light to the dark side of the headline business. One of his more memorable chapters discussed the fluctuating number of stories on the homeless population depending on who was in the White House, not on how many actual homeless people there were.

The concept of Liberal Bias while new to many is all too familiar too those of us on the right. We've watched for years as our candidates and elected officials have been subjected to assaults on their character and intelligence. Don't get me wrong it is always appropriate to ask a public official his or her views on the issues, that is something of which I like to see more. What is not appropriate is framing or editing the questions, segments or articles in a manor that reflect the "journalists" own personal opinions.

A strange phenomenon occurs when Republicans talk on mainstream media outlets, they never finish a sentence. Weird I know. This happened most recently John McCain when a half sentence showed up on every news outlet, comedy routine and Obama ad, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong", McCain was quoted as saying, his detractors took this as McCain is out of touch, but ignored the second half of the statement "but these are challenging times". In this political season I'm not surprised that the Obama camp jumped on this chance to gain ground, but the media has no excuse.

According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs the average sound bite in 1968 was 42.3 seconds, now its down to almost 8 seconds. If we're only hearing an average of 8 seconds from a candidate on any given topic, how are we to make a good decision? Not to worry, the media will tell you what to think. You see studies done by the center have also found that more time is dedicated to commenators discussing the candidates rather than giving more time to the candidates themselves. Here's something to think about while you watch this year's election coverage, according to another study done by the Center, during the 2004 Election coverage John Kerry received 60% positive comments or reports, while George W. Bush received over 60% negative coverage across all major networks. Ask yourself when was the last time you heard something positive about McCain on a major network? For a real brain teaser try that one with Sarah Palin.

In this election cycle bias came up first during the primaries but for the first time that I can remember it wasn't a republican getting the 'works'. Hillary Clinton's camp complained of unfair treatment during the debates, and demanded apologies from MSNBC over inflammatory comments made on air by one of their anchors. You can imagine my confusion when they ended up suspending two of their anchors, as I had never heard of such a thing these people had called Bush every name in the book, but his Christian name and nothing. Say something about "pimpin out Chelsea" and pack your bags.

It was also during the primary that SNL took it's famous swipe at CNN for their moderation of the debates between Clinton and Obama. The mock host offering Obama a pillow while grilling Hillary on tough topics. It may have been the first time in my life I felt bad for Hillary Clinton, those who had worshipped her, traded up for a bigger prize putting Obama in the White House. This was also about the time that the 'anchors' at MSNBC started getting 'chills up their legs' and uncontrollable giddiness at the mention of Obama's name. It wasn't until the melt down during the RNC convention that MSNBC was forced to take Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann's anchor title away. Seeing this shift in public tolerance for openly liberal bias, CNN is now making a run to the middle adding new screen icons "No Bias, No Bull" and I've actually heard them use the word liberal without cracking a smile. Ironically it's now CNN accusing SNL of Liberal Bias in their recent skits involving John McCain and Sarah Palin.

While I've focused primarily on television this bias can be found in all forms of media. From the pages of fading newspapers to the world wide web. Talk radio offers the last bastion of hope for conservative thinking people in this country. Many democrats see these dissenters as a threat and are attempting to silence them with a return to the fairness doctrine. A regulation specifically designed to eliminate the competition in the market place of ideas. This is considered fair to the left.

The liberal bias I'm talking about surrounds you everyday, not just in the news but in entertainment as well. The next time you're in line at the grocery store look at the magazines. Look not only at the sheer volume of covers dedicated to Barrack Obama, his family or his wife, but also the glowing headlines that accompany the articles. Compare that to the tabloid coverage of John McCain and Sarah Palin on the same shelves. So while my blog may be "With Bias" I am forthcoming with that information, many of the "news" sources should be so truthful. If they came right out and said "I'm in the tank for Democrats" then continued on with the report, at least you'd know they were being honest.

The "Two-Faces" of Barrack Obama

When Barrack Obama said he was bringing a "new kind of politics" to Washington I don't think this is what most people thought he meant. I thought I'd seen everything this political season. I was wrong. The rhetoric and rancor has ratcheted up after John McCain received his post-convention surge. Each of the candidates have taken swipes at the other. However this week Barrack Obama shocked even me when he launched Spanish language ads on Hispanic television stations, attempting to tie McCain to George W. Bush and of all people Rush Limbaugh. More on this later but this is just the latest in a string of attack ads, the same kind of ads that Barrack pretends to abhor.

What happened to our New kind of Politician? The Man who 'transcended' party lines? Barrack Obama Launched his campaign on January 17, 2007, promising a new tone in his campaign. The junior senator from Illinois broke the official word saying he would bring a "new kind of politics" to Washington. The masses bought into the mantra of "Hope and Change" but never listened to the rest of the message. Which we are finding out, in the Case of Barrack Obama really means, you better Hope you don't bet on my answer, because I could Change my mind at any minute. Because just weeks later in March of 2007, an "unauthorized" ad supporting Obama appeared on Youtube, titled "Hillary 1984" it merges the shocking images from the famous Apple Superbowl Ad with clips of current news shows. Although the Obama camp denied any involvement, they did acknowledge that the Internet would be the new advertising medium of this campaign. So technically if you bet Obama would run a campaign using a "new kind of politics" you get to keep your money...for another 6 months. Because in December 2007, just around Christmas, Obama released it's first attack ad against Hillary Clinton.

As the General Election season began in August, Obama was quick to release his first attack ad against John McCain and has since released several more including one where he attacks McCain for being out of touch because he doesn't use e-mail, it has more or less disappeared from the airwaves since it was pointed out that John McCain can't type efficiently on a keyboard, due to the injuries he suffered while being tortured as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. As nasty and immature these ads are nothing could have prepared me for Barrack's Next assault.

On September 13th, Barrack Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton stated that McCain was running the "least honorable campaign in history". This is significant because within days a new ad began running sponsored by a 527 that challenged McCain's honor and the word "dishonorable" started showing up in all the talking points. I realize that the Obama campaign has no "official" ties to any 527 group, I didn't see the Obama camp out denouncing it either. You can say a lot of things about John McCain, you might not agree with his positions on the issues, but no one should never question his honor or his patriotism. But Barrack Obama's official spokesman did just that. Is this the new kind of politics, Barrack meant?

Somehow even though it's well documented, Barrack Obama's campaign has not received the scrutiny for some it's claims that I think they deserve. Each week a new staffer starts the weekly narrative with Obama's gonna fight back Now! As if that's why he's lagging in the polls, because of he's been to soft in his attacks. Check out these DrudgeReport headlines, "Obama Ready to Fight"-Sept 6 "Obama plans Sharper Attack" Sept 12 (I think it's worth noting the date on this one, just one day prior to the 'least honorable' comments. "Obama Supporters Ready for a fight"-Sept 14 and most today's gloriously positive headline "Obama tells supports to get in their face". Awesome. So can we now assume he's not the candidate that just 'transcends' anymore?

Just when I thought Barrack Obama had gone too far, he went further. Today is was widely revealed that Obama approved false and misleading Spanish speaking ads attacking John McCain. The basis of this ad is that Obama is trying to convince Spanish speaking voters that John McCain is anti-immigrant, never mentioning of course, that McCain received around 70% of the Hispanic vote in Arizona in his last election. The ad also superimposes pictures of McCain and Bush together saying they'll lie to get your vote, I'm paraphrasing but barely. I just don't understand how this narrative's supposed to work. I understand that both men are Republicans but that's where the similarities end. Each have gone their own path in politics and have many times had very public disagreements. In fact it could be said that one of the reasons that many conservatives were slow with initial support for McCain is because he didn't back President Bush up enough on the floor of Congress. Attempting to paint them as the same man is like saying that Barrack Obama is Jimmy Carter, oh wait he is. I guess it's more like saying a cat is a dog.

The most striking thing about the ad is that is attacks a private citizen, Rush Limbaugh. The ad takes not just quotes of Limbaugh's out of context, it takes them out of a comedy skit. As for Rush and McCain being 'cronies', as a Rush listener this is absurd to me. Rush has repeatedly criticized McCain specifically, as being too soft on Immigration, as well as many other issues. It may as a surprise to many, but Limbaugh also hasn't endorsed John McCain either. This commercial is vacant of truth and is intentionally misleading. You know that the Obama ad has crossed some kind of Karmic line, when ABC News comes to the defense of Rush Limbaugh and John McCain.

I find it the height of irony that Rush Limbaugh has often commented that the liberal democratic play book called for the "Politics of Personal Destruction" versus having a debate of ideas with an opponent and now he's been thrown into the mix by Barrack Obama the "new kind of politician". These ads don't attack John McCain on his proposed policies or his past voting record, they are character based assaults that are a combination of misrepresentations and flat out lies. This new ad is appropriately called "Two Faces" although the intent was mislead Spanish speaking voters about John McCain, it should reveal to all voters the two faces of Barrack Obama.

WallStreet Mess: What it tell us about McCain and Obama

Both Candidates have a history with Fannie and Freddie, so I decided to find out what exactly that history entails. In researching the recent 'crisis' on wall street, I expected to be bored to tears. What I have found has turned out to be much more compelling than I could have ever imagined. I was even motivated to do some math for the cause! I'm not going to bore you with the reasons that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed or more importantly why they knew they could. The simple answers are they Failed because they applied bad business practice (works every time) and they knew they could because they had a sweet heart deal set up in the 1990's to protect themselves with government insurance. Thank you, Bill Clinton.

Since this crisis will not be resolved before the end of the year, the next president will take on the baggage of Fannie and Freddie and Lehman Brothers and the others that will be lining up if this continues. so once again we are looking at John McCain and Barrack Obama. Since I believe any good politician can say anything to get elected I prefer to use that basic psychological premise, of the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So what did I find out?

John McCain along with a handful of other republican senators supported legislation called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. Go ahead and Google it I'll wait. This legislation was specifically designed to require oversight for Fannie and Freddie and predicted without immediate action that both would fail. The senate democrats blocked this bill from being passed. So John McCain believed strongly enough 3 years ago that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble to support legislation and speak out on behalf of government oversight something that we conservatives take very seriously. That leads me to the conclusion McCain recognized the problem, attempted to prevent the current crisis and was shot down again trying to protect Americans, this time by congress.

Senator Obama took a different approach back in 2005 on the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac situation when the legislation was brought to vote, he just didn't vote. Fair enough, he doesn't want to do his job as senator, that's on the Tax payers of Illinois not me, and I'd like to keep it that way. Because fast forward now to May of 2008. Senator Obama the forward thinking, above the politics as usual, selects Jim Johnson to head his committee to find a vice president. Now who is Jim Johnson you might ask.

Jim Johnson is one of originators of the Fannie Mae Foundation, and served on the board from 1991-2001. He is the chairman of the Kennedy Center for the performing arts. He also served on the board of another name that may be familiar to you Lehman Brothers. Yes, that Lehman Brothers. Johnson also served on the committee for the VP search for Walter Mondale in 1984 and John F. Kerry in 2004. In June, Jim Johnson "resigned" from the Obama camp not because of growing concern over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but because his name came in another lending scandal involving Countrywide mortgage. So just for the recap, Obama the candidate of change, selects Washington money man to head a VP search knowing the man was unsuccessful in two prior attempts. To quote Obama " You can't make this stuff up", check out Johnson's bio-page at www.Perseullc.com/bio . But wait there's more and it involves math!

According to OpenSecrets.org a recent study of senators who received donations from Fannie and Freddy from 1989 until 2008. Senator Barrack H. Obama is the the #2 recipient of money($126,349). #1 is Christopher Dodd (D) (165,400)and #3 is John F. Kerry (D)(111,000). Now here's the part that required math. Both Dodd and Kerry have actually been in the senate since 1989. Barrack took office in January of 2005. So in three years, Sen Obama has managed to take in more dollars from Fannie and Freddy than all of the blood suckers in congress could do in 19 years, with the except of Chris Dodd of course. But just to get the feel for it I divided it down by average amount per year, (Just for fun!) John Kerry averages out to just a measly 5842 per year, while Dodd comes in at 8705.26 per year, these guys are underachievers and at this rate Obama will pass them both by the end of 2008. He rakes in around $42, 116.93 or roughly the amount you have to earn for Obama to feel the need to increase your taxes.

Being a free market girl this mortgage situation has me a little conflicted on any resolution involving regulations, but I can also see how things can get out of control. But I think this crisis allows us to look a little closer at the choices. Which is the better choice to lead our country in economically challenging times? John McCain, a man who spoke out that without oversight these programs were doomed back in 2005. Or Barrack Obama, a man who didn't vote for Change when he had the chance, but instead choose to put the guy who started this whole mess in charge of picking his VP candidate, the first and most important decision of his campaign?( I'm assuming they're close and for what those companies paid him, they should be.) That was a trick question. There is only one choice. John McCain. But it does explain Joe Biden.

Sarah Palin wins in a Knock Out over Charlie Gibson

I was eagerly anticipating this series of interviews. Not as the left asserts because the McCain camp has avoided allowing full access to the press, but because I am genuinely interested in what Sarah Palin has to say. She is one of very few candidates in my lifetime that inspire me, so yes I was thrilled to learn she had agreed to sit down for a two day interview with anyone even Charlie Gibson. What I found most fascinating was the lead up to The Interview as ABC News called it. The talking heads were all a flutter about how the McCain camp was hiding Sarah Palin from the media. Look I know we live in a world of a twenty four hour news cycle, but there are still only 24 hours in day and more to the point Seven days in a week. I bring this up because Sarah Palin gave her historic speech at the convention on Wednesday, September 3rd. Yep you heard it hear first! Sarah Palin gives first major network interview one week after the convention ended. One whole week! The media's been whining that she isn't giving interviews, well I could be wrong but I've seen her give multiple speeches a day to crowds as large at 25,000. She doesn't appear to be hiding. Unlike Joe Biden.

The night before she was to send her son to Iraq for deployment as his governor, she came home to say good bye to him as his mother. The next day before and after the deployment ceremony she agreed to sit down with Charlie Gibson. I think they should be grateful she could squeeze him in, but they're not. Before it was announced that she would sit down with Gibson the media had started the cry Why won't she talk to us? She's not allowed to talk to us? The inference being of course that she would screw up on camera and then the Liberals could go back to comfort zone of feeling superior to you know, regular Americans. Once the Gibson interview was announced the comments changed but the tone remained the same, Sure she'll sit down with Gibson, he'll take it easy on her, why isn't she going on a real interview show? So now she agrees to interviews but the Libs take the position that it's just a puff piece so it won't really prove anything. I for one think it proves something. The elite liberal media continue to underestimate Sarah Palin and in doing so show how much they underestimate the American People.

It was obvious from the first released segment that Charlie Gibson thought this was his opportunity to show his intellectual superiority to Sarah Palin. I believe you would have to be pretty naive to believe that it was coincidence that ABC lead with the segment on the "Bush Doctrine". They have two purposes in this; One to tie the McCain/Palin ticket to what they see as a failed Bush Administration and Two to try and make Sarah Palin look uniformed on National Issues. But after watching the exchange, where Gibson asks Palin her take on the Bush Doctrine, I thought she handled it beautifully, she asked for clarification and when she got it she answered the question. I just don't think Charlie liked her answer.

Watching the feeding frenzy Friday morning about her "confusion" over the Bush Doctrine well confused me. There is no legal document or declaration called The Bush Doctrine, it is a media generated term. Therefore it was wise for Sarah to get clarification about Gibson's interpretation of the so-called Bush Doctrine before answering. This is another Media Driven story, the question should have been "Do you believe in Preemptive Strikes to protect our National Interests?" if that was what Gibson wanted to know. And in fact after Palin requested clarification that's basically what Gibson said. Then Palin answered in no uncertain terms that it was the Duty of the President to protect American Citizens and that no options should ever be taken off the table completely when it comes to National Security. See how easy that was? So much was made of Palin's request for clarification that her actual response to the question got lost you could say in "a blizzard of words".

While her skeptics will continue to insinuate that Palin's response was an admission of ignorance or evasiveness, allow me to advance my theory: Sarah Palin is a shrewd politician and knows when she's being lured into a trap in enemy territory so she choose to force Gibson to rephrase the question, so as to eliminate any "confusion" the media may have about her position on preemptive strikes and the use military force in general.

As the 20/20 introduction began I knew I was in for a treat! ABC News opened the "biographical" section on Palin by saying her life story was half fact half Fable. Half Fable? Interesting choice of words, followed by a video montage, suitable for any tabloid in a super market. The narrative was easy to understand; Sarah Palin's Got Scandals! (oh no!) Sarah Palin's Got Family Problems! (insert shocked expression here) And leave it ABC News to find four women in the state of Alaska, where Palin holds an 80% approval rating, who would go on camera and say they would make up their minds after the debates! What? Yeah they never really explained who these women, "some of Sarah Palin's best friends" were. This morning I looked for additional footage that I may have missed in the multitude of edited versions that ABC released to find out who they were and what they thought of her after watching the interview and of course how they know Sarah Palin, but I was unable to locate that bit of information. If anyone has this I would greatly appreciate the link.

As for the The Interview segment of the special, Gibson could barely contain his condescension even when doing the "casual" interview on the Dock. As Gibson stood chest out, head lowered he asked " Little Frightened?" In that you can tell me kind of voice, when Palin rebuffed that assertion with a positive response, Gibson offered "Overwhelmed?" and again Palin rebuffed the premise. Let me ask you a question Charlie Gibson: What happened to excited? Honored? Surprised? The negative inference with your "questions" is a little frightening and overwhelming, considering you are supposed to be finding out about the REAL Sarah Palin, not the one you want her to be.


When they cut back to the sit down interview segment, Gibson seemed all too eager to try and 'explain' issues to Gov. Palin oft times interrupting her asserting his vast knowledge of the political buzzwords. Gibson's showed disrespect of her current post as Governor of Alaska, dismissing her experience dealing with foreign trade commission as "something all Governors do." The more Gibson attacked the stronger Palin looked in her answers. She is a foil against the Charlie Gibson's of the world, answering questions in a straight forward manor that don't require three rounds of smug follow up questions "clarifying" her answers. But that didn't stop him from asking, and asking and asking....Notably the one time Gibson/ABC didn't deem it necessary to follow up was when Palin challenged Obama's stance on Taxes after Gibson accused the McCain/Palin campaign of misrepresenting Obama's position. Palin didn't mince words but instead stated Obama's had 94 chances to vote in favor of lower taxes and didn't. It almost appeared as though she was cut off mid-sentence in editing, then back to Gibson for a different line of questioning. I guess no follow up was needed there.....

Palin looked the Media in they eye and She didn't Blink. She stood strong on her beliefs and did exceptional in the "social issues" section of The Interview taking the opportunity to explain the difference between personal opinion and public policy. She stood firm that she is pro life but respects those with opposing positions. She not only supports the 2nd amendment, she is a lifelong hunter and card carrying member of the NRA. She understands that criminals don't care about "new gun" laws just like the don't care about other existing laws, hence the name criminal. When pressed about whether Homosexuality was genetic or learned behavior, she said I am not the one to judge. The highlight of the two day interrogation was when Charlie inquired about Palin's reaction to the "sexism" claims being made about her campaign, She called the question Irrelevant. She would not be baited into victim status, but instead choose to remind Charlie and the American people that gender has never been an issue for her.... just for her detractors.


I probably learned as much about ABC as I did about Sarah Palin in this interview, but that wasn't Gov Palin's fault. She performed beautifully under intense scrutiny. She knew whatever she said in this first crucial national interview would be replayed in soundbites for the remainder of the campaign. With this knowledge she took the questions head on, showing amazing restraint and grace under pressure. Much was has been made about Obama's post college career as a community organizers, but maybe Sarah Palin should have reminded Charlie, that she too had a post college first job as a reporter. Then she moved on to better things....

The Interview was a perfect opportunity for Americans as well as the pseudo intellectuals and elitist liberals to really learn something from Sarah Palin, respect the rights of those that disagree with you, and try not to prejudge. Gibson and his cronies on the left will continue to look for moments when they can feel superior to the "Hockey Mom" from Alaska, but as we're all finding out together, although the elitists may look down on her, Americans have found someone to look up to, Sarah Palin.

The Introduction of Obama Youth- 9/11 Service Forum

On this day of remembrance the candidates took a a break from campaigning and pledged a "truce", then proceeded to participate in a "9/11 Service Forum" held at Columbia University and hosted by Judy Woodruff and Richard Stengle, the later being the editor for Time magazine while the former is a Sr. Correspondent for Newshour. I watched only for the anticipation of being able to comment on Sen Obama's answers for a blog I'd previously planned to right today,which will now get shelved until later this week that I will be dedicating to my liberal friends and associates. But after watching the entire exchange I've decided to shift my focus for this day to the Forum itself as it became clear to me throughout the evening that Liberals don't know what the word volunteer means.

First and foremost this "forum" was supposed to highlight the need for greater community service, not to be confused with community organization, which I'll get to in a moment. It was a forum so I imagined it would be similar to one held at Saddleback which I found to be honestly persuasive and a fair comparison of the two candidates, answer the same questions without knowing what the other candidate's response. I've blogged previously about my change in heart watching Saddleback, so I was encouraged.

As John McCain began answering questions it didn't take long to figure out that the hosts were playing for the other team. Each question revolved around why McCain would not support Government funding programs, while he defended the strength of the American people and that increasing government control was not the answer to every social issue. He spoke of a government that encouraged volunteerism but would not force it on a free nation. He spoke of the strength of grass roots organizations and faith based groups and their success in the aftermath of every major tragedy around the world.

McCain's trust and understanding of the American people was only highlighted by his response to one of the many leading questions asked by Judy Woodruff. When she asserted that most volunteers and members of service organizations were wealthy thus making it easier to volunteer their time, then posed what would McCain do to make it possible for others to participate? McCain rejected the premise of her question and clearly stated that he believed that most of the volunteers and service members were not wealthy but just average citizens who cared enough to step up and help out. I am telling you this was a foreign concept to the "hosts". For what seemed like days they kept coming back to government funded programs specifically those that would pay citizens to well be better citizens.

It wasn't until McCain was asked what he could or would do to improve recruitment and retention numbers for the Military that things got a little more interesting. He blasted Columbia university policy that bans R.O.T.C. from campus and has since 1968. He suggested that Columbia and other Ivy League schools should encourage their brilliant students to research a career in the Military especially the opportunities as an officer. This was a brilliant answer and I'm not alone in thinking that, but again more on that later. McCain then went on to defend The United States All Volunteer Military. As the host asked questions about how the poor kids had to join the military while the rich kids had other options, I kid you not the woman asked McCain, whose two sons are currently serving this question/comment. I think even he was a bit surprised by the lunacy of her premise. It's a volunteer military, no one makes them sign up. She then hinted at the 'fairness' of a draft. McCain quickly retorted that those who want to serve sign up to serve, and during a draft those who can afford to avoid the draft. The idea that men and women would sign up to serve their country as part of the Military voluntarily was obviously something she'd never considered.

Then out of nowhere Judy Woodruff who had introduced the program as one of focus on service, blurts out something about Sarah Palin calling Obama a community organizer. After a gracious answer by Sen McCain where he extols the importance of community activity and that Govern Palin's remarks were in response to the Obama campaign's comments on her experience as Mayor of a small town, but that in no way diminished the role of community organizers. Woodruff couldn't contain herself, as he finished she followed up with a barely audible remark about small town mayors. The loose tie for the purpose of this question to the theme of the 'forum' was that all service no matter how small was important...I think.

Honestly I can't even remember the answer to one of my favorite questions and I use that term loosely, but it came near the end of McCain's segment. Richard Stengle , editor of Time magazine said " Our esteem in the world , of course has suffered since 9/11..." Well of course. I can think of at least 55 million free Iraqi's and Afghan's that would disagree with you. I'm not saying I'm just saying, the day I worry about what the "world" thinks America should do I will never come. The "World" is usually wrong. The "world" looks to us for leadership but then hates it when we take the lead and get the job done. This ultimately ends up with the "world" having American-Envy. Which leads me directly to the next fascinating exchange.

The hosts took turns grilling John McCain on whether or not America was better than other countries, because he called America Exceptional. He then proceeded to give them a history lesson and explained in small words they could understand how many times Americans have proved how Exceptional we are. How we were the first democracy of our kind and how we've used our strength to help those not strong enough to fight on their own. Yet they continued to press him on whether or not that made America better than other countries and in not as many words, he told them the cold hard truth: America is Exceptional. America is an exceptional country filled with exceptional people. This just seemed to confuse them further.

After a few wrap up questions it was time for the main event I know this because the hosts danced around on stage as though they needed a potty break when Sen Obama took the stage. They started out with similar questions to those they'd asked Sen McCain. In true Obama fashion he meandered through some staple answers about service at his Alma mater, his basic response to the questions about government programs (funding) for service organizations seemed to be more in line with what the hosts were looking for in terms of answers, mostly revolving around and reusing the line "Mutual responsibility". He implied that he would support more government programs (funded by the tax payer, that would be you.) not limited to just inspiring those to follow him, although that would be his admitted first option, but seemed to lead to the path of paid volunteers. So are they really volunteers anymore? Or are they just like the people who work at the DMV, Government Employees? Woodruff, "well that sounds all well and good but..." Stop. That sounds all well and good? Really? Well it doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It's just one more step towards socialism.

His idea of energy policy somehow made it into the "forum on service" I'm still trying to find the direct connection between the two. (and by all means e-mail or post your suggestions) However the topic came up he explained citizens will (be forced to) make a "commitment" to using less energy in our homes, citizens will commit to driving fuel efficient cars. Citizens will have to commit to something greater than ourselves. Again that sounds so familiar...why is that? Oh yes, when the government tells citizens how warm they can keep their homes or what kind of car they can drive not only does that take away citizens rights it demolishes the free market. Hmmm....ten points if you can see where I'm going with this one....If you guess socialism you are correct.

I did learn something from Sen Obama tonight, apparently it's difficult to find low paying jobs after you've graduated from Columbia. Who knew? According to Obama Wall Street will call you and you can go to Law School but it's hard to find minimum wage gigs. Good To know. I picked up this little tidbit while he expounded on his virtues as 23 year old who choose to work as a community organizer rather than do the other two. At least for three years, then he of course went to Harvard Law. So much for the joys of helping your fellow man....back to the old capitalist grind I guess.

While on the topic of education, Sen Obama took this opportunity to put forth this lovely thought, "We need to get to them earlier", he followed up with comments about developing a civic program as part of the standard ciriculum. This got me thinking, didn't someone else try to take control of the nation's youth through government sponsored "youth programs" a few years back? Oh yes now I remember that little organization called "Hitler's Youth".

About three quarters of the way through the Obama fan club meeting, the Sen has a moment of honesty and comment on something McCain said earlier. It was then and only then that I realized the candidates had not been sequestered as they had during Saddleback, so Obama was able to listen to all of McCain's answers and respond accordingly. He then launched into some talk about supporting our troops and our military including the line " When you serve our Country I will stand by You." Oh Really? Your voting record would seem to disagree. Did you not vote against funding for our troops serving overseas, instead choosing to use them as a political pawn in your campaign.

The remainder of his discussion on the military involved subtle suggestions of a draft, while never actually saying he would institute a draft he did seem to have the same confusion as the host about the term volunteer. Obama identifying with those that did not sign up for the military, suggested that some wealthy civilians would wonder "Why them and not me?" when watching the casualties of war. I have an answer to that question: Because you didn't sign up. Assume the following to be true: If more wealthy people signed up for the Military there would be more wealthy people in the Military.

Telling moment of the night however came when an earlier comment from John McCain was rephrased in the form of a question for Barrack H. Obama. Should Columbia University reverse the ban on R.O.T.C. on campus? Obama was then able to condemn this policy, I believe his exact words were "We made a mistake on that", even though the school held that policy while he was a student and has for many years been an esteemed alumni , Are we to believe this was his first opportunity to speak out on the matter? As I stated previously McCain gave a brilliant answer and the left leaning hosts wanted to make sure Barrack was able to try and take some of the credit.

An in a classic Barrack Obama moment after saying in no uncertain terms that his goal is to create new government programs and to increase government spending on existing programs for the sole purpose of increasing the level of "Service" in this country, he then closed by saying that "Real Change happens from the bottom up", the complete opposite of what he had just spent the last 30 minutes preaching.
Slow moving at times this Liberal grandstanding event still had some quality moments and was worth watching. I enjoy watching the candidates speak freely on how they would really approach the issues, not that any of that really happened tonight, but once again I feel that the more Obama speaks the more he shows who he really is and Thankfully for us, So does John McCain.

Obama's Message ...Nope!

I will admit that when this election cycle started 100 years ago that although I had heard Sen. Obama's speech in 2004 and knew of his victory and ensuing speech I never really paid much attention to him or his message. I had the general idea, liberal with seemingly good intentions probably into taxes etc. It wasn't until recently as in the last several months that I've started to actually make an effort to hear him speak whenever possible, so as to get a more specific feel for his politics, values, beliefs and judgement.



What I've been able to deduce from this little experience is that more people should listen to what Barrack H. Obama is saying...I mean they should really listen and they should be Terrified! After listening to him at Saddleback I thought surely, his poll numbers would fall and McCain should have a shot at saving us from ourselves. I think it's important to note...this was long before the Palin announcement. This was straight up Barrack Obama vs. Crusty Ol' John McCain. Long committed to voting for McCain, my vote was with him, but my heart really wasn't. Then I watched Saddleback. As I watched the first hour with Sen Obama his answers were flowery and often tangent filled as I friend and I watched we soon started counting the number of times he used the term "judgement call" and "you have to be careful". We later played a fun game of guess the question, the trick was one of us would listen to the question the other would then listen to his response and have to guess what the original question was. This game had a much higher level of difficulty than one would expect.

What happened next is what changed this campaign in my mind forever. After Sen Obama finished, he said his goodbyes and John McCain was introduced. An amazing thing happened. When John McCain was asked the same questions as Barrack Obama, his answers were assertive and succinct. In other words, John McCain knew the answers. He didn't need to use moral equivocations in each sentence to explain himself or his positions. He knew where he stood and he wasn't afraid to say so in a way that normal people would know what he was talking about.

Barrack Obama talks around every issue, because if he says what he truly believes in plain english, the American people would be running the other direction. Most recently I've watched the over hyped O'Reilly interviews. I will go on the record that I am not a regular O'Reilly viewer, the man makes for good Tv and doesn't need my endorsement, but I personally feel O'Reilly's #1 cause is O'Reilly. But say what you will about him at least he asked Obama some issue related questions and allowed Obama the time to sell his story. Here's what I've gleaned from Obama on the issues: Class Warfare is his game on the economy. He's all tax the rich, well under his plan my family is Rich. I assure you this is not the case.

When pressed on his plan to tax some Americans 50% of their income he deferred saying they could afford it. Well he's wrong I can't. What Sen Obama fails to realize is that's just the start of my tax burden. I mean It is still my money right? That's just the federal government's cut. Throw in all his plans to increase payroll tax, increase minimum wage and you've just eliminated the largest growing segment of the American economy, Small Businesses. So I begin to think and O'Reilly comes right out and says something to the effect that is a socialist plan. Barrack then begins to espouse the wonders of China, so I guess socialism is thinking too small, Meet Our Good Leader Obama!



I watched Obama slither and slide through questions about his ties to Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, and Daily Kos among others, with his answers always leading him back to a stump speech, but never to the heart of the question. Why do you hang out with these people? I thought is was great political theater as he managed to get through the interview without condemning nor denying his association with any of them with a smile fit for a Cheshire. He appears to think that Americans have never heard the saying "you can tell a lot about a person by their friends". He downplayed his relationship to Ayers over the last 15 years, first by saying that they barely knew each other then by reciting the old "I was only 8 " when my friend planned to blow up the Capital line. But he refused to admit there was a possible pattern of behavior in his life of associating with those in the extreme left. Those who are heroes in radical circles. For a man that seems to have an answer for everything on that he has no answer....



His ideas on National Security and Foreign Policy sound very similar to another treasure of a president given to us from the democratic party Jimmy Carter. He's found of referencing Directed diplomacy. It's as though he's missed the last 15 years of international diplomacy failures without consequences to back them up. In layman's terms: It's not like we haven't tried that! Do these people really think that the first option on the table is the Military Option? The idea that you can negotiate with Radical Islamic Terrorists is ludicrous. Al-Queda and others want you dead. Do you get that? They don't care if you voted for Bush or Gore. They still want you dead. How do you negotiate with that? Where do you find the middle ground? Well you can't kill me today, but how about you give me five more years? Carter's brand of appeasement led to the international Terrorist organizations we are still dealing with today. Yet Obama is using the same basic principles for his foreign policy 'plan' we'll call it, can't we as Americans realize we don't have to go through another Carter Administration to get to the good stuff? We've got McCain and Palin right now!



On the other hot topic of the year, Independence from Foreign Oil, when Obama is quick to point out that he's open to all kinds of explorations...except for those that are already proven to work. He opposes clean nuclear energy, but highly recommends Wind and discussed his conversations with T. Boone Pickens. You hear a great deal about "Big Oil" but what about "Big Wind" as it should be called with all the money being poured into Washington by those with personal investment in the success of Wind technology . He is currently saying he might possibly be open to off shore drilling , but I have a feeling come Nov 5 he'll change his mind. But he's vehemently opposed to drilling in ANWAR but wasn't pressed on whether or not he'd actually ever visited the place. He did struggle with the tough one of which was more important the family needing reasonable gas prices to drive to work or the emotional stability of the caribou.



Barrack Obama's followers have been spouted nonsense for months about this Candidate of change and hope, suggesting that those of us who "don't get it" missed the message because it went over our heads. But when you really listen to what the Man is saying hope and change have nothing to do with it, He clearly just likes hearing himself talk. I'm pretty sure if American is really listening they are not going to like what he is saying......

Calling An Insurgent a Terrorist.....

I was sitting around this weekend watching all the Sunday morning talk shows, as the hot topic continued to be Sarah Palin and her injection of reality into this election, when I turned to one of the cable networks, one that doesn't really subscribe to the "fair and balanced" method of reporting, to find this exchange: Cable Anchor: What three foreign policy areas are really the most important to the upcoming election? Employee of Washington Newspaper of High Regard: Iraq, the war on terror* and global warming. Then my head exploded.



There are several things wrong with this answer and I bet you can guess one right off the bat, but the anchor never challenged this so-called logic. Allow me to help you out there are right answers to questions and there are wrong answers to questions. For example the correct answer to this question using the same guys' ideals would be: The War on Terror, National Security and Energy independence. But this guy thinks that the war on terror is only being fought in Afghanistan, I think there are soldiers all over the world that would disagree. The idea that Iraq is just one theatre in the international war against Radical Islamic terrorists is apparently too vivid a reality for them to confront. Yet I never hear anyone correctly explaining after a leftist makes a claim about the War in Iraq, that in fact we are at war in Iraq, standing side by side with Iraqis who are fighting Al-Queda terrorists who are trying to take over their homeland. These Al-Queda in Iraq are also known to the media as "Insurgents". They are not insurgents, they are terrorists and who are we benefiting by not calling them what they really are? The terrorists?



So just for the record his answer by my count is still only two things, one of which is Global Warming. This term has worn out it's welcome in my life. I have found that when liberals come up with a concept too ridiculous to sell on it's merits they invent a term, something "catchy" that can devolve complex ideals into a repeatable chant. "Stop Global Warming!" is easy to say, but what does it mean? And can we really do anything to stop it? Then won't we have to "Stop Global Cooling!" as they suggested we needed to do in the 1970's. It all gets a bit confusing...since the further explanation that although the temperature of the earth has indeed increased just around .007 of a degree in the last 100 years, it has not been determined what caused the increase in temperature and more to the point, should we even be concerned about it? The reality is that climate changes, and is cyclical. With 50% of the published studies in 2007 debunking the "global warming" myth why is it that Liberals still throw it around like it's fact? Remember that denying "global warming" is like denying the holocaust, except for It's NOTHING LIKE THAT. The correct non-partisan response should have been Energy Independence. I don't think there is an American drawing breathe that would disagree that it's time for America to develop a plan that leads us away from dependency on foreign oil while creating clean energy opportunities to flourish and grow our economy.

The problem is we have allowed them to control the language , as the hero of the left, Marx suggests they then have the upper hand. We need to insert reality into our conversations by disallowing the use of "Liberalspeak" politically correct but useless terms that do nothing but frame the debate for them. I pledge from this moment forward, I will not use Liberal Speak nor will I allow it in my conversations, I am taking back the issues, by debating them on merit not on catch phrases!

Sarah Palin, The Feminists and Me...

I've been listening to feminists "womyn" tell me all my life that they are concerned about "Women's Rights" yet what Sarah Palin's mere appearance has made perfectly clear is what many of us have suspected all along: Major Women's Organizations think the only issue important to women is abortion on demand. Maybe they think we shouldn't worry our little heads about more macho issues like National Security, Energy Development and the Economy. I guess we should just leave that to the men.

I first denounced the Major Feminists Organizations when they backed Bill Clinton during that whole "Paula to Monica " thing....I mention the former only to point out that NOW and others should have denounced Governor Clinton prior to the 1992 election and defended the women he allegedly assaulted, but instead choose the political leverage the Clintons would bring to the supposed Women's Movement over helping an ACTUAL woman.

Now that the Left wing media and Barrack Obama's surrogates are out questioning Governor Palin's experience while quietly hiding Sen. Obama in a corner until the dust settles, Where is the outrage from NOW? And oh so many others.....There is no outrage now, nor will there be. They will instead criticize her for choosing to be a mother and woman who stands by her pro-life belief. But is she not still a Woman? Isn't that supposed to be the point of their entire organization? To help and support women in the big bad world of men who are out to get us? Well the Men are obviously out to get Sarah Palin, and so are many woman. Some very sad women.

Why aren't the major feminist women's organizations thrilled with Sarah Palin? Isn't she precisely what they are supposed to want for all of us, the chance to be seated at the Grown Up table? We will have a woman who has executive experience at both the state and local level, with a record of demanding reform of her own political party, Does she not have the most experience when dealing with alternative energy? She has a plan that helps both the economy and the environment at the same time. Sarah Palin is a proud member of the NRA and lifelong hunter, is that not an embodiment of someone who understands and respects the 2nd amendment? She has balanced a $12 Billion dollar budget and rebated surplus dollars to her constituents. Tell me again why you don't like this woman?

Those same Bra burning women of the '60's and '70's are now heading into their fifties and sixties but still believe they are have their finger on the heartbeat of American Women in 2008.
Apparently they stopped being able to absorb new information after all those drugs, because in case you missed it Roe V. Wade has stood as a law for twice as many republican presidency as democrats, so can we please move on perhaps to something more important to all of us in 2008....And I think Sarah Palin started that conversation for us last night.....