The Ad the Obama campaign is fighting to keep us from seeing

A group called the American Issues Project has paid to produce an ad about William Ayres from the Weather Underground, and personal friend of Barack Obama. Senator Obama’s campaign was hatched in Mr Ayres’ home. Obama’s campaign has contacted the Dept. of Justice to investigate campaign finance laws on the funding of this group. Please view the ad they don’t want you to see.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY&eurl=http://michellemalkin.com/

OBAMA IS NOT KENNEDY

OBAMA IS NOT KENNEDY            

By: Kevin Bryant



Is it just me or have a lot of you seem to notice that Obama wants everyone to believe that he is the second coming of JFK?



If this is a set plan by the Obama campaign, then I truly believe that JFK is not only rolling over in his grave but he’s more likely to be turning cart wheels in there. It’s true that Kennedy was a member of the Democratic Party, and didn’t have much experience holding a national office when he won the white house, but that folks is where the similarities end. If Kennedy were alive today, he’d be looking around wondering where his party went.



Kennedy initiated one of the largest tax reductions on the tax paying working class in the history of the United States. Obama wants to increase taxes on the paying working class in larger amounts than Kennedy reduced them.



Kennedy was a man of vision who could think for himself. Obama is a messenger of the Moveon.org and DailyKos and spreads their vision of how things should be.



If Kennedy were alive today, I believe he would be a republican. Obama is alive today and he is so far left, he bypasses democrats and is himself a socialist.



Kennedy’s speeches were original and they held meaning. Obama’s speeches are primarily resurrections of Kennedy speeches with a more modern twist and he really doesn’t seem to care a thing about what they say so long as he gets favorable press from them.



Kennedy was a leader. Obama is a puppet.



Under Kennedy, the economy maintained steady growth. If Obama is elected, the economy as it stands now will seem like prosperous times compared to what will happen.



The second coming of Kennedy, I DON’T THINK SO.

Obama/ Biden

Obama’s choice for the Vice Presidential spot brings up some serious questions. Last year Biden said that he wasn’t interested in the VP spot, and he would turn it down to stay the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What has changed since then? Obviously Joe Biden didn’t expect Barack Obama to win the Democratic Nomination, or he might not have said such a thing last year.



Another thing that raises questions is……..If Barack has used one theme over and over in his campaign it has been…….”I’ve always been against the war in Iraq.” Now if Obama has picked his VP for his experience in foreign relations, he is going to have a hard time explaining Biden’s support of the war. The fact that Biden later flip-flopped his stance only confuses the matter.

Obama has identified himself as the candidate of change, one who is on the proverbial "outside" of Washington, and yet has picked for a VP one of the longest serving senators (35 years.) Who kind of message does this send?


If Obama has in fact picked his VP to firm up his lack of experience in foreign affairs, why would a voter chose to vote for his ticket when the second guy has more experience then the main man?



Biden has said that he changed his opinion of the war, saying that Bush lied and led us into it fraudulently. He hopes that the American people have forgotten that the information that President Bush used to make the decision for war was collected by his predecessor President Clinton. A bi-partisan senate committee investigated the manner in which Bush made his decision to attack Iraq, and found NO wrong doing. It was certainly amusing to see all the past video clips of senate and congressional representatives making a case to attack Iraq. In all fairness though Senator Clinton backed the war then and backs the war now.



Senator Biden has the uncanny ability to say the wrong things at the wrong time. When my son graduated from the University of Delaware, Senator Joe Biden spoke at the commencement exercises. Rather then speaking about the hope of these freshly graduated students, he chose to speak about the very war in Iraq he voted in favor of. This was when he had just changed his view. It might have been different if he had been speaking to his constituents in Delaware, but students in a University are a microcosm of America. It was quite evident the parents of these students didn’t appreciate the ranting tirade of Joe Biden either, as about half of them walked out! This clearly showed that Biden’s judgement was over shadowed by his need to be “right.”



Another interesting item for discussion is how will Biden explain his previous overwhelming support of John McCain. He has never voiced the same such support for Barack Obama.



It will be interesting to see what Biden’s take on Obama’s rather public stance on abandoning the Iraqi war in favor of attacking Pakistan and Afghanistan, while holding a hair trigger on Iran.

Terrorism?

Terrorism




Wikipedia defines terrorism as follows:



Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

Terrorism is also a form of unconventional warfare and psychological warfare. The word is politically and emotionally charged,[4] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.[5] A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist

They go on to list key criteria as follows:



Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[12]

Perpetrated for a political goal – Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[13] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.

Disguise – Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among non-combatants, fight from in the midst of non-combatants, and when they can, strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking the wrong people, that the government may be blamed for it. When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word terrorism is rarely used.

They also go on to describe outlets for terrorists:

Media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media.[59] Others consider terrorism itself to be a symptom of a highly controlled mass media, which does not otherwise give voice to alternative viewpoints, a view expressed by Paul Watson who has stated that controlled media is responsible for terrorism, because "you cannot get your information across any other way". Paul Watson's organization Sea Shepherd has itself been branded "eco-terrorist", although it claims to have not caused any casualties.

The mass media will often censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organisations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media.

Lord Vader without his helmet

 

With all the definitions being explained, is it out of line to suggest that Al Gore has perpitrated an act of terrorism on the American peole? He readily admitted that it was perfectly acceptable to over-estimate the severity of Global Warming to shock the people into listening to his “point of view.”


If this is entirely acceptable for him, what exactly is the difference between Al Gore talking about “man- made” global warming and how it represents a preponderance of evidence when 33,000 scientists have now signed on reject not only his theories but the very data gathering, explaination, computer modeling, and the conclusions of the United Nations formed IPCC panel formed to institute political policies rather then to explain climatic changes, and say a man standing in a dark theatre and screaming, “FIRE”?


If the intent of terrorism is to inflict fear for a political gain, why hasn’t Al Gore been charged? Seems simple to me but then again what do I know?..........Al

http://draft.blogger.com/goog_1219323411984

When will Gov. O’Malley get it right?

The three Amigos of tax reform

Governor O’Malley’s attempt to rob Maryland taxpayers has once again back fired after his “windfall profits” tax bringing the tax on cigarettes to $2 a pack has had an unintended effect on their sales. Cigarette sales had dropped some 25% in the first half of the year. After instituting a new law as a stop gap method of seeing the money go elsewhere, the Maryland Legislature made it illegal to transport more then 2 packs over state lines.



They could have saved their time, had they looked at the surrounding states cigarette sales levels that have stayed the same. Maybe internet and black market sales are flourishing, but one thing for sure is that the Maryland Democrats aren’t getting it!



It’s sort of ironic how the claimed “income” from the taxes on cigarettes was never designated for smoking cessation programs, and how $522 million a year from the tobacco suit settlement, is used in the general slush fund, while very little is used for the intended purpose. If the slumping sales is any indication to the future, Maryland Politicians will have very little income on sales tax on tobacco products in 20 some years, but they will be VERY used to spending the $530 million a year they get now!



See my article from April 18, 2008 entitled “Taxes on Tobacco used for non smoking programs?”



http://alspoliticalview.blogspot.com/2008/04/taxes-on-tobacco-used-for-non-smoking.html

Irena Sendler

Does the name sound familiar? Probably not, but her deeds are VERY memorable. Her contribution to mankind was undeniable, and yet her recognition for those deeds were snubbed. Glen Beck, the lone voice of conservatism on CNN, gives a commentary on this incredible woman, and by the time the video is over I guarantee, your mouth will be hanging open!

Story you won't hear on CNN

On the afternoon of 27 November 2007, Chief Warrant Officer 5 David Cooper of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment—the “Night Stalkers” —was leading a formation of six helicopters north of Baghdad. The formation comprised two AH-6 Little Bird attack helicopters (one flown by Cooper), two MH-6 troop-carrying Little Birds, and two MH-60 Black Hawks carrying Special Operations soldiers. When the formation was 50 kilometers from Baghdad, Cooper heard his wingman shout “Mayday!” An insurgent had hit the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade, severing the tail rotor. Despite the damage, Cooper’s wingman was able to land his helicopter without sustaining major injuries, and the other helicopters in the formation landed to assist.

The Black Hawks soon evacuated the downed pilots, leaving behind 20 special operators and the Little Bird pilots to set up a perimeter around the disabled helicopter. Forty minutes later, eight enemy anti-aircraft gun trucks approached the crash site, and Cooper took off in his Little Bird to investigate. He immediately came under attack by the enemy force but stayed in the air to draw fire away from the exposed U.S. soldiers on the ground. Meanwhile, two more trucks unloaded enemy forces into a house about 800 yards away, where they began to set up mortars and machine guns.

Cooper immediately began attacking the numerically superior force using his Little Bird’s miniguns and rockets. When his helicopter ran out of ammunition, Cooper landed and the men on the ground quickly unloaded the rockets from the downed helicopter and put them on Cooper’s, despite intense enemy fire. Cooper took off and again started to pummel the enemy despite the bullets that were striking the helicopter inches from his face. When low fuel forced Cooper to land again, the soldiers on the ground used a Leatherman tool to remove an auxiliary fuel tank from the disabled helicopter and attach it to Cooper’s Little Bird. Cooper went back into battle a third time, finishing off the trucks and mortar positions once and for all.

For Chief Warrant Officer 5 David Cooper’s “complete disregard for his personal safety and extreme courage under fire,” he became the first Night Stalker to be awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. “I just happened to be the guy there that day,” Cooper said. “Any one of the Night Stalkers that’s in this formation would have done the same thing I did.”

Reprinted from the Patriot Post (http://www.patriotpost.us/)

New Government Files just Released!

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and RANDY HERSCHAFT, Associated Press Writers
August 14, 2008

WASHINGTON - Before Julia Child became known to the world as a leading chef, she admitted at least one failing when applying for a job as a spy: impulsiveness.




At 28 as an advertising manager at W&J Sloane furniture store in Beverly Hills, Calif., Child clashed with new store managers and left her job abruptly.



"I made a tactical error and was out," she explained in a handwritten note attached to her application to join the Office of Strategic Services, a World War II-era spy agency. "However, I learned a lot about advertising and wish I had been older and more experienced so that I could have handled the situation, as it was a most interesting position."



Child was not yet married and was applying for the job under her maiden name, McWilliams, according to previously top-secret records released by the National Archives on Thursday. She was hired in the summer of 1942 for clerical work with the intelligence agency and later worked directly for OSS Director William Donovan, the personnel records show.



Details about Child's background and nearly 24,000 other OSS employees are revealed in the newly released documents, withheld from public view as classified records for decades by the CIA.



The 750,000 documents identify the vast spy network managed by the OSS, which later became the CIA. President Franklin Roosevelt created the OSS, the country's first centralized intelligence operation.



The OSS files offer details about other agents, including Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, major league catcher Moe Berg, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and film actor Sterling Hayden.



Other notables identified in the files include John Hemingway, son of author Ernest Hemingway; Kermit Roosevelt, son of President Theodore Roosevelt; and Miles Copeland, father of Stewart Copeland, drummer for the band The Police.



Some of those like Child on the list have been identified previously as having worked for the OSS, but their personnel records never have been available before. Those records would show why they were hired, jobs they were assigned to and perhaps even missions they pursued while working for the agency.



The release of the OSS personnel files unmasks one of the last secrets from the short-lived wartime intelligence agency, which for the most part was later folded into the CIA after President Truman disbanded it in 1945.



"I think it's terrific," said Elizabeth McIntosh, 93, a former OSS agent now living in Woodbridge, Va. "They've finally, after all these years, they've gotten the names out. All of these people had been told never to mention they were with the OSS."



The CIA long resisted releasing the records. But a former CIA director, William Casey, himself an OSS veteran, cleared the way for transfer of millions of OSS documents to the National Archives when he took over the spy agency in 1981. The personnel files are the latest documents to be made public.



Information about OSS involvement was so guarded that relatives often could not confirm a family member's work with the group.



Walter Mess, who handled covert OSS operations in Poland and North Africa, said he kept quiet for more than 50 years, only recently telling his wife of 62 years about his OSS activity.



"I was told to keep my mouth shut," said Mess, now 93 and living in Falls Church, Va.



The files provide new information even for those most familiar with the agency. Charles Pinck, president of the OSS Society created by former OSS agents and their relatives, said the nearly 24,000 employees included in the archives far exceed previous estimates of 13,000.



The newly released documents will clarify these and other issues, said William Cunliffe, an archivist who has worked extensively with the OSS records at the National Archives.



"We're saying the OSS was a lot bigger than they were saying," he said.



___

Think this couldn't happen in America?

By NICHOLAS KULISH

Marburg Journal
Published: August 6, 2008

 
MARBURG, Germany — This fairy-tale town is stuck in the middle of a utopian struggle over renewable energy. The town council’s decision to require solar-heating panels has thrown Marburg into a vehement debate over the boundaries of ecological good citizenship and led opponents to charge that their genteel town has turned into a “green dictatorship.”




Old and new coexist in Marburg, where a hilltop castle overlooks a solar-powered building. The city seeks to expand solar use.




Some Marburg residents are concerned about how pending solar rules will affect historic buildings like these in the city center.





The New York Times

Officials in Marburg face opposition over a solar initiative.

The town council took the significant step in June of moving from merely encouraging citizens to install solar panels to making them an obligation. The ordinance, the first of its kind in Germany, will require solar panels not only on new buildings, which fewer people oppose, but also on existing homes that undergo renovations or get new heating systems or roof repairs.



To give the regulation teeth, a fine of 1,000 euros, about $1,500, awaits those who do not comply.



Critics howled that the rule, which is to go into effect on Oct. 1, constituted an attack on the rights of property owners. The regional government in Giessen stepped in and warned that it would overturn the rule.



City officials in Marburg said, in turn, that they would take their case either to administrative court or all the way to the Hessian state capital, where they would try to get the state building code changed to protect their ordinance from officials in Giessen.



In the middle of this political chess match sit homeowners like Götz Schönherr.



From his deck, Mr. Schönherr can see the town’s famous hilltop Gothic castle as well as two of its three power-generating windmills. On his roof, a solar panel glints in the sunlight. He already uses the solar energy to heat his water, which has allowed him to turn off his boiler for roughly six months a year, a boon for his pocketbook but a decision he said he made for the sake of the environment.



And yet Mr. Schönherr opposes the new ordinance.



Mr. Schönherr had hoped to reinsulate his home, but to do so, and to satisfy the solar regulation, he would have to install a larger solar panel. It would cost him close to $8,000.



“That leads, in my case, and I would think in other cases as well, that people say, ‘Well, let’s just not reinsulate the roof,’ ” Mr. Schönherr said. “So it’s absolutely counterproductive.”



Officials in Giessen agree. “We have no problem with the use of solar energy,” said Manfred Kersten, press spokesman for the regional government in Giessen, “but this was a poorly constructed ordinance.”



Germany is one of the world’s top champions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy. Thanks to hefty federal subsidies, the country is by far the largest market for photovoltaic systems, which convert sunlight into electricity.



Marburg, a historic university town where the Brothers Grimm once studied, is a model of enlightened energy production and consumption. In addition to the windmills and solar installations, the town’s utility company buys hydroelectric power from Austria, is transitioning its fleet of buses and other vehicles to natural gas and even lights footpaths with solar-powered lamps.



As a result, the Marburg dispute sometimes feels like an argument between the enlightened environmentalists and the really enlightened environmentalists.



“Marburg is already a leader when it comes to the use of solar energy, but up until now they’ve always tried to convince people rather than forcing them,” said Hermann Uchtmann, the opposition politician behind the “green dictatorship” charge who leads a local citizens political group, the Marburger Bürgerliste.



Like Mr. Schönherr, who is a member of the group, Mr. Uchtmann hardly fits the predictable mold of the Luddite opponent of renewable energy. He is a chemist at the local university who once built a solar-powered desalinization station for the town’s sister city, Sfax, Tunisia.



“It’s unfortunate that they decided to compel people, because I think you breed opponents that way rather than friends of solar energy,” Mr. Uchtmann said. He said he found the demands too invasive for existing homes, especially in the case of older citizens who might not live long enough to justify the upfront costs of installing the solar systems.



“I’m right up against the border myself,” said Mr. Uchtmann, who is 64. But he said he could support a solar-heating requirement for new buildings.



Because the town of 80,000 has a level population and relatively few new homes are built here, restricting the measure to new construction would not go far enough for the politicians behind it.



“We have a serious energy problem with the older homes,” Marburg’s deputy mayor, Franz Kahle, said in an interview at the historic town hall on the city’s colorful market square. To make a real leap forward, he said, a dramatic step was necessary.



“Before, solar installations were the exception and their absence was the rule,” Mr. Kahle said. “We want to get to the point where the opposite is the case.”



He pointed out that building codes constantly dictated what property owners could and could not do with their homes and said that the solar regulation already offered exceptions for cases of hardship or alternatives for those living in the shadiest spots.



Marburg’s law has attracted attention nationwide as a model for environmentally active politicians.



“What they are doing in Marburg is good and progressive, and we, and other cities, need to move forward with similar initiatives as well,” said Birgit Simon, deputy mayor of Offenbach am Main and a member of the Green Party. She said she hoped a coalition of left-of-center parties in the state Parliament could change the building codes to make the Marburg ordinance sustainable and imitable.



Among Marburgers interviewed one sunny afternoon this week, there was near universal support for the ordinance’s goals but an almost equal level of confusion about its exact nature.



“In principle, it’s a really good idea,” said Cornelia Janus, 35, who works at the university. But she questioned whether the costs might be too high and whether historic buildings and monuments would be protected.



“For a city like Marburg,” she said, gazing toward the churches and the castle arrayed along the hillside, which draw tourists from around the world, “that’s pretty important too.”

Senators and Congressmen Who Forgot the Past

Senators and Congressmen Who Forgot the Past

In a time where a Senator’s remarks are short lived, we find it necessary to remind the public who said what and when.

November is closing in fast and we need this information to make an informed decision!

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

no opinions just video!

'545' PEOPLE THAT MAINTAIN A DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT!

'545' PEOPLE THAT MAINTAIN A DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT!

By Charlie Reese* --

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? ·

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. · You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. ·

 You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. ·

You and I don't set fiscal policy, congress does. ·

 You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. The plate is so full of problems its totally overwhelming.I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board, because that problem was created by the Congress.In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.They have no ability to coerce a senator, a Congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.

 The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall, power, love of the lime light and perks. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.Who is the speaker of the House?Nancy Pelosi, she is the leader of the majority party.She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted-- by present facts - of incompetence and Irresponsibility.

Wake up America before its too late.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.·

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair or don't care. ·

 If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red or don't care. ·

 If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. ·

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

It’s a windfall for them. One term, and their set for life. There are no insoluble government problems.Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible. They and they alone, have the power.They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!'

*Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel

Windfall Profits Tax AGAIN!

The ‘windfall profits’ tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a ‘windfall’ profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales—or does it merely depend on who earns it? Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s ‘emergency’ plan, announced on Friday, doesn’t offer any clarity. To pay for ‘stimulus’ checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take ‘a reasonable share’ of oil company profits. Mr. Obama didn’t bother to define ‘reasonable’... This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing. Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any ‘windfall’ tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we’re missing some... business subtlety. Maybe [Obama has] in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers). If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify... The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie’s multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of ‘windfall.’... The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation. It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.” —The Wall Street Journal




What really irks me about this idea is, how would the Democrats decide who gets taxed in their “windfall profit” tax? The Oil Industry makes on the average 9.8% profit, while companies such as Citicorp makes 15.7%, Altria group (makes of Marlboro cigarettes) made 22%, Merck Pharmaceuticals made 25.3%. The question is, if allowed to tax one company at a higher rate, who or what will be the deciding factor on what corporation is next?……Al


Updated oil issue!

Exhibiting a depth of economic knowledge reminiscent of a cookie sheet, Barack “Tire Gauge” Obama released a six-page policy paper to pass for a serious “emergency economic plan,” otherwise known as income confiscation and redistribution. One part of his plan would extort billions of dollars in what he considers “windfall profits” from America’s oil companies over the next five years to pay for another one-time stimulus check ($500 for individuals or $1,000 for families) to offset the rising costs of energy this winter. Big Oil is a handy target for Obama, given, for example, ExxonMobil’s recent $11-billion quarterly profit announcement. But economist Mark Perry points out that Exxon’s tax bill this year ($61.7 billion for the first half of 2008) will outstrip the entire tax contribution of the lower 50 percent of all American wage earners. Furthermore, Exxon’s profit margin was only 10 percent—not at all out of line with most businesses and not exactly a “windfall.” (In a bit of unwelcome news for Obama this week, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics noted that his campaign has received more money from Exxon employees, $42,000 to $35,166, than the McCain campaign. Obama also received more money from Chevron and BP. So much for the Demos’ too-clever new website, “Exxon-McCain ‘08.”)

reprinted from the Patriot Post (http://www.patriotpost.us/)

Senate approves first SUV design

In the first only resolution passed during a senate “recess” was accomplished today by the senate in a heated debate even among the only ones present (democrats). The senate approved the first primary wind powered SUV by a narrow margin. The extreme liberals were on a 12th hour vigil to deny the half sane remaining crowd, on the basis that the rubber dust left from the tires of the “big bad” SUV would contribute to global warming, as defined by “our father who art in Tennessee.” Soccer Moms seemed to be the target of the elite left crowd, as Senator Obama this week declared that tire under inflation and poor tune up practices has contributed to dependency on foreign oil in the past, thus leading the charge by the dems to approve the new SUV design.



As you will see the new approved design incorporates the new democratic push for wind power. Of course the new design now requires all bridges, stoplights, and power lines to be raised by 13ft., but as the democratic caucus has declared, “this is by far a more acceptable situation then drilling in the ANWR province. The new changes to our roadways will cost the taxpayer and additional 13 trillion dollars a year, but as the dems referred to it as a “win for the world.”



The far left is not yet satisfied with the new design, saying it leaves a lot to be desired. Further changes in the successive years include solar panels, the addition of lithium batteries, and a wind up key for the back door. As the Democratic Party said late last night, “this is a vehicle we can live with, ignore all the hype the republican party comes up with, this IS the SUV of the future”



Car and Driver magazine did a road test of this vehicle before the dems unveiled it yesterday, saying….”this is the scariest ride we have ever been in, the sails lift the inner wheels in each turn, and the view over the windmills on the hood block vision to the point of obstructed vision.”



The dems countered that, this was a clear conspiracy to deny the American public of a true green vehicle. Further testing will include a trailer that has an onboard spill-proof still designed by non other then previously presidential pardoned Junior Johnson of NASCAR fame to supply the needed ethanol fuel to traverse a mere 200 miles, previously handled by diesels to over double that limit, but now considered economically in feasible.



The Bush administration has remained mysteriously quiet.

Barack on Iraq:

January 2007—“And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”


July 2007—“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan... My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”



September 2007—“After putting an additional 30,000 troops in... we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago... It is a course that will not succeed.”



January 2008—“I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”



Now: “What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that.”


Reprinted from the Patriot Post (http://www.patriotpost.us/)

Around the nation: DC ignores Heller ruling

On 26 June, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that Washington, DC’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment, forcing the city to draft new gun legislation. The DC city council is now considering that new legislation, but if it passes, it’s almost certain that the District will end up in court again. That’s because DC’s new law doesn’t look much different from the old one.



While handguns would be allowed in DC homes under the new legislation, semiautomatic pistols would still be illegal. “The semiautomatic ban is clearly unconstitutional,” said Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully challenged DC’s handgun ban. “The overwhelming majority of handguns people use in the United States are semiautomatic.” This is significant because the Supreme Court majority opinion noted that weapons in “common use” could not be banned, but only “dangerous and unusual weapons.”



Also basically unchanged is DC’s requirement that guns be locked or disassembled unless there is an “immediate threat.” In other words, the District of Columbia expects residents to assemble and load a revolver while being attacked by an intruder in the middle of the night. We doubt the Supreme Court would be amused, especially since Chief Justice John Roberts mocked the very idea during the oral-arguments phase of Heller.



No matter—Washington, DC, is intent on defying the Heller ruling anyway. “[B]ecause we really haven’t changed the storage rule from the prior unconstitutional law and because of other features, I do agree that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen,” said council member Mary Cheh, “but we’ll be prepared.” The problem is, the law-abiding citizen who is threatened in his own home won’t be prepared.

Reprinted from the Patriot Post (http://www.patriotpost.us/)

For The Record

FOR THE RECORD

“Barack Obama had ample reason to recall the Berlin Airlift of 1948 during his dramatic speech in the German capital last week. The airlift was an early and critical success for the West in the Cold War, with clear relevance to our own time, the war in Iraq, and the free world’s conflict with radical Islam. But having reached back 60 years to that pivotal hour of American leadership, Obama proceeded to draw from it exactly the wrong lessons. The Soviet Union had blockaded western Berlin on June 24, 1948, choking off access to the city by land and water and threatening 2.5 million people with starvation. Moscow was determined to force the United States and its allies out of Berlin. To capitulate to Soviet pressure, as Obama rightly noted, ‘would have allowed Communism to march across Europe.’ Yet many in the West advocated retreat, fearing that the only way to keep the city open was to use the atomic bomb—and launch World War III. For President Truman, retreat was unthinkable. ‘We stay in Berlin, period,’ he decreed. Overriding the doubts of senior advisers... Truman ordered the Armed Forces to begin supplying Berlin by air. Military planners initially thought that with a ‘very big operation,’ they might be able to get 700 tons of food to Berlin. Within weeks, the Air Force was flying in twice that amount every day, as well as supplies of coal. ... It would take nearly a year and more than 277,000 flights. But in the end it was the Soviets who backed down. On May 12, 1949, the blockade ended—a triumph of American prowess and perseverance, and a momentous vindication for Truman. But not once in his Berlin speech did Obama acknowledge Truman’s fortitude, or even mention his name. Nor did he mention the US Air Force, or the 31 American pilots who died during the airlift. Indeed, Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America’s military might. Save for a solitary reference to ‘the first American plane,’ he never described one of the greatest American operations of the postwar period as an American operation at all. He spoke only of ‘the airlift,’ ‘the planes,’ ‘those pilots.’ Perhaps their American identity wasn’t something he cared to stress amid all his ‘people of the world’ salutations and talk of ‘global citizenship.’... Sixty years later, it is a very different kind of Democrat who is running for president. Obama may have wowed ‘em in Berlin, but he’s no Harry Truman.” —Jeff Jacoby

Reprinted from the Patriot Post (http://www.patriotpost.us/)

More on Oil

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

July 31, 2008

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama seized on a record oil company profit to argue that rival John McCain offers only tax breaks for Big Oil and "short-term gimmicks" to consumers struggling with soaring gasoline prices.

The Illinois senator quickly incorporated news of Exxon Mobil's nearly $12 billion quarterly profit into his remarks at a town hall meeting here.

"No U.S. Corporation ever made that much in a quarter," Obama said. "But while Big Oil is making record profits, you are paying record prices at the pump and our economy is leaving working people behind."

McCain's response, Obama said, is to propose a corporate tax plan that would give "$4 billion each year to the oil companies, including $1.2 billion for Exxon Mobil alone" and a gas tax holiday that Obama said would only "pad oil company profits and save you — at best — half a tank of gas" over an entire summer.

In recent days, Obama has complained that McCain is offering little of substance to voters and does little more than attack.

"All those negative ads he's running won't do a thing to lower your gas prices or lift up the debate in this country," Obama said.

As the campaign sought to contrast energy problems with McCain's campaign tactics, Obama joked about a new McCain commercial that calls the Democrat the biggest celebrity in the world while showing images of pop culture celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

"So far all we've been hearing about is Paris Hilton," said Obama. "I do have to ask my opponent: Is that the best you can do? Is that what this election is really all about? Is that worthy of the American people."

Obama said McCain is part of a Washington establishment that "has failed the American people on energy and that failure has led directly to our current crisis."

In response, the McCain campaign labeled Obama's criticism a "hypocritical political attack," and cited his vote in 2005 for an energy bill backed by President Bush. McCain opposed the legislation.

The two rivals have clear differences on energy policy. McCain favors a gas tax "holiday" for the summer driving season and wants to expand offshore drilling. Obama opposes both and instead advocates longer term assistance to develop alternative energy sources.

"That's how America is going to free itself from our dependence on foreign oil — not through short-term gimmicks, but through a real long-term commitment to transform our energy sector," Obama said.

Developing alternative energy is a big issue throughout the upper Midwest, a crucial swing region in this year's election.

While the exchanges between Obama and McCain have been growing sharper, he said, "I'm not interested in getting into a tit-for-tat, that's not going to lower your gas prices."

Before the town hall meeting, Obama met with victims of this summer's flooding to assure them he would push for rapid assistance to rebuild in a city that suffered $1 billion in flood damage.

"This city is going to rebuild," said Obama. "People are hurting, people are suffering. We need to make sure these communities have the assistance they need in a timely fashion."



What Barack Obama didn’t say is just as important as what he did say. Although Exxon/Mobil made a gross first quarter profit of 12 billion dollars, the federal government taxed them 9.7 billion. So my question still remains, who makes more profit per gallon of gasoline or diesel, the oil companies or the federal government? At least McCain has suggested alternatives, what has Obama suggested? Alternate fuel sources, what the hell does that mean? What alternate fuel source can run my car in its current configuration? It’s time to confront all these jackasses that spew the same crap. Why did they go to recess without voting on the drilling issue? Pelosi thinks she is going to save the world……..spare us your theatrics and just vote up or down so everyone can see who you are for, do you hear that Harry Reid?….Al

Who will you trust to protect us?

With a renewed Russian threat to assemble a new “Axis of Evil”, we have to wonder who would be the best candidate to support our country. John McCain believes in National Defense, and increasing the defense budget. After the Clinton Administration decreased our defense budget by 35% the attack on the Twin Towers happened, leaving us with a decreased capability to fight an Islamic war on many fronts. Barack Obama, on the other hand, wants us to give up our defenses while many countries seek to destroy us. He has concluded that Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, are all “small countries” and pose us no threat!

Vladimir Putin is on a course now to assemble a consortium of countries to secure Russia’s supply of oil, while in the same time strangling our country for supplies. Threats aren’t just physical, economic damage can hold us hostage too. Obama seems to have a simplistic view of foreign affairs, and that view will serve to hurt us. It wasn’t coincidence that had Russia invading Georgia, they have a pipeline of oil and they are a democracy, but of course Obama had 4 different positions on this invasion before actually deciding on anything.

You need to view this video to see his exact words;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqhoiK8-Ww

Laws that would not make sense

Laws that would not make sense

By Kevin Bryant



How would you like to wake up tomorrow and read in the paper or hear on the radio & television that fast food chains have now been outlawed because they are a major contributor to obesity? Perhaps a law was passed that outlawed any form of beverage that contained sugar because it promotes tooth decay or caffeine because too much of it can cause someone with a weak heart to have a heart attack? Better yet, let’s outlaw sex between consenting adults if they have not been certified by a government agency in the last 30 days to be healthy enough to have sex and be free from any diseases. That doesn't make any sense does it?



What about laws to help protect the environment. Let’s outlaw combustion engines because of the carbon dioxide they put off. Plastics in any form will be outlawed because they take fossil fuels to produce. Can you imagine a world without plastics? So much for the bottled water industry, medical care as we know it, no computers, no electronic games, no cars, just about everything as we know it would no longer be available to us. This too doesn't make any sense does it?



How about all humans will from this day forth be required to wear a breathing filtration system to remove carbon dioxide from your exhaled breathes regardless of the fact that plants need it to grow. Or better yet, laws stating that humans are the only animals allowed to live on the earth’s surface and all others must be eradicated by any and all means available. I think we could all agree that this would be a stupid law.



These all would be stupid laws that would not make sense to any civilized society. They would have a major impact on our rights and liberties. Could you imagine the outcries if these were actually made into law? The restrictions they would place on our everyday lives would set us back hundreds of years.



I believe we can all agree that if these laws were to be implemented, they would go well beyond the scope of the authority granted by the constitution to the city, state and federal governments.



Here is another example of a stupid law that is not constitutionally supported yet continues to grow in popularity and has a direct effect all our lives: City and State Smoking Bans. Now I know all the non-smokers out there are saying they are good laws and they are there to protect us and our children. If they protect us from harmful second hand smoke how could it possibly be a bad thing?



Most smokers are very polite and do not smoke around those who do not. Most smokers agree that smoking bans in restaurants and other places that center around family are good things and they support them. It’s the same with not smoking in office spaces and or most other indoor businesses. Now think about the smoking bans and how they could possibly affect non-smokers negatively. We’ll get back to that question in a few minutes.



You have to be 16 to drive a car. You have to 18 to vote and enter into legally binding contracts and you have to be 21 to buy alcohol. By the time most of us reach the age of 21, we can think for ourselves and are beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law responsible for our own actions. By the age of 21, a vast majority of the population is capable of judging for themselves what they want to do and how to live their own lives. At 21, you enjoy all the freedoms granted to you by the constitution & the bill of rights.



But wait, do you really?



Multiply this one example by all the adult only establishments in your area. Imagine that you are a bar owner. You have owned this bar for 15 years and have had a strict policy to card anyone that does not look at least 35 years of age to verify that they have a legal right to be in there and to purchase an alcoholic beverage if they so choose to. Your bar has been a mainstay of where people go to after getting off work at the office or factory or wherever they work. For years you have served many of the same people who come in and have a drink or two, sit around with all their buddies or girlfriends and been able to light up and relax. You have enjoyed an occasional cigar with them and taken part in many conversations.



Now here comes a group of people who have never or would never set foot inside your establishment and now they want to tell you what you can and can not do inside a building that you own or rent. They wish to take away a freedom that the adults only of your community have enjoyed for many years. They petition for a vote on it. The measure passes and now smoking has been outlawed in any business within the city. These same people who voted for the smoking ban are the same ones that would never enter your establishment to begin with yet, in one swift act, one of your rights as a business owner and property owner has been taken away from you.



Now, remember when I said we would get back to negative affects that a smoking ban would have on non-smokers. We have now come to that part. Because smoking is no longer allowed even in the adult only establishments, between 25 and 40 percent of the people who used to frequent that bar after work now just goes directly home. The loss of patrons is directly proportional to the loss of revenue that your bar was taking in. You just lost a big chuck of your income. Now you have less money to spend items for yourself, your family and your home. Now, you also owe the city, state and federal governments less in taxes because you are not making as much as before. Because of the loss of patrons, you now have to let half your staff go because you can no longer afford to keep them employed.



In the city of St. Louis, MO the smoking ban has resulted in, depending on which report you read, a loss of between 5 and 9 MILLION dollars in lost revenue from sales tax on alcohol and tobacco from bars, casinos and other adult only establishments. As a result, property tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, various utility taxes and rates all has risen to cover the loss of revenue as well as the cost of using public services and visiting government operated establishments.



So, the bar owner makes less, spends less and pays a higher price for taxes and basic services all because a group of people want to tell him and everyone else how to live their lives. Because of their actions, now everyone must also pay higher prices for those same services and taxes. We are not done yet, because not only do you now have to pay a higher amount because of the loss of city revenue, but that amount has increased even more because the staff you had to let go are now receiving unemployment checks and other various subsidies and assistance because they no longer have jobs.



Loss of revenue and higher taxes.....Still think smoking bans are a great idea?



He who surrenders freedom for security deserves neither – attributed to Benjamin Franklin

The idiots in Congress did it AGAIN!

After debating most of the day on whether they would vote to issue Karl Rove a contempt citation for his  refusal to testify to Congress, ( good lord leave the man alone), he's out of the White House already! The Congress voted 214 to 213 to adjourn for reccess. They escaped the American people's wish to vote on drilling for oil issue. It's funny how they have all the time in the world to try to crucify Karl Rove, and yet deny the American people a vote on something that affects every person in this country. They have always said that we attacked Iraq for "oil", and if that was true..................where is it? It just bolsters my opinion that the democrats have NO answers, they only avoid the questions, and now........they go on VACATION!

My new Mantra will be a throw back to the early 1900's.........THROW THE RASCALS OUT!
The Presidential position means very little next to the out of control congress we have right now. Maybe one thing Obama says is true......we need change!

I implore everyone to "balance" the congress, senatorial, and the house! Let's find someone who favors term limits on both houses, and vote them in! If someone has been there for 25 yrs, let's toss them out! We need new blood, balanced blood. We need a balanced congress first, we need term limits next. Let's get something done in Congress for a change!