Let’s remember that…….

The Left media and the Democrats, (one in the same), would like you to believe that Bush bailed out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because he started the situation. Now let’s look at it logically, the original law that made the failures possible were caused by President Carter. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that claimed to prevent “redlining” (denying mortgages to black borrowers), by pressuring banks to make loans in poor to moderate income neighborhoods. This act enabled a reinforcement, and as a result, during the Clinton era this act was made even more stringent through his “Welfare Reform Act”. Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo said that, to insure that banks got a high government rating, they had to issue increasingly riskier loans to people who wouldn’t normally have even qualified for a mortgage. This combined with an over-inflated housing market (land and property), has now attributed to the tumbling of the house of cards of “sub-prime” loans. The rules are ridiculous by anyone with a shred of common sense…..lax underwriting standards, no down payment, and no verification of income, interest only payment plans, and weak or non-existent credit history.



Don’t confuse my alliance with any President, and I have to admit that I voted for Bush, but today my views hardly mirror his, but he refuses to place blame on past presidents, (unlike the democrats that preceded him.) He did the only thing he could, and that was to support the two federally supported home housing lenders, and sign the law for the bail outs.



What I have problems with is the original law that enabled them to begin with! Everyone wants to blame President Bush but NOBODY, Democrats or Republicans wants to rescind the law that allowed it in the first place! So after the bail out at a price between 200 billion to half a TRILLION dollars we still have no protection in the future?



I’m sorry but I don’t understand this. Ok so a President made a mistake, it’s not the first time , nor will it be the last time, but why can’t we rescind a law? The law was asinine to begin with. Let’s change it and move on…..why?…because of the most elementary emotion in humanity……nobody wants to admit a wrong choice. Ok, Ok, let’s forget the originator of the act, and do what is right.



Please write to your senator and rescind this law so it can’t happen again!

UPDATE:

Obama... blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the ‘trickle-down’ economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but ‘predatory.’ Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ‘90s by Clinton and his social engineers.” —Investor’s Business Daily

One Fool’s Opinion

One Fool’s Opinion
By: Kevin Bryant



I must admit, I have been called a racist before, actually twice before. Both times I was in the navy and was brought up on charges of racism and in both circumstances, the charges were levied against me by individuals who worked for me and I wrote up for dereliction of duty, absence without authorization from appointed place of duty and failure to follow both direct and lawful orders repeatedly. They were such a lovely pair. The charges against me were dismissed.



In my 20 years of active duty, I wrote up 7 people. 4 were white, 2 were black and one of some Asian decent. All 7 were found to be guilty of the charges I brought against them. I tell you this to let you know that I treated everyone the same and held each responsible for their own actions regardless of race.



Recently, I was driving from my home just outside Kansas City to my hometown in Arkansas. I stopped along the way to get some gas and there just happened to be a bus there stopped to let people off to get drinks and snacks and so forth before they too set back out headed to Arkansas.



At the check out counter I struck up a conversation with what I thought was going to be a rather charming elderly woman and asked her where they were headed. She told me that the people riding the bus were coming back from Denver and headed to Little Rock. I told her that I was originally from Arkansas and asked her if they had been sight seeing and she told me that they had gone to Denver to be at the convention of the next President of the United States. At this point, I had paid for my stuff and told her to have a safe trip, not wanting to get into a political conversation, I started for the door.



Out of nowhere, I hear “You must be one of those racist McCain people”. I turned around …..looking for the idiot who pulled this woman’s chain to get her to bark that loudly…..and told her “No, I’m not racist, just a conservative, you have a safe trip”, and I walked out the door.



This lady followed me outside and I remember clearly what she was yelling at me. She said, “It’s racist white pigs like you that are wrong with this country. Your kind gives the decent people of Arkansas a bad name”. She said a few other things that I couldn’t quite make out after I had reached my truck and was getting in.



I guess this means that all white people that do not vote for Obama are racist pigs. If this is true, then I must be a racist.



Oh, the woman yelling at me was white.

Finally MSNBC gets a muzzle

It seems that sponsors have made a dent in the far left leaning media of MSNBC. The far left wing of the normally left leaning NBC has made a statement about their crazy pitbull commentators Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. It seems they violated a promise that they made to their bosses at MSNBC, that they could provide an “unbiased” commentation on the Republican Nation Convention. Their very nature runs contrary to that statement, and true to form they couldn’t hold their collective tongues.



The deep end of Olbermann’s career was shown as he criticized MSNBC’s showing of a paid commercial prepared by the RNC during their broadcast. Although MSNBC had defended the two commentators, they abandoned their support after comments by Olbermann on the false comments about Sarah Palin’s past. His comments included; "We'll see if people feel sorry for unfounded rumors on the Internet." "If that's the case, Senator Obama's probably standing up and cheering and waiting for people to feel sorry for him."

Perhaps most embarrassing, Joe Scarborough was discussing positive developments in John McCain's campaign at one point when Olbermann was heard on an offstage microphone saying: "Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?"

Obviously advertisers made a statement loud and clear that the left leaning pitbulls won’t be supported any longer.

I only hope that the advertisers on Olbermann’s individual show will show the same intelligence that that all his past employers have shown and send him and Chris Matthews packing!

Lawsuit filed against Obama

A Pennsylvania attorney filed for declaratory and injunctive relief against Barack Obama and the DNC this week in Philadelphia. The main thrust of the suit deals with questions about Obama’s citizenship, an item that has been heating up under the surface of late. Some excerpts from the suit: “Obama committed Fraud upon Plaintiff and the American Citizens by running for President claiming to be eligible knowing he was not eligible as a result of his failure to regain his United States Citizenship and by maintaining multi citizenships with Kenya and Indonesia.”

It continues, “Obama attempted to defraud Plaintiff and the American people by allowing an altered and forged Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) to be placed on his campaign website. Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged...” And finally, “Obama further attempted to defraud Plaintiff and the American People by claiming to be a United States Citizen, knowing this information to be false.” There are questions regarding Obama’s mother’s citizenship as well, and evidence that when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, Obama used his Indonesian passport. It will be interesting to see what comes of this legal action.

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

Update 10/03/08
Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney and a Democrat, filed for declaratory and injunctive relief against Barack Obama and the DNC claiming that Obama’s birth certificate and citizenship are in question and demanding sufficient proof. Rather than just produce the documents, however, Obama’s legal team is trying to get the suit dismissed. As we have noted in the past, part of Obama’s trouble comes via his associations and this case is another indictment itself. One of the attorneys Obama hired is Joe Sandler, an attorney for CAIR, a.k.a. the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Leftist “civil liberties” group that specializes in stifling free speech. We’re sure there’s nothing to it, but...

The next flags you see from the dems should be white!

I’m sure you have heard about the “adopt a flag” situation that the McCain/ Palin campaign instituted from “leftover trash” found outside the Democratic convention in Denver. It seems that when the convention was done with the free flags they handed out, they not only placed used flags in with normal garbage to be disposed of in landfills, but made a decision to also throw out the unused ones in large garbage bags placed around the dumpsters.



In an effort to cover themselves on a rather foolish decision they LIED about the flags. They claimed that the flags were scheduled to be returned to the manufacturer, and the Republicans had stolen them! It’s so stupid of them to make such a claim, because in today’s age of verification, they had to know this would be checked up on.

Pictures courtesy of Radarsite

Pictures surfaced to dispute the Democrats claim on http://www.radarsite.blogspot.com/ to show how the flags had been disposed of. In the very least, all flags that can no longer be displayed have to ironically be destroyed by burning, not by disposal in landfills. Secondly, the dems after claiming theft never had made out a police report, nor have they produced a document showing any return authorization from the flag manufacturer. Thirdly you don’t place unused flags in trash bags and then place them next to dumpsters, outside in the elements if you intend to return them.

The Democrats show once again their ignorance of proper etiquette of an Icon of America, and then told a tall tale to cover their collective butts!

Climate change this week: Sunspots disappear

picture courtesy of NASA

For the first time in almost a century, an entire month has passed without a single sunspot being visible on the sun’s surface. The event is significant because sunspots are caused by solar magnetic activity, and solar magnetic activity is increasingly believed by climatologists to be one of the primary factors influencing the earth’s climate. It is not uncommon to see 100 or more sunspots in a single month, but during the first seven months of 2008, the sun averaged only three spots, followed by the total disappearance of spots last month.

The disappearance of sunspots has caught most astronomers by surprise and defied almost all predictions, though one observatory seems to have gotten it right. In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson wrote a paper predicting that within 10 years, sunspots would disappear entirely. But their peers laughed at the two astronomers, and Science refused to publish their paper on the grounds that it was too controversial. In the end, “consensus” stifled scientific debate, and the NSO astronomers were ignored.

The scientific community is paying attention now, however. Some climate scientists believe that the sun’s “dynamo” (the process that creates its magnetic field) might be idling. As the sun’s dynamo slows and sunspot activity decreases, the sun’s magnetosphere is reduced, affecting cloud formation and climate modulation on earth. A long absence of sunspots has happened three times in the past 1,000 years: the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the 400-year Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America endured bitterly cold winters that devastated agriculture.

If we are indeed entering another solar minimum on the scale of the Maunder Minimum, we can expect severe global cooling to follow, stressing both the agriculture and energy industries. The practice of harvesting corn for use as fuel ethanol will likely become a distant memory, and the United States’ short-sighted energy policies could mean there won’t be enough heating oil, natural gas and electricity to go around in the severest of winters. We hope it won’t come to that, but if it does, at least Al Gore will be where he belongs: out in the cold.



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

Is everyone as tired of T. Boone Pickens’ ads as I am?

He may be a billionaire, he may be a famous oilman, but his simplistic and naive view on how to change America’s dependence on oil is getting on my nerves! I wonder how much he paid to be on Fox News’s coverage of the Republican Convention during prime time. He twitched in his seat appearing to be annoyed with commentators, when they had to interrupt him when speakers came to the floor, somehow giving the impression that his message was far more important then the very Convention he picked to invade!



He talks about CNG (compressed natural gas) as being the answer to our renewable transportation fuel needs. To begin with natural gas IS a fossil fuel, (Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know that), and it is a by-product (usually comes in with an oil well hit.)



Right now we import 15% of the natural gas we have in our country. If we increase our demand by some thousand-fold, by powering our cars with it, wouldn’t the amount we import increase accordingly?



Some sources report that right now CNG costs approximately a comparable .89 per gallon. This in no way does not address the cost of additional infrastructure to set up fueling stations, nor does it address federal, and state road taxes either. Now add the cost for additional imported CNG from the same countries that already hold us hostage.



Now for the other side of the Pickens’s plan……wind power. This almost makes me laugh; yes he is correct that America is in the largest wind belt in the world. What makes this funny is the very same argument that keeps nuclear power plants, refineries, oil drilling, garbage dumps, and other projects from being built. It’s called NOT IN MY BACK YARD!



The very groups that are closely tied to the Democratic Party and masquerade as “eco groups” to avoid scrutiny by the general public, are the ones who lobby against these sorely needed projects.



I say, If you can get the permits Mr. Pickens, knock yourself out and make all this money on electric power generation yourself, but be aware they will fight you tooth and nail, look how Ted Kennedy fought wind power off the coast of his Kennedy family compound.



Please hawk your wares and your book elsewhere, I’m tired of it!

Obama speaks on O'Reilly

In an interview that was intended to bolster his position after Palin's speech last night. It's clear to see that his party was hurting last night, so his position was to make people understand he's not a wimp on national security. He stated his position on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, as being that of an adversarial position.

So let me understand, if America is tired of war, why should we switch or war in Iraq (one country) to add two more countries to our "hit list"?

Ok I'm sold...................he's a war monger! It's funny that his party's position on war is that of a hawks, and yet he tries to get cross over votes from Republicans. When are the voters going to get the message?

Last night Sarah Palin held her own, and then some, against Joe Biden, whom by the way NEVER ran ANY government post, and Obama saw it as a severe threat to their run for the White House.

Obama admitted (finally) that the surge did in fact work, although he fought Bill O'Reilly about the wording!

We finally have a stronghold in the Muslim world (Iraq), in a stand against terrorism, and we have eliminated the WMD threat in Iraq (yellowcake uranium) that had been accumulated by Saddam Hussien, and was captured by OUR troops!

The left is scared to death of Sarah Palin, and they damn well should! This is a woman who endears herself to almost every woman in th country. Her struggles to balance family and career have stuck a chord with America. She is the quintessential mother, she has problems, but so does every woman in this great country. She shows everyone something they can associate with.

The left is finally on the run, and it's about damn time!

The feeding frenzy continues…..

I want to know how the loony left and the loony left media thinks it’s ok to question the motives of people who aren’t even involved in the Presidential campaign, ie: Sarah Palin’s husband, and her 17 year old daughter. Sarah Palin’s husband was found guilty of a DUI at the VERY same time Barack Obama admitted that he used cocaine, and they are grilling her about that? How about the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant, but yet Sarah was so determined to bring a Down Syndrome child to full term? What is wrong with these two groups? Barack Obama has yet to explain his connections with Bill Ayers, and Joe Biden has to answer his connections to MBNA, DuPont, and his campaign contributions.



Has Joe Biden rid his state of corruption? Has Joe Biden stood on his convictions to the point of making personal choices that support them? Has Joe Biden removed corruption from Delaware rather then adding to it? Has Joe Biden beaten two corrupt incumbents?



The left sees Sarah Palin as a threat plain and simple, she is a woman who stands on her principles, and has rid her state of shady politics. She believes in religion, gun rights, drilling in Alaska for oil, pro-life, and she comes from a blue collar real working family! In fact her husband works in the oil fields, and not just in management. Her family has endured hardship, just like Joe Biden’s but she chose to beat the system and not just be part of the problem, or to continue the existing problem!

Who is Sarah Palin?

This is what we just received from our very savy friend, Judy, who lives in Florida. She has a friend, Deb, who lives in Alaska and she asked what Deb's take was on Sarah Palin. We were so worried before we saw her speech today...and so impressed afterwards...very strong and confident. This makes us feel confident McCain made the right decision. I hope it will ease your minds, too.


Judy, Sarah Palin is the US’s answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments … well, they haven't met our Sarah .

As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK, where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor , I can speak with confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isn’t an issue here as far as I’m concerned) as anyone could ask for at the head of government.

Sarah is no naïve small town mayor, she just *started out* there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this small town through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her term having grown to the 4th largest CITY in Alaska, a lot of growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.

She has EXECTUTIVE experience *running a government* (something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast, even John McCain ) as Governor of Alaska and got there by defeating the *incumbent* Republican Governor, who was definitely part of the old school and who WAS very much in the pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95% and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80 percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.

Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting spending in spite of the increased income the state is currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has insisted on putting a huge amount of the 'windfall' into savings for the future rather than spending, spending, spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers to as 'honest, ethical and transparent governing' - no more closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to their chagrin.

She understands the 'real people' and the economic issues we all face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she was one of 'us' not long ago. Rather than passing useless 'laws' or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently) temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now . She isn't doing these things to be popular , she is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially and she can help.

She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself - and she won by a landslide. The 'powers that be' at that time totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way. She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her - she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.

Sarah 'belongs' to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR State ... we understand she is needed for a bigger purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill her shoes here and continue the job.

As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die or step down or whatever ... Theta, up here in AK we've only been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.

Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President ... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW her , will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of A . She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong wind.

Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ... Jerry and I have for many years felt the best 'vote' was to vote for the lesser of two 'evils' and hope they didn't do too much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' 'SARAH PALIN FOR GOVERNOR!' sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the opportunity.

Change THEY believe in, but can anyone else?

When Barack Obama started his Presidential campaign he basically had no experience in anything but running for office. He put a spin on that inexperience anyway he could by convincing the general public he was an “outsider”, above it all, not one of the old school politicians of the” Washington crowd.”



In a way he was right, because he started his career in one of America’s most politically corrupt cities, Chicago. In a town where, to get anywhere, you need to do a lot of backslapping, hand shaking, and make shady back room deals, to climb the political ladder.



When Barack ran for state senate he had already immersed himself into the causes of his district, and sought to endear himself to the people of that area as a champion of their needs and wants.



When Obama sought the US Senate seat he needed to appeal to a much larger area, and thereby different groups. The district he won runs right through NOI (Nation of Islam’s) backyard. No politician has ever won that seat without Louis Farrakhan’s blessing, and Barack is no exception. Obama did what he needed to do to win that seat. He played the Islamic name game with that crowd because it immensely benefited him at the time.



Once he had the US Senate seat, and decided to run for President, he made the decision to distance himself from NOI, and Louis Farrakhan, (something all seasoned politicians do with regularity.) He had won at the “good ol boy’s network” of Chicago’s crooked politics.



Senator Obama’s experience was limited to basically to 2 years in the Senate, as he made the decision to run for President of the United States, and a combination like that doesn’t lend itself well to doing the job he was hired to do. Of those 2 years, Senator Obama only voted 55 times out of 200 on issues in front of him. He chose to vote “present” 71% of the time, and make no decisions on those issues. As a result he hasn’t done his job 71% of the time. This year he has voted even less, leaving the voices of his constituency even farther behind then they were before he was elected.





He speaks about “change we can believe in,” and yet he has picked a Vice Presidential running mate that is the very thing that he accuses John McCain of, a product of Washington. Forget the story of riding back and forth to his home in Wilmington Delaware on a daily basis by Amtrack to Washington. Senator Joe Biden is a Professional Politician! He’s been a Senator since 1973. He vocally made a case for removing Saddam Hussein, voted for the invasion of Iraq, and then changed his mind later, exclaiming, that President Bush had lied about his intelligence collection. The intelligence collection was done mostly by President Clinton’s administration, and after a senate subcommittee investigation, President Bush’s administration was fully cleared.



Senator Biden, and Senator Obama, do have one thing in common though, and that is real estate and how they acquired it or sold it. Everyone by now knows about Obama’s questionable property acquisition in Chicago through the indicted, Chicago insider Tony Resko, but few know as of yet about Biden’s sweet deal. Senator Biden’s main campaign contributor in 2000 was MBNA, the huge credit card company. The company made many donations through top ranking officers right to the legal limit. One officer stayed back in Maryland ( MBNA’s home state, until the move to DE.) The board of directors wanted this officer physically closer to the corporate office, so they made a shady deal for Biden to sell his home to the moving director. This is where things get fuzzy. Biden and MBNA made a deal at what some realtors in the area called “questionable,” as the reported 1.2 million dollar sale was way above the price that house should have brought on the open market. Could this deal have been a vehicle of legally transferring funds to Biden?



Subsequent bills containing credit card financing issues that would benefit MBNA, Joe Biden voted in favor of. Strangely Biden’s son, Hunter was given an executive job at MBNA, but resigned that job when the heat was turned up on his father in 2001. Hunter Biden started his own lobbying firm shortly after this “inside experience.”



The MBNA issue is closed now as the company sold to Bank of America, but the morals of the politician continue. The point in all this is…..the very basis of Obama’s campaign is “change”, and it sure looks like the same old thing, just packaged differently!

More on income redistribution

The United States has made history—but it’s nothing to be proud of. For the first time, our statutory corporate income tax rate is 50 percent higher than the average rate of our international competitors. At 39.3 percent, it stands second only to Japan’s, and the prognosis for U.S. business is not good. According to a new study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), “Corporate taxes are most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes.”

Apparently, the rest of the world has caught on, but while other nations have been slashing their rates, Washington politicos have refused to budge. Just last week, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) stated, “It’s time for big corporations to pay their fair share,” citing a Government Accountability Office statistic that 28 percent of large U.S. corporations did not pay income tax in 2005 (notwithstanding that 85 percent of these companies made no profits in 2005).

Barack Obama’s “solution” is to tax foreign profits where they are earned—in essence driving more American businesses offshore. Meanwhile, John McCain wants to cut the federal corporate tax rate to 25 percent, which is a good start but not enough. As The Wall Street Journal notes, Washington should seriously consider eliminating the corporate income tax altogether. Otherwise, U.S. corporations will increasingly find foreign shores more welcoming than our own.



Barack Obama is an avowed redistributionist when it comes to his individual income-tax plan. He has not been shy about his intention to raise taxes on the “wealthy” —variously defined as those earning anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000 or more per year. For those wondering what he would do with that money, look no further. Obama proposes $1,000 tax credits for those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. Not only that, but they would be “refundable,” meaning that if one’s tax bill is $300, the government would pay the taxpayer $700; if the taxpayer owes nothing, he gets the whole $1,000. This is nothing more than robbing one taxpayer and handing the money to one who pays very little or no tax at all. Some might call this the new welfare. Meanwhile, the top individual rate would be increased by 13 percent, to 39.6 percent. That’s the real change you can believe in.

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


“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax ‘businesses.’ So unless you buy something from a ‘business,’ like groceries or clothes or gasoline... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business,’ don’t worry... it’s not going to affect you. They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the ‘other’ side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.” —Fred Thompson

Fascination surrounding Obama is merely hype

Fascination surrounding Obama is merely hype

By Quinton Thompson                                                  

"The initial aura radiated by Senator Barack Obama was that of a very unstable character, giving the impression that he really didn't know who he was or for what he stood. Unfortunately, after many many months that hollow aura still exists. He resembled a feather caught up in a whirlwind, after which he attempted to magnetized himself in order to draw the support of the public as he has promised an answer on how to resolve every major issue, most of them requiring a sharp increase in our taxes.




Granted Mr. Obama is a very able skilled orator, but unfortunately, the more he espouses the more he creates dozens of unanswered questions, including foreign policy, oil drilling, economics, health care, racism, etc, freqently changing his mind in order to appease the public by telling them just what they want to hear, instead of taking a definite Obama stand which he is definitely incapable of doing as he has demonstrated that he possesses no personal or political convictions. Such actions has definitely transposed him into a Flip-Flopping Artist.



Also, it is quite evident that Senator Obama is void of any strong leadership, and judgement qualities which was clearly exposed in his recent trip abroad. Instead of using this excursion as a fact finding experience in order to strengthen his obvious weak background, he utilized it as a self-declared presidential platform to announce to all how he would resolve the problems of the world if everyone would just listen and follow him.



Personally, I am still predicting, and now with even more confidence, there will soon be a withering of the Obama hyper-mania vine which will gradually be replaced by a shroud of fanaticism.

The Senator from MBNA

The Senator from MBNA

From the past, a look at Joe Biden's connections.



By Byron York

Whitehouse Correspondent of the National Review Online

NOTE — Barack Obama's choice of Joseph Biden as his running mate is likely to bring up lots of old stories about the long-time senator from Delaware. In 1998, someone called me to talk about the sale of Biden's house, which had been a minor issue in his reelection campaign two years earlier. But when I traveled to Delaware, I found there was more to it than met the eye, and it was just part of Biden's close, intertwined relationship with MBNA, the giant credit-card company based in his home state. (MBNA was bought by Bank of America in 2006.) This is the story from The American Spectator in 1998: In the 1996 campaign, a Republican businessman named Raymond J. Clatworthy challenged Joseph Biden's run for a fifth term as senator from Delaware. By many accounts, Clatworthy ran a hapless, hopeless race. He tried to portray Biden as a soft-on-crime liberal. It didn't work. He tried to portray Biden as a big-government tax-and-spend liberal. That didn't work, either. He even brought in Hollywood GOP icon Charlton Heston to campaign for him in all three of Delaware's counties. Still no luck; the popular Biden maintained a strong lead in the polls going into election day.Despite his frustration, Clatworthy stuck to the issues. He had to; early in the race, he had vowed to stay away from personal attacks. Then, less than two weeks before election day, one of Clatworthy's campaign consultants ran a so-called "push poll" in which campaign workers call voters ostensibly to learn their opinions but in truth to spread damaging information about the candidate's opponent. Clatworthy's callers said that earlier in the year Biden had sold his house to a top executive of the Delaware-based credit card company MBNA. The price, they said, was twice the home's value, suggesting that MBNA had bought off Biden as well as his house.

Biden disputed the claim and provided the local paper, the Wilmington News-Journal, with an appraisal of the house fixing its value at $1.2 million—exactly the price that the MBNA executive, a man named John Cochran, had paid. The home deal, it appeared, was on the up-and-up. Biden called the accusation "immoral and unethical," and in short order the whole thing blew up in Clatworthy's face. The Delaware state Republican chairman called Clatworthy's campaign "crazy" to suggest that Biden had sold his house in a sweetheart deal. Clatworthy's press secretary told the News-Journal that the home sale was "not an issue we're going to deal with in this campaign." And Clatworthy was forced to fire the consultant who came up with the idea.It is perhaps not necessary to add that Clatworthy lost big when election day came around. Biden captured 60 percent of the vote, and Clatworthy returned to his businesses in Dover. According to the pundits and pollsters, the episode left many in Delaware with a strong distaste for negative politicking; at the very least, it seems unlikely that anything like the Biden house caper will be repeated anytime soon.

But as much as he bungled the issue, it turns out Clatworthy was on to something: Biden and MBNA have indeed developed a pretty cozy relationship. John Cochran, the company's vice-chairman and chief marketing officer, did pay top dollar for Biden's house, and MBNA gave Cochran a lot of money—$330,000—to help with "expenses" related to the move. A few months after the sale, as Biden's re-election effort got under way, MBNA's top executives contributed generously to his campaign in a series of coordinated donations that sidestepped the limits on contributions by the company's political action committee. And then, a short time after the election, MBNA hired Biden's son for a lucrative job in which, according to bank officials, he is being groomed for a senior management position.Of course, lots of members of Congress have intimate ties to corporations in their states or districts. And lots of companies encourage their employees to make big campaign contributions (MBNA has given more to some Republicans than it gave to Biden). And certainly lots of children of influential parents end up in very good jobs. But the Biden case is troubling because all those ingredients come together in one man—along with a touch of hypocrisy. After all, this is a senator who for years has sermonized against what he says is the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Joe's Money Crunch
It has become a minor ritual each year in Washington: political observers scan the latest financial disclosure reports from Capitol Hill and marvel at how many members of the Senate are millionaires. The list is headed by names like Kennedy and Rockefeller, but it also includes lawmakers like McCain, Helms, and Murkowski. In all, at least 39 of the 100 members of the Senate qualify for membership in the millionaires' club.Joe Biden isn't one of them. Even though he has an income that is impressive by outside-the-Beltway standards—a senator's salary is $133, 600 a year—Biden has struggled financially over the years. In his 1995 disclosure report, for example, Biden's liabilities appeared to outweigh his assets. On the positive side, he had between $1,000 and $15,000 in an account at the U.S. Senate credit union and another $1,000-$15,000 in the Delaware state pension plan (disclosure forms do not require senators to reveal exact figures). Biden's largest asset, valued at between $15,000 and $50,000, was six life insurance policies with the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance company.

On the liabilities side, Biden had a loan of between $15,000 and $50,000 from the Senate credit union, plus another loan of between $15, 000 and $50,000 against the cash value of those Connecticut Mutual policies. He also owed between $15,000 and $50,000 on a line of credit from the Beneficial National Bank in Wilmington (he had just that year paid off a loan of between $1,000 and $15,000 with the Delaware Trust Company). And he co- signed two loans totaling between $100,000 and $250,000 for his sons' college educations. Biden would have had a negative net worth were it not for the value of his home. Although disclosure rules do not force senators to list the value of their personal residences, Biden chose to include a letter noting his "good faith estimate" that he had between $500,001 and $1,000,000 in equity in his home. Of course, to get that money he would have to sell the house, a lovely old mansion on three and a half acres of what used to be a du Pont family estate outside Wilmington. Biden bought the house in 1975 but had been thinking on-and-off about selling it for years; he almost sold it before his disastrous run for the presidency in 1988. But the deal didn't happen until MBNA came along.

BIG SPENDERS
Not too many years ago, MBNA was a relatively minor player in the credit card business. Today, it is the second-largest issuer of Visa and Mastercards in the country, and some analysts believe it will eventually overtake Citicorp to become the nation's biggest credit-card bank.MBNA president Charles Cawley created his company's extraordinary success by focusing on something called the "affinity card" business. The idea is simple: MBNA markets cards to people who identify with groups or organizations to which they belong. Members of the National Education Association, for example, can get an NEA credit card—issued by MBNA. Fans of the Green Bay Packers can get a green-and-gold team card. Even luxury auto enthusiasts can get an MBNA-issued Jaguar owners card. MBNA has invented hundreds of different affinity cards and is always coming up with more. "They are the affinity business," says Franklin Morton, a Chicago-based analyst who tracks MBNA's fortunes. "They created the concept, they figured out how to market the hell out of it, and before anybody else figured out how to do it, they owned it."MBNA's success has bred an extraordinary corporate culture, almost a cult of Cawley. "Many of the people in management and skill positions work very long hours," says one observer. "They seem very committed, very dedicated to Cawley." Others note that top officers all live close to each other, and MBNA encourages them to display the outward signs of success, like houses, clothes, and cars. "There's a stress on putting your best foot forward," another observer says. "Appearances matter." But MBNA is perhaps best known for another corporate personality trait: its extravagant spending.

One recent profile in Barron's magazine called Cawley & Co. " plastic emperors." Certainly they pay themselves royal salaries. According to documents on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in 1996 Cawley received a compensation package worth about $6.6 million, a figure significantly higher than that of chief executives at other credit card firms. (MBNA's chairman, Alfred Lerner, is less active in the company's affairs than Cawley; he received $6.4 million.) John Cochran received compensation of nearly $4.3 million. Two other top executives topped the $3 million mark.And they spend as much on their toys as they do on their salaries. According to Barron's, the company maintains an extensive collection of antique automobiles, plus four Lear jets, plus two Gulfstream jets, plus a private golf course. There's also a warm-weather hideaway in Boca Raton and MBNA's "summer headquarters" in Camden, Maine, where Cawley has bought a $2.75 million home on the waterfront. "Moored in Camden's picturesque harbor," Barron's reports, "you can see MBNA's classic yacht, Affinity; its state-of-the-art cruiser, Impatience; as well as its snazzy sportfishing boat, So Far So Good and its power launch, Deliverance."

SOLD!
MBNA was originally based in Maryland, but in the 1980s moved to Delaware to take advantage of that state's more liberal interest laws. Almost all of Cawley's team of top executives moved to the Wilmington area, but John Cochran stayed behind at his home in northern Maryland, commuting to the company's new headquarters. It appears that was not a workable long-term arrangement; by many accounts, Cawley wants his top aides close to him and to the office. According to MBNA officials, the company asked Cochran to move to Delaware.At the same time, Biden was looking for a buyer for his house. How the two got together is not clear. When asked, an MBNA spokesman declined to offer any details, saying only, "That's a very personal question." However it happened, in February 1996 Cochran bought Biden's house for $1.2 million.The price was not twice the home's value, as Raymond Clatworthy's pollsters claimed, but there is evidence to suggest it was a pretty darned good deal for Biden.The appraisal that Biden gave the News-Journal during last year's campaign—showing that the house was worth $1.2 million—was done several years earlier, at the time Biden took out loans for his sons' education. In January 1996, as the purchase deal was under way, another appraisal was made, also putting the house's value at $1.2 million. A spokesman for Cochran provided TAS with a copy of that appraisal.

It is customary for appraisers to evaluate homes in relation to similar properties in the area, or "comparables." In the case of Biden's house, the appraiser compared the home to another large old house about a quarter of a mile away. That house—which was in similar condition—was judged to be worth $1,013,000. It sold in August 1995 for $800,000 (it should be noted that the house did not have a pool, which Biden's does; on the other hand the house had central air conditioning, which Biden's did not, and it was on a larger lot). The appraiser also looked at two other newer houses in the area. One was appraised at $1,230,000 and sold for $1,007,500. The other was appraised at $1,163,000 and sold for an even $1 million. In all three cases, the homes sold for a good deal less than their appraised value. In comparison, it appears Cochran simply paid Biden's full asking price. And, according to people familiar with the situation, the house needed quite a bit of work; contractors and their trucks descended on the house for months after the purchase.A spokesman for Biden says there was nothing out of the ordinary in the purchase. "Senator Biden sold his house in Delaware at the appraised value," the spokesman said. "That's a matter of public record." An MBNA spokesman says the same thing. "There was an independent appraisal done by Mr. Cochran's mortgage company," the spokesman says. "That appraisal was equal to the sales price."

It appears that MBNA indirectly helped Cochran buy the Biden house. According to a statement in the company's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission—in which it is required to detail the compensation of top officers—in 1996 MBNA reimbursed Cochran $330,115 for expenses arising from the move. The statement says $210,000 of that was to make up for a loss Cochran suffered on the sale of his Maryland home. An MBNA official declined to comment on the payment.Was the home sale a sweet deal for Biden? If you talk to people involved in real estate in the Wilmington area, you'll quickly find that few want to approach the question. "I wouldn't touch that with a ten- foot pole," said one agent. Another declined to say anything. And a third agent said only, "In my opinion, (Cochran) overpaid." None wanted to be identified by name.

BUNDLES OF JOY
A few months after the sale, during the 1996 senatorial race, MBNA cemented its ties to Biden when company employees began showering him with campaign contributions. According to Federal Election Commission records, MBNA became by far Biden's biggest single source of contributions. Company employees gave him $62,850 in the 1996 cycle, while the second-biggest contributor gave just $21,000.Judging by the timing of the contributions, it appears that there was a concerted effort among top MBNA executives to support Biden. For example, according to Federal Election Commission records, on April 16 MBNA executive vice-president and chief technology officer Ronald Davies sent in $1,000.Kenneth Boehl, another top executive, also sent in $1,000 on the 16th. And senior vice-president Gregg Bacchieri. And William Daiger, another executive vice-president. And David Spartin, the vice-chairman and company spokesman.The next day, April 17, vice-chairman and chief financial officer Scot Kaufman sent $1,000, as did Bruce Hammonds, MBNA's vice-chairman and chief operating officer. And John Hewes, senior executive vice-president of MBNA's credit division. And vice-chairman and chief administrative officer Lance Weaver. On April 18, MBNA general counsel John Scheflen sent in $1,000. On April 20, group president David Nelms sent in $1,000, as did vice-chairman Vernon Wright. On April 22, John Cochran sent in $1,000. So did senior executive vice-president Peter Dimsey. And finally, on April 26, Charles Cawley sent in his $1,000.

The law allows individuals to give $1,000 to a candidate during the primary phase of a campaign and another $1,000 during the general election phase. Once the primary contributions had been made, MBNA's second wave of donations appeared in late August. On the 25th, Gregg Bacchieri gave another $1,000. On August 27, John Cochran sent in his $1,000, as did William Daiger and another top official, Robert Desantis. On the 28th, Ronald Davies sent $1,000, along with Bruce Hammonds and David Nelms. On the 29th, David Spartin sent in his $1,000, as did Vernon Wright and Kenneth Boehl (Boehl's wife Kathleen also sent in another $1,000 on the 29th). On the 30th, John Scheflen sent his $1,000.The contributions fit an established MBNA pattern. In 1995, the Wilmington News-Journal reported that Scheflen wrote a memo to top staffers advising them to make specific contributions during the 1994 campaign. According to the paper, the memo "advised MBNA executives which candidates to give to, how much to give and when to give it—and to send photocopies of their checks to the bank's general counsel." Scheflen reportedly sent a follow-up memo asking to be informed in writing if an employee decided not to give. If you do not plan to make any suggested contributions," Scheflen wrote, "I would appreciate it if you would so note."The practice is known as "bundling," and it is something that troubles campaign finance watchdogs. "When you bundle the individual contributions," says Ellen Miller of the public interest group Public Campaign, "you can give more than with a political action committee." And the practice raises another question: Are the contributions truly voluntary? " When you do it in the workplace, many people feel there are unwritten rules, and certain pressures that can be applied with a wink and a nod," says Kent Cooper of another public interest group, the Center for Responsive Politics. " You might feel coerced into giving."

MBNA officials say there was no such coordination or coercion in the 1996 Biden contributions. When asked why many top executives contributed the same amount at the same time, spokesman David Spartin responded, "We all know each other very well. We all talk among each other, and made our contributions."Such help is particularly valuable for Biden, a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, because Biden does not accept money from political action committees. He has also been a vocal critic of bundling. The practice makes a politician beholden to rich companies, Biden said during a debate on finance reform in 1993. "You are much less indebted to the 200 electricians who gave you two bucks apiece," Biden said, "than you are to the 50 du Pont family members who gave $2,000 apiece." (In 1996, du Pont contributions to Biden were dwarfed by those from MBNA.) When asked about Biden's acceptance of MBNA contributions, a spokesman for the senator would say only that Biden "is proud of the support he has received from the business community in Delaware.

"MYSTERY JOB
A few weeks after Biden was re-elected in November 1996, there came yet another tie between the senator and MBNA when the company hired Biden's son Hunter (the younger Biden is a Yale Law School graduate who was admitted to the bar this year). MBNA officials seem delighted with their new executive."Hunter Biden is an outstanding young man," a bank spokesman says. "We're very fortunate to have him here at MBNA."Beyond that, the company is not eager to talk. First, a spokesman declined to discuss Biden's salary. Then, when asked what young Biden is doing for the bank, the spokesman paused and said, "That's not something we get into details on." When pressed, the spokesman said, "He's a talented young guy that we are grooming for a management position." The spokesman said Hunter Biden has been "moving around the bank" as part of his introduction into the business. Hunter Biden himself declined to discuss his salary or his job.

REFORM? ME?
In 1993 Joe Biden, along with fellow senators John Kerry and Bill Bradley, sponsored a campaign finance bill that would have, among other things, sharply limited the influence of political action committees and the practice of bundling. In March of that year, Biden appeared before the Senate Rules Committee to testify on behalf of his proposed reforms. He was openly critical of other bills that would have imposed less severe restrictions. Such moderate measures, Biden said, were "like moderate chastity. There ain't no such thing."Then Biden told the committee about an experience he had in 1972, during his first run for the senate. He was just 29, with a chance to become the second-youngest senator in American history. But he needed some quick cash for campaign ads. Looking for support, he visited a group of rich businessmen.Biden said they asked him, "Joe, what's your position on capital gains?" Biden said he knew what to say to get the donations he desperately needed. I knew the right answer for $20,000," Biden said. "I knew the right answer for $30,000. I knew the right answer for $40,000." But as Biden tells the story, he wouldn't say what the fat cats wanted to hear, and went away with nothing. It was a tough call, one that could have cost him the election. But Biden said he learned an important lesson about "the manner in which money corrupts."It might be interesting to hear the young Joe Biden's reaction to a case that would arise twenty-five years later. A top executive of a rich and spendthrift company buys the home of a financially strapped senator, paying a generous price. After that, virtually the entire top management of the company gets together in a coordinated campaign to donate money to the senator, getting around campaign contribution limits. And then, after the senator is re-elected, the company hires the senator's son.What's the right answer for that?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDU4OTdhMTFhN2YwZTY3MmMzNGFhYzc3ODdhOTA0ZjQ=

And now you know, the rest of the story……

I had a friend email me last week about a claim that to be quite frank I considered to be BS. As I do with most all off the wall claims, I searched the Internet and various sources to confirm this outlandish story, or to disclaim it.



Let’s pose a question to start this off. If I was a presumptive nominee for the highest office in the United States, and I wanted to promote and enamor myself to the people of Europe, how could I accomplish that? How could I get a massive amount of people to collect in one place to hear me speak?



In America we were led to believe that Barack Obama had 200,000 youths appear in Tiergarten Park, Germany, to hear him speak, about change and the world stage as he sees it.



Now let’s hear the real story that the left leading media NEVER reported.



Barack Obama funded a rock concert in Germany, featuring the wildly popular rock group “Reamonn”, that can fill a paid venue with no problem, and a reggae artist by the name of “Patrice.” The progression was very calculated, Patrice opened the event, and Obama spoke in between the two acts to captivate the audience for 30 minutes while he plied them with free beer, brats, and free entertainment.



The attached poster appears on Obama’s bi-ligual page on his website, it cleverly shows no names of the bands, but proclaims it was funded by the Obama campaign.



Now for a personal observation, the right claims that the crowds were there for Obama, but my question is….”If they were there for Obama exclusively, why did he need two bands to sandwich on either side of his speech, and why would he need to give them free beer and food?” I think we know the real story!



I couldn’t believe this was the REAL story behind all the hoopla in Germany on July 24, 2008, but much has come out about this some 30 days later. The left leaning media had done an excellent job of covering this up, but now YOU know the rest of the story, and how devious this man can be…………….

Obama with German Band Reamonn

“My colleagues in the national media are absolutely biased, in the tank supporting the Obama candidacy while claiming the mantle of objectivity.” —CNN’s Lou Dobbs

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