Typical hot head Thomas V Mike Miller

Maryland State Senate President, Thomas V Mike Miller was never content to keep his opinions to himself. The very person that referred to past Lt. Governor Michael Steele as an “uncle tom,” has put his foot in his mouth again, this time aiming the frustration and poor judgment of Governor Martin O’Malley’s administration, against Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot. Franchot a democrat, as raised the hair on Miller’s back by not “falling in to line” with O’Malley and Miller’s view of their kingdom.

Miller’s back biting is nothing new in this state, and this time is no exception. His decision to make this latest personal battle public just might come back to bite him. Miller has yet to make the decision of whether or not run for re-election in 2010, but this arrogant and demeaning letter to Franchot, can do nothing but reduce his standing in many peoples eyes.

Although Miller has been in office for over thirty years, Franchot is hardly a new comer to the political scene, serving over 20 years himself. Regardless of that fact Miller has chosen to demean him in public.

Miller and O’Malley believe their view of the fiscal condition of the State of Maryland, is the only one. Announced this week was a reported $432 million shortfall that could blossom to $1 billion by next fiscal year. Clearly the tax increases haven’t worked the way the administration hoped they would, but Miller won’t open his closed mind to any new ideas. I guess Franchot should thank god he’s a democrat, I can only IMAGINE the letter’s contents if he was a Republican…………..maybe Mike Miller should just slither the way of Parris Glendening come 2010.



September 10, 2008



Comptroller Peter Franchot

Comptroller of Maryland

80 Calvert Street

P.O. Box 466

Annapolis, MD 21404-0466



Dear Peter:

I have worked with many statewide elected officials during my tenure in the Maryland General Assembly, and I have watched each deal differently with the mantle of statewide leadership. I was most impressed by those who understood the truism: “What got you here won’t get you there.” They knew they had to grow beyond the experience they brought with them into office, which helped them thrive in their statewide leadership role. These successful officials served our State well, and they earned the respect and gratitude of the citizens of Maryland.

Regrettably, as you stumble through your second year in the Comptroller’s Office, it is evident you do not understand that what got you into statewide office will not ensure success as a statewide official. Rather than growing into your role, you are clinging to the worst habits of a novice elected official – preening for the press, repackaging old ideas and calling them new, expanding your budget, while criticizing others for bloat in theirs, offering policy alternatives one day that are incongruous with your positions from the day before, and criticizing others for leading while offering nothing to the debate.

Your letter of September 8 is the latest example of your obsession with the press, and your disregard for the relationships you need to be an effective leader. I received requests from reporters for comment before I received the letter. Your decision to leak the letter before delivering it can only lead to a conclusion that your goal is to gain media exposure for yourself – not to raise concerns in the spirit of good faith or good government. Your tactics are not becoming of a statewide elected official – they are stunts better left to backbench lawmakers. After making a career for twenty years as an Annapolis insider, you should know better.

In your letter, you recycled an old idea and offered it up as new. That mistake is usually reserved for someone with far less institutional knowledge and experience than you. You called your proposal for a blue ribbon commission “fresh” and “truly worthwhile” – when, in reality, a blue ribbon commission
is a bridge to nowhere in State government. During your time in the General Assembly, State leaders assembled at least four commissions to assess the State’s finances. Surely you remember the Butta, Linowes, Puddester and Mandel Commissions. If not, I would be happy to ask the Department of Legislative Services to send you copies of their reports.

You also promised a list of “spending reforms” you will implement – I believe you referred to it as “leading by example.” I welcome such initiative, but I would be remiss if I failed to point out that if we had followed your example for the last two years, our State’s fiscal situation would be far worse.

Since becoming Comptroller, you have expanded your executive office’s budget by an average of 9.4% annually – as compared to an average of 3.8% annual growth in the Governor’s Office, 5.6% annual growth in the legislature, and 6.5% annual growth across all other state agencies. Ironically, the Governor and the General Assembly have done a better job of controlling State spending than you have done controlling your own executive office’s growth. While I doubt your ability to match our fiscal discipline, I commend you for realizing that instead of simply criticizing others, you can be a part of the solution to the challenges we face.

Your letter of September 8 offers an example of your propensity to offer positions today that are incongruous with your record in the past. Sadly, you are the first statewide officeholder I have watched change positions with such ease. To wit, you wrote that “we cannot tax, or gamble, our way out of fiscal and economic distress” – yet, lest anyone forget, you passionately advocated for those options as a member of the House of Delegates. You sponsored legislation to bring slot machine gambling to Maryland in 1998 and 2001. You also voted for:

_ A 1% increase in the State sales tax,

_ Expanding the sales tax to property management services,

_ Expanding the sales tax to health and fitness clubs,

_ Imposing a five-year income tax surcharge of 6% on net taxable income over $150,000 for single filers and $200,000 for joint filers,

_ Controlling interest legislation, and

_ A 1% increase in the vehicle titling tax.

You are on the record voting in favor of $1 billion in new taxes, and you sponsored legislation to raise the gas tax and to tax food – regressive options which would have disproportionately affected the working families all fight to protect. More recently, you have advocated for more spending on biotechnology, while opposing any revenue increases and advocating for “belt-tightening” in State government. You make heart-felt pleas for more school construction dollars in Baltimore County, while opposing changes to our debt ratios or the video lottery program which would ensure public school funding in future fiscal years.

By offering a chameleon-like approach to public policy, you have become a practitioner of the “politics as usual” that you criticize. Your ever-shifting positions are intellectually irreconcilable and beneath the station you hold in State government. After twenty years of steadfast advocacy for liberal causes and progressive taxation in the General Assembly, I am disappointed to watch you pander to the citizens of Maryland.

Your letter offers another example of your tendency to criticize from the sidelines while others are leading. This Monday-morning quarterbacking is more appropriate behavior for the minority party – not for a statewide official who could exercise influence over public policy in the State of Maryland.

Your insinuation that last fall’s special session lacked “transparency and meaningful citizen input” has me concerned that you are spending too much time listening to talk radio. To the contrary, lawmakers sat in hour after hour of public hearings, listening to ordinary Marylanders voice their support for and concerns about the Governor’s proposal to address our State’s structural deficit.

Lawmakers held public – and often heated – debates and ultimately took publicly recorded votes. Our process, though not always pretty, was certainly public.

I want to correct your more egregious misconceptions about the past two years. Working together, Governor O’Malley and the General Assembly have cut $1.8 billion from the State budget. We have provided full funding to our public schools and invested a record sum in school construction and renovation – without raiding Program Open Space or transportation funds. We have broadened healthcare coverage for working families, and we have renewed our investment in Chesapeake Bay restoration. We have emphasized accountability with the Governor’s StateStat and BayStat programs, and we have increased transparency in State spending. Like many states, we have fallen victim to a sluggish national economy. At least 29 states are facing a total budget shortfall of $48 billion in FY 2009, and lawmakers around the country are preparing to make difficult decisions to shore up their State budgets. The Governor is going to make hard choices this fall as he cuts from FY 2009 and crafts his FY 2010 budget.

While you have endured a rocky start to your statewide service, I believe there is time for you to restore faith and credibility with the citizens of Maryland. As you consider your role in the statewide arena, I encourage you to get back to the basics.

Take a look at your own website if you need guidance. It reads, in part: “The principal duty of this office is to collect taxes… Acting as Maryland’s chief accountant, the comptroller pays the state’s bills, maintains its books, prepares financial reports, and pays state employees.” You are the “chief accountant” – but none of your tax collection duties make you the “chief fiscal officer of the State.” That role is and has always been held by the Chief Executive of the State of Maryland the Governor. More than ever, Maryland needs a Comptroller who is focused on the fundamentals, so that we can weather this financial crisis without wondering whether revenue was left uncollected.

You ended your letter with the hope of collaboration, and I will end mine on the same note. I share your hope to work collaboratively, but I remain skeptical of your ability to work in partnership with other state officials. Your bad habits have diminished your standing and reduced your effectiveness as Comptroller. I encourage you to work on the fundamentals so you can restore your reputation and help all of us achieve great things for the people of Maryland.

Moreover, I hope that one day you are able to fulfill the potential that existed when you were elected. If you should ever wish to speak to me about substantive issues relating to the duties of your office, please do not hesitate to call me.


Very truly yours,

Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.

Voting for this man, only encourages his behavior, and furthers the idea that he is untouchable........
Al

Poor poor misunderstood Obama

In reply to a blogsite that had an article about Obama throwing his Grandmother under the bus…….I can’t say it better myself Joshua!

Barack Obama with his grandparents

poor poor misunderstood Obama...



"Some of what he has said about his mother seems tinged with a mix of love and regret. He has said his biggest mistake was not being at her bedside when she died."



He just couldn't get by his mother's bedside? He writes about his father's lies, excuse me, dreams and waxes poetically with fictional characters in his book, but he can't find the time to be by his evil white mothers side?



hmmm, figures...



We all make mistakes in life. We all have experienced irrational hatred, or bad decisions in life growing up. We all have experienced prejudice and hatred from others in one form or another.



But, most of us grow up, mature and see the immaturity of such thoughtless positions.



The problem, or major error, is in not correcting it, or continuing to stand by people of hatred. Not having the guts to speak up, or leaving bad people behind in life that perpetuate stereotypes and profess hatred. You have to leave those people behind for good or they end up "TAINTING" you with their evil views in life.



When I grew up, there were only a few bad apples that were racist. My friends and I all flipped them off and gave them the cold shoulder. We didn't hang with them. We let them know we would not stand for their behavior. Heck, we were kids and knew better than to hang around hate idiots.



What the adult Mr. Obama is doing is hanging with hatred and a racist spewing bitter man for 20 years. It shows he is not truly in touch with Christ, that he has not matured and let go of hatred in his own heart and he cannot be trusted to make good decisions as an adult. He seems to think the world owes him.



Guess what. It owes you nothing! Especially not based upon color. The true world we live in especially by materialist, marxist ideas put forth an idea of survival and uncaring, unloving life, nihilistic ways.



If Mr. Obama cannot disassociate himself from that church immediately, he deserves to lose everything in politics. Not just the Dem nomination, but his senate seat as well.



If a large number of blacks feel this way, then the time to have this conversation in the public needs to happen, but not at the cost to the country by an inexperienced man, who looks upon "white greed" only and looks down his nose at all others not of his "race." Whatever it is today. He seems to forget his white side, his white mother.



There are true leaders that come around in times of destiny when a country or times call for it. A Republican, Abraham Lincoln came at the right time. He sacrificed hundreds of thousands of white families and lives to free the slaves and he ultimately sacrificed himself. He was a true leader.



Obama? He is not a leader. He is a phony. He is a made up story, fictional story that he writes for himself in his books omitting truths. Playing off of sympathy and victims, painting himself as a victim.



When in fact he went to an expensive prep school, living in one of our most beautiful states, given all the opportunities of a kind, gentle America for free. He then turns around, blames America and points fingers at everyone, except of course himself, or the so-called victims. Christ never told his followers to act like victims, nor to whine, nor to complain, but instead, he teaches us the opposite!



He teaches us to have joy! During times of oppression, praise! So, where is Christ in Obama? Where in this church?



Anyone in America today can make for themselves whatever they want to be in life. There are no more excuses for anyone not to succeed.



Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby, Michael Jordan, Jackson, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Beyonce, Snoop Dog, etc., etc., and the list goes on from BET TV owner to Oprah, from Jamie Fox to Spike Lee, from lawyers to congressmen, senators and governors, inventors, and scientist...



African Americans have had more success in this nation than any other nation on earth. And they didn't do it like many of the evil tyrants in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Congo, Chad, Liberia, Sudan, etc., murdering and killing millions.



They were set free long before many of the nations in Africa.



Maybe, just maybe God knows best?

And just maybe Wright should be thankful to God that his ancestors were brought here?



The Jews went thru hell too. They rejected God. They were conquered and spread out all over this world. They experienced hell on earth, torture, holocaust. And now, they live again in Israel. Most Christians rejoice for the Jews again.



Does Obamas minister go by the Bible in regards to Israel? Or by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhans judgement against the Jews?



What is wrong with this picture? Did Christ say that Islam would one day rule the earth? And that Israel would never exist again? Why does Obama associate with Syrian crooks? And why does his church announce Hamas terrorist?



Maybe the lesson we all need to learn is to be thankful to God. Otherwise, we can all always be shipped off to nations of unbelievers, whether in Africa, China, Russia, where millions have died, hundreds of millions, where poverty still exist far above anything we have experienced since the great depression.



This is not a black/white issue in the end. In the end, it is a spiritual issue. And Obama's minister failed terribly at preaching the true word of God.



Obama has failed as a follower of Christ in not rebuking his minister fully and in associating with Syrian crooks, sending his security advivor Brezinski to Syria for talks before he's even nominated.



The same dimwitted one world government man that worked for the loser, Carter.



People need to open their eyes.



Joshua



http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-throws-his-ailing-grandmother.html

Sub-Prime loans explained to the average person

Back by popular demand....recently google searches want to know about sub-prime loan failures so here we go so the people who want to know don't have to search for it

My cousin was a local bank president before he passed two years ago, and he told me at that time that banks were going to feel the brunt of this long before it actually happened. He was infuriated that everything he learned in college, and from his banking experience was about to be defeated by a President Carter era law. 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. Every time my cousin had to endure government audits and defend his position on the granting of what he considered to be “bad loans” his mood was somber to say the least. As he told me, “I was hired to make good decisions and make money for my investors, and yet the government is making the decisions on a certain number of loans, in trade for a silly rating system instituted by the government. 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, no verification of income, interest only payment plans, and weak or non existent credit history. The housing bubble has now burst, mortgage lenders are going bankrupt, and thousands of sub-prime borrowers are loosing their homes. Senators Obama and Clinton demand now that the government bail out the borrowers. Although not blaming the Bush administration directly, the insinuation is there. This is normally the answer from the democrats, “let’s throw money at it, and it will go away”. Neither of the democrats has suggested repealing this act to fix the problem. Clinton doesn’t because her husband was part of the problem; Obama doesn’t because he believes not only in the Act but also in “affirmative action”. The problems of our country will never be fixed unless bad laws are repealed. But they should remember when they point a finger at someone that four more are pointing back at them.


“One has to wonder just how much more Democrats will milk class-warfare politics before people wake up to their deception. No matter what economic problems we face, Democrats always find a way to blame them on the ‘rich’ and the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because it rallies their base and—they hope—will alienate enough others against evil Bush Republicans to give Democrats a prohibitive advantage on domestic issues. Joe Biden even blamed the current mortgage crisis on the Bush tax cuts. He said: ‘We should try to correct the problems that caused this... [which are] the profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John [McCain] wants to continue.’ Never mind that low- and middle-income earners received greater tax rate reductions than the highest-income earners; that doesn’t fit within the Democrats’ class-envy template. Forget the reckless legislation forcing financial institutions to lend money to people who probably couldn’t pay it back—to satisfy the liberals’ obsession with looking compassionate and pandering to minorities. Forget that Obama was the second-highest recipient of campaign cash from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (according to the Center for Responsive Politics), cash aimed at keeping congressional regulators off their backs... Despite the Democrats’ destructive practice of blaming every economic woe—from Enron to rising oil prices—on the Bush tax cuts, the tax cuts had nothing to do with those problems, including the mortgage crisis.” —David Limbaugh


video that explains it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o&eurl=http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/joe-curl/2008/Sep/26/whos-blame-crisis/

Charlie Gibson's Gaffee

Charlie Gibson's Gaffee

by Charles Krauthammer                                                                     

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12

WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

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/