Dan

Subject: FW: Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

You might want to read and digest this. If you agree you might want to
pass it on to all your friends at a very critical time. The Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) placed into law in 1977 buy Jimmy Carter opened
"Pandora's Box". Banks got incentive to loosen credit to people that
were not credit worthy yet. Unscrupulous finance people began
developing mortgage schemes such as Adjustable Rate Mortgages ARMs.
Bottom line politicians should not buy votes by means of social
engineering. Yes bank CEOs should not have purchased these over
inflated mortgage companies like Wachovia did in 2006, but they made a
bad business decision, inept politicians like poor Jimmy Carter were the
root cause. Barney Frank and his democrat brethren are not held
accountable and should be.

Sincerely,

Dan Beckman

-----Original Message-----

I have been traveling for the last 10 days and following the economic
fallout on different talk shows, both right and left. I think the link
to the following youtube video my son Chris sent me pretty well sums up
the problems....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

I read an article in US News & World Report (last weeks) that said
during depression, banks were lending at a ratio of 9 to 1 (dollars for
every dollar they had in assets). Fannie Me was lending at 63 to 1.

John McCain Urged Action More Than Two Years Ago, Co-Sponsoring
Legislation To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Warning: "If Congress
Does Not Act, American Taxpayers Will Continue To Be Exposed To The
Enormous Risk That Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Pose To The Housing
Market, The Overall Financial System, And The Economy As A Whole."
McCain: "I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise
Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for
quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not
act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk
that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall
financial system, and the economy as a whole." (Office Of U.S. Senator
John McCain, "McCain Statement On Co-Sponsorship Of The Federal Housing
Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005," Press Release, 5/26/06)

In 2002, McCain Called For Greater Oversight Of Financial Markets
Following Accounting Scandals. "In the aftermath of the Enron collapse
and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin
(D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options
granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. 'I have long
opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the
heavy hand of government can discourage innovation,' he wrote in a July
2002 op-ed in the New York Times. 'But in the current climate only a
restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the
American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past
10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets
work.'" (Editorial, "'Always For Less Regulation?'" The Washington Post,
9/19/08)

McCain Led The Charge To Remove Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt. "Mr.
McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and
Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he 'seems to
prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's
demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government
executives are held accountable as well.'" (Editorial, "'Always For Less
Regulation?'" The Washington Post, 9/19/08)

And Obama Ally Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Blocked Multiple Attempts At
Reforming Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Spanning Back To 1992:

Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person -- meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well.

Question: Which presidential candidate warned years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were important problems that needed to be fixed?

Answer: John McCain.

Question: Which political party took control of Congress and blocked the reforms called for by both the Bush administration and McCain?

Answer: Democrat

Question: Will enough voters be fooled into believing that Democrat control of the White House and Congress will be good for the American economy?

Answer: We will know soon.

Question: What should a voter who puts America first do?

Answer: Don't be insane--VOTE FOR McCAIN!

Don’t expect the mainstream media to identify ACORN and its favorite community organizer and lawyer, rookie United States Senator and current Democrat presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. among the villains in the current financial crisis.

But media bias does not change facts.

Pittsburgh Tribune Review, “Barack Obama’s Closet,” Dateline D.C., January 14, 2007:

“…in Chicago, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is more important than Iraq or Washington. ACORN and its associated Midwest Academy, both founded in the 1970s, continue to train and mobilize activists throughout the country, often using them to manipulate public opinion through ‘direct action.’ It's sometimes a code for illegal activities.

“Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person -- meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well.

“Since he graduated from law school, Obama's work with ACORN and the Midwest Academy has ranged from training and fundraising, to legal representation and promoting their work.”

Note: Terry Kerry’s husband John made Obama a national figure by letting him deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democrat National Convention.

In the case of Hurricane Katrina, the Democrats and their liberal media allies cleverly (but incorrectly) put the blame of the Bush Administration and, ironically, scapegoated former FEMA director Michael D. Brown (even though he had foreseen the possibility of such a catastrophe and worked to prepare for it to the extent the rest of the Bush Administration and Congress would let him).

Katrina really was primarily a Democrat scandal. Louisiana had been dominated by Democrats at the state level since Reconstruction ended and it had not prepared well at all, in either the long term or the short term, for The Big One that finally struck in 2006.

As Katrina approached Louisiana, Democrats—Governor Kathleen Blanco, a white woman, and Mayor Ray Nagin, a black Democrat—were feuding and would not cooperate with Brown, even after Brown had President Bush personally intervene. New Orleans’ supposed disaster plan was a disaster.

Similarly, the truth is that the current financial crisis is a result of a reckless form of affirmative action or reparation of sorts.

Stan Liebowitz, professor of Economics at the University of Texas’ Business School at Dallas, explained the genesis of the financial crisis without malarky or malice in “The Real Scandal: How Feds Invited the Mortgage Mess,” published in The New York Post on February 5, 2008.

Professor Liebowitz:

”PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mortgage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

“At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.

“Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?

“From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and ‘progressive’ political forces.

“In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of ‘redlining’ - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

“In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

“Yet a ‘landmark’ 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.

“That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.

“Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.

“No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: ‘discrimination may be observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.’

“Some of these ‘outdated’ criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant's ability to manage debt.

“Sound crazy? You bet. Those ‘outdated’ standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

“Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

“Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with ‘100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns.’ Credit counseling is required, of course.

“Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed ‘the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.’ That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

“Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy.

“In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed underwriting standards, Countrywide's chief executive bragged that, to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected ‘lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.’ He's not bragging now.

“For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage caused by relaxed lending standards.

“This damage was quite predictable: ‘After the warm and fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans . . . these policies will have done a disservice to their putative beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes.’ I wrote that, with Ted Day, in a 1998 academic article.

“Sadly, we were spitting into the wind.

“These days, everyone claims to favor strong lending standards. What about all those self-righteous newspapers, politicians and regulators who were intent on loosening lending standards?

“As you might expect, they are now self-righteously blaming those, such as Countrywide, who did what they were told.“

Wikipedia on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA):

“The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB).

“The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market. Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.

“Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

“In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

“These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.“Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

“Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.

“George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003

“In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called ‘the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.’ This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts ‘These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’ Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added ‘I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.’

“Changes of September 2005

“Among banks and the regulatory agencies, there was a consensus that data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements imposed a heavy burden on small community institutions. As a result of a 2002 review of the CRA regulations, and revision of an initial Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposal following a public commenting period that was largely negative, the FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), made substantive changes to the implementation of regulations for the CRA for banks (not thrifts).

“Previously, all institutions over $250 million in assets were subject to a three-part CRA test that covered lending (including community development loans), qualified investments, and services (including community development services) to their assessment areas. Institutions less than $250 million were subject only to a lending test.

“However, as of September 1, 2005, only those institutions with more than $1 billion in assets were subject to the three-part test. Institutions below $250 million remain subject to only a lending test, and a new CRA test was created for institutions with assets between $250 million and $1 billion. This latter category, referred to as Intermediate Small Banks, is subject to the same lending test to which institutions under $250 million were subject, along with a new combined community development test that covers community development loans, qualified investments, and community development services. The $250 million and $1 billion asset thresholds also were indexed to the consumer price index and could change annually. Thus, all institutions remain subject to the CRA test. These substantive changes were intended to be a compromise between changes advocated by banks and community groups.

“However, the changes were not received positively by all community groups. Changes to tests conducted on the Intermediate Small category were viewed by some as decreasing the institutions' obligations to meet lending requirements of low- and moderate-income households. Racial inequities in mortgage acceptance rates (as reported by Inner City Press, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, ACORN and other groups) are cited as a primary reason to maintain or even increase the scope of the CRA."

Fred Brokaski
Goleta, CA

I would like to encourage the NewsPress to print the article for its readers, who are more
likely to be interested in the content of the article, than in what I (Brokaski) have to say
about the content of the article. However, I have no idea of what authorization is required to
allow the NewsPress to print the article. I am assuming that after 9 years the article is
now "public domain".
__________________________________________________

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending"
:
: By STEVEN A. HOLMES
:
: Published: September 30, 1999
:
: In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities
: and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit
: requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
:
: The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
: markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage
: those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
: generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
: officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
:
: Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
: under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
: mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from
: stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
:
: In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
: pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
: borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are
: not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from
: finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from
: three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
:
: ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the
: 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines,
: Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too
: many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting
has
: required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage
: rates in the so-called subprime market.''
:
: Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one
: study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went
to
: black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan
: market.
:
: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is
: taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
: during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may
: run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
: similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
:
: ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another
thrift
: industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at
: the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will
have
: to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the
: thrift industry.''
:
: Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a
: mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a
: conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate
: that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or
: her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point
: premium is dropped.
:
: Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not
: lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks
: make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of
loans
: that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to
: people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
:
: Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all
: potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the
: move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income
: home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic
whites.
:
: Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic
: boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic
applicants
: jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard
: University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the
: number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by
: 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
:
: In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for
homes
: increased by 31.2 per cent.
:
: Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag
: behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in
: particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
:
: In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by
: the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be
: made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44
: percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups. (my
: comment...remember 1999 made the rules for subprime)
:
: The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating
: allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems
: used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of
: credit applicants.

Who were the culprits?

Many and varied.

But as Election Day grows ever nearer, the role of one candidate in particular stands out: that of Barack Obama.

As Stanley Kurtz details on the opposite page, Obama spent many years cultivating ties with, working with - and even funding - the very folks who pushed for the risky lending that underlies the current mess.

That is, "community organizer" groups like ACORN.

ACORN is especially noteworthy, not only because of its prominence in the drive to relax mortgage requirements, but also because of its shady tactics.

And its links to Obama.

Various ACORN chapters across the country, led by folks like Chicago's Madeline Talbott, staged in-your-face protests in bank lobbies and filed complaints meant to hold up mergers sought by targeted banking firms.

Unless the banks agreed to ACORN's terms - which many (understandably) did.

Talbott & Co. generally wanted them to ease down-payment requirements and ignore weak credit histories. And their intimidating tactics often necessitated police action, as at a '97 protest at Pulaski Bank & Trust in Arkansas, where activists blocked drive-through lanes.

The movement's biggest victory, of course, came when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up the riskier loans - providing fresh incentive for banks to make even more of them.

No need to recount where all that led.

Meanwhile, Obama was right there by ACORN's side all along.

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he told the group last November.

Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.

ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from '95 to '99.

Ironically, the group stood to be a key beneficiary of the goodies Democrats were loading into Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's rescue plan - including one demand that 20 percent of any profits the feds make from reselling mortgage securities go to fund groups like ACORN.

Happily, that add-insult-to-injury bit appears to have been eliminated from the rescue bill - thanks essentially to Republican objections.

(In that context, it's worth noting that John McCain worked for years to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Had Democrats not blocked action, the whole mortage mess might well have been avoided.)

Debate over the rescue plan begins in earnest today - and much disapprobation will be heaped on "Wall Street greed" as it proceeds.

Don't be misled, though.

In the end, from a mighty ACORN an even mightier crisis did grow.

With Barack Obama's help.

off the street, take 12 hours to

talk him out of it, spend $5 million

giving him a fair trial, and pay his

food and lodging for life.

The cloak of media invisibility is slowly beginning to lift from Barack Obama's most important administrative leadership experience, helming an expensive educational reform effort in Chicago that failed to produce any measurable academic gains, according to the project's own final report.

Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the CAC, working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs.

A compliant media has averted its eyes so far. A timeline of Obama's career from George Washington University omits it. Why the McCain campaign has not raised more questions on the subject is a question beyond my pay grade. But there are signs it is on the case.

The four plus years (1995-1999) Barack Obama spent as founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) represent his track record as reformer, as someone who reached out in a public-private collaboration and had the audacity to believe his effort would make things better. At the time he became leader of this ambitious project to remake the public schools of Chicago, he was 33 years old and a third year associate at a small Chicago law firm, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

This was a big test for him, his chance to cut his teeth on bringing hope and change to the mostly minority inner city school children trapped in Chicago schools. And he flopped big time, squandering lots of money and the time of many public employees in the process.

Given Senator Obama's lack of any other posts as leader of an organization, someone unschooled in the ways of the American media might expect that for months reporters have been poring over the records of the project to get an idea of how it managed to fail so badly. Examining the track record of the guy who wants to lead the federal government would seem to be part of the campaign beat for media organizations.

But as a matter of fact, until recently, only a few bloggers were looking into the most important organized effort ever led by Barack Obama, prior to his successful campaigns for public office.

The Cover-up

Now, it appears a cover-up is underway, in order prevent journalists and researchers from getting access to the records of this charitable project housed in a taxpayer supported library. And there is a mystery:

The UIC Library says it is acting on behalf of the donor, whom it refuses to name.

It took Stanly Kurtz, of National Review Online to ask permission to see the files held by the publicly-funded University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). After initially agreeing, The Richard J. Daley Library withdrew permission. Kurtz writes:

"The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents. Let me, then, explain in greater detail what the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) records are, and how I have been blocked from seeing them."

It is highly unusual and legally questionable for a publicly-funded archive to deny access to records in its collection, particularly when they have a bearing on matters of intense public interest: the qualifications of a man seeking to be Commander in Chief.

But even if the university manages to stall release of the records until after the election, it is only drawing attention to the project. Already, the nation's mainstream media have taken notice (however imperfectly) of the University's unusual actions, albeit without exploring the subject in any depth yet.

In the midst of a heated presidential campaign, it is going to be hard to keep this interest in Obama's Annenberg years contained, now that it has surfaced.

A blogger, Steve Diamond, has put together enough data from public sources to seriously embarrass Obama over the closeness of his association with Ayers in the project, and to describe the wrong-headed and politicized approach taken by the project. Anyone can go to this page and look at the latter half of the very lengthy post to see the data uncovered by this intrepid researcher. At a minimum, it proves that Obama has seriously misled the public about his association with Ayers. And it documents and analyzes some of the complex left wing politics underlying the effort.

As the public begins to notice this outlines of the history of the CAC presented by Diamond, more questions are bound to be asked.

The First Cover-up

Diamond examined public documents, receiving cooperation from the Brown University Library, where the Annenberg Challenge Program national headuarters had been housed. Until, that is, Diamond's requests for further information fell on deaf ears following publication of a post highlighting a grant to one of Ayers' former revolutionary cohorts in the Weathermen. He writes:

"...while the representative from the university I originally corresponded with had been quite friendly and accommodating prior to my June 23 post, afterwards my additional requests for further information went unanswered. I did not pursue it at the time because I felt I had told a significant part of the story already. Thanks to the diligent work of Dr. Kurtz, however, we now know there is much more to know."

So the appearance of a cover-up actually began in June.

If Ayers were the sole point of interest in seeking the Annenberg Challenge files promised to Kurtz, all "132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material", then the Obama camp might claim it was merely guilt-by association and persuade at least some of its own partisans. But the fact that Obama was in charge of a massive expensive project makes it indisputably a matter of proper vetting to examine his track record at delivering on promises of hope and change.

The Obama camp has already noted that it does not control the archives at UIC. All well and good, though it would be nice for the candidate to plead with the university and the mystery donor to let the sun shine on his track record. After all, he is a new kind of politician.

But even if he doesn't, the Annenberg Challenge is slowly entering the national consciousness, and that's very bad news for Barack Obama.

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

It has to be a concern when a U.S. presidential candidate arranges to make a campaign speech in Berlin, where he tells a crowd of German youngsters that "I come to you as a citizen of the world."

Why was he campaigning in Berlin?

Why does he identify himself as a "citizen of the world?"

What does this say about the man who wants to be President of the United States?

For one thing, it says that the curriculum advanced by the UNESCO and the National Education Association for more than half a century has been effective. Since 1949, UNESCO, supported by the NEA, has been promoting a world core curriculum that teaches students that national sovereignty is evil, and that world citizenship is a virtue. This twisted idea is advanced by the International Baccalaureate program, and a close study will reveal that the Civics textbooks produced by the Center for Civic Education promotes global citizenship rather than national sovereignty.

Obama learned his "global governance" lessons well.

It has to be a concern when a U.S. presidential candidate chose to spend 20 years worshiping at the feet of a man who preaches what he calls "black liberation theology." The bottom line of this so-called theology is condemnation of America.

It has to be a concern when a U.S. presidential candidate admits that his mentor during his formative teen-age years was Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA, controlled directly from Moscow. Davis was identified as a "bitter opponent of capitalism" in a report submitted to a Senate committee investigating the scope of Soviet activities in the United States.

It has to be a concern when a U.S. presidential candidate, whose platform is nothing more than "change that we can believe in," supported by orchestrated chants of "yes we can." His background and his public performance, such as it is, strongly suggest that the "change" he has in mind is nothing less than a transformation to socialism for the United States. What's worse, is his apparent intention to change the United States from a sovereign nation to an obedient member of the United Nation's global neighborhood. Why else would he be campaigning in Berlin and Europe and telling his audiences "…this is our moment; this is our time."

The last Democrat administration embraced and advanced global governance. It revived the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. It signed the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kyoto Protocol, and the U.N.'s International Criminal Court. It implemented Agenda 21 with no Congressional debate or approval. And it called on UNESCO to invoke the World Heritage Treaty to block the development of a privately owned gold mine. Each of these initiatives surrenders a measure of national sovereignty to the United Nations.

The Bush administration slowed the rush to global governance a little by revoking the U.

S. signature on the International Criminal Court and withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. But he rejoined UNESCO, and launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership to build a multi-national regional economic unit in the same pattern as the European Union.

Barack Obama makes no pretense about America being first in the world. He touts his intention to elevate the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world. The only way to do this is to yield to the demands of the rest of the world. These demands include Obama's Global Poverty Act which will increase U.S. contributions to U.N. relief programs by $845 billion. This bill will make the U.S. conform to the U.N. dictate that each nation contributes .7 of one percent to international aid. The U.S. already out-gives the rest of the world by far.

Obama has already announced that he will yield to the demands of the rest of the world by unilaterally disarming. It has to be a concern when a U.S. presidential candidate campaigns with a promise to reduce America's military capability. This is precisely what Iran, North Korea, and the rest of our enemies want. It is precisely what the Islamic terrorists want. This may be why Obama is the preferred choice of all these countries for the presidency of the United States.

. Click this link to view the item:

Don't forget, by the way, that they're running for different positions.

"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country."

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.

I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem...

I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology."

I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depicts people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and "ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."

However, if anyone uses this facility to honor GOD and to ask HIM to Bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.

This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except GOD and HIS Commandments.

Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical... I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time.

"However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank GOD and ask HIM, in the name of JESUS, to Bless this event, please feel free to do so. As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet."

One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray.

They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer's Box!

The only place they didn't pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America- the Seat of "Justice" in the "one nation, under GOD."

Somehow, Kingston, Tennessee, remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion. Praise GOD that HIS remnant remains!

JESUS said, "If you are ashamed of ME before men, then I will be ashamed of you before MY FATHER."

“You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”

Who said it?

Ah, yes, more words of wisdom from that holy man of hypocrisy, the high priest of Hopenchange, Barack Hussein Obama.

This particular barb was aimed at Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Obama knows that “Mayor Palin” is far more qualified for the presidency than he is. However, anyone with any insight into humanity has already discerned that Gov. Palin puts forward no facade, charades or pretense. With Mrs. Palin, what you see is what you get.

Obama, on the other hand, has spent the last four years under the tutelage of his mentors John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, and more recently among a few thousand political hacks and handlers, endeavoring to make stuff up and recreate and reinvent himself on the bet that a majority of American voters are stupid.

Pray it ain’t so.

To differentiate between Obama and his facade, the logical place to start is his record of legislative accomplishments. But Barack Obama has no such record. So, we resort to that old English proverb, “You can judge a man by the company he keeps.”

On the short list of ignoble Leftist radicals and hoodlums with whom Obama has maintained more than a passing acquaintance (aside from Kennedy and Kerry) would be Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, the ACORN crowd, Richard Daley, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Jimmy Carter, Rashid Khalidi and, who am I leaving out... oh, yeah, that radical in the red dress, Michelle Obama.

There are many others, of course, but a few of his colleagues from this list should give all Americans pause. Obama’s close association with Marxist mentors and convicted terrorists like Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn is reason enough to disqualify him from ever receiving any security clearance, much less holding public office. And his 20-year spiritual mentorship under the racist reverend Jeremiah “G-D America” Wright defines Obama to his core.

Barack and Michelle Obama often quote the radical Saul Alinsky, who is considered to be the patron saint of “community organizers.” Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, proclaims, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

(For more details on Obama, link to “No ObamaNation”.)

Considering the company Obama keeps, one must ponder the question, “Has the Democrat Party ever fielded, in its entire history, a candidate more ill-suited for the office of president?”

Fortunately, although Obama has succeeded in fooling some of the people all of the time, there appears to have been an avalanche of defectors from the moderate ranks of his supporters. For example, in the last two weeks, his eight-point lead over McCain among white female voters (those who elected Bill Clinton—twice) is now a 12-point lead for McCain/Palin, which explains why most of Obama’s attacks have been aimed at Gov. Palin.

Indeed, conventional wisdom suggests that Obama’s latest reversal of fortune is the result of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin joining the McCain presidential ticket. But there is more going on here than just the Palin bounce.

It seems that McCain’s character-rich speech at the convention enlightened a lot of folks who were, hitherto, unenlightened. That enlightenment has finally prompted moderates and independents to take a critical look at Obama’s character. And many, as evidenced by increasing support for McCain, are repulsed by what they see.

As those who self-identify as “Democrats” learn more about their party’s anointed candidate for the most powerful office in the world, perhaps they will consider a line from the Wizard of Oz—a quote which has metaphorical applications far beyond the movie.

“I am the great and powerful Oz!” thunders the Wizard to Dorothy and her friends. “Do you presume to criticize the great and powerful Oz? You ungrateful creatures!”

Alas, even as Dorothy’s tiny dog Toto tugs on the curtain to reveal a petty little man behind the thundering voice, the Wizard attempts to continue the ruse, orchestrating a booming declaration, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

Between now and 4 November, those who choose to ignore the petty little man behind the curtain orchestrating all that rolling rhetoric about “hope and change” do so at great peril to our nation, and to generations to come.

Quote of the week
“The more Obama has to explain why being a community organizer—or a state legislator, or a one-term senator with few accomplishments under his belt—is better preparation for the presidency than being a mayor or governor, the more he volunteers his own shortcomings when compared with McCain. Besides, on paper, Obama doesn’t stand up very well against Palin. All of the mythic themes of Obama’s political narrative—the ethics reformer, the bipartisan, the new kind of politician—all look like press-release material next to Palin’s accomplishments. Obama voted the Democratic Party line more often (97%) than McCain voted in accord with President Bush (90%). In Washington, Obama’s supposedly ‘sweeping’ ethics reform—which forces congressmen to eat lobbyist-provided meals standing up instead of sitting down—and his feckless reforms in Illinois make him look the Bambi to Palin’s Godzilla.” —Jonah Goldberg

Let us know what you think: Click here to comment on this section

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
Campaign watch: Money and flags
When Barack Obama decided in June to eschew public financing for the general election, liberal political observers hailed his breaking a previous promise to accept public money as a shrewd move that freed him up from restrictions placed on how he could spend all that cash. But less than three months later, reports are circulating about “extremely anemic” fundraising, which is forcing Obama to schedule fundraisers in lieu of campaign stops. A number of Obama surrogates also will be collecting money instead of trying to get out the vote.

On the other hand, John McCain went into Obama’s back yard in Chicago and raised $5 million this week. And because McCain stood by his promise to receive federal matching funds, he has largely freed himself from the constraints of fundraising and can focus on getting out his vote.

Perhaps Barack Obama’s campaign would do better if they properly used the resources they purchased. Instead, 12,000 miniature American flags which were discarded after Obama’s Invesco Field speech found their way to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul after Denver radio host Dan Caplis brought the issue to national attention and vowed to find the orphaned flags good homes—a move that Obama spokesman called a “cheap political stunt.” It seems Democrats will never understand how much the American flag means to real patriots.

Palin interviews with ABC’s Gibson
Thursday, Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin granted her first interview since joining the McCain ticket two weeks ago. She provided articulate answers to Charlie Gibson’s questions, with one notable exception: She was not able to answer a question regarding the “Bush Doctrine” because she did not know the policy by that name. Gibson clarified that the Bush doctrine was “anticipatory self-defense,” and Palin was unequivocal: “[I]f there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

However, her inability to respond to the Bush Doctrine by name plays right into the hands of Obama’s efforts to portray her as “inexperienced.”

In response, what we do know about Palin is that she is on a fast-track learning curve, as is the case with any candidate who has not been drinking water from the Potomac for decades. Gov. Palin is a very bright understudy for an elder statesman like John McCain. More importantly, we know that Palin, like McCain, will listen to our commanders in the field. On the other hand, Obama and Biden have demonstrated that their approach would be to micromanage warfronts as if they are the field officers.

Smearing Sarah
The Left is so anxious to discredit Sarah Palin that the day after her selection by John McCain, an army of reporters and other mischief makers in Alaska tried to overturn every rock and pebble looking for something—anything—that would bring her down. The best they have come up with so far is a “scandal” over the firing of Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. The story line is that Monegan was fired because he refused to fire State Trooper Michael Wooten, who had been through an ugly divorce with Palin’s sister. As was the case with the eight U.S. attorneys fired by President George W. Bush in 2006, Monegan served at the governor’s pleasure and could be fired for any reason, and, as it turns out, he disagreed with Palin over budget issues as well as strategies for using state troopers. Not only that, but Monegan had been fired from his last job running the police force in Anchorage by the Democrat mayor, Mark Begich, who is now challenging Republican Ted Stevens for his Senate seat.

Aside from the fact that there is no proof that the firing was illegitimate, in the words of The Wall Street Journal’s Brendan Miniter, “Trooper Wooten’s record would hardly seem to make him ideal state trooper material.” Miniter continued, “He’s a four-time divorcee whom Mrs. Palin says threatened to kill her father. He admitted to using a Taser on his 11-year-old stepson and to killing a moose out of season. He’s also had to fight allegations of drunk driving [in his patrol car] and other infractions.” So Democrats are in the position of arguing that Wooten should remain a trooper simply because he divorced Palin’s sister and Monegan should keep his job despite possible insubordination. That’s hardly a winning case.

This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award
At a campaign rally this week, Barack Obama took a shot at Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, saying, “You can put, uh, lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.” Palin, memorably, had said in her GOP convention speech, “You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” Obama’s comment—a worn-out political line if ever there was one—was clearly a rebuttal. And he wasn’t finished, attacking McCain, again in his usual eloquent manner, “You know, you can, uh, you know, you can, uh, you—you—you can wrap an old fish in a—in a piece of paper and call it change, it’s still gonna stink.” Is this guy ready for Comedy Central or what?

The next step was for the Obama camp to decry the “phony outrage” from Republicans. The funny thing is, the “outrage” appears to be mostly in his imagination. Few on the Right were actually outraged, but rather amused to see the Democrat nominee stick his foot in his mouth while being reduced to attacking his opponent’s running mate. We suppose that happens when one’s poll numbers are tanking.

From the Left: Oprah joins the anti-Palin backlash
Oprah Winfrey, the queen of daytime television, has announced that she would love to have Sarah Palin on her show... after the election. Winfrey, whose declared support for Barack Obama may have netted him a million primary votes (but lost her more than a million viewers), claims that she does not want to use her show as a platform for presidential candidates. She also claims that Obama’s numerous appearances on her show were prior to his candidacy, but then again we all know that since Obama’s short tenure in the Senate began he has been little more than a candidate for president.

It’s fascinating that Winfrey, who symbolizes to some the cultural epitome of female empowerment, has chosen to snub both of the female White House candidates this year in favor of a man. It will be interesting to see just how many more members of her audience Winfrey alienates with this latest move.

Also of note, Us Weekly magazine received between 3,000 and 10,000 subscription cancellations after its despicable “Babies, Lies, and Scandal” cover story of Sarah Palin last week. Although this estimate represents a wide range, Us naturally won’t comment on it. We do know that, thanks to the lag between newsstand and subscription distribution, a portion of those cancellations came before subscribers even received the issue.

This week’s ‘Braying Jenny’ award
“Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s easily qualified to be vice president... and quite frankly, might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate. I mean that sincerely. She is first rate. So let’s get that straight.” —Joe Biden, unwittingly jumpstarting the “Dump-Biden-for-Hillary” movement

What does this say about the first big decision that Barack Obama has made? It says he’s ill prepared to occupy the Oval Office. Indeed, one wonders how many vice presidential prospects declined to be on his ticket prior to Joe Biden’s acceptance.

Democrats looking to oust Lieberman
Republicans may have applauded Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) at last week’s GOP convention, but the Democrat caucus in the Senate was seething at his comments about Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Lieberman lost his Democrat primary in 2006, but he won election as an independent and still caucuses with the Democrats.) Plans are already circulating to bounce Lieberman from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee if the November elections give the Democrats another five or six Senate seats. Lieberman’s own legislative director promptly resigned and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is said to be quietly plotting Joltin’ Joe’s demise come November. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) openly signaled that he would have no problem with the liberal Lieberman making the switch to the GOP should the Democrats try to hang him out to dry. What is more, if McCain wins in November, there may be no Lieberman to kick around in the Senate at all since he could end up serving in the new administration. Chalk up another one for the mavericks.

Rangel admits $75,000 in unreported income
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) was forced to admit this week that he had not reported at least $75,000 in rental income from a posh Dominican Republic villa he has owned for 20 years. The villa at the Punta Cana Yacht Club rents for $500 a night during the off-season and $1,100 a night during the peak season (December through April). Rangel has only sporadically claimed income on the property, and he claimed that he received no income at all in 2006 and 2007. Managers at the Yacht Club, however, maintain that Rangel’s villa is the hottest property on the beach and is booked solid during every peak season. Rangel’s lawyer acknowledged his client’s shady tax reporting after the New York Post broke the story early this week. Rangel, however, blamed it on “cultural and language barriers” which prevented him from understanding the situation. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee—the committee that writes the federal tax code—could face civil penalties and up to five years in prison, but just how stiff his punishment will be remains to be seen. After all, Democrats are so rarely held accountable...

New & notable legislation
Congress is back in session after its August recess, and debating energy is top priority. House Democrats will propose an energy bill that will include an expansion of offshore drilling, the item that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-OPEC) once regarded as a nonstarter to energy legislation. The bill will also include a “use it or lose it” provision to encourage oil companies to use the drilling leases they already have or return them to the public. Other provisions call for government oil-lease royalties to be invested in alternative energy technology and for tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, lest readers think Democrats are caving, the bill would retain the ban on offshore drilling within 50 miles of the coast if a state enacts such legislation or 100 miles if not, effectively keeping 18 billion barrels of oil and natural gas off limits. The bill would also rescind tax breaks for “Big Oil” and require oil companies to pay additional royalties for the privilege of drilling. That money would then be redistributed for renewable energy development.

A bill has been introduced in the House to repeal the District of Columbia’s ability to write its own gun laws, in deference to the recent Supreme Court ruling that found the District’s gun laws unconstitutional. According to The Washington Post, the bill would “repeal the D.C. ban on semiautomatic pistols and rifles; eliminate the city’s gun registration requirements; allow D.C. residents to purchase firearms in Virginia and Maryland; and abolish the regulation that guns at home be unloaded and safeguarded.” The Democrat leadership hoped to avoid handing the Republicans such a resounding legislative victory this close to the election, but at least 48 Demos support the new law because they represent districts that favor Second Amendment rights.

The Democrats have decided to abandon another vote on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program before the congressional recess. President Bush twice vetoed the bill because it would have added families to the tax-funded program who were quite capable of funding their own children’s health insurance. Democrats realized that they still do not have enough votes to override a veto, and there is not enough time to muster a fight this close to the recess. They plan to expand the program next year with what they expect to be an enlarged majority.

Let us know what you think: Click here to comment on this section

NATIONAL SECURITY
Warfront with Jihadistan: Cover blown
The New York Times published more classified information on its front page this week, announcing, “President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allows American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government.” Well, the operation was secret. And necessary. Pakistani villages along the Afghan border have long been staging points for terrorist attacks, as well as strongholds for al-Qa’ida. It is believed that Osama bin Laden is living in a cave in the area. Pakistani officials will be notified, but not asked, when ground operations are conducted by U.S. Special Forces. In order to win in Afghanistan, such operations are critical.

The Times initially reported a debate about such actions in June, when it noted that State Department officials opposed Pentagon officials who wanted to conduct operations in Pakistan. It was probably an Obama supporter in the State Department who leaked the information to The Times. Finally, the information was released on, of all days, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It might be that during a future terrorist attack, the safest place in New York will be the New York Times building.

From Russia, with... bombers?
On Wednesday a pair of Russian Air Force Tu-160 Blackjack bombers flew from Russia to Venezuela, the longest flight by Russian planes since 1990. (Military buffs may notice an oddity if they can find photos of the Blackjack—Russia has retained the old Soviet Red Star marking on its Air Force aircraft for old times’ sake.) The planes’ flight comes just days after Venezuelan thug-leader Hugo Chavez announced that he had invited the Russians to participate in a joint naval exercise scheduled for November, and just a week after Russia expressed displeasure over the presence of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships in the Black Sea.

While not exactly significant militarily, this week’s events are the latest in a series of political tussles involving Russia. First it was the dust-up over U.S. missile defenses going into Poland. Then it was Russia invading Georgia on the pretense of protecting Russian citizens, and now a military show in the Caribbean basin with a like-minded minor country that shares Russia’s antipathy toward the United States. While it is premature to fret that the Cold War has returned, Chavez is certainly following the path blazed nearly 60 years ago by Fidel Castro in seeking out a major sponsor and arms supplier in Moscow. However, it is also worth noting the business angle involved here: Russia has recently sold Venezuela advanced SU-30 MK2 fighter jets and reportedly has offered to sell the St. Petersburg class of submarines, the newest and most sophisticated diesel submarine in the world. The November naval exercise may be Russia’s opportunity to close the deal on the subs. No word yet on whether Russia intends to move nuclear-tipped missiles into Venezuela.

Marine acquitted; law second-guessed
On 29 August, former Marine Jose Luis Nazario Jr. was acquitted of war crimes allegedly committed in Iraq after the civilian jury failed to find any convincing evidence against him. Nazario was the first military veteran to be prosecuted by U.S. attorneys under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which allows prosecution of civilian contractors who commit crimes while working for the U.S. government overseas, as well as military personnel who have already completed their term of military service.

Nazario was accused of shooting four unarmed Iraqi detainees in Fallujah during the intense fighting there in 2004, but the government prosecutors presented no bodies, identities, crime scene items, or forensic evidence to the jury. According to one juror, there weren’t any “real witnesses” either. Members of the civilian jury said they did not feel qualified to judge the actions of a soldier in a dangerous combat environment, and some of them hugged Nazario and shook his hand after the verdict was announced.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), one of the authors of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, said that the bill may be in need of review. “I don’t think any of us who passed that legislation thought we were now going to have people discharged from the military being charged in federal court.” David Glazier, an associate professor at Loyola Law School, added, “The average American is reluctant to second-guess the conduct of a service person in a combat zone,” proving that sometimes sanity prevails.

Profiles of valor: USA Sgt. Clemens
On 15 November 2006, United States Army First Sergeant Michael Clemens was participating in day four of Operation Turki Bowl, a mission to clear a volatile area in Iraq of jihadis and weapons. Clemens spotted a group of insurgents in a village ahead, along with a large truck filled with weapons. He called in air support, which destroyed the target. By radio, Clemens then received word that the commanding officer of his unit and several others had been wounded when an IED struck their vehicle. Clemens assumed leadership of the unit and moved to secure the area of the attack. He coordinated with superiors, and called in air support and rescue helicopters, allowing the mission to continue, as well as care for the wounded. Two counterattacks were repelled and 12 enemy fighters killed. All but one American soldier survived. For his command under fire and operational success, Clemens was awarded the Bronze Star with combat “V” for valor.

Let us know what you think: Click here to comment on this section

BUSINESS & ECONOMY
Regulatory Commissars: Fannie and Freddie
On Sunday, the federal government effectively nationalized mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both government-sponsored, but privately owned, enterprises that provide financial backing for the secondary mortgage market. The secondary mortgage market has been hit hard by the troubled subprime mortgage market, the decline in housing prices, and increased foreclosures. Amid growing concern over whether the companies were adequately capitalized, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 in July. This act created the Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased regulatory oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and gave Treasury authority to advance funds to stabilize the companies. Almost immediately, Treasury Secretary Paulson assembled a team of bankers and lawyers to study Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It was apparent that the companies were significantly undercapitalized, they would have severe difficulty absorbing the expected losses, and investors had lost confidence in the ability of their management teams to solve problems posed by the impending liquidity crunch.

What followed was one of the largest-ever government interventions in financial markets. Using the authority granted in July, FHFA became the conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Boards and the CEOs of both companies were replaced. The federal government assumed ownership of preferred stock and halted payment of dividends on privately held stock. Some analysts estimate the cost of this takeover to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, an amount that dwarfs the bailout of Bear Stearns earlier this year. While this drastic action soothed the jittery housing financial markets somewhat, there is no guarantee that the ultimate cost to taxpayers will not be substantially higher.

Sad to say, this takeover was the least terrible of many bad choices. Had the federal government not acted, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would not have been able to raise new capital. The losses that most analysts expected the companies to incur would have pushed both companies into insolvency. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed, the damage to the housing and the financial markets would have been severe in the extreme. Decisive, and massive, intervention was necessary to prevent a financial catastrophe.

Even more sadly, the American taxpayer is once again stuck with a huge bill for bailing out companies whose poor management decisions—helped along by Carter and Clinton administrations that demanded eased credit standards—led an entire industry to the brink of collapse.

Oil continues price drop
The cost of crude oil reached a five-month low this week with prices dipping to $102 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange and $100 a barrel on London’s ICE Futures Europe, while Brent North Sea crude hit $96.99. While this is good news for consumers, apparently OPEC was less than pleased, and, in response, the oil cartel surprised experts yesterday by slashing oil production in a maneuver that could strip the market of up to 520,000 barrels a day.

Some analysts say prices may still fall to about $80 a barrel despite the cut—and despite OPEC’s obvious lack of enthusiasm for lower prices. Still, as long as the cartel holds the puppet strings, American consumers’ interests will be handcuffed to OPEC’s games. With a vote on offshore drilling possibly imminent, Congress should take note that the U.S. can either continue to play the puppet or can cut the strings by utilizing our plentiful domestic sources of oil.

In gas news, the Southeast can look forward to higher prices as Hurricane Ike heads for Houston. Reports of a $1-per-gallon increase overnight are rampant as refineries along the Gulf Coast have been shut down. As with Hurricane Katrina in 2005, this is part supply and demand, part price chasing.

Auto industry seeks $50 billion
Domestic automotive industry lobbyists are busy soliciting Congress, the President, and the presidential candidates for a $50-billion loan to help them retool their plants for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Lawmakers authorized $25 billion in last year’s energy bill to help American automakers convert their production lines to make hybrid and electric vehicles, although the money has yet to reach its intended targets. Now automakers want another $25 billion, and they hope to get the full $50 billion over three years in the form of a low-interest loan. Ford, GM and Chrysler currently have such poor credit ratings that they could not borrow the money they seek in the private sector at less than 15-20% interest. Naturally, Congress appears eager to help.

On the other hand, Holman W. Jenkins Jr. pointed out in The Wall Street Journal that the reason the Big Three automakers need this $50 billion is that Congress has cost them $100 billion due to “corporate average fuel economy” (CAFE) standards. Nearly as bad, automakers have been saddled with using UAW labor to produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that lose money. Jenkins has a better idea for helping automakers: “Just repeal the fuel economy rules.”

Unemployment sparks call for bigger gov’t
Name that year: Average hourly earnings were up 4.3 percent over the summer months; almost 49 percent of U.S. industries reported adding jobs; the economy grew by 3.3 percent in the second quarter, and productivity swelled by 4.3 percent.

If you said 2008, you are not only correct but also unwelcome in the mainstream media—and in Democrat politics (but we repeat ourselves). Amid continued rants over the “recession that wasn’t” (and still isn’t, to date) the Left is intent on pounding the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, which, while accurate and higher than last year’s five-percent rate, actually equals the nation’s average unemployment rate for the past 38 years.

Still, Democrats in Congress are already pushing for a second $50-billion stimulus package. Did we point out that the unemployment rate really started going up after the first stimulus package?

Income Redistribution: Obama’s new flip on taxes
Implicitly acknowledging the obvious, Barack Obama flip-flopped on his tax plan yet again by telling ABC Sunday he will not seek the largest confiscatory tax increase in history if the economy is in a recession because, he admitted, his tax plan would damage the economy. Obama’s metamorphosis began during 2007’s roaring economy, when the Chosen One wanted to use the government to heavily tax anyone he considered wealthy while simultaneously giving the “middle class” some tax credits. This involved repealing the tax cuts that created the favorable economic conditions, raising the top marginal tax rate to 39.8 percent and increasing the capital gains and dividends tax to 25 percent from 15 percent. Later, he lowered his desired capital gains tax rate to 20 percent, and then this week flopped to a delayed tax increase if there is a recession.

While we applaud never raising taxes at all and instead prefer cutting wasteful spending, eventually Obama will learn that liberal flip-flopping makes poor footwear for traversing the slippery slopes of campaign taxation rhetoric. As this week again revealed, the Obama campaign’s “change you can believe in” slogan actually refers to his ever shifting positions on taxes.

Let us know what you think: Click here to comment on this section

CULTURE
Candidates’ views on education
Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama disagree on nearly everything, and education is no exception. Both senators champion the ambitious goals of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), including holding educators accountable for student performance; however, they clearly disagree on the implementation. Lest there be any confusion, conservatives have lost no love for NCLB, an unconstitutional boondoggle.

While McCain feels that enough money is being spent on the program, he would shift some of the ways in which that money is used; this includes channeling funds directly to school principals and tutors, not through local government. He would also expand tutoring services and school choices in schools performing below standard. McCain places trust in standardized test scores, but he would change the way kids in special education or English as a Second Language programs are tested.

Obama would not abolish standardized tests, but favors using “other means” to measure success. Senator Obama’s answer to the program’s deficiencies would be to spend $8 billion more, most of which would be used to entice better teachers to underperforming schools. Obama would also add additional programs geared toward poor and minority students, including dropout prevention and college preparation. In addition, he would pump $10 billion into Early Head Start and Head Start programs, as well as into block grants for childcare for low-income families.

The candidates also disagree on school choice. While Senator McCain favors charter schools and vouchers for private schools, Obama opposes vouchers. The candidates do have similar views on teachers’ pay: They both favor merit-based pay for teachers, including bonuses for higher test scores and for teaching in underprivileged schools. Either way, it seems, it’s full steam ahead.

Faith and Family: ADF to challenge the IRS
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a nonprofit legal group founded in 1994 by James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, is currently recruiting pastors to challenge the Internal Revenue Service as part of its “Pulpit Initiative.” The plan is for the pastors to endorse political candidates from the pulpit, wait for the inevitable IRS investigation, and then challenge that investigation in federal court with the ultimate goal of ending the 54-year-old ban on political endorsements in tax-exempt churches. “For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church,” ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. “It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It’s not for the government to mandate the role of church in society.” Liberal pastors preach politics all the time while, simultaneously, they are screaming about separation of church and state. Of course, the ADF could be risking its own tax-exempt status with the initiative.

Lost in the hubbub over this issue are two things: Separation of church and state is a principle not found in the Constitution, meaning ADF does have a case for the unconstitutionality of restricting speech from the pulpit. Still, church and state separation serves a good purpose, which is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. Having said that, and speaking for ourselves, when we go to church on Sunday morning, we want to hear the Word of God preached, not a political lecture.

Climate change this week: Global cooling
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the first half of 2008 has been the coolest in five years. The WMO further concludes that the so-called “global warming” that may have occurred over the past 30 years is no longer the trend. Geologist Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus at Western Washington University, predicts that temperatures will cool between 2065 and 2100 by less than one degree. Easterbrook is using the temperatures of the years since 2002 to establish a climate pattern. “The argument that this is too short a time period to be meaningful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years,” Easterbrook wrote. Another geologist, Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania, notes, “For most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.”

Meanwhile, the Old Farmer’s Almanac predicts that the coming winter will be “catastrophic” due to cold weather. In fact, two-thirds of the country should look for colder-than-average temperatures this winter. Not to mention higher energy bills.

And last...
We are shocked—SHOCKED—to report that Leftmedia minions are grasping at straws endeavoring to undermine Sarah Palin’s popular appeal. A CNN reporter even latched on to an Internet hoax, a composite image ostensibly depicting Sarah Palin in a bikini with an EBR (evil black rifle). She claimed, “Yes, she looks good in a bikini clutching an AK-47, but is she equipped to run the country?” Not only did CNN fall for this amateur photo re-creation, but anyone who knows anything about Sarah Palin knows that she would never pose with a Crossman BB gun—the actual EBR in the photo. To see a few real photos of Mrs. Palin with her preferred weapons of choice, see here.

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Columbus Dispatch: "When applicants substantially comply with requirements and their intentions are clear, rejection isn't reasonable. Brunner wants county elections boards to ask that the applications be resubmitted. That's a time-consuming process that might discourage people from voting by mail. Insisting on this opens her to charges that she seeks to disenfranchise Republican voters."

Newark Advocate: "It's hard to see how missing a box and/or forgetting to check it, assuming all other information that is present, should be the determinant in whether an absentee ballot is sent. Those who fail to check the box are supposed to get a letter explaining the situation and another opportunity to request an absentee ballot. But, for a number of reasons, it would not be surprising to see the number of repeat applications drop off dramatically. In and of itself the checked box is meaningless."

Brunner's Directive 2008-63 orders election administrators to immediately issue an absentee ballot to any voter who registers within a seven-day window from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6, the overlap period between the beginning of absentee voting and the end of voter registration. The lawsuit, filed in a mandamus action before the Ohio Supreme Court, seeks to have the directive struck down.

"Ohio law clearly requires a voter to be registered for 30 days before receiving an absentee ballot," said Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine. "That law has existed for three decades. Outside of Jennifer Brunner's partisan playbook, you cannot register to vote in Ohio and obtain an absentee ballot on the same day."

Democrats wrongly argue the lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise voters. "That's just a worn-out, tired line the Democrats use every time you catch them trying to manipulate the process," DeWine added. "No one will be denied a ballot in this election. This is about a chief elections officer who's willing to illegally open up the voting process when it benefits Democrats, but she'll use every little technicality to keep Republicans from a ballot."

Last Friday, Brunner moved to disenfranchise thousands of Republican voters by instructing election administrators to reject absentee ballot request forms because of an unchecked box. Neither the box nor a check mark is required by law.

A Columbus Dispatch editorial accused Brunner of "needless nitpicking" on the issue today, adding, "Brunner, a Democrat, is opening herself to the type of criticism leveled at her predecessor, J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, in 2004. Blackwell angered Democrats during that presidential year when he ordered the rejection of voter-registration forms printed on paper that didn't meet weight requirements. He was rightly criticized for the order and soon rescinded it."

"This is a joke. Thousands of qualified Ohio voters are being denied access to a ballot because of Jennifer Brunner's partisan agenda, and she just poked them in the eye again. The Democrats ought to be embarrassed by this pathetic attempt to disenfranchise voters. Four years ago they were outraged by Ken Blackwell's ridiculous directive requiring a certain kind of paper for a voter registration form, but now they're conveniently silent on this absurd and highly-partisan attempt by Jennifer Brunner to keep legitimate voters from a ballot.

"Secretary Brunner should step back and take a deep breath. Her comments regarding the legal action brought against her today contain almost as many inaccuracies as her directives, and her angry rant against legislative leadership is beneath the dignity of her office.

The lawsuit challenging Secretary Brunner's illegal push for same-day registration was not filed by the Ohio Republican Party as she claims. The lawsuit was filed by citizens who expressed to us their concern about the impact of Jennifer Brunner's unlawful directive on the integrity of Ohio's elections. They believe, as we do, that the law is very clear in prohibiting a person from registering to vote and obtaining a ballot on the same day. The law has been very clear on this issue for three decades now, and the current debate has absolutely nothing to do with no-fault absentee legislation passed in 2005.

The only confusion and chaos being injected into this election is coming from Jennifer Brunner herself, and she has been widely criticized for her attempts to attack Ohio's honorable elections officials, raise unnecessary doubts about Ohio's voting systems and issue complicated, inaccurate directives in the dark of night less than 60 days before a major election.

County prosecutors across Ohio have been consulted in recent days on Secretary Brunner's directives, and they have instructed their boards of elections to disregard them because they clearly violate state law.

BUT.... ;

'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The Heller earthquake continues to send tremors through gun control
communities in middle America.

Following the Supreme Court's U.S. v. Heller decision in June, at least
one
town in West Virginia and two jurisdictions in Illinois have been forced
to
reconsider their gun control laws. The latter two -- in Wilmette and
Morton
Grove, Illinois -- repealed their handgun bans in July.

But while some communities have "seen the light," others continue to dig
in
their heels. Take Washington, DC, where the city council has thumbed its
nose at the Court's ruling and has redrafted its registration law to
impose
a burdensome 12-step process that, as summarized in one legislative
report,
involves "multiple trips to gun dealers and government offices,
fingerprinting, a written exam, and ballistic testing."

At a minimum, some officers believe this process will take 14 days. But a
more realistic assessment was offered by DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier who
said the process "could take months."

In response, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote soon on
legislation to simply repeal the DC gun ban -- a vote that could come as
early as today.

HR 6691, introduced by Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS), would repeal much of
the
gun control in the District -- including the ban on semi-auto pistols and
rifles, and the registration requirements which require residents to get
permission from the city council before they can own a weapon.

The Childers bill will also strike the "trigger lock" provision which
endangers gun owners by forcing the lucky ones who successfully jump
through
the 12-step process to render their guns unusable for immediate defensive
purposes.

Faced with a discharge petition that had gained tremendous momentum -- in
large part, thanks to your efforts which was a response to an earlier GOA
alert -- the Democratic leadership realized that a bill to repeal the DC
gun
ban was definitely going to be brought out of committee and passed on the
House floor. So the anti-gun leadership decided that the place to kill the
bill was in the Senate.

Consider what news reports are saying:

"Although the bill is expected to pass in the House, possibly as soon as
this week, its fate is less clear in the Senate," reported The Washington
Post this past Tuesday. "It has won the backing of 48 [House] Democrats,
many facing reelection in strongly pro-gun areas, and is expected to pick
up
broad support among Republicans."

Remarkably, the Post is right. (A stopped clock is also right twice a
day.)
The Democrats are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" by protecting
Democrats from rural districts -- allowing them to vote pro-gun -- but
then
letting the bill die in the Senate.

That's why GOA is encouraging members to contact their two senators at
this
time.

ACTION: Please urge your senators to demand a vote on repealing DC's gun
control. While we certainly don't want to discourage you from contacting
your Representative, the main battle is going to be in the other chamber,
so
please make sure you contact both of your senators.

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are
also
available).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I am glad to see that the House is taking up HR 6691, a bill introduced by
Mississippi Democrat Travis Childers. His bill would help enforce the
recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Heller. It would do so by
repealing the gun ban in the District -- including the ban on semi-auto
pistols and rifles, and the registration requirements which require
residents to get permission from the city council before they can own a
weapon.

The Childers bill will also strike the "trigger lock" provision which
endangers gun owners by forcing the lucky ones who successfully jump
through
the 12-step process to render their guns unusable for immediate defensive
purposes.

Regardless of what happens to HR 6691, I would implore you, in the
strongest
possible terms, to urge Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to schedule a
vote
on repealing the DC gun ban. Thank you.

Sincerely,

If you said 2008, you are not only correct but also unwelcome in the mainstream media—and in Democrat politics (but we repeat ourselves). Amid continued rants over the “recession that wasn’t” (and still isn’t, to date) the Left is intent on pounding the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, which, while accurate and higher than last year’s five-percent rate, actually equals the nation’s average unemployment rate for the past 38 years.

Still, Democrats in Congress are already pushing for a second $50-billion stimulus package. Did we point out that the unemployment rate really started going up after the first stimulus package?

It was inevitable. After Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because their actions brought legions of angry gun owners to the polls, the party re-packaged its rhetoric and tried to sell itself as a friend of the Second Amendment. American gun owners, who are increasingly becoming gun rights activists, are not the fools Democrats think they are. As we note in our new book These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War On Guns, Democrats earned their reputation as being the party of gun control. Instead of rhetoric, they need to repudiate their long-standing animosity toward gun owner rights.

The party platform tries to patronize gun owners by claiming to “recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.” But then the document quickly reveals that Democrats have changed their tune but not their agenda: “We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban...”

Gun owners know that the ten-year “ban” on so-called “assault weapons” – which included more than 200 types of commonly-owned firearms – had no measurable impact on violent crime, and that reinstating it is all about symbolism rather than substance. They know that gun shows are the source of less than one percent of guns used by violent criminals. They know anti-gunners believe “common-sense laws” include licensing, registration and a surrender of the “right to carry” to the discretionary whims of police chiefs and sheriffs.

The party chose Obama as its standard-bearer. He once served on the board of the vehemently anti-firearms civil rights Joyce Foundation. During his first run for public office he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and semi-automatic rifles. He supports mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases. He told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in April that “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” insulting millions of armed citizens who care about self-defense in the process.

Gun owners know Biden as an anti-gun extremist. He consistently earns “F” ratings from gun rights organizations. He claimed credit for writing the original legislation to ban semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that are owned by millions of Americans who have harmed nobody.

The proverbial last straw for the firearms community was Obama’s remark during his acceptance speech that “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

The “reality” is that gun rights are the same for everyone, no matter where they live. And gun owners know from experience that Democrats falsely believe that the only way to keep guns away from criminals is to oppressively regulate gun ownership for everyone.

Mr. Obama told his faithful that Sen. McCain “doesn’t get it.” Actually, Democrats “don’t get it.” You do not woo people by treating them like criminals, and you cannot “support” someone’s civil right at the same time you regulate it to irrelevancy.

It is now clear to gun owners that Democrats only asked them to the dance just to get through the door.

I was surprised how talented and involved with world problems she is.

This is a summary of the article.

She graduated from Southern Cal and was a special-needs teacher.
After her Dad died she became involved with his beer distributing firm and is now the chairwoman. Sales have doubled since she has taken over from her father.

They have a marriage prenuptial agreement, her assets remain separate.
She is involved around the world clearing land mines - travels to these
countries on a detonation team and service on their board.

They have a 19 year old serving in Iraq , another son in the Naval Academy ,
a daughter recently graduated from Columbia Univ. , an adopted daughter in
high school, and a son who is the finance guy at the beer firm.

Raised kids in Phoenix , AZ rather than Washington DC

(Better atmosphere) He commuted.

In 1991, Mrs. McCain came across a girl in an orphanage in Bangladesh . Mother Teresa implored Mrs. McCain to take the baby with severe cleft palate. She did so without first telling her husband. The couple adopted the girl who has had a dozen operations to repair her cleft palate and other medical problems.

They have a Family Foundation for children's causes.

She's active with 'Halo Trust' - to clear land mines, provide water and food in war ravaged and developing countries.

She will join an overseas mission of 'Operation Smile', a charity for corrective surgery on children's faces.

She has had two back surgeries and became addicted to pain killers.

She talks openly about it which she says is part of the recovery process.

I'm surprised the media is so quiet about her attributes. She sounds more capable than Hillary or Obama. We would really get two for the price of one.

A person with business and international experience
John did work for the firm for awhile when he left the Navy. She, however, has the real business experience. Very interesting

John McCain's Sons

Talk about putting your most valuable where your mouth is! Apparently this was not 'newsworthy' enough for the media to comment about. Can either of the other presidential candidates truthfully come close to this?

Just a question for each of us to seek an answer, and not a statement

You see character is what's shown when the public is not looking. There were no cameras or press invited to what you are about to read about, and the story comes from one person in New Hampshire ..

One evening last July, Senator John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and a heartfelt talk about Iraq They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers, soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months earlier.

Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or press. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq . Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms. Flanagan's brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army First Lieutenant killed by an ambush a roadside bomb.

No one mentioned the obvious: In just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. 'I can't imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that Ms. Flanagan recalled, choking up. 'We lost a dear one,' she finished.

Mr. McCain, now the Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq . What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father's New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.

Two of Jimmy's three older brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.

I chose to share this with those who I believe will pass it on, to others who will pass it on. We hear so much inflated trash out there. How about a simple act of kindness and dedication to others placed above oneself?

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services? This is for all you Barack voters.

From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

True - some things were not optimal for the evacuation and the shelters need some modification.
At any point, does anyone address the responsibility (or irresponsibility) of the evacuees?

Does it seem wrong that one would remember their cell phone, charger, cigarettes and lighter but forget their child's insulin?

Is something amiss when an evacuee gets off the bus, walks immediately to the medical area, and requests immediate free refills on all medicines for which they cannot provide a prescription or current bottle (most of which are narcotics)?

Isn't the system flawed when an evacuee says they cannot afford a $3 co pay for a refill that will be delivered to them in the shelter, yet they can take a city provided bus to Wal-mart, buy 5 bottles of Vodka, and return to consume them secretly in the shelter?

Is it fair to stop performing luggage checks on incoming evacuees so as not to delay the registration process but endanger the volunteer staff and other persons with the very realistic truth of drugs, alcohol and weapons being brought into the shelter?

Am I less than compassionate when it frustrates me to scrub emesis from the floor near a nauseated child while his mother lies nearby, watching me work 26 hours straight, not even raising her head from the pillow to comfort her own son?

Why does it incense me to hear a man say "I ain't goin' home 'til I get my FEMA check" when I would love to just go home and see my daughters who I have only seen 3 times this week?

Is the system flawed when the privately insured patient must find a way to get to the pharmacy, fill his prescription and pay his co pay, while the FEMA declaration allows the uninsured person to acquire free medications under the disaster rules?

Does it seem odd that the nurse volunteering at the shelter is paying for childcare while the evacuee sits on a cot during the day as the shelter provides a "daycare"?

Have government entitlements created this mentality and am I facilitating it with my work?

Will I be a bad person, merciless nurse or poor Christian if I hesitate to work at the next shelter because I have worked for 7 days being called every curse word imaginable. Feeling threatened, and fearing for my personal safety in the shelter?

Exhausted and battered,

2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a "minority" girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world.

3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.

4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: "Above your pay grade?" Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.

5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

6. You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.

7. My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood, the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it, when the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.

Election '08: Does Barack Obama owe his meteoric rise to an Israeli-hating adviser to a Saudi billionaire? Why did a race-baiting mentor to the Black Panthers favor this yet unknown community organizer?

In her stunning national political debut as the Republican candidate for vice president, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin described Obama as a man who had written two memoirs but no significant laws or reforms. So how did this unaccomplished community organizer rise to fame and fortune? He had some interesting help.

We know he's a Harvard graduate and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Less known is the story of how he got into the prestigious Ivy League university. As Newsmax's Kenneth Timmerman reports, he was helped by a letter written by Percy Sutton, former Manhattan borough president and a credible candidate for mayor of New York in 1977.

In an interview earlier this year on New York's all-news cable channel NY1, the 88-year-old Sutton made some interesting revelations about his relationship with the young Obama. He told NY1 reporter Dominic Carter on "Inside City Hall" that he was introduced to Obama by a friend raising money for him. The friend asked Sutton to write a letter in support of Obama's application to Harvard law school.

"The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas," Sutton said. "He is the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama."

Sutton recalled that al-Mansour said, "There is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?" Sutton did.

According to Timmerman, "At the time Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he (al-Mansour) was raising money for Obama's graduate school education (and) al-Mansour was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States."

One of those Saudi royals was Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of Saudi King Abdullah. He was the Saudi prince who offered to donate $10 million to help New York rebuild after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After the prince publicly suggested (as Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, did recently) that U.S. policies brought on the attacks, then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Prince Alwaleed where he could deposit his check.

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, born Donald Warden, is another interesting fellow from Obama's past. He himself is a graduate of Harvard and has been a guest lecturer there. His writings and statements reveal him to be an ideological clone of the Rev. Wright, who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children.

In his 1995 book, "The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered," al-Monsour alleged that America was plotting genocide against black Americans. The first "genocide against the black man began 300 years ago," he said at a book-signing in Harlem, while a second "genocide" was on the way "to remove 15 million black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society."

Al-Mansour told an audience in South Africa that "the Palestinians are treated like savages," something our worst ex-president, Jimmy Carter, as well as Wright might agree with. He has accused Israeli Jews of "stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America."

When he was known as Donald Warden, according to the Social Activism Project at the University of California at Berkeley, al-Monsour was the mentor of Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his associate, Bobby Seale.

California Congresswoman Barbara Lee entered an official statement of appreciation of Warden and his Black Panther colleagues for their role in founding a radical group known as the African-American Association into the Congressional Record of April 23, 2007.

What did this radical extremist see in young Barack Obama that he would seek to sponsor and perhaps finance Obama's education? Obama says he paid his way solely through student loans. How did they meet? Where did the money he raised come from? Now that we know who the father of Bristol Palin's baby is, maybe the mainstream media will have time to find out.

*One of our good friends, Eddie Spalten from San Antonio, fishes at the Wildman Lodge on the Alaskan Peninsula. The lodge is owned by Butch and Kathy Wildman. The Wildmans spend their winters in Texas and their summers in Alaska. Kathy's father and former husband served in the Alaskan legislature for around 30 years so Butch and Kathy know Alaska politics.*

**
*Eddie emailed Butch and asked Butch what the Wildmans think of Gov. Sarah Palin. Butch's unedited email is attached below. Please read it and forward it to your friends. This is what the citizens of Alaska think of Sarah Palin!*

Thanks,
Gene Powell

Barack Obama probably is a fine man. He has charm, wit, a sense of humor, is a good
husband and father, dreamer and achiever, good listener, and great public speaker. He
seems well balanced. For these reasons it is difficult to see how dangerous he is to our
country and to us.

Russia’s 1917 powerful anti-war movement, coupled with disdain for the Tzar’s
conservative regime and poor economic conditions in the Russian Empire, likely brought
into power the most devastating tyranny of contemporary Europe. The Marxists built a
coalition of intellectual liberals who saw the Tsar’s regime as an obstacle preventing
Russia’s democratization, affecting wealthy industrialists who desired broader
entrepreneurial freedoms, disillusioned soldiers who wanted to end the war, and blue
collar workers striving for just pay, medical benefits and other social services.
The coalition ran under a slogan “CHANGE”.

Marxists promised to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. They promised
state-run free-for-all medical services, free education, (including entry to universities) for
all Russian citizens, and a total tax holiday for those who “don’t have.” They promised to
stop the unpopular war and kick the Tsar out of the country. Additionally, they assured
the population total freedom of speech, assembly, political activities & travel. How one
could resist such a blessing?

In order to build a “new and just society” Russian Communists imprisoned tens of
millions of people who objected to sharing their wealth with the masses. They stopped
all food supplies to the rebellious regions, thereby starving to death another ten million,
and murdered leaders of all political powers, which opposed the “changes.” Obviously
they believed they were doing a good deed for humanity by getting rid of the monsters
who didn’t want to help starving children and suffering mothers. For more than seventy
years life in Russia resembled life in prison. From that we can learn that some changes,
even those that look humane on the surface can become devastating!

To Vietnam the idea of “change” came much later, not without help from the Russians.
For approximately twenty years the Vietnamese Communists battled with the ruling
regime, which they considered overly oppressive, defeating not only the regime but also
its ally, the United States of America. It was accomplished with the help of America’s
own “far left.” Immediately after achieving power, they murdered hundreds of thousands
of their own citizens and threw another million into “re-educational camps.” This regime
killed everyone opposed to “changes.” When the government took properties from the
wealthy and distributed them among the poor, everyone was happy… everyone, except
the no longer wealthy and their families. Then, time came to start producing. No one
desired to become wealthy. People did not even attempt to make money. No one paid
taxes. Soon the whole country lived in a world without private sectors of production,
without political freedom, without rights to travel abroad or any rights other than to yell,
“I love Communism and the changes it brought to my country!” Some “great and just”
changes can be devastating indeed.


Cambodia, a small country of 7 million, experienced the changes their leaders
proclaimed and didn’t like them. The Leftists promised to give to the poor everything the
rich had worked for. Soon after the Leftists had kicked out their own wealthy people and
all foreign companies, all native foods disappeared from the shelves, followed by the
disappearance of foreign foods. Local production stopped! To resolve this problem, the
government killed 2 million of their own people. The remaining stopped complaining.
They were receiving a handful of rice daily and felt fortunate to be alive! Do you still like
changes with slogans of equality and wealth re-distribution?

Cuban revolutionaries also wanted “change.” The Castro brothers and Che Guevara
brought those changes to their people. They freed the island from oppression of their own
“terrible” government and even more “despicable” neighbor, the United States of
America. They freed the people from their properties and “stupid” capitalistic freedoms.
After people tasted the life under the Castros, they began to flee the island by any means
available to them. Many used small boats; many were killed by the Cuban coast guard;
multitudes died in the ocean. But even knowing that they had only a slim chance of
survival, increasing numbers of boats were sailing under cover of night to escape the
“changed” island. Some changes are devastating.

As a result of the WWII, the Eastern part of Germany was taken over by Russians.
Soon the Russian Zone of “oppressive capitalistic society” was exchanged for social
justice and equality for all who were socialistic. From that moment on the Germans
began to flee that area, opting for the American occupied sector. Why? They had
everything Barack Obama is offering us today, but tens of thousands attempted to escape
from the social paradise. Then East Germany’s government built a wall. Hundreds of
Germans were killed while attempting to jump or crawl over it. Nevertheless they tried
persistently, until the wall was destroyed by the efforts of another “oppressive capitalistic
country,” the United Sates of America. Some changes are against human nature and will
inevitably bring havoc and humiliation to the population.

Senator Obama wants to re-distribute our money. Being an honorable man, he wants the
poor, the old and the sick to receive free medical services, get free education, money for
paying rent and money to pay for cars plus insurance; money to pay for food and money
to pay for cable services and money to pay for movie rentals. They are Americans and
deserve all of the above. I am not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I repeat, they deserve all
of the above and more. But I have a question. My experience says that when people get
paid for nothing, most of them tend not to look for work. They already have been given
funds for what they need, so why should they bother? They also feel that money supplier
who is paying them for doing nothing is obligated to continue doing so! So instead of
expressing thanks for the help received, they demand more and are angry when not
receiving more and more and more. I am in favor of securing some kind of work for all
able-bodied who want assistance. Employment in exchange for all benefits received
seems logical, fair and sensible. Jobs which would help to better our parks, roads, and
clean graffiti from our walls could be a solution.


For his next step, the esteemed Senator wants to use our money to provide everyone in
the world with the same standard of living as previously stated. He wants to provide food
on the tables for mothers who have seven children (fathered by seven different men)
while they are still making no effort to change their dependence on society! Senator
Obama wants to enable families who for many generations have not worked or even
attempted to support themselves, to continue to raise another generation without worrying
about the future. The question remains: From where will our American Robin Hood take
the money to pay for all those wonderful things? The answer to this question is simple from
YOU AND ME! We shall work and support those who are not even obligated to do
anything for the money received. And as the experience tells us, they will hate us for that
even more.

There are two ways to make members of a society equal. One is to try to bring up those
that are down. It is a difficult and honorable task. This is what capitalistic society does –
unlike any other known to the world social system (kingdoms, socialistic republics,
feudal states, Muslim states), capitalism quickly builds national wealth and makes life of
the majority of its citizens bearable. This is why there is a huge immigration into the
Great Britain, Germany, the United States and Israel. Another way to change society is to
put down those that are now up, as it was done in the Soviet Russia, East Germany,
Vietnam, Cuba and many other countries that already attempted to do what Senator
Obama and his Far Left friends are proposing to do in the United States. This is a
politically popular, but morally despicable task. And it is easy, much easier then the first
one. You just need to hook as many people as possible on the welfare-type programs, and
then tell the recipients that if they vote for another party, they will lose the free lunches.
Done.

Will you vote for this wonderful plan? You have your opportunity to implement or kill it
in November of 2008.

Good luck!

PS I finally remembered why “Enough of the division of our country on the Blue States
and the Red States... We again shall become The United States of America!” sounded
familiar. Those were the exact words of a main character in the 2006 comedy “Man of
the Year” about a comedian played by Robin Williams who decide to run for the
President. His mantra in the movie was “Change, Change, Change”. Now we know
where Senator Obama takes his slogans – from the talkies! Does he pay royalties on
them, or just use them without asking?

June 15, 2008

U.S.M.C. = Exclusive Title & Membership .. ' You didn't earn it, you don't wear it !

Even though this isn't illegal or against military regs, who the hell does this moron think he is?

You didn't earn it, you don't wear it !

I don't care if he already thinks he's the commander in chief, this pisses me off.

He goes on vacation to Berlin and tells the world how he will fixAmerica....

how he'll give us a better image for the poor, abandoned refugees when we come to liberate them.

I think the Germans already have an image of us, and it's

'Devil Dog!'

I knew you would all enjoy this laughable moment, just before you get quite angry.. Good. Maybe it will get you out to vote.

'USMC'?

Send this to your true brothers ! Your fellow Marines.

Oo-rah and Semper Fi!

This is the same guy in a USMC tee shirt that won't even honor the flag.

Barack Obama, a founding executive and his wife the benefactor and brain trust. This is one of the most subversive assaults on our country!

I have been "stiffed" three times in my 30 year professional career by someone who I rendered services to, gave a finished product to, but who refused to pay for those services even though they acknowledged the services and products were correct, were what they asked for, and were never challenged for not being correct. I am lucky in having only three, but those three hurt badly.

Joe Biden was one of those people. I worked on his 1988 Presidential campaign financial disclosure engagement. I busted it for him and got everything right. He stiffed me for over $15,000 worth of work. He refused to pay once he dropped out of the race. I did similar Capitol Hill campaign financial disclosure work for Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, and a Democratic candidate for Ambassador to New Zealand . All of those folks paid even though they lost the election or did not get the appointment. That type of work is very demanding and very tedious because your efforts are scrutinized by Congress. Biden did not care.

I am on the Board of Directors of a company that owns a majority position in a private jet management company in Northern Virginia . They manage jets for businesses and rich folks. They also charter planes to the public. This past winter John Thompson chartered over $250,000 worth of air time. He paid every penny. Joe Biden, in his latest unsuccessful run for President, chartered over $150,000 worth of air time. He PAID ZERO. He continues to refuse to pay stating his race is over and he is out of money. He never once complained about his flights. Joe Biden is a rich man. He could pay.

Joe Biden is a liar and a cheat. I know it first hand. Character is what life is all about. Joe Biden is a man of bad character and sets a bad example for America . I feel compelled to share this dark side of a man who asks for your vote and trust.

Best Regards,

MAYBE I'VE GOTT'N THIS ALL WRONG - ME JUST BE'N AN OLD FARM BOY WITHOUT MUCH EDUCATION...BUT NOW, Y'ALL CHECK THIS OUT:

HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN, A MUSLIM, AND A BLACK. WE SAW ALL THOSE PICTURES OF HIS NICE AFRICAN FAMILY.

HIS MOTHER IS KANSAN, ATHEIST, AND WHITE. SO - WHERE ARE ALL THOSE PICTURES OF HIS NICE WHITE MOTHER AND HIS NICE WHITE GRANDPARENTS - THE ONES WHO RAISED HIM ALL THOSE EARLY YEARS?

HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER AND HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG AND MOVED BACK TO LIVE WITH HIS FAMILY IN KENYA (THAT'S THE ONES IN THE PICTURES).

HIS WHITE MOTHER THEN MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM AND TOOK HIM TO THE CITY OF JAKARTA WHERE HE WAS FIRST SCHOOLED IN A MUSLIM SCHOOL .

HIS MOTHER THEN MOVED TO HAWAII AND HE WAS RAISED BY HIS WHITE MIDDLE-AMERICAN GRANDPARENTS THERE.

UMMM...NOW HERE'S THE HARD PART FOR ME (HELP ME OUT HERE, IF YOU CAN):

SOMEHOW, SUDDENLY - HE WENT TO THE BEST HIGH DOLLAR PREP SCHOOLS IN AMERICA , AND LATER, HE GOT INTO A TOP IVY LEAGUE COLLEGE AND LATER, INTO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL- HOW? WHO SPONSORED HIM? WHO PAID FOR ALL THAT SCHOOLING? (HAVE YOU LOOKED AT TUITION EXPENSES TO ATTEND UNDERGRADUATE YALE LATELY? HOW ABOUT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL ? SOMEBODY PAID A LOT OF BUCKS FOR THIS KID'S IVY LEAGUE EDUCATION......) WHO?

A SENATOR'S SALARY IS NOT THAT GREAT, BUT THIS YOUNG MAN AND HIS YOUNG WIFE PRESENTLY LIVE IN A $1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT HE ACQUIRED THROUGH A'DEAL' WITH A WEALTHY FUND RAISER.

WHAT SORT OF 'DEAL'? RIGHT OUT OF HARVARD LAW, HE 'WORKED' AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO .

HE THEN ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN MOVED TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL - WHERE HE SCRAMBLES TODAY WITH VERY MINIMAL EXPERIENCE IN ANYTHING - WHILE OTHER PEOPLE WRITE HIS SPEECHES FOR HIM.

IN ALL HIS TIME IN THE STATE AND NATIONAL LEGISLATURES - HE'S NEVER LAUNCHED ANY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER MOSTLY, HE'S OUT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

HE CLAIMS TO BE 'PROUD OF HIS AFRICAN HERITAGE' BUT IT SEEMS THAT HIS ONLY CONNECTION WITH AFRICA WAS THAT HIS AFRICAN FATHER GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND THEN DESERTED HER.

UMMM....WHERE IS THE PRIDE IN HIS WHITE HERITAGE? AFTER ALL - IT WAS WHITE GRANDPARENTS THAT RAISED HIM!

HE IS PRESENTLY A MEMBER (FOR OVER 20 YEARS!) OF AN 'AFROCENTRIC' CHURCH IN CHICAGO THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLD'S FAULTS.

HE REPEATEDLY COVER ED UP FOR THAT PASTOR AND THAT CHURCH - SAYING THAT HE CAN SEPARATE THE RELIGION FROM THE POLITICS, WHEN HE HEARS A HATE-WHITEY SERMON.

HE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS SIMPLY UNABLE TO CONFRONT HIS PASTOR OF 20+ YEARS ABOUT THE PASTOR'S DEMONSTRATED UN-AMERICAN BIAS, BUT HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN , WHEN THE TIME ARISES TO TAKE AMERICA 'S SIDE.

YEAH - WITH THIS BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE, HE 'HOPES' THAT HE COULD BE A UNITER AND BRING US ALL TOGETHER.

BUT - WE THINK THAT THE REAL 'HOPE' IS, THAT HE REALLY HOPES, THAT NO ONE WILL PUT ALL THESE PIECES TOGETHER, UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.......! and he wants to be our commander and chief of our armed forces and he was never in the service. Hmmm......we can't let this happen.

What do you think of this?

The Book of Revelations

This will make you re-think : A Trivia question in Sunday School : How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations ? Guess the Answer?
Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is.
Almost a four-year term to a Presidency. All I can say is Lord Have Mercy on us.!

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is:
The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything ..

Is it OBAMA?? I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can!

by Jeff Schreiber
America's Right.com

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.

"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a naturalized U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.

Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed "natural born," that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama's registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama's half-sister.

"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg stated. "If the DNC officers ... had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And from a Alaska man who is a very serious cynic about all things political here is my take on Sarah.

I met and spoke with Sarah Palin about two years ago at our downtown Park Strip. It is a place for walking, carnivals, political outdoor things and such. She was cooking hotdogs at a fund raiser and introducing herself to the public as a Governor hopeful.

She came by and said the usual "Hi, I'm Sarah Palin and I am running for Governor"...and I expected her to keep on to the next person but she asked me who I was and what I did in Alaska and we ended up talking for 15 minutes about me, Air America (she was all agog!) and my career in the Army and AAM. She is a pilot (Super Cub) I'm told although all she told me about that was that she loved flying.

As I watched her over the next six months as she successfully ran for Governor I was really impressed. I was impressed greatly even before that after she resigned a good position (Alaska Gas and Oil Regulatory Commission) because a fellow Commission member (Chair of the Alaska Republican Party) misused their office and position. He was using the FAX, computers, printing room and all to promote the Republican endeavors while in a State job. That is a huge no-no in any government employment position.

She resigned and made her point and within weeks Randy Ruderich (the above bad guy) found his ass out on the street and a subsequent investigation found him guilty and he was fined $12,000. Small change actually but a giant point was made.

Next she went after our most horrible Governor ever, Governor Murkowski, and damned if she didn't beat him! All of us here in Alaska, except the Democrats, are sick of our State's corruption. That fact was shouted to the heavens after she was elected with an overwhelming point spread.

After she got into office she started after corrupt legislators and with the FBI's help we've put four of them in prison, indicted six more and the "Corrupt Bastard's Club" as they arrogantly called themselves (even had hats made with CBC on the front!) suddenly found it no fun anymore. Club membership is now in the toilet!!

The current flap which has cost her a ten point loss of popularity (she's still 82%!) was over firing a popular Commissioner of Public Safety who is responsible for our Alaska State Troopers. She fired him for no STATED reason which was her prerogative as the Gov. He served entirely at her option. She and her whole family had a bad, bad experience with a rogue Trooper who was married to Sarah's sister. His name is Trooper Wooten. This dimwit Trooper had threatened Sarah's father (death threat!), threatened Sarah ("I'll get you too"), tasered his 12 year old stepson, drove drunk in his AST cruiser, got a pass by a fellow Trooper who stopped him for erratic driving a second time while in civvies and just a host of other things not yet released to the public. He got away with it and got another pass by the Commissioner's appointed AST Trooper Internal Affairs investigator with a tiny slap on the wrist. Five days off without pay to be exact!!

This maverick Trooper is still on the payroll but only just. The Union intervening saved his malcontent ass. He'll yet get his I'm sure. Incredible heat is being heaped on the Troopers. Public heat, not the Governors office.

The Democrats had the audacity to appoint a obviously biased investigator, Rep. "Gunny" French (so called because he lied about being in the USMC while running for the Legislature) is a staunch liberal and under the orders of Senate President Lyda Green who hates Sarah. She hates Sarah because after being elected Governor Sarah told the whole Legislature in one of her first meetings with them that, quote; "All of you here need some Adult Supervision!!!". Sarah was seriously pissed and not afraid of anyone there.That played wonderfully well with Alaskan's after all of our corruption and after all of her successful battles against a seriously entrenched corrupt government here in Alaska. It pissed off the whole Legislature though! They have stayed pissed but also afraid of her because of her popularity.

She reminds me personally of our Alaska wolverine which will fight anything in it's path if it see's fit to do so. No respect at all for size or position. Wife Cindy is in this category too. Unfortunately.

In closing I must tell you that she is the best, most moral and most focused leader I've seen since President Reagan. I feel, really strongly, that like Alaska the rest of our country will love her within a few weeks. Put simply, she represents middle America like NO leader we've ever had. I think McCain made a totally brilliant move in choosing her. She's a maverick who is probably tougher and more focused than McCain himself....and she won't be a total "Yes Man" or more appropriately, woman. McCain will love her.

In 2012 she will be President.

My best to all of you in the hurricane belt. I hope you are all OK. We just had another mini Air America reunion here in beautiful Soldotna, Alaska along the Kenai river. We'll be doing this every year now I guess. Like our Flying Tiger pal's before us there are not that many Air America guys left. I'm 71 myself this September 16. Where the hell did the years go so fast?

My best to you old buddy

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought. Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval. Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched. After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort. Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance. As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat. At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed. Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts. Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

that has a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope they see it as a

prize only won with political PULL.

The VALUE of the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Sad commentary on the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize......

The VALUE of the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?????

How sad!!

A Lady Named Irena

There recently was a death of a 98 year old lady named Irena.

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the WarsawGhetto, as

a Plumbing/Sewer specialist.

She had an ulterior motive...

She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German).

Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of her tool box she

carried, and she carried in the back of her truck a Burlap sack,

(for larger kids).

She also had a dog in the back, that she trained to bark when the

Nazi soldiers let her in, and out of the ghetto.

The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog, and the

barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time and course of doing this, she managed to smuggle out

and save 2500 kids/infants.

She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, and arms,

and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out,

and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have

survived it, and reunited the family.

Most of course had been gassed.

Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes, or

adopted.

Last year Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize....

She LOST.

Al Gore won, for doing a slide show on Global Warming.

Family,

I feel an obligation to honesty and truth to share with you some facts. My Father and Mother instilled in me the values and morals of treating people fairly and always being honest. If you purchase something, you pay for it. If you borrow something, you give it back.

I have been "stiffed" three times in my 30 year professional career by someone who I rendered services to, gave a finished product to, but who refused to pay for those services even though they acknowledged the services and products were correct, were what they asked for, and were never challenged for not being correct. I am lucky in having only three, but those three hurt badly.

Joe Biden was one of those people. I worked on his 1988 Presidential campaign financial disclosure engagement. I busted it for him and got everything right. He stiffed me for over $15,000 worth of work. He refused to pay once he dropped out of the race. I did similar Capitol Hill campaign financial disclosure work for Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, and a Democratic candidate for Ambassador to New Zealand. All of those folks paid even though they lost the election or did not get the appointment. That type of work is very demanding and very tedious because your efforts are scrutinized by Congress. Biden did not care.

I am on the Board of Directors of a company that owns a majority position in a private jet management company in Northern Virginia. They manage jets for businesses and rich folks. They also charter planes to the public. This past winter John Thompson chartered over $250,000 worth of air time. He paid every penny.

Joe Biden, in his latest unsuccessful run for President, chartered over $150,000 worth of air time. He PAID ZERO. He continues to refuse to pay stating his race is over and he is out of money. He never once complained about his flights. Joe Biden is a rich man. He could pay.

Joe Biden is a liar and a cheat. I know it first hand. Character is what life is all about. Joe Biden is a man of bad character and sets a bad example for America.

I feel compelled to share this dark side of a man who asks for your vote and trust.

Best Regards,

This is a great explanation of the tax rebate program recently enacted
by Congress. If you don't understand how it will work maybe this explanation
will help:

50,000 people went to a baseball game, BUT the game was rained out. A
refund was then due to the ticket holders.

The team was about to mail refunds when a group of Congressional
Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out the ticket refunds
based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness.
Originally the refunds were to be paid based on the price each person had
paid for the tickets. Unfortunately that meant most of the refund money
would be
going to the ticket holders that had purchased the most expensive tickets.
This, according to the DNC, is considered totally unfair! A decision was
then
made to pay out the refunds in this manner:

People in the $10 seats will get back $15. After all, they have less
money to spend on tickets to begin with. Call it an 'Earned Income Ticket
Credit.'
Persons 'earn' it by having few skills, poor work habits, and low
ambition, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because it 'seems fair.'

People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a
lot of money and don't need a refund. After all, if they can afford a
$50 ticket,
they must not be paying enough taxes.

People in the $75 luxury box seats will each have to pay an additional
$25 because it's the 'right thing to do'.

People walking past the stadium that couldn't afford to buy a ticket
for the game each will get a $10 refund, even though they didn't pay
anything
for the tickets. They need the most help. They are either lazy or think
that society owes them for just being born. Sometimes this is known as
Affirmative Action.

Now do you understand?

If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi or Senator Ted Kennedy for
assistance.

By Chet Arthur

Harry Truman said that for the first six months he was in the Senate, he couldn’t believe he’d gotten there. After another six months, he couldn’t believe they’d gotten there.

Barack Obama didn’t hang around the Senate cloakroom long enough to pick up the word on Joe Biden. He didn’t realize that Biden is something of a joke in the Senate.

Isn’t it curious that in 36 years, Biden’s never even been mentioned for Majority Leader, or even for Majority Whip?

Obama’s claim to be a “post partisan” candidate is belied by his choice of the vicious, knee-groining Biden as his running mate. Barack Obama, in his electric acceptance speech, claimed that “politics is broken.” A reasonable question then is: Who broke politics? Much of the credit for the brokenness of politics must go to that political leg-breaker, Joe Biden.

One leading example of how our politics is broken is the judicial-confirmation process. Judicial confirmations used to be civil affairs. They used to be honorable contests in which both sides sought to review the record of the distinguished jurists who sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Joe Biden can claim the lion’s share of credit for turning judicial confirmations into lions’ dens. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden presided over the “Borking” of Judge Robert Bork. He was the chief Kleagle for the “high tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas. He tried to go after Roberts and Alito as well. He is not known as the “smiling barracuda” for nothing.

Ironically, not one of the men and women who have come before his committee would have survived one day if they had been proven to have plagiarized major speeches and law review articles — as Biden has been found to have done.

Perhaps because of his own shady past, Biden has seemed determined to impugn the integrity, intelligence, and the competence of all those with whom he disagrees.

Try to recall the confirmations of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer.

Remember the fireworks? Remember the inquisitors bearing down?

Did anyone steal their video rental records — as they did with Judge Bork

Did anyone ask them to share their religious beliefs under oath — as Howell Heflin did to Robert Bork? Did anyone allow lying testimony about a questionable sexual comment to be puffed into a national scandal — as they did with Clarence Thomas? Did anyone drive their spouses from the hearing room in tears?

No one can remember such outrages committed against arguably the most liberal justices ever confirmed. That’s because Republicans still believe in civility. They still believe in the rule of law. They’re trying to repair the process that leg-breaker Biden broke.

Biden presided over a remorseless struggle in which only the strongest can survive. He did not want simply to reject Clarence Thomas, he wanted to destroy the man, send him back to Pinpoint, Ga., stripped of honor and dignity. Justice Thomas prevailed because of his unflinching courage and massive self-control.

With Joe Biden, you don’t reach across the aisle. You retch across the aisle.

For this rancid record, Biden not only should not be vice president, he should not even be in the Senate.

Free Speech: It appears Team Obama will stop at nothing to intimidate and harass those who would expose his long and cozy relationship with terrorist William Ayers. As in the '60s, lefties think freedom of speech applies only to them.

We have written extensively on the socialist past of Barack Obama as expressed in his proposals and associations, both personal and organizational. One of those associations is between Obama and Ayers, a leader of the Weather Underground, a '60s terrorist group.

It's true Obama has condemned and disassociated himself from the terrorist actions of Ayers and the Underground. But Ayers has never repudiated or apologized for his past, and if there's one word that should always precede his name, it would be "unrepentant."

Obama claims Ayers was just a "guy in the neighborhood," but clearly he was more than that. Obama misrepresents his relationship with the man in whose home his first fundraiser was held. Leading the expose of the true nature of that relationship has been National Review writer Stanley Kurtz.

Kurtz was in Chicago on Aug. 26 for the release of the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform project in which Ayers and Obama were involved. The papers had long been sought by Kurtz, who'd met with a stone wall erected by Obama's friends at the University of Illinois, Chicago. UIC had denied access to the supposedly public archives after Kurtz initially inquired, but his persistence paid off.

When local radio station WGN found out Kurtz was in town, he was invited to appear on its "Extension 720" radio show hosted by University of Chicago professor Milt Rosenberg that Wednesday night, Aug. 27.

Producer Zack Christenson said: "I called the Obama campaign, let them know that we were going to have Stanley Kurtz on the show, and offered them a chance to come on the show as well to rebut anything that he said." Christenson said the Obama campaign's response was, "This guy's a liar" and hung up.

The Obama Action Wire, which touts itself as an independent grass-roots organization dedicated to fighting "smears" against its candidate, sprang into action. It sent an e-mail to its members saying "we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."

Obamatons were given e-mail addresses, phone numbers and talking points. Christenson says there's no way to gauge the number of calls, but the lines were lit up all night. An estimated 5,000 e-mails were received.

"They were all using the same talking points that were sent out in the original Obama e-mail," Christenson noted. "They were all boilerplate e-mails."

One of the talking points in the Obama e-mail was: "Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. . . . It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on the public airwaves."

Earlier, the Obama camp bombarded Sinclair Communications with 93,000 e-mails attacking its broadcast of an ad by the independent group American Issues Project, linking Obama with Ayers in more than a casual way.

Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer has warned station managers, suggesting their broadcast license might be at risk: "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity."

Bauer has also written twice to the Justice Department, demanding it "take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute" the group and Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded the ad.

What's scary is the Obama camp may soon have control of the public airwaves through a badly misnamed Fairness Doctrine resurrected by an Obama administration and a veto-proof Congress. And those threatened lawsuits may yet be filed by an Obama Justice Department.

© Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.

* Voted for President Clinton's tax hike (RC #247, 1993)
* Voted against repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (RC #261, 1999)
* Voted against eliminating the marriage penalty (RC #79, 2001)
* Voted against the 2001 tax cuts (RC# 170, 2001)
* Voted against repealing the Death Tax (RC #151, 2002) (RC #109, 2007)
* Voted against a repeal of the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits (RC #94, 2003)
* Voted against the 2003 Bush tax cuts (RC #196, 2003)
* Voted for a 50% windfall profits tax on oil profits (RC #331, 2005)
* Voted against extending the 2001 tax cuts (RC #118, 2006) (RC #107, 2007)

Joe Biden on Spending:

* Voted for the Farm Bill in 2002 and 2008 (RC #103, 2002) (RC #130, 2008)
* Voted in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere (RC #262, 2005)
* Voted against capping spending (RC #286, 2005)
* Voted to kill a resolution stating a moral obligation to offset new spending with spending cuts (RC #140, 2007)
* Voted for the expanded SCHIP bill (RC #307, 2007)
* Voted against an earmark moratorium (RC #75, 2008)
* Voted to override President Bush's veto of the Farm Bill (RC #140, 2008)
* Was declared Porker of the Month by Citizens Against Government Waste in January 2002

Joe Biden on Trade:

* Voted to impose steel tariffs (RC #178, 1999)
* Voted against Trade Promotion Authority (RC #207, 2002)
* Voted against free trade with Singapore (RC #318, 2003)
* Voted against free trade with Chile (RC #319, 2003)
* Voted against CAFTA (RC #209, 2005)
* Voted against free trade with Oman (RC #250, 2006)

Joe Biden on Regulation:

* Voted for the burdensome Sarbanes-Oxley legislation (RC #192, 2002)
* Voted against exempting small businesses from Sarbanes-Oxley (RC #139, 2007)
* Voted for a minimum wage hike (RC #257, 2005)
* Voted for the 'card check' bill-stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot when voting to form a union (RC #227, 2007)
* Voted to kill the Davis Bacon waiver (RC #334, 2007)

Joe Biden on School Choice:

* Voted against a vouchers program for DC schools (RC #260, 1997)
* Voted against school choice for low-income earners (RC #179, 2001)

Joe Biden on Tort Reform:

* Voted against limiting lawyer fees on tobacco settlements (RC #161, 2003)
* Voted against class action tort reform (RC #9, 2005)

Joe Biden on Political Free Speech:

* Voted for McCain-Feingold (RC #64, 2001)

Joe Biden on Entitlement Reform:

* Voted against preventing the plundering of Social Security (RC #313, 1999)
* Voted to expand government-run healthcare (RC #307, 2007

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did what conservatives have been waiting for someone to do since Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate: take on someone in the media claiming that she lacks the qualifications to be vice president.
Such marvelously occurred Tuesday evening on the convention floor in St. Paul when MSNBC's Ron Allen said to the former Speaker, 'But to be fair, her resume is not something we're familiar seeing with presidential candidates.'
This didn't sit well with Gingrich who strongly replied (video embedded right, h/t NB readers Matt Noll and Patrick):

It's stronger than Barack Obama's. I don't know why you guys walk around saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She has been a real governor, he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn't. She was a whistleblower who defeated an incumbent mayor. He has never once shown that kind of courage. She's a whistleblower who turned in the chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I've never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don't know of a single thing Obama's done except talk and write.

Newt then challenged Allen:

I'd like you to tell me one thing Sen. Obama's done.

With that, Allen retreated, and said:

Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to leave it there. I'm not going to argue the case. Thanks very much.

1.) Selma Got Me Born -
NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder -
NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter -
NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom -
NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian -
NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili -
NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African

7.) I Never Practiced Islam -
NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian -
NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience -
NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs -
NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion -
NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office -
NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life -
NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 -
NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate -
NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted -NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Releas ed My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsor ed or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) M y Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Cana da about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Candian Government issued the names and a me mo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel.

30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.

31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.

35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXA CTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

36.) My Campaign Had Noth ing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTL Y, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

I believe it is worth taking your time to view it.

This program is a shocker and worth seeing.

Then forward it to as many as you can...

Even though it is a distasteful thought, it is happening across
the globe, and it is something to ponder!!

ALL Americans need to watch this!

Passed along as food for thought without comment or endorsement.

Turn sound on, the message is short, fast, and starts immediately.

Do NOT press 'Enter Site.' It will start without that.

Here's the link....

I can't even talk the way these people talk:

Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...

And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.

And then I heard the father talk.

Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.

In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.

People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an Education, and now we've got these kn uckleheads walking around.

The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.

These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids.

$500 sneakers for what?

And they won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics.

I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit.

Where were you when he was 2?

Where were you when he was 12?

Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol?

And where is the father? Or who is his father?

People putting their clothes on backward:
Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?

People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?

Or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up?

Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles [piercing] going through her body?

What part of Africa did this come from??

We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa

With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap ... and all of them are in jail.

Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.

We have got to take the neighborhood back.

People used to be ashamed. Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' -- or men or whatever you call them now.

We have millionaire football players who cannot read.

We have million-dollar basketball play ers who can't write two paragraphs. We, as black folks have to do a better job.

Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us.

We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.