Pala Political
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts
Previous Posts                                                                        contact    

The Trifecta: Obama, Pelosi and Reid
November 3, 2008

If Barack Obama is elected the U.S. Government will almost certainly have unlimited, unchecked authority.  If Obama wins, the Democratic Party will have unchallenged control and the ability to do all of which they have promised, including:

 

·         Redistributive change.  The top 5% wage earners now pay 60% of U.S. income taxes, and Obama wants to increase their taxes.  To add, Obama wants to increase capital gains taxes and payroll taxes, so anyone who pays towards Social Security or is invested in 401-ks, pensions, stocks or who owns a home and wants to sell it will be negatively affected.

·         Amnesty for more than 10 million illegal immigrants.  Democrats, who have always benefited from the Hispanic vote, will make illegals valid citizens and register them.  This will succeed in pushing all the southwestern states (New Mexico, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado) from red to blue and conserve Democratic positions in Government.

·         Protecting our border will no longer be a priority.

·         Energy independence through nuclear and deep-sea energy exploration will take a back seat to ethanol subsidies.  When the next energy crisis hits – whether it’s in 6 months or 3 years – we will be as unprepared as we are today. 

·         Affirmative action quotas will increase.  Promotions, job openings, college acceptances, etc. based on race, sex and sexual orientation will be viciously enforced throughout the U.S. Government and bullied into the private sector.

·         Universal healthcare will be carried out covering legal and illegal immigrants.  This will effectively raise healthcare costs and deteriorate quality as well as further entice illegals to cross the border.

·         A massive federal bailout of all financial institutions.

·         Two (possibly three) Supreme Court justices named that possess a liberal activist mentality and will not be held back by the guidelines set forth by the Constitution.

·         Eliminating every state restriction on abortion, including late term “partial birth” abortions, parental notification for minors and the right of physicians to refuse to perform abortions.

·         Enforcing homosexual marriage on every state, against the will of the people.

·         Encourage our foreign enemies to, as Joe Biden says, “challenge” and “test” us by projecting an image of timidity and increase the probability of attacks on America.

 

 

Anyone who doubted Obama’s label as a radical redistributionist has been enlightened after Obama on video said he wants to “spread the wealth” and on radio said he is for “redistributive change”. 

 

The real Barack Obama has recently been exposed.  During a 2001 radio interview he claimed where the Supreme Court failed was that it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

 

According to Obama, “the civil rights movement became so court-focused” that it strayed from action to “put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

 

Obama also claims the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren during the civil rights movement of the 1960s “wasn’t that radical” because “it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.”

 

A McCain administration will resist a European style model of regulating, including wealth distribution, universal healthcare and liberal justice. 

 

National security there is no question - McCain demands confidence where Obama exudes naiveté. 

 

Domestically, McCain’s policies represent that of the center-right.  Obama hides behind words like “progressive” and promises middle class tax cuts to seem centered but his words and record prove that he is a radical liberal bent on equalizing the classes.

 

A week ago during a rally in Colorado Obama warned, “make no mistake…we will all need to sacrifice.”  What did he mean by sacrifice?  We don’t know.  We have no idea who Obama is so how can we possibly understand what kind of “sacrifice” he will force us to make. 

 

The strong anti-Republican sentiment is understandable but not reason enough to elect a President who is largely unknown and allow the Democratic Party to rule Washington.  If we do the results will be irreversible. 

Comment                                    Contact



Why Do the Young Like Obama?
October 23, 2008

This election the young demographic is priding themselves as the most idealistic and engaged group of 18-29 year-olds since the 1960s.  They are on the streets with clip boards and at desks manning the phones.  They turned Obama’s candidacy into a movement.

This election the young demographic is priding themselves as the most idealistic and engaged group of 18-29 year-olds since the 1960s.They are on the streets with clip boards and at desks manning the phones.They turned Obama’s candidacy into a movement.

 

Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t care. 

 

The young supporters are being played by the Obama campaign.  They are coming out in droves to support him and contribute anything they have to the vast money machine and yet are getting nothing in return.

 

Obama is addressing the needs of senior citizens who worry about their social security and Medicaid, union members who worry about their jobs, farmers who worry about their subsidies and small business’s who worry about their taxes. 

 

Obama is making promises to each of these interests groups and more.  But it is the young who should be the most demanding, and the most concerned.

 

Their future has been mortgaged off.  Social security and Medicare are already facing huge deficits and the baby boomer retirement is not even in full swing. 

Urban and rural infrastructure is decaying.  Repairing bridges, roads and water lines will be a massive expense over the next fifty years. 

Pension costs for government workers have been drastically underestimated and this will increase the expense for government services in education, defense and police.

 

To add, Obama plans to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  But this isn’t really a tax cut – it’s a tax credit.  Remember that check from the government you got earlier this year?  Obama plans on doing the same thing.  It’s not a tax cut.  He is simply handing out money.  How is he paying for it?  The same way the Bush administration paid for their tax credits – he’s going to borrow it. 

 

On top of all this, Obama wants to add new programs like universal healthcare, daycare for every child over three and a college education for all.  It’s like he plans on refinancing the current mortgage on the younger generation to buy a bigger, more expensive version.

 

Agent of change?  For the elderly, perhaps.  The AARP is a 40-million member group for Americans 50 and over and a very powerful interest group.  In their September magazine issue Obama received the opportunity to check boxes agreeing or disagreeing with the AARP’s positions on eleven issues.  Obama checked agreement on 10 of 11.  He has said he will expand subsidies to the elderly by exempting from federal income taxes anyone 65 or older with an income of $50,000 or less.

 

There are three basic ways to reduce the costs of Social Security and Medicare – trim benefits, increase eligibility age and require recipients pay more for their Medicare benefits through higher premiums or co-payments.  Obama rejects all three. 

 

America’s government retirement programs need serious revamping.  As of today these benefits will involve much higher taxes and massive deficits.  And this is without additional spending.  Yet Obama continues to promise higher benefits and more programs.  He is exploiting the innocence and inexperience of the young.  

 

If Obama gets elected he will want the same thing every first-term president wants – a second term.  To achieve this he’ll have to prove he got something done.  To get something done he will have to work with the Democratic majorities in soon-to-be both houses of Congress.  And here is where the young get pushed aside.

 

Unlike Obama, the Democrats in Congress owe nothing to the young.  They were voted into power through the traditional Democratic groups – unions, minorities, urban affluents.  Their agenda will be to appease to those groups and focus on their short-term needs.  The long term benefits of 18-29 year-olds will remain non-existent.

 

On other issues, the young seem to turn a blind eye.  

 

The young are happy with Obama’s views on Iraq, but ignore the fact that he is promising a bigger, more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan 

The young see Obama as a bridge of racial divides, but ignore that for twenty years he belonged to a church that promotes racial anger.

 

The young view Obama as a new politician, but ignore that he surrounds himself with the Democratic establishment and almost always votes the way of his party.

 

Not since John F. Kennedy has a presidential candidate garnered such strong support from the young.  Back then, Kennedy famously said: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.’

 

Today, Obama’s message sounds more like this: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you.  

 

It’s no surprise that the self-indulgent “me” generation is clinging to his message.  Only, they are the only age demographic that has been left out of Obama’s ‘basket of promises.’

 

18 to 29 year-olds have to stop and ask themselves – Am I getting anything out of this election?  

Comment                                         Contact

McCain Strikes Out

                                         

October 9, 2008

Tuesday’s debate provided Senator John McCain with an opportunity to rise to the occasion and get back in the presidential race.  The opportunity was blown.

 

Admittedly, he wasn’t going in under the best of circumstances.  The financial markets are spinning out of control and Obama has always had the advantage over the economy.  Viewers weren’t interested in hearing about the “maverick.”

 

McCain isn’t as skillful a communicator as Obama.  Or, at least, this was true during the second debate. 

 

On questions about the bailout McCain was obscure and complicated.  Obama explained with a simple answer.  Simple, especially with this topic, is important.  Does anyone really understand the depths of our current financial crisis?  It’s frustrating trying to find the roots of the current economic mess.  To hear solutions that are understandable is comforting, even if they’re inaccurate or unrealistic.

 

On healthcare, Obama’s response was fantastic when he said, “It is absolutely true that I think it is important for government to crack down on insurance companies that are cheating their customers.”  This was like beautiful music to voters’ ears.  McCain, in contrast, was confusing. 

 

McCain passed up an opportunity on the question of healthcare, since Obama also said, “I believe that health care is a right for every American.”  So he actually wants to re-write the Constitution.  What gall!  Yet McCain didn’t even confront him.  Instead he said “deregulation.”  Whether he’s right or wrong, that is not what voters want to hear.

 

On healthcare, the answer for McCain is so simple.  Right now this country is running at historic high trade and budget deficits.  Obama is saying he will cut taxes for 95% of the population, increase spending tremendously and get the deficit under control.  In other words, Obama lives in a dream world.  And now, on top of all this, he wants government to provide healthcare for everyone? 

 

It’s irresponsible and untruthful to make these promises to the American people when it is impossible to deliver.

 

McCain didn’t answer a single question with clarity during the second debate.  He looked so much like the John McCain during the acceptance speech after winning the primaries months ago in front of that nasty green background.  He has come so far since then, and it’s hard to imagine why he’d want to relive bad memories.

 

Even on national security McCain had difficulties clarifying his position.  Obama, by contrast, answered quickly: “We will kill bin Laden.  We will crush al-Qaeda.  That has to be our biggest national security priority.”  Unbelievable.  It is like he is stealing the words right out of McCain’s mouth.  McCain has relentlessly uttered those same words over and over.  Yet on this occasion, McCain stumbled and Obama stole.

 

What was most obvious, and perhaps reason why Obama was successful Tuesday night and  throughout this race, was his complete unwillingness to deliver bad news or make any demands on the public. 

 

When Brokaw asked if he thought the economy was going to get worse before it gets better, Obama said, “No. I’m confident about the economy.” 

 

McCain let this opportunity pass also.  He should have said, “It will get worse before it gets better, but I believe because of the resilience and fortitude of the American people this country will emerge even stronger than it was before the crisis.”  Opportunity missed.

 

Obama’s answer to Brokaw's question on the economy, like all of his answers, was the political answer - and far from correct.  An oddity is why a nation that is so hungry for substance has such a high capacity for unrealistic answers.  It is ironic that the candidate who supposedly stands for change is the same one repeating the same old political happy talk that has misinformed this country for years.

 

For example, Obama said that “only a few percent of small businesses” will get taxed under his plan.  Really?  Over 650,000 small businesses are in the top 5%.  How many jobs will be eliminated in all those small businesses when Obama’s tax plan punishes them?

 

For the final debate McCain needs to be blunt and push the message that Obama is not “one of us.”  Obama is not part of middle America.  He is a stranger to it.  Obama seems to believe Americans can no longer fend for themselves, that they desperately need the government’s help.  He wants Washington to be a national community organizer.

 

One candidate favors tax cuts for business and backed Bush’s wars.  The other candidate promises health care for all, a swift exit from Iraq and more money for the average worker.  As the economy collapses, this should be an easy win for Democrats.

 

But when you think about it – Obama’s spiritual adviser is famous for saying “God damn America!”, his chief financial supporter is on his way to federal prison and the guy who put him in charge of an education endowment is an admitted and unapologetic terrorist.

 

McCain must bring home the message of American greatness and his belief in the future of this country.  He must talk about character. 

And its okay for him to talk about Obama’s shady past.  Someone has to talk about it since the mainstream media is doing their best to cover it up.  It is important that the American people know the truth about who they’re voting for.

 

Many have their opinions on who won the debate.  There should be only one barometer.  Two days after the debate and National polls haven’t shifted.  McCain lost.

Comment                                                                    Contact



Biden Lies During Debate   
October 7, 2008

1. Tax Vote.  Joe Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on American’s earning $42,000, but this claim is completely false. 


                                         

 

                                         

2. Obama meeting unconditionally with our enemies.  Biden lied when he said Obama never said that he would sit unconditionally with Ahmedinejad of Iran.  It is clearly documented that Obama said this.  It is also clearly documented that Joe Biden attacked Obama for it.

 

3. Offshore Drilling.  Biden said “Drill we must” but throughout this presidential campaign and the primaries he spoke out against it.  It’s amazing that only a month ago he was speaking in Florida telling potential voters “I’m against it.” 

 

4. Opposing clean coal.  Biden claimed during the debate he has always been for clean coal.  To the contrary, he has a record of voting against clean coal initiatives and recently said to potential voters he was against clean coal or any clean coal plants in America.

 

5. Alternative energy.  Joe Biden said McCain voted against alternative energy twenty-three times.  The facts show that this is largely overstated.

 

6. Windfall profits tax.  Biden claimed Palin established a windfall profits tax while Governor of Alaska.  This is false and misleading.  Before Palin became governor of Alaska there was massive corruption within the state government and the politicians were in the pockets of the oil companies.  When Palin arrived as Governor of Alaska she reformed government, bringing fairness to the tax code.  Along with transparency and fairness, Palin’s reformed tax code resulted in a $1,200 special payment to every Alaskan to help cope with the rising gas prices. 

 

7. Surge in Afghanistan.  Biden said that the top military adviser in Afghanistan said “the surge principles in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan” when in fact the General in charge in Afghanistan said “there are principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.”  It’s funny that Biden preceded his statement by saying “With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen.”  It is no surprise that the mainstream media completely disregarded Biden’s misstatements on Afghanistan and instead obsessed about Palin saying the General’s name was “McClellan” when it is in fact McKiernan. 

 

8. Regulating Fannie/Freddie.  Biden claimed that Obama said “two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub-prime mortgage crisis” when in fact there is no documentation, no video, no existing proof that can back up this claim.  He went on to say “John McCain thought the answer was deregulate, deregulate.”  Biden is very confused on this topic, since there is ample proof that McCain spoke out for reform and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.  It is baffling that Biden can create out of thin air things that Obama said two years ago and at the same time reverse truthful statements made by McCain.  Obama said it also, during the first debate, that he warned about the sub-prime mortgage crisis – he too was lying.  The media has yet to produce any evidence that Obama ever warned about sub-prime or anything that has to do with the current financial crisis.  However, there is evidence that Obama was the second largest benefactor of campaign money from Fannie and Freddie since 1989 (note: Obama has only been in the Senate three years). 

 

9. Vote for Iraq War.  Biden said he didn’t vote to authorize the War in Iraq when in fact he voted exactly for authorization.  He mistook the vote for the War in Iraq for the surge.  Biden voted against the surge in Iraq.  John McCain, of course, voted for the surge.  It passed and results have been very successful thus far.

 

10. Afghanistan Spending.  Biden repeatedly claimed that “we’ve spent less in Afghanistan in seven years than we spend in a month in Iraq.”  According to the Congressional Research Service, spending on the war in Afghanistan since 2001 has been $172 billion.  Spending in Iraq is, as the Democrats repeatedly mention, a little under $10 billion a month.  Biden’s numbers are off by approximately 2,000%. 

 

11. Kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.  Biden said “When we kicked – along with France – we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, ‘Move Nato forces in there.  Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know – if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.’  Now what’s happened?  Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.”  This statement proves Joe Biden lives in an alternate universe.  Nobody has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.  And when did Obama and Biden say Nato troops should be sent into Lebanon?  Never.

 

12. McCain’s support for Bosnia.  Biden is rewriting Bosnian history when he says “My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it.  They saved tens of thousands of lives.  And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people.  But the end result was it worked.”  John McCain was in full support of this, along with President Clinton, and voted every time for its support.

 

13. Katie’s restaurant.  When trying to portray himself as the ‘man of the people’ Joe Biden said “Look, all you have to do is go down to Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time…”  The only problem with this statement is that Katie’s restaurant hasn’t been around for over two decades.  This is significant in exposing how phony Biden’s attempt to pose for this campaign as an ‘Everyday Joe.’

 

The overall consensus of the VP debate is that Palin won on style and Biden on substance. 

 

Palin winning on style is right on the mark.  Biden looked like he was on downers.  He looked like his advisers just woke him up from a three hour nap and he needed a cup of coffee.  He was dull and uninspiring.  Palin, to contrast, was vibrant and engaging.  She was charming and down to earth.  She was simple and to the point. 

 

But on substance, how could Biden have won when he had to lie to make a point?  And towards the end, when he was saying things like “but it didn’t take me long, but it took me five years…” and when he started rambling about Judge Bork and Mike Mansfield and Dot Helms  and braces…How can one watching not ask:

What in the world is he talking about?

 

On style, Palin clearly won.  On substance, Biden clearly lost his grasp on reality.  He lied to the American people, over and over again.  That is not the kind of substance this country values in the White House.

Comment                                        Contact



Urgent Message from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson
October 1, 2008

I am urgently reaching out to you to ask for your undivided support of my $800 billion Government “Rescue” Plan.


Our country is experiencing a crisis that has caused the need for large transfers of your dollars to assist me and Washington in defeating this crisis.  Eventually it will be profitable for you – trust me. 

                                                                                   

 

                                         

And if you have any doubts, take a look at this country’s current deficit.  The fact that it’s only in the hundreds of billions serves as proof that Washington knows how to manage your money.

 

This monetary transaction is 100% safe.  You must trust me completely.  Don’t worry about asking any questions on the details because we don’t have the time to answer them.  Speed is of the essence. 

 

Just support me.  Don’t waste your time listening to politicians like Texas Representative Jeb Hensarling who says my plan is a step down the “slippery slope to socialism.”

 

If you don’t think all $800 billion of your dollars are necessary for this bailout, believe me, they are.  Let me just list some of the things this money will be spent for:

 

·          Manufacturers of kids’ wooden arrows

·          Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum producers

·          Wool research

·          Auto racing tracks

·          Corporations operating in American Samoa

·          Small to medium budget film and television productions

·         Community self-determination program
·    Benefits to bicycle commuters


Rest assured, I will not be going at this endeavor alone.  I will have Democratic Representatives Barney Frank and Chris Dodd by my side. 

Yes, I know, they are the same guys who not too long ago said “I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger…Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country.”  They also said Fannie and Freddie are “fundamentally strong” and that we shouldn’t panic because “these are viable, strong institutions.”
 

But who cares about what politicians said in the past anyway?  They are exactly the type of politicians that should be deciding what is best for this country's economy.

 

As for our next president, don’t worry – Barack Obama will be our man.  Despite the fact that he has no economic experience and it was his party that got us into this mess, the citizens of this country seem to be more comfortable with him dealing with the economy.  That’s good because he’s the best man for the job since there will be no limit to the amount of your money he will spend to fix this problem. 

 

As for John McCain, it’s hard to say what his role will be.  Hopefully he is signed on as an adviser since he was the only one who had the judgment to predict this mess and the courage to speak out for reform two years ago. 

We cannot forget what McCain said in 2006: “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.”
 

Unfortunately, judging by the way Obama treated Hillary Clinton, his last political opponent, it is likely McCain will not be considered for any job of significance. 

 

I’m begging you, please support me.  We need this one.  After a summer of failing to solve our energy problems, failing to solve our economic growth problems, failing to get federal spending under control and failing to modernize the health system, we are desperate to have a proposal that gets accepted.  Now more than ever is the time to put your faith in Washington.

 

So again, let me stress that we need your support on this bailout plan.  And if you are angry about it, the best thing to do is blame Bush.  Just disregard that his administration went to great strides to reform Fannie and Freddie but was stopped by Democrats in Congress every time.  What’s the difference?  We blame him for everything anyway and I know it’ll make you feel better.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

Hank Paulson

Treasury Secretary for the United States of America



Comment
                                                            Contact




The Burdens of Our Next President
September 24, 2008

The burst in Republican popularity due to the Palin factor is finally starting to subside and for the first time in a few weeks we are starting to see Obama once again take a small lead in the polls.  
 

September 24, 2008The burst in Republican popularity due to the Palin factor is finally starting to subside and for the first time in a few weeks we are starting to see Obama once again take a small lead in the polls.

The fact that Obama’s lead is so small emphasizes an obvious fact - more people are doubting Obama’s ability to lead in September than they were in August.  And more voters will doubt Obama in October than they did in September.
 

As each week passes during this presidential race the list of concerns gets longer and longer.  First it was Iraq, followed by oil, then Russia and now Wall Street.  At this point in the campaign there is one thing for sure that Obama has a talent for – deflection.

He refuses to admit the surge was successful despite the facts.
 

On energy his best solutions are to tax more and let air out of your tires.
 

His response to the Russian-Georgian conflict was not only delayed but it took him three chances before he got it right.
  

His response to the financial crisis has been shallow.  His only credit thus far was to appear in photographs with Bill Clinton’s old economic team.  That was to deflect attention away from the fact that one of Obama’s economic advisers was recently the CEO of Fannie Mae and made $90 million in six years while working there.
 

His biggest decision as a presidential candidate – choosing a Vice President – turned out to be wrong even in the eyes of the man he picked.  Joe Biden confessed recently that he thinks Hillary Clinton would have been a better VP pick.  He also recently said that if Sarah Palin is elected VP it would be a step back for women.
 

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin said that electing Obama would be a step back for African Americans?  There would be a media uproar.  It seems Joe Biden is going out of his way to say the most outrageous things he can think of to try and garner attention since no one seems to notice he is part of this presidential campaign.  Unfortunately for him it’s hardly working.  No matter what he says, still nobody cares.

Obama equals change.  Voters get that.  But for the first time voters are starting to think change doesn’t necessarily mean better.  There is good change, and bad change.  As America’s problems grow deeper and the election draws nearer, voters are paying attention to the details of the issues and concluding that Obama very much equals change for the worse.

Obama’s charisma is commendable.  Only, that shouldn’t be enough to carry a candidate to victory.  If his rhetoric had any depth then Barack Obama as President would be justifiable.  But his policies are a mile long and an inch deep.
 

He says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the population.  At the same time he is calling for increases in government aid towards healthcare, education, housing and welfare.
 

It is easy to make promises when you’re trying to garner voter approval.  But can he deliver?  The facts say no.  And based on what the government has promised over the past week to banks - the answer is a definite no.  Obama’s plan for Universal Healthcare and increased spending on almost everything else will cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.  You don’t have to be an M.I.T. mathematician to realize the numbers don’t add up. 

Beyond the immediate financial crisis, at current projections the federal government will go into unsustainable debt just to meet its present obligations to baby boomer retirees in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.  If Obama believes he can add to current obligations with increases in education and welfare and tack on a Universal Healthcare system while at the same time cutting taxes then he is truly living in a dream world.

Given our current economic situation, Obama’s tax plan is the equivalent of adding surface-to-air missile launches to a fireworks display.

Joe Biden said last week that it is our patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  How ironic, considering that this country was born fighting a revolution because the taxes were too high.

If you don’t care now you better start.  The burdens of our next president are monumental.  Our financial system needs restructuring.  Our entitlements program is facing a hurricane of debt.  Our national security is threatened by the likes of Russia and Iran.  And we still have the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to clean up. 

Now is not the time for on the job training.  We need to address these challenges with realistic policies and achievable commitments.  Empty promises and politics-as-usual is not something voters should tolerate.

John McCain offers a different approach.  His is one of common-sense solutions to difficult problems.  He doesn’t offer ambiguous “change.”  He offers reform.  He promises to shake-up Washington politics and put an end to seemingly endless bureaucracy. 

It’s comforting that with John McCain you don’t have to rely simply on what he says.  You can go back and see he has a record of reforming Washington and busting up the good-ole-boys network. 

What is frightening is that Obama has no past.  He has no history.  So all voters have to go on is his word.  For a community organizer that might be acceptable.  Even for a Senator, it’s tolerable.  But for the President of the United States, it’s unacceptable.


And on a final note, a PalaPolitical prediction:

McCain-Palin will win Pennsylvania. 

A large portion of Pennsylvanian voters are independent.  At this point in the presidential race, for a swing state, that is something that Obama should be concerned with.
 

Pennsylvanians don’t equate McCain with Bush.  Instead they see him as a war hero.  They see McCain as dependable.  The fact that both McCain and Palin have a record of bucking their own party resonates with this state. 

By targeting the white working-class counties McCain will offset the black and elite liberal voters. 

Numerous counties in Pennsylvania have healthy-sized veteran populations as well as socially-Catholic Democrats. 

In culturally conservative towns like Scranton, PA the voters are much more concerned about economic issues and the cost of a gallon of gas.  McCain’s plans to “drill now” along with the addition of energy-rich-candidate Sarah Palin has gained the confidence of many voters.  And the fact that these same voters believe that Obama is actually going to raise their taxes doesn’t fair well for Obama’s chances.
 

Obama’s decision to publicize Biden as a hero of the working class because he spent the first ten years of his life in Scranton isn’t working.  Instead the citizens of Pennsylvania are relating much more to the authenticity of Sarah Palin.  They like her stances on abortion, energy and reform.  Palin will likely be the nudge that the large independent-voting population of Pennsylvania needs to push that state from purple to red. 

Hillary nostalgia, as well as Obama’s race, will help contribute to a McCain victory in Pennsylvania. 


What does this mean for the presidential race?  Well, the twenty-one electoral votes will win McCain the election.  But it’s fair to say that even if Obama does win Pennsylvania, the fact that it is still so close this late in the race indicates that Ohio, Indiana and Virginia are already lost to Obama.

Comment                                                                                    Contact



The Sarah Palin Chronicles
September 3, 2008

On Friday John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate and simultaneously overshadowed Obama’s convention speech while reinvigorating the Republican Party.

Sarah Palin is the best antidote to Washington bureaucracy.  She has the tenacity of Margaret Thatcher and the convictions of Ronald Reagan.  She has a strong record of reform, restoring accountability, diminishing wasteful spending, rooting out corruption and securing energy independence.  In other words, she is the antithesis of the Obama/Biden ticket.

Barack Obama has spent the past two years running for president.  Sarah Palin has spent the past two years running a state.

And what has she achieved in the last two years as Governor?  Real change.  She has transformed the Alaskan government from old school Washington bureaucracy to an accountable, successful operation.  To her, the problem isn’t the Bush administration or the Democratic Congress – it is conventional Washington politics of “business as usual.” 

She catapulted to the top of Alaskan government with a strong reputation as a political outsider and reformer. 

She defeated two political insiders – both Republicans – to earn the position of Governor.  She made her name by backing tough ethical standards for politicians. 

Has she lived up to her reputation?  Well, it’s safe to say her 80% approval rating speaks for itself.

When it comes to healthcare, Palin wants to “allow free-market competition and reduce onerous government regulation.”  On education, she supports school-choice programs.

As for her stance on wasteful Washington spending, again her record speaks for itself.  She vetoed spending increases over 300 times her first year as Governor of Alaska.  She put an end to the wasteful “Bridge to Nowhere” project, a $400 million waste of taxpayers’ money that led to an island with a few dozen residents. 

As Governor she has cut taxes and spending.  She has stood up to the oil companies and stood up to corrupt Republican politicians.  Democrats should actually be ecstatic about her.  However, her fight against the Washington establishment is exactly what Democrats don't have on their side.  Barack Obama was part of Chicago politics (known for being corrupt) for many years and never once exposed any wrongdoings. 

Many would argue that Obama represents change that Washington needs.  Well, let’s look at his record.  He has agreed with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the leaders of today’s Democratic Congress, 95% of the time, according to his voting record.  As of today Congress has a 17% approval rating – the lowest rating in the history of Gallup polls.  Barack Obama has agreed with the leaders of today’s unpopular Congress 95% of the time.  America should not be ready to take a 5% chance on change.

And look who he has chosen as his VP running mate – Joe Biden.  If anyone represents conventional Washington, it’s Joe Biden.  He has been in the Senate for over twenty years, yet has never led any policy change.  He has run for president twice.  The first time he was called out on plagiarizing a speech and subsequently dropped out.  When he ran for his party’s nomination in this race he dropped out simply because no one cared (he received 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucus in January 2008).

As far as Biden's foreign policy experience: he voted against Reagan's actions against the Soviet Union, he voted against the Persian Gulf War and voted against the surge which has proven to be successful.  So he has experience, but experience with being consistently wrong with foreign policy issues.

As for Obama’s speech at the convention last week, it was very good.  Is anyone surprised?  That’s what Obama does, he gives good speeches.  Actually, that’s all he has done.  And one thing was made clear in Obama’s speech and throughout the week at the Democratic convention: they have a government program for everything. 

According to Obama, the average American stinks.  Mothers can no longer raise their children on their own, they need his help.  Aspiring students can no longer get an education on their own, they need his help.  Workers can no longer buy a home or save for retirement, they need his help.  Obama no longer believes Americans are self-sufficient.

He wants more.  More government spending and more government programs.  And no matter where you stand, as an individual, it doesn’t matter because as a taxpayer you’re going to help pay for it either way.

This is not the type of government Sarah Palin represents, and that is why McCain chose her as a running mate. 

The Republican ticket can be renamed ‘Mr. and Mrs. Maverick.’

At a time when energy production is vital, Sarah Palin is an expert.  Before she was Governor, while she was mayor of Wasilla, she was chairman of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.  Presently she is chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the National Governors Association’s Natural Resources Committee.  All three multi-state agencies affect the energy production of the entire nation.

The only bump in Sarah Palin’s VP candidacy is her daughter’s baby bump.  Is the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s seventeen year old daughter an opening for the Democrats to attack?  If anything, this breaking news is likely to help the Republican ticket. 

First, it will help boost ratings in her speech at the convention this week, where she will most likely confront the issue and show what a loving mother and family member she is. 

Second, it will make her more appealing to the women voters she was always meant to target.  Those aren’t the hard-core Hillary supporters.  It will strengthen the appeal to suburban moms.  It will strengthen the appeal of hard-working women who battle against sexism and instead of whining about it confront it and overcome it to achieve successful, happy lives. 

Independent and undecided voters are looking for a Vice President that has the same sort of maverick zeal that John McCain represents - someone who is willing to take on the establishment.  Sarah Palin is successful not only in her profession but also in raising her family.  She is a combination of a woman who can not only do it all but be it all – and that’s a powerful combination. 

No one wants to see a nice American woman who is a mother of five and a civil servant who challenges the establishment ripped apart.  Americans want accountability.  Americans, especially American women, have personalized it so now every time Palin is attacked, they feel attacked.  She represents every mother who wants to have a career and raise her children at the same time.  She represents every mom who has stood up to the establishment and said “No.” 

Every attack that comes from the Obama campaign will only hurt Obama’s own chances of winning and increase sympathy and appeal for Palin.

And watch out for the double standard in politics regarding women.  Legitimate news anchors (uh um…CNN) are questioning her abilities as a mother.  Are these questions asked to a father?  Who has asked whether Barack Obama would be a good father to his ten and seven year old daughters if he gets to be the President of the United States?  No one has or will ask that question – and by the way, he has a working wife. 

From Obama to Biden, and even McCain, one gets the sense that political office is their life’s work.  They try very hard to portray themselves as ordinary Americans.  Sarah Palin doesn’t have to work at it.  She ran her own business, was a member of the PTA and a mayor of a small town.  Her son is off to Iraq, her seventeen year old daughter is pregnant and her infant son has special needs.  She hasn’t lived a life of affluence, favoritism or back scratching.  Her parents were grammar school teachers.  She was only able to go to college after she was awarded a scholarship for winning a beauty pageant. 

As Politico.com points out, everything about her life experience reinforces the narrative that she is not an all-consuming political animal, and has an active family life.

She is not political.  She is, in fact, very normal.  She is genuine. 

Comment                                                                          Contact



The Tide is Turning in Favor of McCain
August 20, 2008 

 

 

 

 


Since John McCain started his run for presidency in 2008 he hasn’t been able to run the campaign he had envisioned.  He started with the down to earth conversational style that attracted the press in 2000, but that didn’t work because they were obsessed with someone else this time.  His improvised campaign style lacked focus and didn’t gain traction.  His ‘Straight Talk Express’ bus route through poverty stricken towns barely got any coverage. 

McCain found that the only way he could get any attention was if he spoke about Barack Obama.  Attacking Obama daily was the only way McCain can get the media to pay attention.  So he abandoned the campaign he wanted to run and is now running a more conventional race.   And guess what – it’s working.
Since McCain shook up his organization a few weeks ago, his campaign is much more focused and for the first time really reaching voters.  Everyone said Obama would be ahead double digits in the polls at this point, yet McCain is almost even.  Everyone said he couldn’t compete with Obama’s money machine, yet finances have not gotten in the way. 

His stands on energy exploration and the Russian conflict have strengthened his commanding persona.  And then came the political forum at Saddleback.

Over the course of two hours the best selling evangelical author Rick Warren moderated a televised forum where he asked Obama and McCain simple and straightforward questions.   It was a fascinating experiment.  Each was asked the same questions in the same order.  The different results produced were astonishing. 


On the issues discussed during the political forum


Abortion

 

The question: Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?


McCain was quick and decisive, saying that life begins “at the moment of conception.”  Obama’s response was different, saying answering the question is “above my pay grade.”  It is true that Obama doesn’t have much experience, but someone should tell him that as a government official he makes proposals and votes on bills, provisions and funding relating to abortion.  So actually, Barack, it is within your pay grade.


Delve deeper into Obama’s abortion record and you will see he is a proponent of infanticide.  In 2001, the Illinois Attorney General determined doctors were under “no ethical or legal obligation” to give life sustaining treatment to prematurely born infants who were intended to be aborted.  This means that if a doctor botches an abortion and the baby is born alive that baby can still be killed.  Obama was in the Illinois State Senate at the time.  The Illinois General Assembly created the Born Alive Infants Protection Act to protect these live babies.  Barack Obama voted against the law.  He would rather see infants murdered than dare invade a woman’s right to choose. 


Evil’s Existence

The question was: Does evil exist and, if so, ignore it, negotiate with it, or defeat it? 

 

 

 

 


McCain, without hesitation, said, “Defeat it.”  He went on to say: “Of course evil must be defeated” and mentioned radical Islamic extremism and that he will “follow Obama to the gates of hell” if he has to.

Obama, by contrast, said evil has to be confronted.  He mentioned Darfur and our city streets and said it “has to be confronted squarely” and that “we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world.”  He went on to say, “Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility” as we confront evil. 
As William Kristol stated in the New York Times on Monday: “It would have been interesting if Warren had asked the follow-up question: Hasn’t the problem been a reluctance to effectively confront evil – in Darfur, or Rwanda, or pre-9/11 Afghanistan?”

Taxes

 

Rick Warren asked: Define rich.  I mean, give me a number.  How can we define that? 


McCain was reluctant to give specific numbers before saying $5 million sarcastically.  He went on to say, “I don’t want to take any money from the rich.  I want everybody to get rich.” 


Obama was more direct, suggesting a family with an income above $250,000 is rich in his mind.  He went on to say that if you fall in that category than you are a target for a tax all in the name of creating “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code.” 


Obama seems very comfortable talking about what he believes is fairness in the tax code.  He has previously said: “It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”  The puzzling part is figuring out how Obama came to his definition of fair?  The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service [http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102174,00.html] shows the top 1% of American taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes.  This is the highest level in 40 years.  The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of taxes.  The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of taxes.  Obama’s so-called “rich” are certainly paying their fair share.


Hardest Decision

The question was: What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you ever had to make and how did you process that to come to that decision.

Obama answered by saying “the opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision as I’ve had to make.  Not only because there were political consequences, but also because Saddam Hussein was a real bad person, and there was no doubt that he meant America ill.”

 

 

 

 

 

The political consequences for Obama voting against the war in Iraq were that it allowed him to propel to the top of the Democratic Party.  He would never be the Democratic nominee for President if he voted for the war in Iraq. 

McCain’s answer was a lot more personal.  He commented on his decision to stay in a Vietnamese prison camp rather than abandon his fellow soldiers.  “The Vietnamese came and said I could leave prison early…But I said no, and I’ll never forget sitting on my last answer, and the high-ranking officer offered it, slammed the door and the interrogator said, ‘Go back to your cell.  It’s going to be very tough on you now.’  And it was.  But not only the toughest decision I ever made, but I am most happy about that decision, than any decision I’ve ever made in my life.” 

It is important to remember - John McCain spent more time in a Vietnamese Prison Camp than Barack Obama has spent in the US Senate.    

The forum was two hours of straightforward questions about the candidates’ lives and world views.  Nothing in the campaign so far has been so revealing about the differentiating styles, life experiences and philosophies of the two candidates. 

Obama was an impressive, likable young man.  McCain was an elder statesman. 

Obama sounded more like a lawyer appealing to the American public as if it was a jury.  McCain sounded more like a potential president appealing to the hopes and ambitions of the American people. 


Obama tells of his interesting history.  McCain tells of his heroic one. 


McCain proved that he can be a more formidable and effective opponent than anyone imagined.  Not only have national polls tightened, but McCain has actually moved ahead in three key battleground states: Ohio, Virginia and Colorado. 


The tide is moving for the first time in the direction of Republicans.  And people dare to whisper…


…McCain might just win.

Comment                                                Contact



Questioning the Manner in Which Freedom is Provided
August 15, 2008

In a famous movie scene Jack Nicholson, playing Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men, said:

“Son, we live in a world that has walls.  And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.  Who's gonna do it?” 

And further, “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!  I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.” 

Though fictional, the challenges this dialogue presents seem very realistic when considering the current state of the world.

It is all a question of perspectives.  Russia invades Georgia.  Iran continues progress on their building of a nuclear weapon.  Islamic terrorist car bombings persist.  China aggressively silences and jails protesters.  China and India pollute to a point where the visuals are disturbing.  Meanwhile, the globalized world cheers for their country’s athletes while watching the Olympics each night from Beijing.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

 

 

 

 

 

Following Russia’s invasion of Georgia western politicians were quick to react.  George Bush denounced Russia for having “invaded a sovereign neighboring state” and threatening “a democratic government.”  Vice-president Dick Cheney declared that “Russian aggression must not go unanswered.” 

Are these the leaders of the same government that (along with Georgia’s help) invaded and occupied Iraq? 

But there is more involved than a simple comparison between the US invading Iraq and Russia invading Georgia.  The long-running dispute between Russia and Georgia is the inevitable consequence of the breakup of the Soviet Union.  Underlying the conflict of the past week has been the Bush administration’s wider determination to enforce US influence throughout the globe and prevent any challenges, particularly from our old Cold War adversary. 

Over the past decade, the US has relentlessly expanded east, bringing western ideals (and western militaries) up against Russian borders and deep into former Soviet territory.  American military bases have spread across Eastern Europe and central Asia and have been working behind the scenes as one anti-Russian government after another was installed.  Georgia is a prime example of this.  Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili and his predecessor came to power in western-backed coups.  Georgia’s forces are armed and trained by the US and Israel. 

But is the US wrong?  What has followed since the collapse of Russia has been a world shared in relative harmony, from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and flourishing consumer capitalism.  International economic growth is reaching record levels.  Sea-lanes are kept open. 

The US military has disposed of Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.  Have those actions been wrong?  Is the world worse off now that tyrants have been slain?

American force, however inhumane moralists may claim it to be, is responsible for another great success – denuclearization.  Libya in 2003, fearing what the US might do, surrendered all the equipment it had bought to make nuclear weapons.  The deactivation of North Korea’s nuclear program has finally started.  Syria lost its secret proto-nuclear reactor during an American backed Israeli strike.  More recently, the Bush administration has started to put tremendous pressure on Iran’s nuclear program. 

China and India, aided by the US, have been growing rapidly ever since their governments gave up self-destructive policies.  Right behind them are Brazil, Singapore and Israel.  In turn hundreds of millions are moving up into more decent lives.  The result is a world more enriched with greater freedoms and greater economic achievements.

And what is true of these new industrializing states is not true of the oil-rich countries we always seem to be in conflict with – The Middle East, Russia and Venezuela.  Unlike China or India, the oil-bubble countries produce neither goods nor services.  The oil they extract and ship is usually done for them by foreigners.  These governments are anti-democratic, parasitic and wicked and pose serious policy issues for America going forward. 

The most interesting question is whether America will continue to confront international problems with aggression backed up by brute force or whether America will question the manner in which it provides security worldwide and decide to become more complacent.  The former is more favorable to the world.  But, based on recent polls, the latter is more likely.    

We do not want to revert back to the old world.  Let the United States hibernate and the new globalized world will become a poorer and more dangerous place.  Call off the war on terror and Islamic terrorists will regroup, not stay disbanded.  Adopt protectionist trade policies and profits will plummet.  Demilitarize world powers and rogue states will advance.

Sometimes it is necessary for the United States to threaten with economic sanctions or impose their military might on the world.  The methods will not always be humane but the end result is a better world for everyone.  It is best to just say thank you, and be on your way.  If not, brace yourself because we will be on our way back to a world where a centrally administered form of gangsterism rules and the innocent suffer as a consequence.

Comment                                                                                                                             Contact




America's Future

August 4, 2008

Our next president has a tough job ahead.  At home and abroad the troubles mount.  He will have to unite our nation with a clear and credible strategy that addresses the major foreign policy challenges before us, defeat the threat of terrorism, achieve energy independence, strengthen relationships with our allies and develop a trade policy that can keep up and compete with the vastly growing global economy. 

Which presidential candidate is best qualified to do this? 

Not Barack Obama.  He is a one-term junior Senator who has only served his national government for three years, two of which he has spent campaigning.  He seems to think the Berlin Wall fell because of  “one worldism” and refuses to acknowledge that America won the Cold War through tough negotiations backed up by brute force.  On other important national security issues such as Iraq, Nafta, unconditional diplomacy with enemy dictators and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Obama has been back and forth and unable to give the American people a straight answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John McCain, however, has proven he can work in a bipartisan manner in the Senate and his foreign policy experience and stern determination makes him the best choice to save U.S. foreign policy and end national security divisions in Washington.  America has accomplished a tremendous amount since the September 11th attacks – tough counterterrorism programs have prevented major terrorist attacks against our country since and intelligence reform has allowed American intelligence services to better collaborate against terrorism.  The troop surge, which McCain supported and Obama opposed, proved to be a tremendous success. 

John McCain has not only proven to be successful and straightforward when it comes to foreign relations, but also with the economy.  America can compete and win in the future global marketplace.  Shaping an economic strategy to achieve that should be among the next president’s highest priorities. 

Obama’s economic recipe is simply punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government rule.  Among his proposed policies:

 

  • ”Universal, guaranteed” healthcare
  • “Free” college tuition
  • “Universal 401ks”
  • “Free” job training (even for criminals)
  • “Free” child care and “universal” preschool
  • Increased subsidized public housing
  • A Global Poverty Act (amounts to the Third World)

How does he plan to pay for all of this?  By raising top marginal rates paid by small business, raising capital gains taxes, raising taxes on dividends, raising payroll taxes and raising estate taxes.  All this, while not renewing Bush’s tax cuts.  These policies would result in the largest tax hikes this country has seen post WWII.  That’s a whole lot of raising for millions of families, individuals and small businesses and a lot less money to spend, save and invest as they see fit. 

The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.

A perfect storm of statism has formed in Obama’s mind, and American’s economic freedoms are at serious risk if he becomes the next president. 

John McCain takes the opposite view, posing as a free-market individualist who believes the American people are self-sufficient and don’t need Washington to run their lives.  He believes that in a troubled economy higher taxes are the last thing Americans need.  Raising taxes eliminates jobs, hurts small businesses and delays economic recovery.  To get on the road to recovery McCain plans to:

 

  • Preserve the current low tax rates
  • Offer every individual and family a tax credit to buy their healthcare
  • Lower the business tax rate to create more jobs and open new plants
  • Cut Washington spending to lower the federal debt and strengthen the dollar
  • Get a handle on the cost of oil and gasoline and regain energy independence

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not favorable to a thriving economy.  If the proposals embraced by Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer serious setbacks and long term devastating effects.  Only John McCain offers change that will equal progress. 

And finally, John McCain is the right man for the job because he is someone the American people can trust. Sure, he’s made his fair share of gaffes and blunders this campaign.  But at least he fesses up to and explains his changes and mistakes. 

By contrast, Barack Obama has shifted policies on free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, diplomacy with enemy dictators, public financing, the D.C. gun ban, immunity for telecom companies, the status of Israel, flag lapel pins and his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  Throughout all of these flip flops, not only has he refused to explain but has pretended as if they never occurred. 

John McCain has a reputation of being gutsy and willing to take unpopular stands if he believes them to be in the best interests of the American people.  Barack Obama’s rhetoric is inspiring, but his ideas and intended policies will not benefit America.

America needs an experienced leader whose sensible policies offer the greatest prospects for the future.  John McCain is that leader, and would keep America ahead of the curve in the 21st century. 

Comment                                                                                    Contact




Why Europe Loves Barack Obama
July 28, 2008

Presidential candidate Barack Obama wrapped up his “Change is Coming” world tour where he received a rock star reception and defended his decision to take the trip despite mixed signals about its popularity at home.

Standing side by side with many of Europe’s leaders Obama looked more like a Head of State than a junior Senator from Illinois, and did a good job of following the most important diplomat rule – flatter your host.


Barack Obama is so loved in Europe because they think he is one of them.  He looks young, trimmed and cool – not like one of the cowboy looking presidents.  They think Obama will diminish America’s supremacy in the world.  They think he will shrink our military.  They think he will limit our energy use and jump on board to the Euro-elite vision where one world operates in a singular economy.


Europe is salivating at the thought that America will become just like every other nation where their values and traditions are no better than any other countries.’  The Europeans think that if Obama is elected, four years from now the United States will be weaker.  The elite countries of the world don’t like getting pushed around by us Americans.  They don’t trust the American people and are determined to force us to obey their global rules. 


The Chinese will no longer need to worry about America getting in the way of their global economic ambitions.  The Russians will no longer have to worry about America stopping their bullying ways.  Obama doesn’t want an American identity – he wants a global identity. 


Obama’s plans to redistribute wealth and make healthcare universal fit right in with what the elite European countries practice and have been trying to spread around world.  He wants to harmonize our tax policies.  He wants us to be part of a global understanding and abandon our muscular American presence.  He is more appealing to the European Union sensibility.


Obama’s German speech certainly was not the highlight of the trip.  He gave his first-ever presidential campaign speech before a mass audience of non-voters overseas.  It was an unforced error.  Consider these words by the German chancellor’s spokesman:

It’s unusual to hold election rallies abroad.