Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
You watch the news and see that Obama is planning his $2 million election party. You read that his campaign has already started his inauguration speech. You read how his transition team is preparing for his inevitable trip to the White House.
First, Barack Obama has raised over $600 million dollars. Everyone can agree that is a huge amount of money. It is impressive by any stretch of the imagination. He has used this large sum of money to his advantage. He has spent double, triple, sometimes quadruple the amount of money on ads in battlegrounds states than John McCain.
Second, Barack Obama has used the Internet to advance his campaign like no other in our history. The way that his campaign captured email and cell phone account numbers was amazing. Just think of all of the information they gathered with the announcement of his VP candidate. (they get a pass for screwing up the actual announcement)
Third, Obama's campaign has made huge gains in voter registration. We can argue all day and night about ACORN, but the fact is that they have increased their voter rolls. Even the homeless in Ohio can claim a park bench as a residency. The Democrats have widened their party identification by huge numbers this election season.
Finally, Obama has 70-90% of the media in the tank for him. Almost all of the research and polls done on this subject show that Obama has double the positive press than John McCain. Just looking at the magazine covers will give that fact away. All of the polls have been showing Obama way up.
At this point, Conservatives, Republicans, and McCain supporters should be feeling more than a little disenfranchised and ready to throw in the towels. But here's a little secret that will give you hope...more than hope....it should make you optimistic...no it should give you a warm and fuzzy feeling. Here it is....
For all of the information I just shared, Barack Obama is not above 50% in most polls. He isn't above 50% in most of the battleground polls. This week his campaign sent out requests that he needed just $10 more from each of his supporters to help him out.
If Barack Obama is on the verge of this great blowout, why is he spending so much time in Pennsylvania this week? Why does he have both Clintons in Pennsylvania this week? Why did he feel the need to buy 30-minutes of airtime on three major networks? Why are the Clinton traveling to New Hampshire this week? Why is Barack Obama spending so much money in Pennsylvania if he really has a 10-point lead in the state?
This race is far from over. The Obama campaign may be publicly spouting their confidence (I call it arrogance), but privately there is a completely different conversation going on. His team knows that going into the final days that he must keep his head above that 50% mark or he may very well lose this election that most have already said he won.
Ask yourself this question, if you cannot seal this deal with $600 million dollars, the press in the tank, a huge advantage in voter registration, and a ground game that equals no other, what exactly will it take for you to close this deal? Are you capable of closing this deal at all? At this point in the primaries, the undecided voters went overwhelmingly to Hillary Clinton.
Can John McCain still win this race?...........................You Betcha!!!!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Is anyone else creeped out by this whole media buy? I know there is a historical reference to Ross Perot doing the same thing during his campaign run, but I remember that being quite creepy as well. Will there be subliminal messages intertwined into the ad? Just kidding...or I am?
The only major news channel that is not running the Obama advertisement is ABC. For what ever reason, they will keep their struggling show, "Pushing Daisies" on at it's regular time. It really is a good show. It probably deserves getting an additional audience of hundreds of thousands that night.
If you really want to send the Main Stream Media a message, do not turn on those three channels Wednesday night. Do not turn it on for even one second. Do not TiVo or record it on your DVR. I know there will be the temptation to watch just out of curiosity, but fight the urge. You know it will be played and overplayed on the Internet afterwards. If you have to watch it, wait for the Internet.
Instead, make the conscious decision to watch ABC that night. Give Pushing Daisies a helping hand while telling Barack Obama, "thanks, but no thanks" at the same time. There are very few times in your life where you can make a real impact. This could be one of those times. Of course, the other is November 4th.
Are you going to stand up to the Main Stream Media or reward Obama's $3 million ad buy?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
As of today, Senator Obama has not yet released his medical records, his Illinois State Senate records, his college history, or his birth certificate. It is amazing that the main stream media is worried about how much money was purchased on clothing for Sarah Palin, but has yet to ask for any of this information to be released.
Yesterday, news broke that Joe Biden finally had a few questions asked of him that he felt were tough. The Obama campaign's response was to blast the news anchor and cut her station off from any further interviews. I believe when Sarah Palin has been asked tough questions, she received the following:
"If she can't take tough questions from the news media, how can we expect her to handle Putin."
Well, don't worry everyone. We may finally be getting the answers about Barack Obama that we have been waiting for. No, really. This is BREAKING NEWS..........
According to ABC's Jake Tapper, Obama Shuns Press Conferences, Sits With 'EXTRA!'s' Mario Lopez.
If anyone can get the answers that we are so lacking from Senator Obama, it has to be Saved By The Bell's AC Slater. Come on...stop laughing! He was on Dancing With The Stars. I am sure he can get at least one of the answers to the questions we are asking.
STOP reading the POLLS......Get Out The Vote......Make Phone Calls...and DO NOT LET this man that we know so little about get away with taking this election. Life as you know it may depend on it.
Friday, October 24, 2008
As I wrote yesterday, the closer the election, the more the Democrats are coming out of their liberal shells. Barnie Frank, again filled with the gift to gab, gave us another inside look at the Democrats' agenda. How will they pay for the almost $1 trillion in new spending that they propose? The first way is to cut military spending by 25%. Does anyone else have concerns about cutting our military as Russia enters our waters to the south and Iran inches closer to nuclear weapons? I digress..that's a whole different post.
What's another way they could raise some money to fill up their social program coffers? How does seizing your 401k plans sound to you? Think it's far-fetched. Think again. Think Democrats aren't dumb enough to try it....we can only hope.
The Democrats are considering just this option should they take super majorities in both the House and Senate. Democrats have stated in recent months that they don't like tax-free deposits to 401k accounts. This is tax money that they could be using for other programs. According to US News & World Reports :
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."
Do you have a 401k? Do you make less than $250k a year? Well apparently, if they chose this option, Obama's promise not to raise taxes on those making less than that will go out the window. Your company will no longer have incentive to participate in matching funds. Instead of the potential to receive thousands from your employer matching fund, the government will be happy to give you a measly $600 per year. Whoo Hoo.....start celebrating.
Your taxable income will go up because your retirement savings deposits will no longer be tax deferred. So yes, not only will you be paying more income tax, but state tax, local tax.....should I continue? If workers through their 401k accounts are no longer investing in the stock market, exactly what will that do to our stock market? What will that do to our economy?
The government has done such a great job with social security. Do you really want them controlling the one retirement plan that you currently control?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second, uh, a second seat. I do think this is the time for a very important kind of dose of (unintelligible). Yes, I think later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking, personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there who can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money.
"I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balance perspective and different points of view."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
An internal Democrat poll leaked to a radio personality at the end of last week, shows that the current set of public polls may be way off. This internal poll shows Barack Obama with a 2-point lead over John McCain. This is well within the margin of error. One could saythat is probably an outlier. Maybe....but there are a few tell-tale signs that suggest other wise.
First, John Murtha is doing everything he can to lose Western PA for Obama. He told the two major Pittsburgh newspapers that his part of the state are racists or do not like change. Then after apologizing for his comments, he opened his mouth again and stated that this part of the state are "rednecks". I guess he considers that an upgrade to racist. This may have a small impact on the polls, but a 8-11%. I don't think so. There has to be more to it than just Murtha.
Second, this is the one battle ground state where John McCain has his largest deficit. Why is he focused on PA? Why would he not spend more time and money in Iowa or Colorado or even New Mexico where the polls don't show quite a dramatic gap? John McCain and Sarah Palin will make four stops here in three days. Palin has added a stop in Beaver, a Democrat strong-hold, on Thursday. This was just added to the schedule today.
Third, in a new CNN article tonight, "Rendell "still a little nervous" about Penn., asks Obama to return. If the public polls are correct, why is Rendell so nervous? The article states:
Rendell said the McCain campaign is clearly making a push to win Pennsylvania, given the recent visits by the Arizona senator, his wife and his running mate. As a result, he wants Obama to appear in western Pennsylvania, Harrisburg and one more “large rally” in Philadelphia.
Democrats generally worry that the race is significantly closer than what recent polls have suggested. According to Rendell, there is also worry among Democrats the McCain campaign has successfully raised the enthusiasm level among Republicans in the state.
It appears he is not the only one nervous. Several union leaders have stated that they are facing resistance from their members to voting for Obama. Teachers Unions have been on the phones to their members as well taking polls to gauge which candidate has their support.
With this information, it begs the question......If the polls in Pennsylvania are off by 9 points, what do other internal state polls look like? If you add even a five point error in McCain's favor to most state polls, Obama loses the election.
Monday, October 20, 2008
John McCain has made his complete list of donors, even those giving under $200, available on line for all to see. The question is......why does Barack Obama's campaign continue to hide these contributors?
During the Newsmax investigation, there continue to be numerous donors who have given well over the allowed amount by the FEC. Some of the donors did have money returned to them, but there are more questions about these donors than answers.
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago. In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws. Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said. According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits. But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
The Obama campaign continues to hide it's donor list. Of their 2.5 million donors the campaign claims to have, they have kept 2 million of them secret. What's with all of their secrets? How many people have now come forward claiming that their credit cards have been charged $2300 without their permission by the Obama campaign?
How many people have had contributions made using their names in order to bypass the FEC? Do they truly have 2.5 million donors or are some of these aliases? Is this a huge fraud being perpetrated on our country....in addition to ACORN? According to the Newsmax article:
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money. “At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
You can't help to ask questions about the dollar amounts. $150 million in one month in the middle of what this country has gone through in the last month is very interesting. Do you think there is any point in which we will find out about where these donations have been coming from?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Let Freedom Ring Starts It's $5 Million Ad Campaign In Battle Ground States.....The Chicken Button Included.
It will run in three parts in battleground states. The differences with these ads are that they are simple, to the point, and get the word out. You can read their press release here for all of the details. Here are a few of the best ads.....all of them are available on Youtube.
Monday, October 13, 2008
I thought I would share a few of the highlights.
3. Budgets: Obama voted for Bush's budgets, which included 19 spending bills.
**This is hardly surprising as this is one of the biggest Bush policies that Obama would likely continue. It is also one of the biggest thing I and most other fiscal conservatives will cringe at the most.
7. Energy: In signing the $12.3 billion Energy Policy Act of 2005, Bush said it "promotes dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for America's future." Obama voted for the energy plan and called it a "first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil."
**Ironically this is the one that John McCain voted against because it gave too big of tax breaks to big oil companies......and yet Barack Obama had no issue voting for tax breaks for "Big Oil"......until he needed to run against big oil in his campaign rhetoric.
9. FISA: Of the Senate bill passage that rewrote intelligence laws to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's wiretapping program, Bush said: "This vital intelligence bill will allow our national security professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists outside the United States, while respecting the liberties of the American people."
Obama, who supported it, after opposing FISA last year, said: "Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." Almost identical, huh? Are we sure they don't share the same speechwriter? But Obama did take heat for his change of heart, as The Washington Post reported that: "The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups." Guess you can't please everyone.
**Isn't this the one big campaign promise that Obama made to his supporters in the primaries? This was one of the biggest issues that won him the nomination. Yet, he had no issue changing his position after securing the nomination. If he broke this promise to his most loyal supporters what will he do to the rest of us.
15. National security: Obama voted yes on preauthorizing the much ballyhooed Patriot Act, sought by the Bush administration.
**And yet another betrayal of his supporters. Isn't this one of the biggest reasons that liberals hate President Bush.
I don't want to be snarky on this issue, but there is such hatred for President Bush. I disagree with Bush's economic policies. I don't believe he handled the war as well as it should have been after we went in there. The fact is that you will never agree with everything any politician does, but you can always find something to agree on.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
I think of that when I look at Barack Obama's associations. My personal beliefs are that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, he is an American, and I am sure he is a great dad to his kids. Yet I have to question a man who has chosen the associations that he has chosen throughout his life. The issue is not William Ayers per se, but you have to ask, would you let your child play at his house?
The issue is not Reverend Wright. To each his own. but would you let your child listen to that hate? The issue is that there is a pattern in Barack Obama's associations. The list is long and the associations span decades of questionable judgement. This is the point that John McCain and Sarah Palin are trying to make.
However, as much as I am concerned by these past associations, it is his future associations that keep me up at night. Who are these associations? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Charles Rangel. This group are the leaders of the Democrat Party. They currently hold key leadership spots in Congress.
What have they accomplished in the last two years? Not much. It's not surprising that they have a 13% approval rating, 9% at it's low. With this group in charge and the possibility of a filibuster-proof majority, there will no longer be checks and balances in our government. There have only been a handful of times in our history where one party has had this much power in government.
There is one big difference between when this occurred in the past and it occurring now.... The Media. Americans were able to depend on the media to hold politicians accountable. They were able to tell the American people when their government had let them down or were about to. We no longer have that watch dog.
For those who wonder why Republicans are scared.....this is a big chunk of the reason. Nancy Pelosi and crew are already counting their chickens and preparing to call Congress back to session after the election. There will be no restraint and the far left agenda will be shoved down our throats.
Just one opinion from Smart Girl.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
My paternal great grandmother was a Seminole American Indian, a native of this country. My paternal blood line leads back to the likes of General Robert E. Lee and Light Horse Harry who was asked by Congress to address the death of President George Washington.
Many of us have amazing stories to how our family ended up in this country....yet history was not as kind to others. The fact of the matter is that I am not a Native American. I am not an Italian American. I am simply an American, a mom, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.
It seems that with each passing election those things that unite Americans, that quality that makes other world citizens envious of our station in life is being torn down internally. I have tried to make this blog a place for honest debate, where people regardless of positions can state their points of view. I have stated very clearly that you visit this blog knowing that it tilts to the right. I am a conservative and I make no apologies for my beliefs.
Unfortunately, this blog, that has become such a passion of mine the last three months, has been turned into something that I no longer can support. So I made the decision to address the issue one time and then turn my blog back into exactly what it was meant to be.......a place for respectful discussions.
There is anger in this country from both sides. With the current state of our economy it is not surprising that people are mad. I would be surprised if you told me that you weren't angry. Yet, it seems that the anger is currently being spent in the wrong direction. We, the voters regardless of who we voted for, did not create this mess. Our anger should not be directed at each other. We need to look at our leaders for that blame.
In the last few days, the media has made McCain/Palin rallies into racist mobs. Have there been people who have shouted despicable things? Yes. Is that representative of the majority of those attending the rallies or who are supporters of John McCain? NO. I can tell you for a fact that there are horrible things shouted from Obama protesters outside of these events and that it was happening before the McCain campaign turned negative. I have personally seen things written about Sarah Palin that I wouldn't call my worst enemy.
We can go back and forth about who is spewing more hate. Both sides have haters. Our society has haters. Does that mean everyone in our society hates? No. I personally have been to one of those rallies. The majority of those attending are respectful, courteous, and are excited to be part of the scene. They shout USA, USA, USA.
People are fearful in trying times. Democrats fear that John McCain will be the next George Bush while Republicans fear that Barack Obama will send us on a fast track to socialism. Fear is a normal part of life, but if it is leading you to spew hate or wish harm to others or simply leads you to a lack of respect for your neighbors, then it is time to step back. Remember that even the worst time in America is better than some of the best times in North Korea, or Pakistan, or Somalia.
I forgot that for a little while, but now that I have remembered I hope it will help a few others to think about it as well.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
-Groups, including ACORN have blackmailed $9.5 Billion in pools of bank capital.
-ACORN housing has taken $760 million from one bank alone.
(H/T...Pittsburgh Tribune Review)
Roots of rotten mortgages
By Ralph R. ReilandMonday, September 29, 2008
The roots of today's mortgage-based financial crisis can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977. Seeking to address complaints from anti-poverty activists and housing advocates about banks allegedly discriminating against minority borrowers and "redlining" inner-city neighborhoods, the CRA decreed that banks had "an affirmative obligation" to meet the credit needs of victims of discrimination in borrowing.
To add a government stick to the process, the CRA decreed that federal banking regulators would consider how well banks were doing in meeting the goal of more multiculturalism in loaning when considering requests by banks to open new branches or to merge.
A good "CRA rating" was earned by way of increasing loans in poor neighborhoods. Conversely, lenders with low ratings could be fined.
The Fed, for instance, warned banks that failure to comply with government guidelines regarding the delivery of "equal credit" could subject them to "civil liability for actual or punitive damages in individual or class actions, with liability for punitive damages being as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor's net worth in class actions."
However well-intentioned in terms of delivering "economic justice," this push for more government-directed social engineering produced a widespread weakening of long-established industry standards for credit worthiness.
Led by Congressional Democrats, this policy of replacing private and decentralized decision-making with a system of centrally-delivered rewards and punishments was basically a one-party effort. Republicans, it seems, were more aware of the unintended consequences that flow from government interference in the market.
As Investor's Business Daily recently put it, succinctly and correctly: "Over the past 30 years, Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, have demonized lenders as racist and passed regulation after regulation pressuring them to make more loans to unqualified borrowers in the name of diversity."
The march toward the eventual financial meltdown picked up speed during the Clinton administration via an increased lowering of loan standards in order to expand minority borrowing.
The result was widely praised. "It's one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era," wrote Ronald Brownstein in May 1999 in the Los Angeles Times. "In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African-Americans owning their own homes is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites."
In 2000, Howard Husock reported in City Journal that the "Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results -- specific loans, specific levels of service -- would count."
The "specific levels of service" referred to how well banks were responding to complaints, including complaints from advocacy groups that were in the business of complaining.
"By intervening -- even just threatening to intervene -- in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers," reported Husock. "A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from The Bank of New York."
In addition to setting the stage for giving money for mortgage payouts to ACORN and other lending amateurs, CRA authorized those organizations to collect fees from the banks for their "marketing" of loans.
"The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved," reported Husock.
There's big money, in short, in "nonprofit" activism -- and upward mobility. A guy carries a sign advocating "Change" in front of a bank and the government turns him into a salaried protester, credit analyst and dispenser of mortgage money.
"The changes came as radical 'housing rights' groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans," reports Investor's Business Daily, regarding the Clinton era. "ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Media Is In The Tank For Obama, The Toilet May Be More Appropriate....Wait Until You Hear This One.
(CBS)From CBS News' Dean Reynolds: (NASHVILLE, TENN.) - After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.
Obama is the big time orator, McCain is the guy who struggles with a teleprompter or even note cards strategically placed nearby. Obama's crowds are larger, more enthusiastic. McCain's events are smaller, but to my eye, better choreographed. And now with the addition of Sarah Palin to some of his events, McCain can boast of crowds that match Obama's in energy.
There is an urgency to the McCain campaign now that I don't think was there before. Due to the fact that he is running second, no doubt, but it may also be because McCain has a finishing kick. Whatever the case, he is sharper on the stump than he was before. (Though I would suspect a candidate running behind would want to schedule two or three appearances per day, instead of the one McCain usually does.)
It is true that McCain enjoys taking questions from the audience in town hall-style settings. That doesn't mean he is the master of that kind of forum, it just means he's good at it. He likes to converse with voters. Obama does it well too, but seldom achieves that intangible bond with the people that all politicians crave -- or fake.
Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences. Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational.
The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons.
If so, I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.
The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.
The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.
The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.
Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he's just said. It's made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move. Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama's that is focused solely on victory doesn't have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters.
But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.
Before I start getting attacked by the left, let me explain and I will be happy to debate it. Yesterday, the AP claimed that Sarah Palin going after Barack Obama on William Ayers has a racial tinge to her comments. I do not understand how questioning Obama on a white terrorist is racist.
Second, today, two Black Congressman came out against Palin stating that she is being racist on her stump speech. According to the New York Observer:
As the McCain campaign ratchets up the intensity of its attacks on Barack Obama, some black elected officials are calling the tactics desperate, unseemly and racist.
“They are trying to throw out these codes,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York.
“He’s ‘not one of us?’” Mr. Meeks said, referring to a comment Sarah Palin made at a campaign rally on Oct. 6 in Florida. “That’s racial. That’s fear. They know they can’t win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.”
“Racism is alive and well in this country, and McCain and Palin are trying to appeal to that and it’s unfortunate,” said Representative Ed Towns, also from New York.
There are many Americans that have issues with Barack Obama's associations. Does that make all of them racists? Why is the response to the questioning of Obama on almost any issue that you are racist?
Tonight, during the debate, John McCain referred to Barack Obama as "That One". I can't tell you how many comments I have seen that refer to this as racist. Courtesy of ABCnews.com:
McCain's "that one" reference came when the Arizona senator was contrasting his opposition to the 2005 Bush energy bill which was, in McCain's words, "loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies," with Obama's support for the measure.
"You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one," said McCain, gesticulating towards Obama. "You know who voted against it? Me."
Most people probably would not have even noticed the exchange had the Obama camp not emailed every reporter under the sun and suggested that it was the issue of the night. For a campaign that keeps saying it wants to talk about the issues, this seems ridiculous.
I am open to discussion on this issue.
Update: I forgot to mention the ways in which Congressman Barney Frank is now trying to weasel his way out of the housing fiasco. He now blames the GOP for being racist for being against Fannie and Freddie. This man is head deep in this crisis and this is his response to critism. I am not amused and it's getting idiotic.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Nevada state authorities seized records and computers Tuesday from the Las Vegas office of an organization that tries to get low-income people registered to vote, after fielding complaints of voter fraud.Bob Walsh, spokesman for the Nevada secretary of state's office, told Foxnews.com the raid was prompted by ongoing complaints about "erroneous" registration information being submitted by the Association of Community Organizations of Reform Now, also called ACORN.The group was submitting the information through a voter sign-up drive known as Project Vote."Some of them used non-existent names, some of them used false addresses and some of them were duplicates of previously filed applications," Walsh said, describing the complaints, largely from the registrar in Clark County, Nev. He said some registrations used the names of Dallas Cowboys football players.ACORN spokesman Charles Jackson confirmed the group's Nevada office was raided.It's not the first time ACORN's been under investigation for irregularities in registration records.In 2006, ACORN committed what the Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed called the "worst case of election fraud" in the state's history.In the case, ACORN submitted just over 1,800 new voter registration forms, but there was a problem. The names were made up-all but six of the 1,800 submissions were fakes.The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Channel 73 on Dish Network is now The Obama Channel.
According to Ben Smith of Politico:
The channel's appearance has provoked scorn and alarm on conservative blogs, though, and some discussion on a forum for Satellite TV aficionados, where one user writes that a Dish Network executive e-mailed to reassure the user that it "is paid advertising by the Obama campaign and is not an endorsement of Sen. Obama by DISH Network" and will broadcast through Nov. 4..
"DISH Network Channel 73 is paid advertising by the Obama campaign and is not an endorsement of Senator Obama by DISH Network. DISH Network made the same offer to the McCain campaign, an offer that remains open," Dish Network spokesman Parker McConachie emailed Politico
However, subscribers all over the country woke this morning to Obama's paid channel. Many subscribers stated that although they had not watched the channel before, it automatically appeared when they turned on their televisions this morning. Dish network claims that this was not an endorsement of the candidate, but they made sure that their customers found that channel.
Are we still in America? It is starting to feel like we are in a Communist country. First they tried to indoctrinate those poor children in the singing for Obama video. Then the step students pledge their allegiance to Obama, and now this. If Obama is elected, how long will it take for all of us to wake up to Obama TV? It won't be hard once Obama and his liberal friends have brought back the Fairness Doctrine. They are not only planning on going after talk radio now, but also the blogosphere.
Please....it is bad enough that his ads haunt me on my facebook page.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
- Fought to free blacks from slavery (13th Amendment)
- Granted blacks citizenship (14th Amendment)
- Gave blacks the right to vote (15th Amendment)
- Passed civil rights laws of the 1860's, 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965
- Started Affirmative Action (not the quota system of today)
- Founded the historically Black Colleges and Universities.
- Sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools
- Started the NAACP
- Started the Ku Klux Clan
- Had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI
- Called Dr. King a "trouble maker"
- Were the party of Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and Socialism
Friday, October 3, 2008
Attention Madame Speaker of the House: Please let's save the American tax payers time and money. Watch these two videos. Then very carefully....turn to the following members of your party and remove them from their Chair positions.
Congressman Barney Frank & Senator Chris Dodd should be the first to go. Can you throw in Charlie Rangel for good measure as well?
I would, however, like to praise one particular Democrat who appears in one of these videos. Rep. Artur Davis from the State of Alabama actually came out on September 30, 2008 and made the following statement:
"Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable home ownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.
I am sure that Nancy Pelosi will have him testify during those hearings......don't cha think?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
According to a Newsmax article, it appears that Obama supporters are taking the ACORN approach with his financial donations as well. The FEC is questioning the Obama campaign on some smaller donations that it has received. You can read the entire Newsmax article, but here is a snippet:
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375. Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign
records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit
The FEC is also looking into discrepancies from another donor:
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate
donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done. But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net totalWith both of these donors using the same information and claiming to be from different parts of the country, it appears to be a concerted effort to give the appearance of small donors when in fact there may be larger donors involved. Was this a strategy of the Obama campaign from the beginning? Was this an orchestrated effort to make it appear that Obama had the support of average Americans?
of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
The article goes on to question $33.8 million in donations from overseas. Americans overseas are permitted to donate to a campaign, but it is illegal for foreigners to donate to campaigns. Unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Barack Obama did not require proof of citizenship from donors overseas.
Does any of this surprise you? Probably not, but the fact that he gets away with this stuff is frightening.