Casey Blog

SHOCKING Comments From Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

2009-07-10T18:29:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through Abortion

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have made a stunning admission in favor of cleansing America of unwanted populations by aborting them. In an interview with the New York Times, the judge said that Medicaid should cover abortions, and that she had originally expected that Roe v. Wade would facilitate such coverage in order to control the population of groups "that we don't want to have too many of."

The statement was made in the context of a discussion about the fact that abortions are not covered by Medicaid, and therefore are less available to poor women. "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out," said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women "of means" can easily access abortion.

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

"So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

Harris v. McRae is a 1980 court decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.

Justice Ginsburg's remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century's eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations.

Ironically, the New York Times interview began as an exploration of Ginsburg's thoughts on Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor as she prepares for her confirmation hearings this month. Coverage of Sotomayor frequently emphasizes her success story as an underprivileged minority from the Bronx who rose to prominence at Princeton and Yale Law.

Ginsburg also defended a controversial statement repeated by Sotomayor in several speeches, where she stated she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that," said Ginsburg. "Think of how many times you've said something that you didn't get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could. I'm sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. ... That I'm a woman, that's part of it, that I'm Jewish, that's part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me."

The judge also praised the advent of earlier abortions with the wider distribution of the morning-after pill, saying "I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change."

When the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007, Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, saying the court's reasoning "reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution - ideas that have long since been discredited."

Obama a Big "Pushover" To Putin and Russia

2009-07-08T21:21:00.000-07:00

Insightful column from today's IBD I thought I'd share:

Russia's nondemocratic rulers over the years have shown an uncanny knack for detecting weakness in their foes. Russia's Vladimir Putin is continuing the tradition.

President Obama no doubt believes he was dealing with honest brokers when he agreed with Russia's leaders to cut U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads to about 1,600 each. For the U.S., that's a cut of about a third.

But please read the fine print. This is a "preliminary" agreement. In order for it to go into effect, Russian leaders say they want the U.S. to give up its plans for a missile defense system.

To do so would, in effect, be a unilateral disarmament by the U.S. against the most feared weapons on earth — nuclear missiles. It's an abandonment of our allies, including Poland and the Czech Republic. It's not an acceptable bargaining chip.

It's reminiscent of the time in 1961 when President Kennedy — like Obama, youthful, attractive, intelligent, well-spoken — met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. During that meeting, Khrushchev quickly sized up Kennedy as a foreign-policy lightweight.

Within months, he tested Kennedy's mettle — erecting the Berlin Wall, and, the following year, sending missiles to Cuba to challenge the U.S. just 90 miles off its own coast.

In public, Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev; behind the scenes, he caved, trading our missiles in Turkey for the ones in Cuba. Kennedy, in interviews, later regretted his own callowness.

Compare that with President Reagan's 1986 showdown with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland. That came on the heels of a U.S. deployment of missiles in Europe, Reagan's refusal to sign a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and his 1983 "Star Wars" speech. He was negotiating from strength — the only thing Russians get.

In 1985, Reagan had told Gorbachev bluntly during Geneva arms talks: "We won't stand by and let you maintain weapon superiority over us. We can agree to reduce arms, or we can continue the arms race, which I think you know you can't win."

In Reykjavik, with the world's media egging him on to make a deal, any deal, on nuclear arms with the USSR, Reagan said, "Nyet." Why? He wouldn't give up U.S. missile defense. With that stand, the Soviet Union's demise was assured.

By contrast, Obama on Tuesday called Russia, a country that's falling apart, a "great power" and reassured the nondemocratic Putin he'll keep Russia's interests in mind while crafting U.S. policy.

"As I said in Cairo," the president said, "given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. That is why I have called for a 'reset' in relations between the United States and Russia."

This implies an equivalency between Russia and the U.S. that simply doesn't exist. Russia comes up short on any measure of civilizational success you might want to use. Indeed, we have elevated a country that has invaded a neighbor, uses energy as a weapon against our democratic allies and refuses to help in our effort to halt Iran's dangerous nuclear program.

Russia is not a "great" power. It's a Third World nation with First World nuclear weapons. It's in a downward spiral due to its collapsing population, shortening life-spans and shrinking economy. It might not even survive this century as a nation.

This has been the U.S.' biggest mistake: to give Russia respect it hasn't really earned. Maybe, as it turns out, Putin, a former top KGB operative, is more clever than Gorbachev. He knows our president needs a foreign affairs success.

Before President Obama signs off on anything, he'd do well to review the presidential history of dealings with the Soviets. He can learn from both Kennedy and Reagan.

Only in Obama's America- PART 1

2009-05-01T20:09:00.000-07:00

Seventh Grade Accepts Bonus; Government Demands Return

CUPERTINO, Calif. - Brady Cooperman, a resourceful 13-year-old student at Christopher Columbus Junior High School in the heart of Silicon Valley, is facing some stiff penalties from the federal government for taking unprecedented bonuses in light of the dire economic situation.

Foe a year now, Cooperman has been working to earn enough money to buy an Xbox. He mows his elderly neighbors lawns weekly, runs errands, and helps with household chores. Last week one of his neighbors, Mr. Peter Rossdale, 82, gave him a $20 bonus on top of his weekly salary of $15.

"It's clear that Brady is accepting a big bonus," said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was given millions of dollars in bonuses himself when he was an investment banker. "We just can't allow fat cats like him to feast on the economy this way. Less than an hour's drive away from Mr. Cooperman's hometown, on the streets of San Francisco, are thousands of homeless people who have just as much right to that money."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents the city of San Francisco in Congress, also expressed her disdain at Brady's bonus.

"Do this boy's parents have no shame, teaching their own child to be so greedy?" Pelosi fumed at a press conference outside the Capitol. "This is the culture we have had to live in, ever since the disgraceful President Reagan had the audacity to suggest that some people deserve more just because they work harder or are more highly skilled at what they do! It's an outrage! Two words- NO MORE!"

Nonethless, family and friends close to Cooperman swiftly defended his bonus.

"He's a good boy," Mr. Rossdale said. "I don't know what I'd do without him. Ever since I broke my hip, I can't get up and around like I used to. I pay him $15 every week or so for helping me around the house with heavy liftng and whatnot. I know times are tough, so I slipped him an extra twenty dollars because he's been good to me and he's been saving up. I've known him since he was three."

Several other events are planned later in the week due to public outcry over the bonus. Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin says that her organization will come down from nearby Berkeley on Wednesday evening to hold a protest and candlelight vigil in front of Rossdale's home to express their objections to his decision to pay the bonus. On Saturday, the Oakland chapter of the NAACP will sponsor a bus tour to Rossdale's home, as well as the homes of many other elderly Cupertino residents whom Cooperman has done various odd jobs for.

It is clear that ever since the backlash at AIG when executives accepted lavish bonuses after requestng a federal bailout, the government isn't taking any chances when it comes to other business people, regardless of age, accepting bonuses, starting at a grassroots level.

Furthermore, should Brady Cooperman fail to return his bonus, he might face harsh charges on a state and federal level. And he'll never get that Xbox, either.

Senator John Kyl on "The Most Expensive 100 Days" for the American People

2009-04-29T21:16:00.000-07:00

OBAMA ECONOMIC POLICY: Pouring Dirt On Dirt

2009-04-14T22:47:00.001-07:00

Not too long ago, there was a United States president whose policies supercharged our economy and led to a prolonged period of job growth, massive stock market gains, and overall economic prosperity. This president slashed the capital gains taxes (thus providing more incentive for Americans to invest) and signed sweeping welfare reform into law, forcing many of the idle to enter the workforce for the first time, instead of allowing them to continue to be a severe economic burden to our society and the working taxpayers.

Most of you, without even thinking, assume I am speaking of Ronald Reagan. However, the president I just described, believe it or not, was BILL CLINTON. Despite being staunchly liberal on social issues, and despite his embarassing moral failures, he fortunately strayed far from the liberal mainstream on fiscal and economic issues, instead opting to expand even further the policies of the Reagan years that may very well have saved our economy from complete collapse. People's eyes started popping out of their heads when Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, declared that, "the era of big government is over."

It was the policies of the Reagan administration that got America back on the right track, and brought great prosperity to people of ALL economic classes (not only the rich, as his critics contend). In fact, the poorest Americans, who had seen their incomes fall 5% in the 1970's, then saw them rise 6% in the 1980's.

Reagan ended energy price controls once and for all early in his presidency, and slashed income taxes all the way across the income scale. By the end of his eight years in the White House, Reagan had lowered interest rates, slashed inflation, cut unemployment, and boosted economic growth in a way that no one thought possible. In fact, many of today's great companies came into existence during the "boom" years of the 1980's.

In fact, the plunge in interest rates during the 1980's is especially remarkable. In 1981, rates had soared to 21% (talk about a credit crunch). By 1990, the rates were down to 7%. This stood in complete contradiction to claims by the pseudo-intellectual "elite" that growing budget deficits in the 80's would cause interest rates to skyrocket.

Under President Bush the first, the U.S. slid into a nasty recession, which ultimately doomed his chances for reelection. However, Bush left the economy in such bad shape because he strayed away from the fiscal policies that his predecessor had put into place. In addition to breaking his "read my lips" pledge for no new taxes, Bush's administration presided over a record rise in government regulation.

The most disastrous example was the Financial Institions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. The intent of this legislation was to save the Savings & Loan industry from collapse. However, it was FIRREA that ultimately doomed the S & L's by requiring them to take HUGE writedowns on certain assets on their books, most notably high-yielding corporate bonds. This caused numerous S & L's to become insolvent and ultimately fail, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, since customer deposits were FDIC insured. You can blame all the Michael Milkens and Charlie Keatings you want for the S & L collapse in the late 80's and early 90's, but it was ultimately meddlesome government regulation that led to the entire fiasco (Although for the record, I'll be the first to admit that Keating was simply a crook who looted his own customers' deposits. Miliken, on the other hand, was the government's scapegoat who in reality is one of the greatest financial innovators of all time).

In the 1990's, President Clinton got our economy back on track not through enacting liberal econmic policies, but by breaking ranks and building upon the fiscal conservatism of the Reagan years. His first Treasury Secretary was long-time Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (the 1988 Democratic VP candidate), a conservative Democrat who was one of the last great bastians of the once great Democratic party of FDR and Harry Truman. Clinton probably also remembered the disastrous administration of President Jimmy Carter, which proved that liberal economic policy is the LAST thing the country needs when we are already in an economically precarious situation. Believe it or not, I greatly admire Clinton for putting partisan ideology aside and focusing instead on what was best for our economy.

Originally, President Clinton broke his campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut and raised taxes by a record amount. That brought upon one of the most sluggish recoveries from economic recession in history. However, things began to change after the mid-term elections of 1994, when Clinton worked with the new GOP-led Congress to shrink the deficit. Instead of bristling at the "Contract With America" implemented by Newt Gingrich and the new Congress, Clinton appeared, at least in his actions, to embrace it! And it sure paid off! As the deficit fell, the Fed cut interest rates, causing the economy and stock market to soar.

In 1997, Clinton, in true Reagan-esque fashion, cut capital gains taxes, leading to another great economic boom and unprecedented expansion of wealth, especially to the middle class. In 1980, only 16% of the working-class owned stock. By 2000, the number was up to 52%.

Nonetheless, when George W. Bush assumed the presidency in early 2001, he inherited a recession after the Fed had started raising interest rates in 1999. In typical Fed fashion, they had taken away the punch bowl just as the party was starting to get really good. The terrorist attacks of September 11 cast an even darker cloud over the economy.

Then, in 2003, President G.W. Bush and the GOP Congress made several major tax cuts, setting off a huge surge in economic growth that of course, most of the mainstream media chose to ignore. Our newly elected president, Barack Obama, says that despite the positive effect these tax cuts had on the economy, he is gong to allow them to "sunset" and not renew them, despite the fact that our economy is now in just about the worst shape since the Great Depression. Unlike Bill Clinton, it seems that Obama cannot put the most imminently urgent needs of this nation and its people above his own personal ideology.

In fact, even thus far in his short presidency, Obama has presided over the greatest EXPANSION of government in history. So far, all of the supposed economic "stimulus" (mostly earmarks pandering to various special interest groups that will only stimulate the political careers of certain members of Congress) has added up to ONE-THIRD of total national output, and will probably continue to grow.

The propoed new taxes and regulations coming from this administration and the Democratic-led Congress will bring a virtually unprecedented amount of government meddling into our private lives and private businesses. There will be sweeping new taxes, on EVERYONE. Even if you get 50 bucks more in your paycheck because of a temporary cut in income taxes, it will be more than wiped out by rises in sales tax, gasoline tax, capital gains/dividend tax, etc.

Socialism, as well as the subtle slouches towards it that we are now seeing, has never brought any hope or positive change to ANY society, only more misery, poverty, and economic malaise. This should come as no surprise, as people become more hopelessly dependent on a bloated and incompetent federal government, hoping it can at least provide the bare minimum. But what about those living in poverty who want a tad more than that, like the opportunity to move out of poverty for good (as many did in the 80's and 90's)? I'm afraid those folks are out of luck, since in order for liberal economic policy to survive, people need to be kept in poverty and dependent on the government for handout, after handout, after handout, etc. etc. etc. After all, if everyone became successful and econocally prosperous due to the truly American values of hard work, independence, and freedom from the bureaucratic machine, such quasi-socialist ideas would be dumped on the ash heap where they rightfully belong.

A few weeks ago, infamous liberal pundit Bill Maher was interviewed by Larry King about the current economic crisis. Although Maher is quite intelligent, entertaining, and no doubt funny as hell, he is no doubt miguided on several issues. In the interview, he attempted to discredit Republicans by touting how Bill Clinton was our only recent president who left the economy in better shape than when he took office. Once again though, this hardly proves that liberal economic policy is the least bit effective; in fact, it demonstrates precisely the opposite. Clinton indeed did leave our economy in good shape, but it was becase rather than shun Reagan-era policies, he in many ways expanded these policies even further with the help of a Republcan-controlled Congress, after the first President Bush had unfortunately strayed away from them.

As for the Obama administration and our present Democratic-controlled Congress, all they have done thus far is pour more dirt on dirt, apparently not having learned the difficult lessons of the 70's. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile gets so high that people start choking on it. Perhaps some already have . . .

Casey

The Modern Day Little Red Hen (Treatise in Economics)

2009-04-12T19:40:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said, “If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?”

“Not I,” said the cow.

“Not I,” said the duck.

“Not I,” said the pig.

“Not I,” said the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.

The wheat grew tall, and ripened into gold and grain.

“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.

“Not I,” said the duck.

“Out of my classification,” said the pig.

“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.

“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.

At last, it came time to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake bread?” asked the little red hen.

“Well that would be overtime for me, said the cow.

“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.

“I’m a dropout, and never learned how,” said the pig.

“Well if I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination!” exclaimed the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen. She baked five loaves, and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some, and in fact demanded a share.

But the little red hen said, “No- I can eat the five loaves myself.”

“Excess profits!” cried the cow.

“Capitalist greed!” yelled the duck.

“I demand equal rights!” screamed the goose.

And the pig just grunted . . .

Then they all painted picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”

“But I earned the bread,” protested the little red hen.

“Exactly,” said the agent. “That’s the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle.”

So they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and robotically clucked, “I am grateful . . . I am grateful.”

But her neighbors couldn’t help but wonder why she never again baked any more bread.

I guess that lately, a lot of us have been wondering something like that . . .

Want the Interest Rate of Your Dreams? Just Stop Paying Your Mortgage!!!

2009-02-19T18:13:00.000-08:00

That's the message coming across loud and clear in the Obama administration's plans to help "distressed" homeowners. Ideally, people who have defaulted on their home mortgages and are close to foreclosure will be given the opportuinity to refinance through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (sheesh . . . do we ever learn?) at interest rates UNDER 5%. This is sure music to the ears of those who bought more home than they could reasonably afford, and are now on their knees pleading with Messiah Obama for help, but as you can imagine, it has many others stark raving mad. On one national newscast tonight, a woman was interviewed who just finished paying off the mortgage on her home for good, and at an interest rate that was, let's say, a TAD higher than 5%. She was understandably upset because although she was responsible (i.e. made her payments on time, purchased a home within her price range, made sure her credit was good so she could get a fixed rate rather than subprime), it's the irresponsible ones who are set to be rewarded. At a time when this woman should be celebrating and feel that a load has been taken off of her shoulders by paying off her mortgage in full, she feels cheated, and understandlably so.

Unfortunately, there's more to it than that. Let's consider Man/Wife #1 who are in good shape financially and are current on their house payments. Their mortgage rate is 6.5% or so fixed. Because they are current on the payments, they would not qualify as "distressed" homeowners and would therefore be ineligible to refinance at the lower rate through our good pals Fannie and Freddie (who by the way, have both been lining Obama's pockets quite generously since his 2006 Senate run). Just down the street from our first couple lives Man/Wife #2. They earn far less income and have rotten credit, so they were given a no down payment, subprime mortgage. The subprime period ended a few months ago, their monthly housing payment skyrocketed, and they are now seriously in arrears, with the bank about to commence foreclosure on their home. However, it's none other than Fannie and Freddie coming to their rescue, refinancing them at a fixed rate even far lower than rates offered to those with a six-figure income and spotless credit. At first, Man/Wife #1 are furious, but then they figure that instead of raging at the system, they might as well play along and use it to their advantage.

Do you see where I am going here? Man/Wife #1 simply need to stop making their mortgage payments. After a few months past due, the bank will start threatening foreclosure. Once that happens, voila! Man/Wife #1 are now "distressed" homeowners and can get the Fannie/Freddie refininancing at a much lower rate than if they had continued making their payments on time.

Many "well to do" people throughout the nation are already poised to take full advantage of this "distressed" homeowner assistance program. Even two months ago, shortly after Obama's election, I read a column in Kiplinger's where the author reported that he had recently attended a dinner party with mainly A-list people who were hardly in a financially precarious situation. The main topic of conversation among many of the guests was that once Obama unraveled his plan, they would purposely stop paying their mortgage so they could get their handout like everyone else. The topic then shifted to things they could do with the money they "save" from not paying their mortgage, such as a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus and the dream vacation to Europe they've always wanted to take.

This is a classic illustration of exactly why conservatives and libertarians staunchly oppose all of these government assistance and social welfare programs. It's not because we have a cold, uncaring attitude towards the poor and downtrodden, but rather because in reality, such utopian programs always backfire. There will always be plenty of ingenious, self-serving people who take advantage of such programs for their own benefit, often at the expense of those who the programs were originally intended to help.

But wait a minute- isn't that precisely why we have a subprime mortgage crisis in the first place, along with the accompanying economic meltdown? Who really benefitted from the politically correct (yet economically unsound) idea that home ownership is a right, and that we should thus force banks to lend to groups who are "underrepresented" in home ownership? Those from the underrepresented demographic themselves? No, they've lost their homes to foreclosure and have learned, in the most painful way possible, that if something sounds too good to be true, there's probably a good reason why. The ones who REALLY benefitted were the mortgage brokers, the predatory lenders, the credit default swap holders and underwriters, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet that some of those exact same people are among the ones foaming at the mouth right now at the propect of another opportunity to use the system to handsomely enrich themselves, this time by purposely defaulting on their mortgage in order to get the refi rate of their dreams.

So far, everything this new administration has proposed for restoring the economy amounts to nothing more than pouring dirt on dirt. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile becomes so huge that we all suffocate on it. As much as I am looking forward to 2012 and the end of this entire Obama farce, I am simultaneously frightened at how much further harm will have been done by then.

Straight From the Horse's Mouth . . .

2009-01-26T18:43:00.001-08:00

Robert Reich = ROGUE Economist

2009-01-26T18:35:00.000-08:00

These were the ACTUAL words of Obama economic advisor Robert Reich during recent testimony to help Congress decide how economic stimulus money should be spent:

”I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well.”

Oh yes, Mr. Reich, heaven forbid that we would want SKILLED people performing a job!

All I have heard so far from Obama's administration about "job creation" only refers to blue-collar jobs, as if those types of workers are the only ones unemployed right now. Any meaningful "job creation" means creating jobs for ALL!!! How will America prosper again if it keeps its best and brightest on the sidelines? Not everyone is cut out to be a construction worker, and besides, those who provide intellectual capital (which experts insist is extremely important in today's global business market) should not be forced to choose between menial work or no work at all.

Black Ministers ALREADY Upset With Obama

2009-01-23T20:29:00.001-08:00

WOW! I predicted this, but even I couldn't have foreseen it happening this soon . . .

(Jan. 23) - Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obama’s religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said. Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.

But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."

By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"

Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers.

Parshall noted that atheists were celebrating the unexpected mention, and indeed they were: "In his inaugural address … President Barack Obama did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of America as part of the nation's great strength, and including 'nonbelievers'’ in that mix,’" said Ed Buckner of American Atheists.
"His mother would have been proud,"’ Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama’s mother was not a church-goer. "And so are we."

Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.’" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’

With all the focus on Obama as the first African-American president, the succession of black callers to Janet Parshall's show was a reminder that the "community"’ is not a monolith, and that many socially conservative black Americans are at odds with Obama's views, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Nor do they all define civil rights in the same way.

The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"’ period.

But his even bigger beef with the president, he said, is that a disproportionate number of "black kids are dying each day through abortion. President Obama is supportive of abortion, and that's a genocide on black folks. Nobody wants to talk about that as a civil rights issue."

Probably NOT What MLK Had in Mind

2009-01-19T14:59:00.001-08:00

A friend of mine posted this earlier today . . . Very insightful I must say:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

With the election of our first black president, some would say that King's Dream has been realized, but when you look at the exit poll number from the election you have to wonder if the opposite of King’s dream has been realized - the victory of race over content, competence and character.

According to exit polls, over 95% of African Americans cast ballots for Barack Obama. A look at the military election results demonstrates this disproportionate relation.

Candidate: McCain -- Obama
Overall: 68% -- 23%
Black/African-American: 12% -- 79%

Electing a black President goes a long way to proving that we have indeed fulfilled Martin Luther King’s vision of America as a place of true equality. That doesn’t make me a fan of Barack Obama, mind you, because I’m much more concerned over policy than skin color — and that’s also a fulfillment of Dr.King’s vision. It just makes me a fan of America.

Proof of How Shameful Our Media Has Become

2009-01-16T11:10:00.000-08:00

Winning Isn't News By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq . London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.

The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders inWashington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering. We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy. Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.

Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended. Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside. Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved ¡satisfactory' progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.' Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.

But where are the headlines and the front-page st ories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.' The war in Iraq has been turned around180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.

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

Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican-initiated response to 9/11. Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in order to give him credit.

Reagan Bashers, Listen Up!!!

2009-01-15T17:49:00.000-08:00

Natan Sharansky is a devout Jew and former Soviet dissident who was imprisoned by the KGB for several years. He has authored a brilliant book titled "The Case For Democracy" in which he, among other things, recalls his days as a Soviet political prisoner. He states very plainly the vital role that Ronald Reagan played in the collapse of communism. Believe me, I'd take Mr. Sharansky's word over that of any of today's elitist liberals who label Reagan as "overrated" and who yearn for our great country to slouch towards socialism, appease state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, and allow the government to gain even more control over people's lives than it already has (i.e. mandatory community service, socialized medicine, spreading the wealth, etc., etc.):

"Today, it is fashionable to believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of who sat in the White House or which policies were adopted in Washington. In this view, Reagan was simply lucky, a man in the right place at the right time who benefited from an inexorable historical process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Had Reagan chosen to cooperate with the Soviet regime rather than compete with it, accommodate it rather than confront it, the hundreds of millions of people he helped free would still be living under tyranny."

"Instead of lending a hand to a sick society, as advocates of detente were calling for, Reagan was determined to increase the pressure. The U.S. president instinctively understood . . . A fear society is no match for a free society that can unleash the creative genius of its own people."

"The U.S. president's faith in freedom's eventual triumph was matched by a deep distrust of totalitarian regimes. When he justified his decision to build an eleborate strategic missile defense system as a means of safeguarding America against the belligerent intentions of a non-Democratic regime, he was essentially telling the world . . . A country that does not respect the rights of its own citizens will not respect the rights of its neighbors."

*Don't we see some parallels in today's society? Specifically in Iran, as well as the Gaza Strip under Hamas rule (which appears thankfully to be close to its end)?

"Reagan's challlenge to the Soviets was as much moral as it was economic, which is why the impact of his policies on the lives of Soviet dissidents was no less dramatic. One day, my Soviet jailors gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda (state-controlled newspaper in the former USSR). Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an `evil empire.' Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's `provocation' quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth- a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us . . . there had been much criticism of Reagan's decision to cast the struggle between the superpowers as a battle between good and evil. Well, Reagan was right, and his critics were wrong."

-Natan Sharansky
"The Case for Democracy"

Supreme Court Gets It Right!

2009-01-15T15:34:00.000-08:00

I have been closely following this case ever since the 9th Circuit's terrible ruling, and am so happy that our nation's highest court struck the ruling down. To me, it's not so much an abortion issue as a first amendment issue. The 9th Circuit pretty much ignored CBR's constitutional rights, even though the group never drove onto or set foot onto school property. It was judicial activism at its worst, and I am glad we have a Supreme Court that still understands that our nation is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a police state. Had the lower court's ruling been allowed to stand, it would have set a precedent of absolutely disastrous proportions.

Columbus, OH – January 15, 2009 – The U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld the rights of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform to display graphic abortion photos in California.

In July 2008, a panel of California judges ruled that pro-life activists could not show their graphic signs depicting aborted babies in a location adjacent to a middle school. The case involved a 75-minute police detention of two members CBR. CBR members had been driving a box bodied truck that displayed large photos of first-term aborted babies on its sides.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, brought the case on behalf of CBR.

“This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and the pro-life movement,” said Robert Musie, trial counsel for CBR’s case.

Casey Blog is Back!!!

2009-01-15T12:44:00.000-08:00

I know you all missed me . . . my deepest apologies! It was a pretty busy holiday season, and I also just moved back to my native Arizona. I am sure you all know how much of a big pain moving can be. Anyways, I sure have plenty to blog about, so here is an upcoming preview of what you can expect in the coming weeks:

1.) Policing the Credit Card Companies, Dick Morris Style

2.) Hamas's Human Shields and anti-Israel Propoganda

3.) Open Letter to Sarah Palin

4.) Note to Obama: If You Believe in Public Education, Why Do You Send Your Own Daughters to Private School?

5.) Hilary Clinton's Qualifications for Secretary of State (A Blank One For Now)

6.) Appeasing Iran: Jeopardizing Our National Security With the Ultimate Exercise in Futility

7.) The ULTIMATE Double Standard: Sarah Palin vs. Caroline Kennedy

8.) The Employee "Free Choice" Act: A Misnomer on Its Face

9.) We're Spreading Enough Wealth Already!

10.) Advice to GOP: Lay Off the Culture War Rhetoric

11.) Why Blacks Will End Up Hating Obama

12.) Where's the "Bailout" for Madoff's Victims?

13.) What GM Really Needs: Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

14.) Raising Capital Gains Taxes: The Final Economic "Nail In the Coffin"

15.) The Failure of Universal Health Insurance: Lessons From the State Level

I've Also Read Several Books Lately, New Books and Timeless Classics, and Plan on Posting Reviews on My Blog. A Few of Those Books Include:

-The Subprime Solution, by Robert J. Shiller
-The Conscience of a Liberal (Yes I'm Trying to Keep a Straight Face), by Krugman
-Eat the Rich, by P.J. O'Rourke
-The Eighties: America In the Age of Reagan, by John Ehrman
-Fleeced, by Dick Morris
-Do The Right Thing, by Mike Huckabee
-Hot, Flat, and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman
-Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell
-My Grandfather's Son, by Clarence Thomas
-The Tyranny of Good Intentions, by Roberts and Stratton
-Liberal Facism, by Jonah Goldberg
-They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, by Jacob Heilrunn
-The Devil We Know: Dealing With the New Iranian Superpower, by Robert Baer
-The Dirty Dozen, by Levy and Mellor
-The Politics of Freedom, by David Boaz
-Fall From Grace: The Untold Story of Michael Milken, by Fenton Bailey
-The Case Against Barack Obama, by David Freddoso
-The Case For Democracy, by Natan Sharansky

-The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, by Alan Dershowitz

*Obviously, I have a LOT of blogging to do, but I'm looking forward to it! The next four years are going to be a field day for me, and I invite you all to partake in the festivities! Also, starting next week, look for "Obama Gaffe" of the day =)

Respecfully and of Course Conservatively,

Casey

Obama Already Showing His Corrupt Side?

2009-01-14T21:47:00.000-08:00

What's most ironic is the source of these facts . . . not Fox News, not Ann Coulter, but the YOUNG TURKS, normally big time liberal Obama cheerleaders. Better now than never they learn that Obama is no Messiah, but a typical politician, now espousing the same behaviors that he at least pretended to condemn during the campaign:

-The single largest contributor to Obama's "inauguration fund" is none other than CITIGROUP!!! This is the same troubled financial institution that, to date, has received $45 billion in government bailouts. They have so far given $113,000 to the inauguration fund. Could this possibly have anything to do with President Bush's decision earlier this week to grant Obama's request to release the second half of the bailout monies?

-Another troubled financial institution, Goldman Sachs, has contributed almost $45,000 to the same fund. JP Morgan Chase has contributed over $30,000.

-As a matter of fact, Goldman Sachs was the second largest contributor to Obama's presidential campaign, to the tune of $884,000. JP Morgan Chase gave $600,000. Morgan Stanley gave just over $400,000.

Let's just wait and see how these banks' good deeds get rewarded when it comes time for Obama and his administration to decide who gets the biggest handout from the federal government coffers (a.k.a. our tax dollars). This would have been the perfect opportunity for Obama to prove, even before he assumes the presidency, that things would change under his watch. He could have refused the donations, and return those he already took, to send the clear message that he works for the PEOPLE (imagine that) and is not for sale. But has he done this? Of course not.

However, we shouldn't be that surprised. After all, this is the same Barack Obama who took a big contribution to his Senate campaign two years ago from Fannie Mae. In return, he, along with other Democrats in Congress who accepted compaign contributions from the mortgage giant, kept the regulators away. We now see where that has gotten us. I just can't help but feel sorry for all of the people, particularly minorities and the poor, who still don't know what a big disappointment they are in for.

FURTHER FOOD FOR THOUGHT: If the government can afford to cough up all of this money to rescue financial institutions, many who were guilty of gross mismanagement and downright incomptence, how come they can''t come up with a measly $20 billion dollars to pay back all of the people and charity organizations who were swindled by that crook Bernie Madoff, people who did nothing wrong at all?

NAPOLITANO: Obama's Best Choice Yet!!!

2008-12-04T02:07:00.001-08:00

Okay, so I've let it be known that I am not exactly President-elect Obama's biggest fan. However, I must say that I was thrilled to learn of his choice of Janet Napolitano (curently governor of my native Arizona) to become our nation's next Secretary of Homeland Security.

Even though Gov. Napolitano is a Democrat, she tends to "break ranks" with her party and take more of a hardline, conservative Republican stance towards the important issues of border protection and illegal immigration (which should really come as no surprise since, regardless of political affiliation, she's the chief executive of a BORDER state). As governor of Arizona, she signed into law some of the toughest sanctions against employers who knowingly hire workers who are in the country illegally. She was also the first governor in the nation to deploy National Guard troops to assist U.S. Border Patrol in apprehending individuals attempting illegal entry into the U.S. Even our proud Republican/Terminator governor here in California wasn't tough enough to do that!

It's definitely promising that even someone as liberal as Barack Obama (at least according to his Senate voting record) understands that when it comes to defending our country and protecting our borders, we can't afford to monkey around and play politics. Obama's nomination of Gov. Napolitano, as well as his decision to keep Bush nominee Robert Gates on board as Defense secretary, at least on a temporary basis, demonstrate that Obama is at least smart enough to know when it's time to stop the Messiah act and return back to reality when it comes to the crucial issue of national defense.

Obama further confirmed this when he announced that he would ultimately leave it up to military leaders to decide whether "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should remain in effect, as the leaders in the military are without a doubt the most knowledgeable and qualified to make that decision (no matter how many whiny gay men pout in protest). There is definitely a proper arena for social activism and political correctness in our society, but our military is most certanly NOT that arena!

Also, Arizona will be getting a GREAT governor to replace Napolitano in January. My mom has been close friends with Jane Brewer for as long as I can remember, and I must say that she is one of the most classiest and down to earth ladies I have ever met. Overall, it's a win-win situation for everyone!!!

Splits Over Prop. 8 Vote

2008-12-04T01:25:00.001-08:00

JAKE HENSHAW • Desert Sun Sacramento Bureau • December 4, 2008

Voters were most sharply divided along political and religious lines when they went to the polls in November to decide the fate of same-sex marriage in California, a new poll released today shows.

But the survey also found age, education, ethnic and racial differences in the voting that led to approval of Proposition 8, which allows marriage only between a man and a woman.

The constitutional amendment passed 52 percent to 48 percent, but 77 percent of Republican voters supported it while 65 percent of Democrats opposed it.

Evangelicals or born-again Christians lined up even more solidly behind the measure, with 85 percent supporting it compared to 42 percent of those who didn't identify with this group. Evangelicals comprised 24 percent of the 2,003 voters surveyed as representative of the Californians who went to the polls.

In answer to a separate question, 47 percent of voters said they favored gay marriage, 48 percent opposed it, and five percent were unsure.

The poll was conducted Nov. 5-16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus two percent.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!

2008-12-02T20:12:00.000-08:00

I'm in the Christmas spirit, or at least trying to get there. Are all of you?

DEADLY Black Friday!!!

2008-11-28T14:53:00.001-08:00

What is the world coming to??????

Deadly Black Friday: One at Wal-Mart, Two at Toys 'R' Us
Posted Nov 28th 2008 4:56PM by Peter Cohan
Filed under: Wal-Mart (WMT)

I have always disliked the moniker 'Black Friday.' Explaining that 'Black Friday' refers to the day that retailers go from losing money to making it strikes me as awkward -- particularly when my first instinct on hearing that phrase is to think of something very bad happening on a Friday.

Which is why today's deadly events combining shopping for the holidays and death seem so strange and sad. This morning, a Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) clerk at a store in Valley Stream, Long Island was trampled to death by a crowd of 2,000 people eager to grab bargains. "The impatient crowd knocked the man to the ground as he opened the doors, leaving a metal portion of the frame crumpled like an accordion," according to AP. If store cameras can identify who trampled the store clerk, criminal charges could be brought against them.

Later in the day, two people were shot dead at a Toys 'R' Us in Southern California. The Riverside Country sheriff's department reported an argument between two teenagers preceded the shooting. A third person, a male, apparently pulled out a gun, according to AP.

For all those who were affected by these tragedies, today is indeed a Black Friday -- regardless of whether retailers turn profitable after today's sales are totaled up.

Pollster: Slow Down the Prop.8 Protests

2008-11-17T11:49:00.000-08:00

Erica Solvig • The Desert Sun • November 17, 2008

It's clear from the recent rallies that there's plenty of local support to overturn the same-sex marriage ban that voters approved on Election Day.

Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, a respected independent and nonpartisan public-opinion news service, said it would be “wise to wait for another presidential election and put it on the ballot when there is another big turnout.”

The quality of campaigns aside, he pointed out two key reasons:

The historical trend favors supporters of same-sex marriage.

In 1977, 28 percent approved same-sex marriage and 59 percent opposed, according to the Field Poll. By May of this year, the poll found 51 percent approved and 42 percent opposed.

In lower-turnout elections, typically nonpresidential years, “older voters tend to be a bigger chunk of the vote, and they (same-sex marriage advocates) will find it tough going,” he said.

Earlier this month, a joint media exit poll found that 61 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 opposed the ballot measure. Only 39 percent of voters 65 years and older opposed it.

“I think their chances are going to improve down the road,” DiCamillo said. “Eight years is better than four years, 12 years is better than eight.”

But are supporters ready to wait eight to 12 years? Judging by the outcry and immediate legal fight, it's not likely.

As Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, noted in a Thursday e-mail to supporters:

“Today is the first day of the campaign to overturn Proposition 8 by 2010.”

*So ask yourselves this question: Even if you need to wait a tad longer than you'd prefer for marriage equality to become a reality, wouldn't you actually like it to become a reality, and STAY one this time?

Counterprotestor at L.A. Marriage Rally Is 100% Correct About Obama

2008-11-15T20:04:00.000-08:00

Like millions of others across the nation, I attended one of today's marriage equality rallies. Since I was in L.A. last night anyways to support an aspiring-actor friend of mine at a red carpet event (and indulge in the gratitude he showed by buying us expensive "bottle service" afterwards), I figured I'd just stay overnight and attend the rally at L.A. city hall. It was really a great event, with thousands of both gays and straights united for a common cause. Furthermore, everyone was positive, friendly, and a much better and more accurate representation of our community than some others had been at earlier rallies.

Of course, there were counterprotestors there as well, holding up their usual gigantic banners with the typical statements such as "God Hates Fags" and "Homo Sex Is Sin." However, they were for the most part ignored, and a few of us did our part by steering people away from them and towards the main event so there wouldn't be any more embarrassing incidents. Not to mention the fact that they all had a massive ring of LAPD officers protecting them them on all sides, with about 30 additional officers on the steps above who were standing by just in case.

However, I did notice another counterprotestor at the rally apart from the main group, an elderly African-American woman. Believe it or not, I'm actually glad she decided to show up. She was serenading the crowds with classic Christian hyms and didn't seem to be quite "all there" mentally (surprise).

Nonetheless, I could not have been happier with the shirt this woman chose to wear to the rally. The shirt had a picture of president-elect Barack Obama, and above the messiah's charming face, was a direct quote he made during the campaign stating very plainly that he did NOT support same-sex marriage.

He certainly isn't my "messiah" as I already have the real one anyways ;)

Another "Unconventional" View of Same-Sex Marriage From a Gay Man Himself

2008-11-11T15:38:00.000-08:00

It's good to see there are at least some other gay men who can look at the "big picture" on the same-sex marriage issue, even at the risk of being reviled by the gay community as a whole. I've learned that it's better to be hated for speaking the truth than to be loved and adored for ignoring it.

Anyways, this is a post from a good friend of mine who is just as gay as I am, and just as gay as any other gay man (perhaps even more so in a way lol). I promised I would not reveal his name so he wouldn't have an angry homo lynch mob after him.

While I don't agree with completely eliminating marriage altogether as he seems to be advocating, he still makes some very valid points. I'm hoping that the one good thing that comes out of the passage of Prop. 8 is that it causes us to become more open-minded and try a new approach next time, since the approach we have been taking (and have continued to take since last Tuesday) evidently is not working. Anyways, time to let my friend speak:

"For years, I've been spewing that gays have missed the mark on the whole gay marriage thing. I've been attacked by gays for years that my views were biased and off base. Of course, I think fairness for all is appropriate. I don't believe one group of people should be entitled to special recognition, benefits, status and the such, due to race, sex, sexual orientation, especially from a government that claims liberty and justice for all.

I was raised in a very conservative, truly evangelical church. One thing I've seen over the years is that people hold close their traditions. Marriage is no different. I think supporters of Prop 8 across the country are afraid that their tradition is going to be disgraced and violated. The religious "rite" of marriage should be protected for those people. However, it shouldn't be protected by an amendment to a Constitution.

To get to the point, I think that if opponents of Prop 8 want to be effective, then they need to change their strategy. Prop 8 opponents really thought that their cause was going to be the victor in the last election. Shockingly to some, those very people who voted blue, harshly criticize and oppose gay marriage. So, we want fairness for all? I suggest Prop 8.2. I feel that if gays want to make a real impact, they will have to turn the tables on Prop 8 supports. How do we do this? We take away their marriage. Well, sort of. I propose gays raise signatures and place a ballot initiative to remove all State recognition of marriage for all. I'm not really sure why the Government ever got involved in the first place, but government has no place in a religious institution. You want to get 'married', fine, keep it in your church. You want your union recognized for legal and social reasons, apply for a Civil Union. Fairness for all why still respecting others.

As a side note, I'm really tired of hearing about how "hateful" Prop 8 was. It's not hateful to hold a value to high esteem and to fight to protect it. I know it's hard for some to understand that the idea of Prop 8 is not hate, it's about protecting. Again, is it their fault their ideas towards the homosexual community are what they are? Maybe it's our message or the delivery of that message. We can't win without educating people about our lifestyle. What's an effective tool? It would be each and everyone of us reaching people in our own circle of influence. We all know people who voted yes on 8. We all know people who would have supported voting yest on 8. It's our duty to reach out to people to show them that we are no different than them. It's our duty to be that connection to those outside our community. We can't remain in the closet and tolerate injustice in our workplaces, schools, and churches. We can't remain in our comfort zone. We have to reach out and show people that we are equal, and sometimes above equal, when it comes to fashion and decorating you know ;-) "

More On Peggy Joseph and the "Race Card"

2008-11-11T11:37:00.000-08:00

As amusing and silly as it was to watch this woman nearly have an orgasm over Obama's victory, it is downright distrubing that there are thousands, if not millions, of disadvantaged blacks (and probably poor folks of other races as well) who really DO think that Barack Obama will be taking care of them the next four years with other people's hard earned money. Granted, part of this phenomenon might be due to the fact that they read far too much into Obama's comments about "spreading the wealth," but has it perhaps occurred to them that Barack Obama, throughout the campaign, seemed to be willing to say just about anything and promise just about anything to get elected? Sadly, so many people fell for it and will be in for a big disappointment.

The harsh reality is that "Messiah" or not, Barack Obama is still a politician. He'll realize very quickly (if he hasn't already) that as President, he will not accomplish anything worthwhile without building alliances with others in Washington and procuring support from both sides of the aisle. In order to do this, he'll need to make some compromises and become more moderate in his views, or else risk alienating even members of his own party. This is the exact mistake that President Bush made, and there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama realizes this and is determined not to follow suit.

As a result, I would not be surprised if African Americans end up hating Obama with a passion as the ultimate traitor and backstabber, once he fails to deliver what they thought he would, and when people like Peggy Joseph don't get as much wealth "spread" to them as they anticipated. I can just picture Rev. Al Sharpton, sometime within the next few years, going on tirade after tirade before frenzied crowds of angry and jaded blacks, proclaiming something like this:

"Barack Obama isn't even a real black man anyway, he's half white! And we have now learned the hard way that even someone only half white is just as much a part of the conspiracy. This man is no Messiah, but a false prophet, and shame on us for being tricked by this Uncle Tom!"

Now, as much as I hate playing the race card, there is no doubt that race played a part in this election like no other election prior. In fact, even goofy Howard Stern, in one of his broadcasts a few weeks before the election, demonstrated the grim reality of this when he sent one of his sidekicks to Harlem to interview potential black voters about who they supported in the election. Of course, nearly all of them said they liked Obama. They were then asked if they still liked Obama when told that Obama held certain positions on the issues that in fact were held by McCain! Without batting an eye, all of these people said that they were pro-life, anti-stem cell research, and believed that we should keep our troops in Iraq as long as possible until the job is finished, as long as they were led to think that these were Obama's beliefs, which they most certainly were not. Even more outrageous, these folks in Harlem said they would love having Sarah Palin as vice-president, once they were told that Plain was OBAMA'S running mate and actually believed it. Here is the clip so you can listen for yourselves:

As hilarious as this was, in reality it's downright scary that these are people whose votes counted just as much as those of citizens responsible enough to cast their votes based on the issues. I am certainly not trying to appear racist, as I am just as disgusted at all of the white hillbillies in Arkansas who said there was no way they'd vote for Obama because he's a Muslim (which he is not). There are people who voted FOR Obama only because he's black, and there are people who voted AGAINST Obama only because he's black. Equally deplorable in my opinion, especially in an election at such a time as this with all of the crucial issues and problems our nation is facing.

I actually respect people who voted for Obama because they truly believed he was the best choice for our country based on his positions (even though I couldn't disagree more). These people, to give them credit, voted for Obama for reasons other than his race or because they got caught up in the "Obamamania" or because they automatically assumed that John McCain was going to be nothing more than a George W. Bush clone simply because he's a Republican.

The right to vote in this country is a right that we should never take for granted, especially considering that there are millions of others in the world who do not enjoy this right. However, with every right comes responsibilities, and our founding fathers assumed that we would never forget this. Apparently, some people in this country have forgotten, and maybe an intensive crash course in basic civics will avoid another embarrassing charade in future election years.

Obama Will Pay For Your Gas and Mortgage!!!

2008-11-11T00:49:00.001-08:00

Just listen to this renowned economic scholar . . .

WOW!!! Isn't This a Shocker?

2008-11-09T23:26:00.000-08:00

I just came across this post on intheagora.com (one of my favorite blogs). I must say that it is quite interesting to say the least:

Obama's coattails bring victory for gay marriage ban?
By Eric Seymour
The silver lining to yesterday's election for social conservatives is that it looks like Proposition 8--the amendment to the California state constitution to ban gay marriage--is headed for victory. In a predictable yet intriguing twist, increased enthusiasm among black voters (who overwhelmingly voted for Obama) may have helped the measure win.

Exit polls showed that white voters opposed the measure, while black voters supported it. (It is a well-known fact that there is stronger opposition to gay marriage within the black community than in the nation as a whole.) With record turnout among black voters expected, that may well have been a major factor in deciding the measure's fate.

*So let me get this straight (no pun intended). All of these gay and lesbian voters strongly supported Barack Obama, yet his candidacy may have been what ultimately doomed same-sex marriage rights. Perhaps if the "messiah" had openly supported same-sex marriage, Prop. 8 would have been resoundingly defeated (as well as the similar measures in both Arizona and Florida). Nonethless, exit polls showed, for some odd reason, that Obama received almost 75% of the gay and lesbian vote nationwide and was actually perceived as the more "gay friendly" candidate. Didn't I warn people on my blog a few weeks ago that this perception was simply not true?

By golly, you can even look it up for yourself:

caseyblog1.blogspot.com
Monday, October 13
Posted at 9:24 PM

Although I have seen a lot of irony in my life, this is the most extreme and egregious example yet. Although I am not exactly pleased that Obama won the election, I anticipate that I am going to have quite a field day these next four years. Evidently, opening ceremonies have already commenced.

Focus On the Positive: Election 2008 and the Gay Vote

2008-11-09T23:01:00.001-08:00

From the Log Cabin Republicans:

"Exit polls show Sen. John McCain received at least 1.3 million votes from gay and lesbian Americans—more than any other Republican Presidential candidate has ever received. He garnered 27% of the LGBT vote, an increase from 19% support for President Bush four years ago."

This does not surprise me, since John McCain was the most gay-friendly GOP candidate ever to run for the presidency. Even though McCain lost the election, I felt so blessed to connect with so many other gay men across the nation (mainly young, bright and ambitious like myself) who were also proud McCain supporters, scoffing at the idea, espoused by so many other gay men without batting an eye, that they are automatically obligated to vote Democrat because of their sexual orientation. Many of us work just as hard for our money as everyone else, and are thus just as horrified at the thought of the government taking even more of that hard-earned money that it already does, and "redistributing" it to people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve yet another free handout at taxpayer expense. We were also impressed with McCain's pledge to take a hard-line stance toward the Islamofacist regime in Iran, a regime which publicly executes teenagers as young as 15 who are caught in "homosexual acts." And of course, not that gay issues should have been at the top of anyone's agenda with all of the other things going on, but Obama publicly proclaimed his opposition to same-sex marriage just as loudly as McCain (as well as every other Republican AND Democrat to ever run for president).

I lived in Arizona when then Tempe mayor Neil Guiliano (currently President of GLAAD) came out as a gay man, and Senator McCain was the first one to tell the attack dogs from the religious right to back off and that the mayor's sexual orientation "didn't make a damn bit of difference." He gave a lengthy interview to the Washington Blade, while Barack Obama on multiple occasions refused an interview with a major gay magazine in Philadelphia. Let's also not forget that on two separate occasions, Obama refused to have his picture taken with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who isn't even gay, simply because of Newsom's support for same-sex marriage.

The weekend before the election was Gay Pride Weekend here in Palm Springs. When I attended the festival on Sunday, countless gay men were prancing around proudly while sporting their Obama campaign stickers. Some of the stickers in fact, were even rainbow-colored . . . *GAG*

I couldn't help but shake my head and think to myself, "If they only knew . . . "

However, the encouraging thing is that just over one out of every four gay and lesbian voters DID know, and it's great to see people in our community who refused to be intimidated by the renegade gay activists into allowing their sexual orientation to do their thinking and voting for them.

2008-11-09T21:30:00.000-08:00

More "Joe the Plumber" Drama

2008-11-09T12:20:00.000-08:00

Ohio Official on Leave Over Joe the Plumber Probe

Friday, November 7, 2008 11:58 PM

Ohio's governor placed an agency director on leave Friday, saying the step was necessary because a state computer or state e-mail account may have been used to assist in political fundraising.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, had been questioned over records checks made on a man who became known as "Joe the Plumber" during the presidential campaign, but a spokesman for Gov. Ted Strickland said that was not the reason she was put on paid administrative leave.

Strickland said in a statement that Jones-Kelley was placed on paid administrative leave because of the possibility a state computer or state e-mail account was used to assist in political fundraising. The Democrat provided no details on the political fundraising in question. He said Cabinet Secretary Jan Allen has been asked to serve as acting director of the agency.

A home telephone listing for Jones-Kelley could not be found in the Columbus area.

Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine said in a statement released Friday night that the governor's administration has apparently turned the state government into a "political party machine."

"The Strickland administration has already demonstrated a profound and reckless disregard for personal privacy, and now they're apparently abusing government resources to raise political contributions," DeWine said.

Jones-Kelley has acknowledged that she approved a records check on Samuel J. Wurzelbacher just after the Oct. 15 presidential debate where he became known nationwide as Joe the Plumber. Wurzelbacher, a Toledo-area man, ultimately endorsed GOP presidential nominee John McCain and campaigned with him in Ohio.

The records were never made public or released to the media. Jones-Kelley has said such checks were routinely conducted when someone suddenly emerges in the limelight. State Inspector Tom Charles is investigating whether she improperly authorized the search.

Strickland said he has asked Charles to include the political fundraising matter in his current investigation.

Republican lawmakers — including state Senate President Bill Harris — have questioned Jones-Kelley's actions. State Rep. Bill Batchelder urged Strickland, a Democrat, to put Jones-Kelley on leave until Charles' investigation is complete.

"No Ohioan should be subject to a 'witch hunt' on the whim of a public official," Batchelder said in a statement.

Wurzelbacher, meanwhile, has paid a nearly $1,200 tax bill, according to court documents filed in Toledo on Thursday. Wurzelbacher has said he didn't know he had a tax lien against him until reporters looked into his background.

KINDERGARTEN Children Already Being Taught About Gay Issues

2008-11-03T14:16:00.000-08:00

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.

The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies.
"

The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.

The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk.
"

Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school's "Coming Out Day" tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national "Coming Out Day" usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar.
"

When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.

Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.

"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.
"

Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by e-mailing Principal Diana Levy or calling (510) 889-7399. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.

LISTEN TO RUPERT: Obama Win Could Worsen FInancial Crisis

2008-11-01T11:59:00.000-07:00

Global media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has warned that a win by Democratic hopeful Barack Obama in next week's US election could worsen the world financial crisis, a report said Saturday.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, the newsman said if the Democrats implemented protectionist policies it would be "a real setback for globalisation".

Murdoch said he did not know whether an Obama administration would deliver on all the Democrats' stated policies, saying "presidents don't often behave exactly as the campaign might have suggested."

But he warned that an increase in protectionism in the US as suggested by some Democrats in Congress, would risk retaliation from China and could threaten world trade.

"For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don't change their currency," Murdoch said.

"If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously."

The Australian-born mogul, who controls media interests around the world, also criticised Obama's proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.

"Forty percent (of the US population) don't pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut?" he said.

"But you can give them a welfare cheque which he has promised -- a grant of 500 dollars -- which will disappear very fast. It's not going to turn the economy around at all."

Murdoch, who is in Australia to deliver a series of lectures, rejected the suggestion that the ousting of a Republican administration in the US would be a circuit breaker which automatically boosted financial markets.

"To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians," he said of the current crisis.

"You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."

Murdoch said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been "sure-footed" in handling the crisis, deflecting criticism that the centre-left Labor leader had been too quick to offer a blanket guarantee on bank deposits.

But Murdoch said all politicians should be careful not to worsen the situation by "alarming people more than they should be alarmed".

How's Obama Going To Raise $4.3 Trillion???

2008-10-31T22:17:00.000-07:00

by Alan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on October 24, 2008

This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal on October 24, 2008

The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.

The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.

Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295billion a year by 2012.

But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.

How is he going to pay for it?

Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.

Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."

Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.

When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.

When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.

But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).

The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.

Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.

In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)

CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.

The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.

Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.

This commentary was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum.

Obama's Opposition to "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"

2008-10-31T20:45:00.000-07:00

In this audio Obama coldly claims two doctors helping a baby born alive after a botched abortion would be a burden for the aborting mother when he is arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Illinois state legislature April 2002.

Obama and Israel

2008-10-31T20:33:00.001-07:00

Excellent commentary from pajamasmedia.com:

October 29, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

“I want to remind those of you … who don’t know me and those of you who do know me what my record has been. It has been unstinting in the defense and support of Israel,” he said at a community center, having discussed at length his travels there and work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I give you my word as a Biden, I would not have given up that job to be Barack Obama’s vice president if I didn’t — in my gut, and in my heart, and in my head — know that Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel.”

– Vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, September 2, at a Jewish community center in Florida

Please, dear reader, do call me a skeptic; I am one. I started learning the price of gullibility in first grade. I traded my chocolate chip cookies to a third grader for his promise of a new pencil sharpener at recess. He lied; I learned.

My grandfather helped. He taught me to “always consider the source” before believing a promise and to never place my trust in an untrustworthy person. I lived and I learned.

Now that I’m well into my sixth decade of life, I’m a very hard sell. And the higher the stakes riding on the promise, the more care I put into my decision to proffer my trust.

When it comes to Israel and her survival as a free nation, the stakes are so high that it behooves even the most trusting American to examine closely the words and records of our candidates in this regard. And, sadly, we are forced to admit that the only reason Joe Biden had to make the reassuring statement above to Jews in Florida is that his candidate, Barack Obama, has the most tenuous, nearly nonexistent, and utterly unreliable “record” of any candidate ever to seek the presidency.

Especially in the arena of foreign affairs. Especially with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.

Scores of articles have already been written about Barack Obama’s rubbery rhetoric, the kind that stretches credulity to the popping point. As it stands now, this untested knave has made so many contradictory statements regarding Israel — a divided or undivided Jerusalem, the threat of radical Islamic terrorists, and on and on and on — that one must pinpoint the date of a statement to even attempt to figure out where Obama actually stands on anything whatsoever.

But Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is absolutely certain of one thing. He’s certain — certain — that the unreliable Obama will be tested within his first six months by other leaders around the globe. Where Americans have utterly failed to properly vet and test this candidate for the presidency, rogue regimes and terrorists and leaders bent on flexing their military muscle will not fail to test and terrorize in their attempts to find the limits of Obama’s mettle.

Not surprisingly, John McCain agrees.

But no American voter need take the word of the Republican candidate, John McCain, for any of this. We have the words of Hillary Clinton. We have the words of Joe Biden. We have the words of Joe Lieberman.

What’s even more startling to me is the fact that Barack Obama has laid out his specific plan to weaken America’s defenses — piece by piece — in the hope that countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and a host of other threatening, hell-bent regimes will see our example and follow suit.

Candidate Obama even made a video, in which he states unequivocally his plan to stake the security of the entire peace-loving world upon his own completely untested skill as a diplomat.

From where I sit, this isn’t a job for a diplomat; it’s the job of a messiah.

Nevertheless, Obama makes the following pledges regarding defense:

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars of wasteful defense spending.”

This makes me nervous.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

Actually these systems are proving quite capable of protecting against attack.

“I will not weaponize space.”

Even if Russia and China do?

“I will slow our development of future combat systems.”

Letting enemy regimes catch up with us helps preserve the peace? How?

“I will not develop new nuclear weapons.”

Well, it might be diplomatic to let Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others catch up with us. But is it safe?

“I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material, and negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Obama’s grandfather clearly did not teach him to consider the source and not to put one’s trust in untrustworthy people.

It is very sad to say, but of all our allies, Israel is by far the most vulnerable. Yet, candidate Obama, who still seems to believe in the tooth fairy, plans to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, albeit with “preparation” but still “without preconditions” in the first year of his presidency.

Whether this little pow-wow will take place before the anticipated “international crisis” or after is anybody’s guess. Eerily enough, a possible international crisis involving Israel was recently stopped accidentally by a group of Somali pirates.

According to the Israel National News website, an Iranian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in August, an event which made barely a blip in the mainstream press.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials maintained a tight-lipped silence on the alleged incident. However, Russian intelligence sources reportedly said the ship was “an enormous floating dirty bomb, intending to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel.”

“The entire cargo of radioactive sand,” said the Russian sources, “[was] obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.”

Several military web blogs have noted that had the ship’s crew succeeded in reaching Israel’s coastal waters with their deadly cargo, it would have been quite easy to escape the vessel in small boats and then detonate explosives on the vessel. The radioactive powder, which would have been blown into the air, would have been carried by the wind straight to Israel.

Of course, the report goes on to say that it’s impossible to verify this with complete certainty, but if we consider Iran as the source, then we know without doubt that this scenario is certainly very plausible.

This simple deductive reasoning ought not be above anybody’s pay grade.

Of course, Americans sitting safely ensconced continents away from the evil masterminds of the Middle East can easily turn a blind eye towards the death and destruction that continues on a daily basis in our sister nation, Israel. But a great many American Jews have abandoned the safety of home to make aliyah and I could not help but shudder when I read this article by Naomi Ragen, who has made Israel her home since 1971 and has learned the hard way to consider the source of all promises.

Ms. Ragen writes passionately of living through the never-ending quest for peace in her adopted homeland, of trusting and voting for “peace now” candidates against her better judgment, of giving into the fantasies of her countrymen over the Oslo accords, of watching men, women, and children she knew get exploded into bits, and even of her own narrow escapes from death at terrorist hands.

On our presidential election, she makes this anguished plea:

The presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician in America — a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors, all of whom side with Israel’s leftist enemies (including Israelis), as well as to anti-American anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same people who brought down the American economy with their “liberalism” in money-lending — is just about a fait accompli. I have no idea what has happened to the America I knew. I have no idea what happened to the American Jewish community’s support for Israel, how it has been washed away by deceptive self-interest and propaganda lies. But when I think what is in store for the America which is doing this to herself, and the American Jewish community that thinks by selling out Israel it will somehow achieve “change” that will benefit it, my heart aches.

I’m not Jewish. I cannot even pretend to know how it feels to have real relatives who miraculously survived the Holocaust. I cannot pretend to know the realities of living under the ever-present threat that the Israelis endure day in and day out every week, every month, every year. And I cannot pretend that I know the frustration that Israelis like Naomi Ragen have with their sister communities of Jewish Americans.

But I am a passionate lover of Israel. Not because of any creed or faith or bloodline. I love Israel simply because it is the right thing to do. Always has been. Americans once knew this without thinking. The Israelis have demonstrated again, again, again, and again that if the Muslim states want to live side by side in peace, then an everlasting peace will be immediate. Only people blinded by foolish gullibility or misplaced loyalties could possibly see it any differently, in my opinion.

Iran is a proven evil in this world. Ahmadinejad states over and over again his intention to bring about the “real Holocaust.”

This is one lesson the world simply cannot afford to learn again the hard way. But if we don’t vote for the wise hand of John McCain on the national tiller next month, then we may very well learn once again how brazen evil can be in the face of weak-kneed leadership.

Never again? One must never say “never” without the necessary conviction to make it so.

Local Palm Springs Newspaper Endorses McCain!

2008-10-31T11:21:00.000-07:00

What a pleasant surprise, especially considering that this is not the most Republican-friendly place on earth . . .

McCain has the ability to bring about change

The Desert Sun endorses Republican candidate John McCain for president of the United States.

McCain has a long and documented record of leadership. He has taken courageous positions in opposition of his party's leaders, he has fought and sacrificed dearly for this country, and he has the political experience, both foreign and domestic, needed to bring about the type of change Americans want during one of the most uncertain times in our history.

The challenge ahead
The country faces critical challenges. It is embroiled in two wars, national debt is $10 trillion and growing, foreclosed homes pepper neighborhoods across the country, the unemployment rate is climbing and the current president and Congress just passed a $700 billion bailout — money the nation doesn't have — in an attempt to end the credit crisis.

Yes, Americans demand change in the White House. But the issues facing the country are far too momentous to leave in the hands of anyone other than a proven leader. McCain is the only candidate in this presidential race with the experience and proven track record as a leader to deliver that change for all.

We know how McCain has voted in the past and it is not simply in lock-step with the Republican Party. He votes for what he believes is best for the nation, even if that puts him at odds with President Bush and other GOP leaders.

He survived five years as a POW in Hanoi and fought numerous battles in Washington.

Reaching across the aisle
He collaborated with iconic Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy on a solution to illegal immigration and sponsored campaign finance reform through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act. It is considered McCain's greatest legislative achievement.

We can't say the same for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has not been tested. He is three years into his first term as a U.S. senator. He's not been a governor or the CEO of a major corporation. Obama's record is short and it does not transcend party affiliation — that we all know for certain.

An Obama presidency would coincide with Democratic control of both houses of Congress, meaning unfettered control of federal policy by the Democrats for at least the next two years. That is not what's best for the country. The American people have shown election after election that they want a balanced government.

Obama has eloquence
No one can take away from the fact that Obama is an inspirational figure and a skilled orator. He does bring a sense of hope to many. Not since John F. Kennedy have we seen such a charismatic candidate with a keen ability to touch people's emotions. It was these reasons that we endorsed him in the Democratic primary.

But delivering a good speech is not enough for the presidency. We need experience, a record of service and bipartisan leadership. With Obama, the American people have no guarantee that he will govern from the center. McCain has proven he is a centrist.

McCain has substance
McCain's record shows he is willing to regulate when necessary and deregulate when necessary. He supports banking regulations now, but he also has a record of deregulating industries that become mired in government bureaucracy. He is the right Republican for this point in American history.

Obama has pledged repeatedly he will tax the rich and spread the wealth. By contrast, McCain has supported many moderate policies in his career. As he said, he is no George Bush. We agree.

McCain does have shortcomings. We disagree with his policy on health care reform and with his choice for vice president. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin does not have the experience to match McCain's. We also dislike the defensive tone McCain has exhibited in the final weeks of this campaign. These disagreements, however, do not change our position on McCain as the best choice for president.

We support McCain because his leadership is proven and he best reflects the values of this part of California.

The Desert Sun urges voters to elect John McCain as president.

How To Respond to Obama Supporters

2008-10-30T17:26:00.000-07:00

TAKE A LESSON FROM THE BEST:

FLASHBACK: Reagan on Taxes

2008-10-30T17:22:00.001-07:00

If Reagan were still alive, he would absolutely cringe at the rhetoric from the Obama campaign about "speading the wealth" and about it being "patriotic" to pay higher taxes.

Reagan correctly pointed out that this type of tax system is "Unamerican" and also understood why attempts to overtax the wealthy always fail.

My favorite part of the speech, though, is when he says that Washington is full of "gobbeldy-gook." God bless the gipper!!!

Remind You Of Anyone?

2008-10-30T17:06:00.000-07:00

Victim: Robbers thought they were 'Robin Hood'
by Heidi Homa - Oct. 30, 2008 10:31 AM
The Arizona Republic

SCOTTSDALE - The three men who invaded and robbed the Scottsdale home of a 68-year-old man claimed the crime was "their own form of redistribution of wealth," the victim said, "sort of like Robin Hood."

The invaders beat, choked and tied up Keith Nickels and his girlfriend, 61, Tuesday.

Nickels gave this account:

He was asleep in bed at home, near 85th Street and Wethersfield Road, when he was woken at 4 a.m. by a hit in the head and in the face, while his girlfriend was being choked.

"They said, 'If you quit fighting, we'll quit hitting,'" Nickels said. "They didn't, and I didn't."

The beatings continued until he and his girlfriend eventually passed out. When they awoke, they were tied up and had pillowcases over their heads.

After the beatings, the three men were "quite cordial." They allowed his girlfriend to go to the bathroom, and they spoke to him politely on and off during the 2½ hours that the men ransacked the home.

Afterwards, Nickels and his girlfriend were placed in separate closets, with dressers leaned against the doors and against each other to form a V, to prevent them from getting out easily.

The robbers told them not to get up. They said there were cameras in the closets, but Nickels didn't believe them.

He stayed there for five minutes, pulled the pillowcase off, and used a walking stick from inside the closet to push one dresser upright and allow himself to escape.

He then yanked the dresser from in front of the other closet door, let his girlfriend out, and called 911. He also made sure to get a knife out of a nearby cabinet.

Police arrived, and Nickels and his girlfriend were transported to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn, where their injuries were treated and they were released Tuesday evening, police said.

Nickels was bleeding all over and had 27 stitches in his forehead, eye and ear, he said.

Suspect descriptions are limited at this time, police said. However, Nickels said he thought they were young guys around 30.

"It's kind of cowardly, I think," Nickels said about the attack.

But he also feels that he was "too complacent" in his attitude. "We live in a nice part of town and thought nothing like this would ever happen here," Nickels said. "I've been here 20 years, and it's the first (invasion) in the neighborhood I've ever heard of."

Nickels is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. He's had the locks on his home changed, as well as the garage code. He also plans to have a more sufficient security system installed that will immediately notify police if there is an invasion.

Now all he can do is try to get past the trauma.

"I think we'll be OK," he said. "It's going to take a little while."

Obama "Tax Cut" Would Be ZERO Help to U.S. Economy

2008-10-28T13:53:00.001-07:00

By Jack Kemp and Peter Ferrara
Special to Investor's Business Daily

Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut for 95% of all Americans. He is referring here to his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers, except those in the top 5% of income earners.

Those folks, for some reason, are to be singled out for "special treatment"- i.e., tax increases- unless, as he recently yold ABC anchor George Stephanopoulous, "the economy remains weak."

So apparently even Obama realizes that his tax increases would be economically harmful.

Because Obama's tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, it will not benefit the economy. It provides NO added incentives for work, savings, investment, or business expansion.

Because it's refundable (meaning workers get it even if they have little or no income tax liability), for amny it will involve just another check from the government, rather than a reducation in tax liability. In those cases, it would not be a tax cut at all, but a transfer payment and a direct drain on tax revenues.

McCain proposes to DOUBLE the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000, for all families regardless of income. For middle class workers in the 25% tax bracket, this $3,500 increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child. While this tax cut also does not involve a reduction in marginal tax rates, it will promote working families with children.

But McCain also proposes marginal tax rates that DO promote economic growth and encourage investment. Because America suffers today from the second-highest corporate teax rates in the industrialized world, McCain would help restore American competitiveness by reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. This would benefit the middle class and workers by creating new jobs, at better wages, while strangthening the dollar.

It my even raise, rather than reduce, revenues. According to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department, Ireland- with a 12.5% corporate tax rate- raises alsmost 50% more revenue on a comparative basis than the United States does with a 35% rate.

McCain would also hold the top capital gains tax rate and dividend ta at 15%. Both would provide a much-needed boost for the value of stocks, which are now held by more than two-thirds of all Americans.

McCain further propooses to phase out the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise burden 25 million middle-class families. This will save middle-class families $2,700 each year on average, an overall middle-class tax cut of $60 billion per year.

McCain's tax plan includes other provisions that would boost our economy as well, including the expensing of new investment in eqquipment, macchinery, and technology.

Obama, by contrast, has proposed to RAISE marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax- the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the death tax, etc. He would further increase corporate taxes through such measures as the windfall profits tax on oil companies.

These marginal tax rate increases would dramatically discourage savings, investment, business expansion, and job creation. Such tax increases would consequently slow the economy even further and reduce jobs and wages for working people and the middle class, while simultaneously weakening the dollar.

Republicans should promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our confusing, contrdictory, and confiscatory tax code. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system with a standard deduction of $25,000 for couples ($12,500 for singles), plus a personal deduction of $3,500 per family member (exempting the first $39,000 for a family of four).

A 10% tax rate would then apply to the next $100,000 for couples ($50,000 for singles), with a 25% rate above that. Currently, a 15% tax rate starts at $15,650 for couples ($7,825 for singles), with a 25% rate starting at $63,700 for couples ($31,850 for singles).

Ryan's plan, which McCain has praised, would promote a powerful economic and investment boom, while creating jobs and good wwages for millions.

Finally, the biggest middle-class tax cut of all would be allowing workers the freedom to CHOOSE personal accounts for Social Security, which McCain has also praised. These accounts would grow eventually to replace the entire payroll tax for those who choose them, with the accounts financing all the benefits now paid through the tax.

To the extent that workers make this choice, this would eliminate payroll taxes on working people and the middle class, now the highest tax they pay. Instead, working people would be paying into their own personal store of family wealth, opening up broad new vistas of opportunity.

OUR TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED: Bar Style!!!

2008-10-28T13:21:00.001-07:00

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.

'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.

The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

GAY vs. GAY Homophobia

2008-10-27T09:56:00.001-07:00

This article was posted on the Log Cabin Republican website last week. I can definitely relate, especially since not only am I gay and Republican, but also gay and against same sex "marriage" rights. The hostile, nasty, and insipid reactions from so many other gays just strengthen and affirm my positions and beliefs, making it all the more necessary that the intelligent and mature voices in the gay community be heard, even when those voices are few. As I have witnessed first-hand numerous times over the past nine years, there is significantly more "homophobia" within the gay community than in mainstream society.

Here is the article:

As we enter the election's homestretch, gay and lesbian Republicans have come under intense fire from the gay community for daring to speak our minds about this campaign. Instead of arguing the merits of their candidate, too many on the left resort to name calling. Emotion replaces fact. Name calling replaces logic. In this case, those we often hear speaking about tolerance sound awfully intolerant.

Despite having the most pro-gay GOP presidential nominee in American history, we are attacked from the gay left.

Despite an history Q&A Sen. McCain did with the Washington Blade, a gay publication, we are attacked from the gay left.

Despite a campaign and a candidate who has reached out and asked for LGBT votes like no other Republican nominee before, we are attacked from the gay left.

Just check out a tiny sampling of the senseless inaccuracies filling the pages of popular, mainstream LGBT blogs and websites:

Gay conservatives "support those who would throw us all in prison.
"
- Alex Blaze, Oct.
21st, writing for the popular LGBT website the Bilerico Project

[Log Cabin Republicans'] "suicidal tendency to help a party that despises them is the pink elephant in the room.
"
- Popular gay writer Wayne Besen, in a Sept.
19th column for the Huffington Post titled "Log Cabin Republicans Should Disband"

"Gay Republicans? What about Jews for Hitler? or Blacks for the KKK?"
- Typical comment posted to the Advocate. com

It doesn't stop there. The e-mails we receive usually include the same tired stereotypes about gay and lesbian Republicans. Rarely do we receive a thoughtful analysis or critique of our work.

"It must be so painful to bear that much self-hatred, to be so ashamed of your sexuality that you would willingly sacrifice your rights in order to fit in with that...Republican party.
"

"Do you folks ever vote based on anything but your wallets?"

"F___ you a__holes. You make me sick and embarrassed that you are gay. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"

Noted gay conservative writer Dale Carpenter said it best: "It's the worst vitriol against gay conservatives I've seen in fifteen years in this movement.
"

*For your further entertainment and reading pleasure, I'll add a few silly comments that have been directed my way in recent weeks, comments which are of such deep thought and high intellect that they certainly help to advance the case for gay rights, as I'm sure you'll agree:

"You have a lot of hate and bitterness that you need to deal with man ... just like your man McInsane there ... Typical oximoran gay repugnant! YOURE AN A__HOLE!!! You are a disgrace to ANYone gay or lesbian.
Go find a woman and be done with it a__whipe!!!"

"I keep reading what you have written and I still can't believe it. You must have something wrong with you if you really think this way ... Just because you haven't had a good relationship yet in your life, doesn't mean that others haven't either OR that you won't someday.
"

WHY THIS GAY MAN SUPPORTS PROP. 8 !!!

2008-10-24T22:32:00.000-07:00

I'll say it very clearly:

I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE."

In fact, the very thought of it makes me cringe!

Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?

First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA). Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married!

Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision, and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.), and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire legal practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.

I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.

As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"

To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how DARE the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit. I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!

Let me clarify something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not feel the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.

Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to these ideas for several years, and they got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seem content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.

Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, EVERY str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions here and there, but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.

When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and who is genuinely happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, then they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!

The bottom line is that I support Prop. 8, mainly because contrary to what many believe, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Again, Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.

I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.

Furthermore, it has been shown time after time that pushing a gay marriage agenda has almost always eroded, not enhanced, society's support of gay people. Many who otherwise support gay rights, and believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people often finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough!

Personally, if a same sex couple is truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurities about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore feel that they need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real and loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition whatsoever.

Ironically, many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.

Regardless of your sexual orientation, I hope you'll agree with me that giving "marriage" rights to same-sex couples is a horrible idea. It's best for everyone, gay or straight, that traditional marriage is kept intact.

Gay Marriage and Public Education

2008-10-23T13:30:00.001-07:00

Although I support Proposition 8 (for reasons I explained in a previous blog), several recent TV ads here in California by Prop. 8 supporters have been EXTREMELY misleading, attempting to scare parents into thinking that if Prop. 8 fails, gay marriage will be taught to public school children from a very young age.

The ad features a law professor from Pepperdine University (which is just about the lowest ranked ABA law school in the state) speaking of a court case in Massachusetts in an attempt to make parents think that the public schools will be allowed to teach their children about gay marriage without notifying parents beforehand.

This approach confuses voters by suggesting that the law in California is the same as it is in Massachusetts. This is most certainly not the case. If anything, gay marriage would not be taught to CA public school students until middle school sexual education classes (and shouldn't be until this time, if at all), and California law clearly states that parents DO have the right to opt their children out of sex ed classes.

Again, I will be voting YES on Prop. 8, and you can call me a "hypocrite" or "traitor" all you want. It starting falling on deaf ears long ago, and will just affirm all the more why the ballot measure needs to be passed in the first place. At the same time however, I think the T.V. ads are very irresponsible. Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public education, and as I mentioned in my prior blog, it doesn't even really have anything to do with gays either.

The Prop. 8 opponents are also guilty of misleading the public by saying the measure is about "discrimination" or treating some people like "second class citizens." This is also completely false. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 would not even be on our ballot if the California Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds in the horrible ruling it made earlier this year that was not even a court's decision to make.

The Bottom Line: Proposition 8 (as well as a similar measure on the Arizona ballot this election) is about the institution of marriage, and what it was always intended to be since its inception.

Here's an article in today's local paper that further speaks to the issue:

Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • October 23, 2008

A young girl exclaims to her mom, “Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.”

Her mother's eyes widen as a law professor at Pepperdine University says, “Think it can't happen? It's already happened.”

This is one of several Yes on Proposition 8 ads on TV and radio claiming that if the man-woman marriage measure fails on Nov. 4, students as young as kindergarten will learn about same-sex marriage.

The professor points out that a Massachusetts district judge in 2007 dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by the parents of a second-grader who read “King and King” in class without the school district providing parental notification. Massachusetts' curricula “encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students concerning different types of people and families.”

California educators, however, say the state education curricula does not address marriage. It's up to local school districts, they say.

Although the proposed amendment says nothing about public school education, it has emerged as a central issue in this hotly contested measure that has had both sides volleying charges of unfair political advertising.

“We teach the California standards, and marriage, of any kind, is not part of the California standards or required to be taught by state Education Code as the television ad states,” Palm Springs Unified Superintendent Lorri McCune said via e-mail on Wednesday.

“Passage of Proposition 8 will not change anything that is taught or not taught in our classrooms.”

Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot would amend the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

A yes vote would reverse the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in May that found a ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2000 unconstitutional.

Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many locally as the Palm Springs area boasts one of the largest gay populations per capita in the U.S. and is renowned for its gay-friendly businesses and events.

Gays and lesbians have been legally marrying in the state and the Coachella Valley since June 17.

Tolerance lessons
Opponents of the measure say the ads are deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians.

To combat anti-gay discrimination, California schools have addressed topics such as gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years, well before the state Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal this year.

The California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell have all maintained Proposition 8 has nothing to do with public school education.

“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O'Connell has said in statements.

“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chose by local school governing board.”

Proposition 8 supporters received fodder for their claims earlier this month when a public charter school took 18 first-graders on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall, with parental permission, where their teacher and her female partner had married.

“The other side's argument is (Proposition 8) has nothing to do with education. Our argument is this has everything to do with education,” said Chip White, a Proposition 8 spokesman. “It's already happening.”

About 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in California, which is one of 12 states with comprehensive anti-bullying laws that apply to gay students and children with unconventional families.

The need for such awareness training was brought home to California in February, when a 15-year-old who sometimes wore feminine clothing and talked about being gay was shot to death at his Oxnard junior high school. A classmate has pleaded not guilty to murder and hate-crime charges.

The education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. Most California districts do not teach sex ed.

California gives local districts authority — and in the case of sex education, the imperative — to adopt curricula that reflect community mores while meeting certain standards.

“We teach tolerance and acceptance,” said Shari Stewart, president of the Palm Springs Unified school board.

“We don't specifically have a curriculum (regarding) sexual orientation. We only teach what's on the state test.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FROM THE HEART: Self-Serving People

2008-10-18T13:30:00.001-07:00

*DISCLAIMER: This is not a political message, for once ;)

It is just a shame how selfish some people are, who are so out for themselves that they do not care who they hurt or how far the "fallout" of their actions reaches. One of my dearest friends, who means the world to me, was completely used by one of these types of people and then kicked to the curb like trash. As a result, he's going to probably lose his house (that he has put so much work and pride into) and need to get a THIRD job to make ends meet as a result of all of this. It makes my heart absolutely ache to see what he's having to go through right now.

This just goes to show how important it is, especially in times like these, that we look out for one another and surround ourselves with genuine and caring people who will build us up and enrich our lives rather than tear us down and deflate our spirits.

I also believe that we have a God in heaven who loves each and every one of us and shares our hurts. I understand some of you don't believe in God, and I respect that. However, for those of us who do, it's a great comfort to know he's looking over us and shares our hurts with us.

Let's take care of each other folks, and I challenge each and every one of you to call at least five people who you are thankful for and appreciative of, and let them know that, especially if it's someone you haven't told that to in a long time.

And if any of you ever just need to talk to someone who will be there to listen, remember that wherever you are, I'm just a phone call or e-mail away.

Love,
Casey

(760) 835-8563

SuiGeneris1122@aol.com

Farrakhan Endorses Obama . . . Geez What a Surprise!

2008-10-17T17:31:00.002-07:00

FURTHER PROOF THAT MCCAIN IS THE RIGHT CHOICE:

McCain WILL Confront Obama About Ayers In Final Debate!

2008-10-14T14:59:00.001-07:00

By Andy Barr, Politico. com

(Oct. 14) - John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is "probably ensured" that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday’s debate.

"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn't have the guts" to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station.

"I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.
"

McCain was responding to Obama's charge last week that the Arizona senator was willing to make attacks on the campaign trail that he would not say in person.

"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face," Obama said. "But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.
"

Obama has also accused McCain of trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers.

Despite challenging Obama on the association, McCain insisted that he does not care about the "old washed-up terrorist" but said that the Illinois Democrat is not "being truthful about the relationship.

© 2008 Capitol News Company LLC
2008-10-14 14:58:55

Could The Polls Be Wrong? Obama and the "Bradley Effect"

2008-10-14T14:31:00.000-07:00

Interesting article on CNN. com today, especially since it's so disgusting how that T.V. network has shown such pro-Obama bias . . .

(Oct. 14) - Sen. Barack Obama has a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain, polls show, but those numbers could be deceiving if the "Bradley effect" comes into play.

The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982.

Exit polls showed Bradley leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat thought it would be an early election night.

But Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian.

The theory was that polling was wrong because some voters, who did not want to appear bigoted, said they voted for Bradley even though they did not.

"People will usually tell you how they voted after the election, but we found in the Bradley campaign ... that people were actually not telling us who they voted for," said Charles Henry, who researched Bradley's election.

The Bradley effect is also called the "Wilder effect," after Douglas Wilder, Virginia's former governor. He won by just one-tenth of a percent, but as he pointed out to CNN, "people forget -- in the exit polls, I was still double-digits ahead.
"

According to CNN's latest poll of polls, Obama is leading McCain by 8 percentage points, 50 to 42.

Some analysts say the race could be much closer or even tied if the Bradley effect is factored in.
iReport. com: iReporter pleads with voters to 'stop the racism'

"It leaves a question mark over this race, and we won't have the final answer until the votes are counted," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN.

But there could be an opposite effect, Wilder said.

"There's going to be a reverse Wilder or Bradley effect. ... There are some Republicans who are not going to say out front that they're going to be voting for Obama, but they're going to be, because the economy is what's driving people to consider what's in their best interest," he said.

Some analysts say the Bradley effect can account for 6 percentage points against an African-American candidate.

Michelle Obama told CNN's Larry King that a lot has changed since Bradley lost.

"That was several decades ago, and I think there's been growth and movement," she said. "I just believe that the issues are going to weigh in people's hearts more so as they go into the voting booths this time around.
"
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said last week that he thinks the Bradley effect could cost Obama several battleground states -- and possibly the presidency.

Race "is still a problem in this country," Brown told CNN. "It goes away when there are other troubles that are more challenging, and right now, whether or not we survive in the economy is more challenging. But race could rear its ugly head. I just hope it doesn't before November 4.
"

In the past 15 years or so, there's been no indication in the polls that the Bradley effect has been a factor in statewide races.

Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, said that if there is racism in this year's election, it's probably already showing up in the polls.
And Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, pointed out another important caveat:
"We've never had a black presidential candidate as a major nominee, so the polls don't have any history at all when it comes to national elections," he said.

© 2008 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Barack Obama Is NOT the "Gay Friendly" Candidate

2008-10-13T21:24:00.000-07:00

Let's look at the cold, hard facts, as tough as they may be for some of you to swallow:

As a gay man, I have been shocked and downright ashamed of the way so many gay men blindly think that just because they are gay, they MUST vote for a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama. What is even more pathetic is the fact that so many of my fellow gay men do not realize that God gave them a brain so they can think intelligently FOR THEMSELVES about issues completely irrelvant to the gay agenda, such as: abortion, affirmative action, economy, edcuation, environment, national security, offshore drilling, the war in Iraq, etc., etc.
However, even if "gay issues" are all that you care about in this election, let's examine Barack Obama's record in that arena to "clear the air" once and for all (feel free to "fact check" all you want as everything I am about to say can be confirmed 100%):

1.) Despite protests from the gay community, Barack Obama has continued to stand behind an anti-gay minister, the Rev. Donnie McClurkin.

In fact, Rick Garcia, a long time gay rights activist who founded Equality Illinois, went as far to say the following:

“I thank God that the Rev. Fred Phelps doesn’t have a strong political base to follow him. If Rev. Phelps had a strong base, maybe Sen. Obama would hook up with him, as well.
"

*It should also be noted that Reverend Phelps (godhatesfags. com) is no Republican, but a Democrat! Since it is now slightly past the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder (remember how Phelps and his forces were picketing at the funeral), it is a very timely moment to bring this up.

Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times.

These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.

Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas.

2.) Barack Obama has refused to grant interviews to the gay media.

After courting anti-gay votes through affiliations with anti-gay preachers, and advocating segregation for gay Americans, Obama has refused to speak with the Philadelphia Gay News, one of the largest and most established LGBT papers in the country.

Unfortunately for Obama, the gay press has been operating increasingly independently of the Democratic Party as of late (FINALLY THANK GOD). They struck back and called Obama out on the carpet -- embarrassingly so.

Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, said, "Senator Obama's lack of dialogue with the local gay press is disappointing. The local gay press often is to the LGBT community what churches are to the black community.
"

3.) Barack Obama refused to be photographed with San Francisco's gay-friendly mayor, Gavin Newsom.

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.
"

Insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either. "He was pissed," said one former staffer.

In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

"Barack Hussein Obama will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that person - not once, but twice - because of this issue.
"

Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the pro-gay mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign.
"

*On the other hand, being born and raised in John McCain's home state of Arizona, I recall that McCain's attitude toward a gay mayor was quite different. In the late 1990's, then Tempe, AZ mayor Neil Giuliano came out as a gay man. When the religious right started to attack, McCain was the first one to tell them to "back off" and that it did not make a bit of difference.

ELECTION 2008: It's your choice, but I hope you understand that with the right to vote also comes the responsibility to make the best decisions for this great country we live in.
Let's get real: Do we really want someone like Barack Obama as our next president? Just remember that if he wins this election, we're stuck with him the next four years whether we like it or not!

Howard Stern and Dumb Harlem Voters

2008-10-13T13:11:00.001-07:00

Gay and Voting For Obama? Read This First!

2008-10-13T10:41:00.000-07:00

Gay And For Obama? Heres Some Facts For You!

1.) Obama stands by ‘ex-gay’ minister despite protests

The move angered some gays who have supported Obama’s campaign, including Rick Garcia, a longtime gay rights activist who helped start Equality Illinois.

McClurkin remains part of campaign event over HRC and donor objections Sen. Barack Obama angered some of his gay supporters when his presidential campaign refused to drop an anti-gay minister from a fundraising tour, despite protests from the Human Rights Campaign.

Senior members of Obama’s campaign talked with a handful of the Illinois senator’s prominent gay donors, according to sources who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity. But that meeting — and HRC’s protest — failed to persuade Obama to drop Rev. Donnie McClurkin from the gospel event in South Carolina.

“I thank God that the Rev. Fred Phelps doesn’t have a strong political base to follow him,” Garcia said. “If Rev. Phelps had a strong base, maybe Sen. Obama would hook up with him, as well.
”

2.) Did You Know Reverend Phelps (God Hates Fags) Is Part Of The Democratic Party?

Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times.
These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.

Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser, which Al and Tipper Gore attended, at his home in Topeka. Fred Phelps, Jr. served as a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

3.) Obama Refuses To Talk With Gay Media

The Philadelphia Gay News is hammering Barack Obama for what they say is his consistent refusal to speak to gay media outlets.

In its latest issue, the paper features a front-page interview with Hillary Clinton and a large blank space under a photo of Barack Obama, with a banner headline reading, "Clinton Talks, Obama Balks.
"
Once again, Democrat Barack Obama has shown his contempt for gay Americans. After courting anti-gay votes through affiliations with anti-gay preachers, and advocating segregation for gay Americans, Obama has refused to speak with the Philadelphia Gay News, one of the largest and most established LGBT papers in the country.

Unfortunately for Obama, the gay press has been operating increasingly independently of the Democratic Party as of late. They struck back and called Obama out on the carpet -- embarrassingly so.

Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, said, "Senator Obama's lack of dialogue with the local gay press is disappointing. The local gay press often is to the LGBT community what churches are to the black community."

Despite concerted efforts, Senator Barack Obama has not granted a formal interview to the Philadelphia Gay News. PGN, now in its 32nd year and the nation's most-honored LGBT newspaper, is taking the unusual step of displaying Obama's lack of communication to the local LGBT press, leaving blank space on the newspaper's front page where Obama's interview would have appeared, illustrating his lack of accessibility to the local gay press. Obama has not granted a formal interview to any local gay press in 1,522 days, when he spoke to the Windy City Times during his Senate race in 2004.

4.) Obama Refused To Be Photographed With Pro-Gay Mayor

Just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

Today, of course, Obama's people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. "Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said. "Including me, his deputy campaign manager."

But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either. "He was pissed," said one former staffer.

In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

Barack Hussein Obama will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that person - not once, but twice - because of this issue."

Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the gay-marriage mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign."

Though same-sex marriage is still a hot-button issue in 2008, it is no longer the shocker that had the country in an uproar four and five years ago. Until you go back and look at the news stories from those days, it is easy to forget how radical and unpopular Newsom's stand was.

On a side note Obama is no more for gay marriage then McCain is. They both share equal stances.

Obama and Odinga: VERY VERY Disturbing

2008-10-12T21:05:00.000-07:00

About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.

The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier.

By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.

The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama's father.

Mr. Odinga had the backing of Kenya's Muslim community heading into the election. For months he denied any ties to Muslim leaders, but fell silent when Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, appeared on Kenya television displaying a memorandum of understanding signed on Aug. 29, 2007, by Mr. Odinga and the Muslim leader. Mr. Odinga then denied his denials.

The details of the MOU were shocking. In return for Muslim backing, Mr. Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of "Islam as the only true religion," Islamic leaders would have an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]," installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who "allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists," adoption of a women's dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork.

This was not Mr. Odinga's first brush with notoriety. Like his father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, the main opposition leader in the 1960s and 1970s, Raila Odinga is a Marxist. He graduated from East Germany's Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship provided by the East German government. He named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

Raila Odinga was implicated in the bloody coup attempt in 1982 against then-President Daniel Arap Moi, a close ally of the United States. Kenya has been one of the most stable democracies in Africa since the 1960s. The ethnic cleansing earlier this year was the worst violence in Kenya since that 1982 coup attempt.

Mr. Odinga spent eight years in prison. At the time, he denied guilt but later detailed he was a coup leader in his 2006 biography. Statue of limitations precluded further prosecution when the biography appeared.

Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Mr. Obama announced.

"Kenyans are now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama's remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama's August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama's father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, "Barack Obama's father is my maternal uncle.
"

President Kibaki requested a meeting of all opposition leaders in early January in an effort to quell the violence. All agreed to attend except Mr. Odinga. A month later, Mr. Kibaki offered Mr. Odinga the role of prime minister, the de facto No. 2 in the Kenyan government, in return for an end to the attacks. Mr. Odinga was sworn in on April 17, 2008.

Mr. Obama's judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties.

The Economic Crisis: What Would Reagan Do?

2008-10-12T21:00:00.000-07:00

I think the answer is clear from a 1985 speech that President Reagan gave from the Oval Office:

"In 1981, our critics charged that letting you keep more of your earnings would trigger an inflationary explosion, send interest rates soaring, and destroy our economy. Well, we cut your tax rates anyway, by nearly 25%. What what helped trigger was falling inflation, falling interest rates, and the strongest economic expansion in 30 years. Over the course of this century, our tax system has been modified dozens of times and in hundreds of ways. Yet, most of those changes didn't improve the system. They made it more like Washington itself- complicated, unfair, cluttered with "gobbeldy-gook" and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to hire high-priced legal and tax advisors.

But there's more to it than that. Some years ago, a historian from the past said that every time a government began taxing at a certain level above the people's earnings, trust in government began to erode. He said it would begin with efforts to avoid paying the full tax. This would become outright cheating, and eventually a distrust and contempt of government itself, until there would be a breakdown in law and order.

How many times have we heard people brag about clever schemes to avoid paying taxes? Or watch luxuries casually written off to be paid for by somebody else? That somebody being you. I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be Un-American.
"

"How would [my] proposal work? The present tax system has 14 different brackets of tax rates ranging from 11-50%. We would take a giant step towards an ideal system by replacing all that with a simple three bracket system, with tax rates of 15, 25, and 35 percent. By lowering everyone's tax rates ALL THE WAY UP THE INCOME SCALE, each of us will have a greater incentive to climb higher, to excel, to help America grow.
"

"The power of these incentives would send one simple, straightforward message to an entire nation: America, go for it!"

*Recall that as a Senator, Barack Obama has voted against tax cuts over 90 times!!! Also recall that his running mate, Joe Biden, said that paying higher taxes is "patriotic." For Reagan's sake, I'm glad that he was no longer alive to hear such rhetoric.
It would have absolutely made his skin crawl!

Fannie Mae and Barney Frank's "Boyfriend"

2008-10-12T15:33:00.001-07:00

Obama's skeletons just keep falling out of the closet, along with his buddies!

Barney Frank Hit Over Boyfriend’s Fannie Mae Role
Body: Critics are crying “conflict of interest” over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank’s live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.

Moses was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.

He was also openly gay Frank’s live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News’ Bill Sammon reported.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.

“He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive.

How is that not germane?

“But everyone wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.

A top Republican House aide told Fox News: “He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?”

Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.

National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.

Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac “are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.

In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.

Nothing Like Some Good Hate Mail!!!

2008-10-12T13:40:00.000-07:00

This message was sent to my account earlier today on a gay chat site. The funniest thing is the claim that I'm the "hot tempered and angry" one.

daddabear: What a jerk! You are neither smart or successful until you can love your fellow human being... and its obvious you dont. you have a lot of hate and bitterness that you need to deal with man... just like your man mcInsane there.... hot tempered and angry!
You have what YOU want but you dont want anyone else to have what THEY want. Typical oximoran gay repugnant! YOURE AN ASSHOLE!!! You are a disgrace to ANYone gay or lesbian. Go find a woman and be done with it asswhipe!!!

*And I can tell that "daddabear" must be fully secure in his beliefs, since my attempt to respond to this tirade was unsuccessful since he BLOCKED me from mailing him back . . . oh well.

Obama, Rezko, & Corruption

2008-10-11T18:30:00.001-07:00

Tony Rezko Shares Corruption Secrets
By MIKE ROBINSON, AP

(Oct. 11) - Jailed political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago real estate developer who helped launch Barack Obama on his political career, is whispering secrets to federal prosecutors about corruption in Illinois and the political fallout could be explosive.

Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration faces multiple federal investigations over how it handed out jobs and money with advice from Rezko, is considered the most vulnerable.

Rezko also was friendly with Obama — offering him a job when he finished law school, funding his earliest political campaigns and purchasing a lot next to his house. But based on the known facts, charges so far and testimony at Rezko's trial, there's no indication there'll be an October surprise that could hurt the Democratic presidential nominee — even though Rezko says prosecutors are pressing him for dirt about Obama.

"I think this strikes fear into the Blagojevich administration and the Statehouse Democrats but not into the Obama campaign," says state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Westmont, a John McCain delegate to the GOP convention but an old friend of Obama.

Rezko, 53, a real estate developer, was convicted in June of scheming to use his clout with the Blagojevich administration to squeeze $7 million in kickbacks out of a contractor and seven money management firms seeking to do business with the state.

Within two months, Rezko was seen in U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald's office, along with his attorneys.

There has been no official confirmation that Rezko is talking but his sentencing has been postponed indefinitely and both sides say they are going to "engage in discussions that could affect their sentencing postures.
"

"They never would have delayed the sentencing if he weren't talking — it's proof positive," said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association of Chicago.

In addition, attorneys say federal investigators have been questioning Blagojevich contributions around the state using information that only Rezko could have supplied. Finally, courthouse personnel requesting anonymity because grand jury probes are secret said Rezko has been repeatedly brought from his cell to the U.S. attorney's office to talk to prosecutors.

Rezko could have a lot to tell. He has raised millions of dollars in campaign money for many Illinois politicians and according to federal prosecutors used his clout to control appointments to state boards.

Obama has sent to charity $159,000 that Rezko raised for his campaigns for the state legislature, the House and the Senate. Rezko raised nothing for Obama's White House run.

Obama's name came up in testimony at the trial four times, twice in connection with an obscure legislative memo, as a guest at a Rezko party and when defense attorney Joseph Duffy told jurors his client was a friend of the senator.

None of the witnesses accused the Democratic nominee for president of doing anything improper.

But questions concerning Obama's relationship with Rezko linger, particularly over Rezko's role in the purchase of the Obamas' home.

The two have known each other for years, starting when Rezko offered Obama a job after he graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. Obama didn't take it, but a friendship developed.

The men talked politics frequently and occasionally dined together with their wives.

In 2005, the Obamas paid $1.65 million for their home near the University of Chicago. The sellers wanted a parcel they owned next door to sell on the same day, and Rezko's wife, Rita, was the buyer. At the request of the Obamas, Mrs. Rezko later sold them a 10-foot strip of land to enlarge their lot. They paid $104,500.

The deal took place while Rezko was under investigation and when details of the cozy relationship surfaced, Obama said it was a "bonehead" error to have asked for the additional land because it looked like he was getting a favor.

"I regret it," Obama said at the time. "I'm going to make sure that from this point on I don't even come close to the line.
"

McCain and vice running mate Sarah Palin have mentioned Rezko little if at all. But Republicans have aired a television ad focusing on Rezko. And McCain aides have repeatedly tweaked their opponent over the real estate deal in e-mails to reporters.

"We're delighted to have a debate on judgment with Barack Obama, who bought his million-dollar mansion in a shady deal with a convicted felon," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in August.

Blagojevich, meanwhile, got a black eye from the trial.

One witness testified that Blagojevich talked about hiring him for a major state job while his $25,000 donation to the governor's campaign fund was lying on the table.

Two attorneys testified that Blagojevich hinted that they could get lucrative state contracts if they raised money — possibly for a future White House campaign.

Obama's name has not surfaced in accounts of the investigation since the trial. But Rezko himself raised it in a letter to the judge months ago.

"Your Honor, the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened," he wrote. "They are pressuring me to tell them the wrong things that I supposedly know about Gov. Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama.
"

Obama's Serious Problems

2008-10-11T15:27:00.001-07:00

The Obama-Ayers Connection: Why We Should Care

2008-10-10T14:54:00.000-07:00

EXCELLENT ARTICLE FROM FREEDOMVALUESRIGHTS.COM

I want to be very careful about what I am going to write. www.FreedomValuesRights.com was born with an intent to change the tone of political discussion in America. My intent is not to engage in red-meat, smear politics. We have enough of that in America. So be assured, that is not the intent of www.FreedomValuesRights.com in writing this entry.

Some people are asking, “Why should I be concerned about the Ayers, Obama connection?”

I think we should be concerned because there is a valid justification to be “reasonably concerned” about the Ayers, Obama connection. I’m not going to go into every detail of the situation here, because many have already covered this. My intent is to show why there is room for someone to be “reasonably concerned” about this situation.

We know Ayers is an unrepentant, domestic terrorist. He bombed government offices and doesn’t apologize for it. We know Obama started off his political career in his living room. Most know that Obama served with this guy on various causes and issues. It’s a proven fact that Obama even read and spoke positively about a book this guy wrote.

There are clear and undeniable political and social connections between these two men. So what does this mean? Does it mean Obama will listen to everything Ayers says? Does it mean Obama is for blowing up government offices? Does it mean Obama is a terrorist?

I don’t think it automatically means Obama loves terrorists and hates America. We can’t assume Obama believes everything this guy says, just because they served on some boards together. To reach those conclusions would do an injustice to reason and also to Obama. So you may be asking, “Then why should we be reasonably concerned about their connection?”

The office of President of The United States is one of the most important offices in the land. We must be careful about the person we elect to that place in government. Obama could hold this office.

It is fact that Ayers had the ear of Obama in the past. It is fact they served together. How can we be assured that this domestic terrorist won’t have Obama’s ear if Obama is elected to one of the most important offices in this land?

This is why we have cause to be “reasonably concerned” about the Obama, Ayers relationship. We don’t know for sure if Obama will listen to this guy. We don’t know for sure if Obama plans to keep a distance from him. There is just too much uncertainty.

The fact that a man like Ayers could have access to the highest office in the land, is justification to be “reasonably concerned” about Obama being elected. In the courts, reasonable doubt can keep a man from being convicted. Reasonable concern should at least make a voter think twice before voting for Obama.

Again the intent of www.FreedomValuesRights.com is not to smear Obama. I’m not saying Obama should be disqualified for all political offices and shunned out of existing in the public square. I’m just saying that reasonable concern exists that should make us all think twice about electing this guy to the highest office in the land.

A reasonable person can look at their connections and have valid justification to be reasonably concerned about Obama holding the highest office in The United States of America.

THE GREAT OBAMA!!!

2008-10-10T12:09:00.000-07:00

Obama's Magic

By Kimberley Strassel
WALL STREET JOURNAL

And now, America, we introduce the Great Obama! The world's most gifted political magician! A thing of wonder. A thing of awe. Just watch him defy politics, economics, even gravity! (And hold your applause until the end, please.

)

To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.

For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It's simple, really. He has a wand.

Next up, Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules.

Presto!

Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks. The Great Obama just reminded me it is time for an intermission. Maybe we'll get to that marvel later.

We're back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis.

And with falling tax revenues! Voila!

Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies.

Hocus Pocus!

And for tonight's finale, the Great Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq! While teleported to the region, he will simultaneously convince Iranian leaders to peacefully abandon their nuclear pursuits (even as he does not sit down with them), fix Afghanistan with a strategy that does not resemble the Iraqi surge, and (drumroll!) pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat!

Tada!

You can clap now. (Applause. Cheers.) We'd like to thank a few people in the audience. Namely, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who has so admirably restrained himself from running up on stage to debunk any of these illusions and spoil everyone's fun.

We know he's in a bit of a box, having initially blamed today's financial crisis on corporate "greed," and thus made it that much harder to call for a corporate tax cut, or warn against excessive regulation. Still, there were some pretty big openings up here this evening, and he let them alone! We'd also like to thank Mr. McCain for keeping all the focus on himself these past weeks. It has helped the Great Obama to just get on with the show.

As for that show, we'd love to invite you all back for next week's performance, when the Great Obama will thrill with new, amazing exploits. He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade! He will.

Federal Judge Orders Obama To Produce Birth Certificate!!!

2008-10-09T11:22:00.000-07:00

One of Pennsylvania's most prominent Democrats, attorney Phillip Berg, has sought an injunction in federal court to remove Barack Obama's name from the presidential ballot on the grounds that he is not a natural born United States citizen, and therefore ineligible to become president.

In a recent ruling, the judge not only denied a motion by Obama's attorneys to dismiss the case, but also ordered that Obama immediately produce the following to Mr. Berg so that he may proceed with his pursuit of the injunction:

1.) A certified copy of his ORIGINAL long version birth certificate

2.) A certified copy of his "Certification of Citizenship"

3.) A certified copy of his "Oath of Allegiance"

Ironically, I guess you could say that "what goes around comes around." Obama actually won his first election to the Illinois State Senate by having his two opponents removed from the ballot (including the black female incumbent) on "legal technicalities" regarding the validity of signatures they submitted to get their names on the ballot. However, if it turns out that Berg's allegations are true, we have a blatant constitutional violation, and Obama has attempted to commit a FRAUD upon the American people. You can read the judge's order here:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/0.pdf

Again, it's one of Obama's fellow DEMOCRATS who is bringing this action. Hang on folks, this may be a mighty bumpy ride!!!

Ayers Commends Obama In Book

2008-10-09T10:38:00.000-07:00

Breaking: William Ayers Mentioned Obama in his “A Kind and Just Parent” Book

Ayers had to know Obama at a very close level to mention him in his book along with Muhammad Ali and Louis Farrakhan. The book came out in 1998. It takes about 2-3 years to write and publish a book, so this friendship can be placed going back to at least 1995. The evidence comes straight from William Ayers. Read the page at Google Book

ACORN Told Pizza Boy To Register "10 to 15 Times"

2008-10-09T10:26:00.000-07:00

October 9, 2008

CLEVELAND - Two Ohio voters, including Domino’s pizza worker Christopher Barkley , claimed yesterday that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they’d already signed up.

Barkley estimated he’d registered to vote “10 to 15″ times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others.

Claims such as his have sparked election officials to probe ACORN.

“I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register,” Barkley said. “They’d ask me if I was registered. I’d say yes, and they’d ask me to do it [register] again.

“Some of them were getting paid to collect names. That was their sob story, and I bought it,” he said.

Barkley is one of at least three people who have been subpoenaed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections as part of a wider inquiry into possible voter fraud by ACORN. The group seeks to register low-income voters, who skew overwhelmingly Democratic.

“You can tell them you’re registered as many times as you want - they do not care,” said Lateala Goins, 21, who was subpoenaed.

“They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home, it does not matter,” she told The Post.

She added that she never put down an address on any of the registration forms, just her name.

A third subpoenaed voter, Freddie Johnson, 19, filled out registration cards 72 times over 18 months, officials said.

“It feeds the public perception that there could be [fraud], and that makes the pillars fall down,” said local Board of Elections President Jeff Hastings.

Registering under a fake name is illegal. But officials usually catch multiple registrations and toss them.

No More Welfare For AIG, No More Luxury Spa Retreats!

2008-10-08T15:22:00.000-07:00

I could hardly believe it when I heard earllier today that insurance giant AIG is asking for an additional $37.8 billion dollar "bailout" loan from the federal government. Didn't we just loan AIG a whopping $85 billion a few weeks ago? What happened to that money? As if this isn't bad enough, another story reported today suggests a possible answer. Less than one week after whining and crying to the government about needing this massive financial favor to avoid bankruptcy, the company spent almost half a million dollars to send some of its top executives for a weekend of luxury and pampering at one of Southern California's most expensive resorts (over $20,000 on spa treatments alone).

AIG contends that the reason for this pampering was because they did not want a mass exodus of top executives because this would have made the company's economic recovery even more difficult. Regardless, how horrible does this look to the taxpayers who are footing the bill, many of whom would love even one day of luxury and pampering at the St. Regis, even without getting to spend the night in a thousand dollar a night suite?

Can you say GREED? This is absolutely disgusting, so have the Pepto ready:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1

Thoughts On Debate 2

2008-10-08T14:18:00.001-07:00

To be honest, I was really disappointed. Both candidates seemed to do nothing more than repeat the same "talking points" from the first debate. I don't see how last night's debate would have changed the minds of undecided voters in either direction. McCain needs to "take off the gloves" and start taking Obama more to task on his past activities and associations, and also needs to remind voters that Obama has the former Fannie Mae CEO as one of his top campaign advisors (not a bad way to show his appreciation for the six figure Senate campaign donation he accepted from Fannie).

Obama decries excessive CEO and "golden parachutes" yet his own advisor got a huge such parachute when forced to resign from Fannie Mae amidst questionable accounting practices, specifically overstating profits to procure larger bonuses for the top executives (seems like Enron deja vu). This would have been a PERFECT time for McCain to take Obama to task, yet he failed to do so. However, at least he brought up the Fannie contribution to Obama, but that was about it.

Sarah Palin is fighting hard during these last few weeks of the campaign, and McCain should also if he really is as behind in the polls as the media insists.

Program On Obama's "Friends" In Its Entirety

2008-10-06T11:45:00.000-07:00

This is definitely worth your time to watch if you did not catch it last night. If you can't spare the 45 minutes, I'll post a summary later today of the key points:

PART ONE:

PART TWO:

PART THREE:

PART FOUR:

PART FIVE:

PART SIX:

Great Blog On Obama From the Volokh Folks

2008-10-06T11:28:00.001-07:00

Check Out This Blog (volokh.com)- One Of the Best On the Internet!!!

[David Bernstein, October 4, 2008 at 11:51pm] Trackbacks
What is the Significance of Obama's Ties to Ayers (and Wright?): Here's my take: Obama is an extremely ambitious man. He's been interested in a national political career for many years. It's not that surprising that he wouldn't find Ayers and Wright objectionable company--in the very liberal, Hyde Park/Ivy League circles that he's traveled in since attending Columbia, people with such views are more mainstream than, say, the average conservative evangelical Christian. That itself makes Obama far more liberal than the image his campaign attempts to portray.

But what is interesting to me is that not only did Obama not personally find anything especially obnoxious about Wright's radicalism, anti-Americanism, ties to Farrakahn, and so on, or Ayers' lack of regret for his terrorist past, he apparently didn't expect that much of anyone else would care, either. How else do you explain why he didn't jettison these individuals from his life before they could damage his presidential ambitions? How else do you explain how his campaign seemed to be caught flatfooted when Obama's ties to Wright and then Ayers became campaign issues? And, perhaps most tellingly, how else do you explain that when Obama was asked in a debate with Clinton about his ties to Ayers, he analogized his friendship with Ayers to his friendship with Senator Tom Coburn, as if being friends with a very conservative senatorial colleague is somehow analogous with being friends with an unrepentant extreme leftist domestic terrorist?

In short, Obama's ties to Ayers and Wright suggest to me NOT that Obama agrees with their views, but that he is the product of a particular intellectual culture that finds the likes of Wright and Ayers to be no more objectionable, and likely less so, than the likes of Tom Coburn, or, perhaps, a Rush Limbaugh. Not only that, but he has been in his particular intellectual bubble so long that he was unable to recognize just how offensive the views of a Wright are to mainstream America, or how his ties to Ayers would play with the public, especially post-9/11.

Does that mean that Obama would be a bad president, or an extremist president? No, or at least, not necessarily. One 20th century president--Reagan--had a rather extreme worldview, but he was a good enough politician to govern reasonably close to the center, and have a successful presidency. Obama may have similar skills, though he lacks Reagan's advantage of having been an ideological convert from the other side. But in any event, he is clearly not the mainstream partisan of nonideological change that he is running as, and it at least seems worth pointing that out.

What Team Am I On?

2008-10-05T21:19:00.000-07:00

Here's the answer, as straightforward as possible. Note the e-mail to me (at the bottom of this message) that generated this response. Did this pundit honestly think I would fall for it?

Hello and Thank Your For the Question . . . let me tell you what team I am on:

1.) I am on the team that truly loves America, that has no prior association with America hating domestic terrorists.

2.) I am on the the team that supports our ally Israel and the Jewish people, and refuses to even acknowledge terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah by saying that they have "legitimate grievances."

3.) I am on the team that beleives employees should have a CHOICE as to which union they join or if they want to even join a union in the first place, rather than being forced to join a specific union as a condition of being hired.

4.) I am on the team that believes in providing not just any health care to Americans, but GOOD health care.

5.) I am on the team that understands that banks should not be forced to give mortgages to minorities (or anyone else) who have no creditworthiness or ability to pay their mortgage (look at where our economy is because of that).

6.) I am on the the team that says that as long as Iran is a radical Islamic theocracy, there will be no negotiations or reestablishment of diplomatic ties until the Iranian people stand up and take back their country (just like Eastern Europeans did under communism in the late 1980's).

7.) I am on the team that REALLY supports women's rights, and refuses to believe the stereotype that just because someone is a woman, especially a petitite and attractive woman, that she is automatically a "bimbo" or "airhead" and must be intellectually inferior to an aged and bumbling white man who has a long marriage to the Washington establishment. My team belives that sexist attacks aimed at Sarah Palin are just as disgraceful as sexist attacks aimed at Hillary Clinton.

8.) I am on the team that suports the rights of racial minorites, and remembers that same Senator Joe Biden as the pathetic jerk who, as head of the Senate Judiciary Commmittee in 1992, was determined to do everything possible to keep a black Clarence Thomas off of the U.S. Supreme Court.

9.) I am on the team that realizes that Barack Obama only got into to Ivy League schools because of affirmative action policies, and has absolutely nothing to show for these opportunities that were handed to him on a silver platter, simply because he has the right skin tone.

10.) I am on the team who realizes that unlike Barack Obama, Sarah Palin was not freely given any opportunities, but had to be proactive and find them on her own. As a result, she has accompished more in her "inexperienced" political career than Barack Obama will ever achoeve in his entire life.

11.) Most of all, I am on the team who realizes that John McCain has history of getting things done (I grew up in Arizona so I know this first hand). He walks his talk, and is one of the few politicians, Republican or Democrat, who we can really take at his word. John McCain resembles what America should be, while Barack Obama is the antithesis of what has made America great.

If we elect Obama as our president, we'll get exactly what we ask for. But if that happens, don't come crying to me, because my "team" tried to warn you.

Reagrds,
Casey

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: wheatgrass
Date: Oct 5, 2008 8:16 PM

Educational Background:

Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire ?
.. .. ..

Fannie Fallout: The Human Factor

2008-10-03T17:55:00.000-07:00

Reading this made me absolutely sick to my stomach. Don't think that I can't see right through things. Fannie doesn't all of the sudden "have a heart." They only forgave the loan for self-serving political reasons, not because it was the morally right thing to do.

Fannie Mae forgives loan for woman who shot herself

(CNN) -- Fannie Mae said it will set aside the loan of a woman who shot herself as sheriff's deputies tried to evict her from her foreclosed home.

Fannie Mae foreclosed on the Akron, Ohio, home of Addie Polk, 90, after acquiring the mortgage in 2007.

Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon.

On Friday, Fannie Mae spokesman Brian Faith said the mortgage association had decided to halt action against Polk and sign the property "outright" to her.

"We're going to forgive whatever outstanding balance she had on the loan and give her the house," Faith said. "Given the circumstances, we think it's appropriate."

Residents of Akron have rallied behind Polk, who is being treated at Akron General Medical Center. She was listed in critical condition Friday afternoon, according to Akron City Council President Marco Sommerville.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, mentioned Polk on the House floor Friday during debate over the latest economic rescue proposal.

"This bill does nothing for the Addie Polks of the world," Kucinich said after telling her story. "This bill fails to address the fact that millions of homeowners are facing foreclosure, are facing the loss of their home. This bill will take care of Wall Street, and the market may go up for a few days, but democracy is going downhill."

Neighbor Robert Dillon, 62, used a ladder to enter a second-story bathroom window of Polk's home after he and the deputies heard loud noises inside, Dillon said.

Don't Miss
Revamped bailout bill picks up 17 votes in House
Jackson: Bill should address root cause, not symptoms
iReport.com: Begging for bailout help
The human face of economic uncertainty
"I was calling her name as I went in, and she wasn't responding," he said.

He found her lying on a bed, and he could see she was breathing. He also noticed a long-barreled handgun on the bed, but thought she just had it there for protection. He touched her on the shoulder.

"Then she kind of moved toward me a little and I saw that blood, and I said, 'Oh, no. Miss Polk musta done shot herself,' " Dillon said.

He hurried downstairs and let the deputies in. He said they told him they found Polk's car keys, pocketbook and life insurance policy laid out neatly where they could be found, suggesting that she intended to kill herself.

"There's a lot of people like Miss Polk right now. That's the sad thing about it," said Sommerville, who had met Polk before and rushed to the scene when contacted by police. "They might not be as old as her, some could be as old as her. This is just a major problem." Watch Polk's neighbor describe what he saw »

In 2004, Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent mortgage for $45,620 with a Countrywide Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The same day, she also took out an $11,380 line of credit.

Over the next couple of years, Polk missed payments on the 101-year-old home that she and her late husband purchased in 1970. In 2007, Fannie Mae assumed the mortgage and later filed for foreclosure.

Deputies had tried to serve Polk's eviction notice more than 30 times before Wednesday's incident, Sommerville said. She never came to the door, but the notes the deputies left would always disappear, so they knew she was inside and ambulatory, he said.

The city is creating programs to help people keep their homes, Sommerville said. "But what do you do when there's just so many people out there and the economy is in the shape that it's in?"

Many businesses and individuals have called since Wednesday offering to help Polk, Sommerville said.

"We're going to do an evaluation to see what's best for her," he said. "If she's strong enough and can go home, I think we should work with her to where she goes back home. If not, we need to find another place for her to live where she won't have to worry about this ever again."

For his part, Dillon hopes his neighbor of 38 years can return to her home.

"She loves that house," he said. "I hope they can get her back in. That would make me feel better because I don't know what they're going to put in there once she leaves."

He said the neighborhood is declining because so many people have lost their homes.

"There's a lot of vacant houses around here. ... Now I'm going to have a house on my left and a house on my right, vacant," he said. "That don't make me feel good, because we were good neighbors, we trusted each other, and we looked out for each other.

"This neighborhood is shot, to me, from what it used to be," he added.

"When I moved here, if it were like it is now, I would have never moved here. But it was a nice neighborhood. ...

"I'll just tough it out. I'm too old to start thinking about buying another house."

Sommerville said that by the time people call for help with an impending foreclosure, it's usually too late.

"I'm glad it's not too late for Miss Polk, because she could have taken her life," Sommerville said. "Miss Polk will probably end up on her feet. But I'm not sure if anybody else will."

Why I Support CA Prop. 8 (as well az AZ Prop. 102)

2008-10-03T08:38:00.000-07:00

I was asked ealier this evening to explain why I support these ballot initiatives, and here is my response. Take the time to read carefully and THINK; you might actually learn something . . .

Let me begin by clarifying something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not share the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.

Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to that for many years, and it got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seemed content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.

Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially and financially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, every str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions (and you all know who you are and I thank you dearly BC, GC, MP, SR, TB, and most recently JS), but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.

When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, than they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!

As to why I support Prop. 8, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.

I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.

Furthermore, pushing a gay marriage agenda has always been shown to erode, not enhance. society's support towards gays. Many who otherwise support gay rights, believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough! Personally, if a same sex couple are truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurity about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real, loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition.

Ironically, so many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.

Sooooo . . . I hope I've answered your question. I know this was probably more of a "personal testimonial" than a simple yes or no answer to a ballot measure in my home state. However, it is my personal experiences that have shaped me into who I am today and that finally enabled me to "get a clue" and rejoin the real world with everyone else. I could not be any happier, while "mainstream" gays could not be any more nasty and bitter, just as I once was. I will never digress back in that direction ever again . . . ugh!!!

Regards,
Casey

Did Palin Kick Ass Or What?

2008-10-02T22:28:00.001-07:00

What else can I say?

No matter how many people on CNN's "panel" atempt to say otherwise (especially the fat woman whose name I forget), Sarah Palin clearly won tonight's VP debate. She went up against someone who's been part of the Washington establishment since even before she was even married, and clearly took him to task and succeeded (especially when speaking about the current economic situation).

Joe Biden, on the other hand, proved himself to be the same bumbling fool that he has been during his entire Congressional career. He made crystal clear his belief that the way to solve our current financial crisis is by doing the same things that got us into this crisis in the first place (more excessive regulation, specifically the CRA law passed in 1977, believing that politicians who have not even taken ONE finance class know how to better run banks and thrifts that the banks and thrifts themselves).

And btw, do you know that I still remember that SAME Joe Biden as the irreverent jerk who presided over Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings in 1992, when I was only 13 years old? Every time I hear the name "Joe Biden" I have a flashback to those hearings when I saw the Senator who was absolutely determined, from the get go and even before the Anita Hill fiasco, to keep a brilliant black man off of our nation's high court. Oh wait, aren't the Democrats supposed to be more "sensitive" to minority rights? Oh well . . .

Again, Sarah Palin was absolutely brilliant, and to a blind observer not familiar with her or Biden or their resumes, Sarah Palin would have seemed like the seasoned politician with decades of experience, while Biden would have seemed like the "inexperienced" one who only served as a small town mayor and PTA member. I absolutely love it!

And did any of you catch Palin saying "there you go again" no matter how subtle she was at trying to slip it in? That was Ronald Reagan's classic line from his debates (against Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984) so she has obviously learned some lessons from the best! She also talked about the "city on a hill" and it is about time. I grew up during the Reagan years, and can ohly hope that our country eventually wises up and remembers the great things that happened in the 1980's and how we have gone downhill ever since we strayed away (and our current financial crisis is the culmination of that).

No matter what your political slant, you must admit that tonight, Sarah Palin thrived while Joe Biden floundered. I cannot wait to see Sarah Palin in person when she comes to SoCal on Saturday. She is truly awesome, and will not just make a great 1st female VP, but a great VP who will not be afraid to ruffle some feathers that have needed to be ruffled for quite some time!

AND TO THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK I AM A TRAITOR FOR BEING GAY AND SUPPORTING THE GOP TICKET, BOTH BIDEN AND PALIN MADE EQUALLY CLEAR TONIGHT THAT THEY ARE BOTH OPPOSED TO GAY "MARRIAGE." IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU NEED TO HIT REWIND ON YOUR DVR AND WATCH THE DEBATE AGAIN. THEY BOTH SAID IT WORD FOR WORD THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN." THE ISSUE IS SETTLED SO THROW YOUR PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE SISSY FIT OVER SOMETHING ELSE!!!

And btw, if you live in CA, vote yes on Prop. 8 . . . . believe me, it is best for the gay community and for our state as a whole. If you want to take me to task on that, reply to this e-mail and let me know because I'd be happy to do you the honor =)

EXCELLENT Video on Root Causes of Subprime Meltdown

2008-10-02T17:47:00.001-07:00

Please take ten minutes of your time to watch this video. It is RIGHT on the money, and repeats exactly what I wrote about at length in several of my blogs. So those of you who did not have the time (or desire lol) to read all that I had to say, please watch this because it repeats the EXACT truth, only in a more exciting and appealing video format =)

Obama WAY Too Extreme On Abortion

2008-10-02T11:56:00.000-07:00

This is quite an interesting post I came across earlier. Although I have never cared all that much for Pat Buchanan, everything he brings up is 100% accurate and can be verified, fact checked, etc.

Although I am generally pro-choice (yet at the same time believe that not one DIME of public money should pay for any abortion whatsoever), I agree that the late term, "partial birth" abortion procedure is absolutely grotesque. Unless it is necessary to save the mother's life, I see no infringement on women's rights if the procedure is banned. A preganant woman could have made her "choice" in an earlier trimester of her pregnancy, which would make this nauseating procedure completely unnecessary.

I also have serious problems with Obama's views regarding fetuses that somehow miraculously SURVIVE an abortion procedure. Just as on any other issue, we see that Obama has absolutely no principles or solid conviction, but rather will take whatever position on whatever issue that he thinks will procure more votes for himself. Take the time to carefully read this:

A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Patrick J.

Buchanan

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.

But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary.

"

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure.

"

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women.

"

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death.

"

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor.

Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous.

"

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v.

Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.

"

In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.

Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v.

Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

This Might Convert Me . . .

2008-10-02T09:19:00.000-07:00

How Democrats Caused The Current Economic Crisis

2008-09-29T22:51:00.001-07:00

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can point the finger all they want at Republican economic policy as the cause of our current financial crisis. In reality, however, it is a series of Democrat-sponsored legislation and regulation that has gotten us to this point. While Democrats love to point out that President Bush's approval rating is at an all time low, what they neglect to mention is that Congress's approval rating is even LOWER. Due to the recent antics of both Reid and Pelosi, this should come as no surprise. They want to blame the Republicans for the financial crisis, and they want to blame the Republicans for today's defeat of the taxpayer funded "bailout" plan for distressed corporations whose own fiscal irresponsibility, through no fault of the American taxpayer, sealed their fate.

Furthermore, this entire Fannie-Freddie fiasco can be traced back to Liberal Democrat regulatory policies and "cronyism" with the top executives at both of the mortgage giants. To add insult to injury, today's Democrats want the American taxpayer to foot the bill for their own history of disastrous, quasi-socialist economic regulations and policies. There is simply no denying this fact, and here, in as straightforward a manner as possible, is the precise chain of events that led us to where we are today:

1.) Fannie Mae was established by President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) as part of his New Deal reforms, which in hindsight, did way more long-term harm than good to our nation by drastically increasing government regulation and suffocating the free enterprise system at the very core of the American economic machine. The threat to our economy had reached its climax by 1980, when, due to excessive and constraining government regulation, inflation and mortgage interest rates were at all-time highs. If Ronald Reagan had not been elected to restore laissez-faire economic policies, our economy could have very well collapsed completely.

2.) Fannie Mae's history is a textbook "precursor" to this economic crisis. I'll let Fannie itself do the talking here by citing its own website. Fannie's own words might as well be an "allocution" of its responsibility for where we are now:

"At Fannie Mae, we exist to serve America's housing market. We provide a critical source of liquidity, stability, and affordability to America's housing finance system."

"We raise capital from Wall Street and from investors in the U.S. and across the globe by selling our debt securities and use the proceeds to buy mortgages and finance housing in the United States."

"We also help lenders package the home loans they make into mortgage backed securities, making the loans easier for lenders to sell. These activities expand and replenish the flow of mortgage capital across the nation, making mortgages more affordable and more available."

3.) It gets even worse, as Fannie Mae continues its own self-indictment:

" At first, Fannie Mae, as a government agency, was authorized only to buy Federal Housing Administration (FHA) - insured mortgages, thereby replenishing the supply of lendable money for these government-backed loans."

"In 1968, Fannie Mae became a privately-owned company operating with private capital on a self-sustaining basis. Its role was expanded to buy mortgages beyond FHA-insured mortgages, thereby reaching out to a broader cross-section of Americans."

"In 1992, major legislation was enacted to modernize the regulatory framework applicable to the corporation. Regulatory responsibility was given to a newly-created Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The new law included modernized capital standards and new affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae."

Whew . . . If all of this makes your stomach turn, please take a break because it only gets worse from here.

4.) The first real "nail in the coffin" came in 1977. A Democrat controlled Congress passed one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation in our nation's history, which was subsequently signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. This piece of legislation was called the "Community Reinvestment Act" or CRA. It placed increased pressure on financial institutions to "lend to minority groups who, at the time, represented a disproportionately low percentage of American homeowners."

This pathetic piece of legislation, which increased the already tight regulatory grip our government exerted over our banks and financial institutions, proclaimed that:

"Regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered" and allowed greater regulatory oversight "to encourage (in other words require) such institutions to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they are chartered."

Banks with a low CRA ranking risked denial of applicaions (from regulatory agencies such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve) to lend in new markets, open new deposit facilities, and merge with sister financial institutions. This legislation passed despite staunch opposition from the banking industry, most likely with the expectation that it would remedy the "injustice" of the times.

5.) Under the adminitration of Reagan and Bush the first, this legislation was pretty much forgotten and laid dormant. However, that all changed after Democrat Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency. President Clinton significantly expanded the overall reach of CRA in order to achieve his "multicultural" home ownership goals. In fact, in November 2000, the Clinton HUD agency enacted new government regulations providing over TWO TRILLION dollars in mortgages for "affordable housing" for over 20 million otherwise putridly uncreditworthy families. This was the biggest EVER expansion of housing aid in our nation's history, with President Clinton using Carter's CRA as a precursor.

Clinton seemed to think that all Americans, regardless of their credit worthiness, were somehow "entitled" to own a home, irrespective of the risk that banks assumed by giving exorbitant mortgages, at initially subprime rates, to individuals who no bank in their right mind, prior to CRA, would have even considered for any type of mortgage whatsoever.

6.) Of course, in order to create the impression that a family making less than $50,000 per year somehow qualified for a $500,000 mortgage, a new revolution in the home financing industry was needed. And what was that revolution? You guessed it- SUBPRIME LENDING!!! Of course, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew, deep down, that these mortgages would ultimately default. So what did they do? Remaining true to their original principles (see above), the mortgages were "repackaged" into mortgage backed securities, making the loans easier for lenders to sell. Which financial institution was the biggest buyer of these securities? WASHINGTON MUTUAL!!! As we all know now, WaMu is no more. It was seized by the FDIC last Thursday in the biggest bank failure in our nation's history.

In conclusion, starting from Fannie Mae's inception during the New Deal era, our nation's economy was on a runaway train to failure once "shit hit the fan" as it certainly has at this present moment. The Democrats were more concerned with "social justice" than our nation's economic well-being, and we now see where that has ultimately led us. Nonetheless, prominent congressional Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid still insist, for whatever reason, on pointing the finger at Republicans. However, the facts don't lie. This current financial disaster has occurred due to a series of extreme economic gaffes by Democrat-controlled Congresses and Democrat presidents. Utopian idealism has been forced to concede to economic reality, and as we all know by now, the results sure aren't pretty.

PRAISE GOD ALMIGHTY!!! Proposed taxpayer funded "bailout" fails!

2008-09-29T19:49:00.001-07:00

It now looks as though chances are slim to none that taxpayers will have to foot the bill to clean up the financial mess left in the wake of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Although we are currently in a desperate financial crisis, and something should be done, it is absolutely nonsensical for the taxpayers to take the falll for a disaster that was not even our fault in the first place. Common sense tells us that if we don't learn from the mistakes of history, history is bounf to repeat itself. For Congress to have approved such a plan would have commenced a repeat of FDR's disastrous New Deal legislation (part of which was the creation of Fannie Mae in the first place), which may have provided some temporary help, but ultimately led to decades of massive government regulation and suffocation of the free market and free enterprise system, culminating in a near economic collapse by the end of the 1970's. At that time, inflation and interest rates had skyrocked to record levels, and anyone who was alive during the 1970's cab tell you about the fuel crsis we experienced back then. Had we not elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 to take a hacksaw to all of this government regulation and control, our economy indeed might have completely collapsed. We oughjt to know better by now that bigger government and excessive regulation doesn't solve problems. On the contrary, it exacerbates them. In fact, as I will explain later, it was one instance of such regulation, enacted into law during the Carter administration, and capitalized upon by the Clinton administration, that ultimately led to the mess which we now find ourselves in, and which the Democrats insist will be solved by even MORE regulation (when regulation they supported led to this fiasco in the first place) and by saddling taxpayers with the bill.

Here are some reasons, consistent with fundamental economic principles, that a govenment bailout, no matter how dire the need, is a horrible idea that would, just like New Deal programs, lead to an even more massive crisis:

1.) America was designed to operate as, and should always operate as, a capitalist, FREE MARKET economy. That means than rather than micromanage the markets with excessive regulation, the government needs to "back off" and allow the natural rules of the market to operate. One of these natural rules is that the greater potential for return on an investment, the greater the risk. Individuals and investment banks who were "betting the farm" on these bonds and securities backed by subprime loans should have known the risks they were taking, and that this artificial "mortgage boom" would eventually go bust. Some scrupulous financiers knew of the impending doom, so they passed around these bonds and securites like a "hot potato" by unloading such risky investments, all ythe while making a nice, handsome profit for themselves by doing so. Those who were left holding them when the subprime mortgages started defaulting ended up getting screwed, but that was ultimately their own fault. Just because the "hot potato" gets thrown to you does not mean you need to catch it, or even touch it. In this case, people should have ducked as far down as possible and gotten out of the way. Any investment involves risk, and the greater the potential for profit, the greater the risk. These are simple rules of a free market economy, and our govenment has no business interfering with them. Throughout history, all centrally planned, socialist-leaning economies have failed both completely and miserably. The market needs to be allowed to run itself, and sometimes shit happens, but that will make people and the banks accountable and teach them to invest more wisely and conservatively the next time. On the other hand, when big brother interferes, no one learns their lesson and we're bound to have another crisis before long

I've been investing since I was 19 years old, when my late grandfather gave me a generous financial gift under the condition that I invest at least half of it and take it upon myself to learn how to invest money wisely. I clearly remember one of the last conversations I had with my grandfather less than a year before his death in early 2007. Even with his health deteriorating, he gathered the strength to shake his finger in my face and say, "Casey, don't you DARE invest a cent in anything back by this subprime mortgage stuff. Shit is gonna hit the fan big time, and I only pray the Lord takes me before that happens." Lucky for grandpa, his prayers were answered, and lucky for me, I steered clear of the bad investments he warned me about.

2.) Speaking of accountability, what message does it send that good old Uncle Sam will be there to bail you out when things go sour? In an era of extreme fiscal IRRESPONSIBILTY in Corporate America, corporations will hardly see the need to make sweeping changes in the way they do things if they know they can always depend on the federal governement to save them from an ultimate fate. Shareholders will not put enough pressure on company executives to be more fiscally responsible for this exact same reason.

Why should distressed corporations receive such special treatment? Does the government ever do this for individuals or families? When a family is going broke because dad blew thousands of dollars at the casino, and mom maxxed out the credit cards at the mall, and as a result the kids have no health insurance and are going hungry, does the government ever step in and offer that family a "bailout" ? Of course not. Why should corporations guilty of financial mismanagement on an even GREATER scale be afforded this privilege. We need more fiscal accountability in corporate america, and "Wall Street Welfare" will completely retard this at a time we need it the most.

3.) Furthermore, and perhaps most disturbimg, had this proposed "bailout" packaged passed, it would have given our government a majority ownership interest in what are supposed to be publicly-held companies. Say good-bye to capitalism, say hello to socialism. At first, I thought that there would be nothing wrong with this as long as, once the company was back on track, the government would IMMEDIATELY liquidate its interest in the company and turn complete control back over to provate shareholders where it belongs. However, our federal government for years has been obsessed with the entire "money is power" mentality. If our government pumps all of this money into distressed corporations, the government will say it only makes sense that it gets to run the company and "call the shots." And even when the federal government could liquidate its interests, once it has enjoyed its privilege of running these corporations for so long according its own agenda, do you really think the government will be eager to all or the sudden "cash out" so quickly? Even if they do, is there a guarantee that even a cent of the government's profits will be returned to its own "shareholders," the American taxpayers? Anyone who honestly thinks that would happen is seriously deluded.

The argument has been made, even by President Bush himself, that even though government interference in the markets is not exactly desirable, it is necessary at present as a "last resort" due to the extreme risk that massive corporate failures would pose to our nation's entire economic structure, as well as the economic structure of other capitalist nations that depend on the strength of our markets for their own economic well-being. There is definitely some truth to this argument, which is why several in the GOP have proposed an alternate "bailout" plan that would not cost one cent of taxpayer money.

Rather than a "bailout," this plan would have instead, according to today's edition of Investor's Business Daily, created a government insurance fund for troubled assets. Who would pay the premiums? By golly, it would be the very financial firms that own these assets! The greater the risk of the assets held, the higher the premiums (this is an example of GOOD regulation that would make the firms think twice before deciding which assets to take on). Other highlights of the alternate plan are as follows:

-Corporate tax breaks and EASED regulation (like the Liberals would ever go for either) would have allowed private capital "off the sidelines" and to be drawn into the market by removing the burdensome, Democrat backed regulations and tax obstacles which currently impede the formation of such private capital. There is a MAMMOTH amount of private capital out there in our country and in the world (think Sultan of Brunei, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim, Boone Pickens, Michael Milken, even OPRAH!), and many owners of that capital would be more than willing to provide it to save our economy were it not for so many regulations and obstacles getting in the way. Yet, the Democrats still have the gall to insist that MORE regulation will solve the current crisis?

-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be barred from repackaging "unsound" mortgages as securities. In other words, if Fannie and Freddie choose to back a mortgage, they get stuck with it permanently; no more hot potato!

-The plan also allows much stricter SEC audits of failed companies. Had such a policy been in place, it is very unlikely that Fannie and Freddie, back in 2003, would have been able to overstate company earnings by over TEN BILLION DOLLARS to boost the size of bonuses for their top executives. By the way, aren't former execs from companies like Enron and Worldcom currently sitting in federal prison a similar type of fraud?

At the same time, former Fannie Mae CEO Frank Raines is serving as a top advisor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Perhaps Mr. Raines knows, deep down, that he is "up the creek" and that his only hope of avoiding criminal charges is an Obama victory, followed by an Obama promise (if it hasn't been made already) that as president, his justice department won't pursue criminal charges against him and his other former cronies at Fannie and Freddie. Mr. Raines probably also assumes that the $125,000 Senate campaign contribution that Fannie made to Obama (second highest to any Senate campaign) will grant him automatic immunity.
If true, this is absolute corruption, both at the corporate and political levels, at the grandest of all scales!

Also keep in mind a rather snide comment Raines made to Fannie Mae shareholders in 1999 (who have since lost practically their entire investment after Raines walked away with nearly $100 million when he left Fannie in 2005 before "shit hit the fan") :

"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks."

As today's IBD article further points out, "Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats, and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for 700 billion dollars."

However, since the taxpayer funded "bailout" will likely not become a reality, much to the chagrin of Democrats, we as taxpayers will not be forced by the federal government to clean up this mess that we did not even create.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid can point their fingers at the Republicans all they want for today's events. This is indeed ironic, because if the bailout plan was not doomed to fail already, Pelosi pretty much sealed its fate when she made downright insipid and self-serving partisan comments right before the plan went to vote.

Pelosi and Reid (who actually make President Bush seem competent in comparison with their antics as of late) also conveniently forget that it was Liberal Democrat-sponsored legislation and regulations that practically provided Fannie and Freddie with a "free pass" and paved the way for this economic crisis.

More on that in the next blog . . . In the meantime, I think I'll buy an expensive bottle of wine to celebrate, now that I know I won't need to fork over the money to cover our nation's economic losses =)

Cheers,
Casey

Obama and Hispanics/Latinos: THE TRUTH

2008-09-27T19:38:00.001-07:00

Debate Recap In a "Nutshell"

2008-09-27T19:02:00.001-07:00

Here Are Some Of The Most Important Concerns After Last Night's Presidential Debate, Most Of Which I Spoke About At Greater Length In My Prior Video Blog:

1.) Barack Obama said that he wrote a letter of "concern" to the Treasury Secretary about the impending subprime lending meltdown. What Mr. Obama failed to mention is that he accepted a $125,000 donation from Fannie Mae to his Senate Campaign. This was the second largest donation made by the secondary mortgage behemoth (behind Senator Dodd of Connecticut). In fact, several Democrats in both the House and Senate received campaign contributions from Fannie in exchange for keeping the regulators away, ensuring that both Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would receive special treatment in order to pad their profits from the artificial "mortgage boom" that resulted from subprime lending. As we all now know, that boom is now a bust, and we as the taxpayers may very well have to foot the bill.

2.) John McCain, at least THREE times, confronted Obama about over $900 million in "earmark funding" requests that Obama has made as a Senator, while also pointing out that Obama only withdrew these requests after he decided to run for president. Obama completely dodged the issue, at one time even attempting to change the subject to the special tax breaks he thinks McCain will give to the "rich." Obama never addressed the earmark issue.

3.) Barack Obama is proposing over $800 million dollars of federal government spending in NEW programs, while still claiming to be able to give the majority of us a tax cut. He has yet to withdraw this proposal, despite the fact that the federal "bailout" package, if approved, is expected to cost at least $700 BILLION. In the midst of continued wasteful spending by the government, and particularly in light of the current economic crisis, Obama had the audacity to claim that certain areas of the budget are still "underfunded." While John McCain insisted on a need for a spending freeze, Obama only spoke of actually INCREASING government spending.

4.) Obama still shows very little, if any, understanding of the threat posed by Iran to the safety and security of the entire free world. He said that he will sit down and talk with ANYONE if it would help our "national security" and did not even rule out a face to face meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinjad himself. This is absolutely ridiculous, because as long as Iran is governed by a radical, terrorist sponsoring, Islamic theocracy, attempting any type of diplomacy will be an exercise in futility, and will not be in the interests of our national security at all. Iran will actually feel emboldened if we have a president that their govenment is able to manipulate and lie to, making promises and then breaking those promises once we turn our backs. This is all that rogue states such as Iran (and others, muslim or not) have done in the past.
Why does Obama think Iran will act any differently this time around?

SUMMARY: While Barack Obama was very poised and articulate in his delivery (moreso than McCain I'll admit), he still shows very little understanding of the "big picture" when it comes to both Middle East issues, as well as our own nation's current financial crisis. He seems more interested in saying the right things in the "here and now" just to get himself elected, showing little willingness (if any) to make the tough decisions that are in the best interests of the American people and our allies abroad. It will take a lot more than charisma and good public speaking skills to effectively respond to such crucial issues. That is something that, unfortunately, Barack Obama does not understand.

VIDEO BLOG: Analysis Of First McCain/Obama Debate

2008-09-27T18:06:00.001-07:00

No "Appeasement" For Evil Iran!

2008-09-26T00:43:00.000-07:00

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/54879.html

Are you listening, Barack? This goes for Hamas as well, even though they gave you such a glowing endorsement!

BRING BACK MICHAEL MILKEN!

2008-09-25T23:38:00.001-07:00

In light of my last two posts on the subprime mortgage meltdown and the resulting fall out, let me say this:

If there were ever a time for legendary financier Michael Milken to be granted a full presidential pardon (which is now approaching 20 years overdue) and have his "lifetime" SEC ban lifted, that time is now.

Mike Milken revolutionized the financial world throughout the 1980's by using high-yield securities (which many banks had dismissed as "junk bonds") in order to provide high amounts of capital to entrepreneurs and companies that they otherwise never would have dreamed of being able to procure.

Since there's bound to be a lot of "junk" out there in the wake of the Fannie-Freddie fiasco, perhaps Milken is the only man in America who could figure out a way to use it in order to save the taxpayers from having to foot the bill for a massive government "bailout."

You can read about the legend himself (as well as all those ugly myths about him):

http://www.mikemilken.com

Casey

Liberal "Capitalist Cronyism" and Housing Affirmative Action = SUBPRIME MELTDOWN

2008-09-25T22:54:00.001-07:00

So now I shall continue from where I left off in my last blog. At about seven this morning, I followed my usual routine of walking into the gym with protein shake in one hand and today's copy of Investor's Business Daily in the other. The front page article in today's IBD, as well as a subsequent editorial, trace the steps, in very logical and sequential order, that ultimately led to the subprime mortgage lending meltdown that caused the current financial disaster in which our nation now finds itself.

Since the current situation on Wall Street can indeed be labeled a DISASTER (worthy in the eyes of our own treasury department of a $700 billion bailout), I'm reminded of the words announced during the opening credits of every episode of "Seconds From Disaster" on the National Geograhic channel:

"Disasters don't just happen . . . they're a chain of critical events. Unravel the clues, and count down those final . . . Seconds To Disaster."

The first "clue" to what caused the financial disaster in which we now find ourselves is found on the Fannie Mae website itself in the company's introduction booklet:

"At Fannie Mae, we exist to serve America's housing market. We procide a critical source of liquidity, stability (not anymore lol), and affordability to America's housing system . . . We provide our lenders the support and resources they need to run their business and make mortgage loans. We raise capital from Wall Street and from investors in the U.S. around th globe by selling our debt securities (uh-oh) and use the proceeds to buy mortgages and to finance housing in the United States. We also help lenders package the home loans they make into mortgage-backed securities, making the loans easier fr lenders to sell (s t starting to make sense). These activities expand and replenish the flow of mortgage capital across the nation, making mortgages more affordable and more available."

*Let's stop right here for a minute. All of this is a great idea and wlll work the way it is supposed to, ASSUMING THE MORTGAGES DON'T DEFAULT! Once the defaults start, take cover!!!

Now, onto Fannie's history:

"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 at the request of President Franklin Roosevelt. At the time, millions of Americans could not become homeowners, or risked losing their homes, for lack of a consiten supply of mortgage fnds throghout the United States. At first, Fannie Mae, as a government agency, was authorized to only buy Federal Housing Administration (FHA)- insured mortgages, thereby replenishing the supply of lendable money for these government-backed loans.
In 1968 (and here's where the problem REALLY starts), Fannie Mae became a privately-owned company operatng with private capital on a self-sustaining basis. Its role was expanded to buy mortgages beyond FHA-insured mortgages, thereby reaching out to a broader cross section of Americans."

*Despite the fact that Fannie became "privately-owned" in 1968, in order raise private capital from investors to enable it to operate, shares of the company had to be offered and traded on Wall Street. And what do investors always want? PROFIT! The more Fannie backed mortgages, the more profit for the company, the higher return to shareholders. Again, the engine of this machine will continue running smoothly AS LONG AS THE MORTGAGES DON'T DEFAULT.

Now here's where things REALLY start to fall into place for a turn for the worst:

"In 1992, major legisation was enacted to modernize (nice way of putting it) to modernize the regulatory framework applicable to the corporation. Regulatory responsibility was given to a newly created Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within the office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The new law included modernized capital standards and new affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae."

Unfortunately, in order to meet those "goals," Fannie eventually had to start backing mortgages to people who normally wouldn't even come CLOSE to qualifying. How was this accomplished? You got it- Subprime Lending!

Fannie Mae leaves out another very significant event in its history. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, in one of his many brilliant economic moves, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), placing increaed pressure on Fannie and Freddie to lend to minority groups who, at the time, represented a disproportionately low percentage of American homeowners. This legislation, in its own words proclaimed that:

"Regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered" and allowed greater regulatory oversight "to encourage (in other words require) such institutions to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such instiutions."

Banks with a low CRA ranking risked denial of applicaions to lend in new markets, open new deposit facilities, and merge with sister financial institutions, by the federal regulators such as the Federal Reserve Board. As you can imagine, the banking industry absolutely balked at this legislation from the moment it was introduced, fearing that this further tightrning of the regulatory "noose" would end up forcing financal institutions to do things that might threatenen their very livelhood and existence. Despite these protests, the act passed nonetheless, most likely with the expectation that it would remedy the "injustice" of the times. After all, wasn't the banks' protection ensured by the "safe and sound operation" provision found in the act? Perhaps in theory,

However, the IBD article states that in practice, this was hardly the case, starting from when the law was first implemented:

"The CRA forced banks and instiutions- then, far more heavily regulated than they are today- to make loans to poor, often uncreditworthy minority borrowers . . . Regulators didn't need to do much policing; they let that job fall to radical community groups . . . The commuity groups booked thousands of dollars in fees for every loan. And loans often required recipents to become active in radical causes- what's today called community organizing." Hmmmmm . . . sound familiar?

IBD proceeds to explain that during Bill Clinton's presidency, Fannie and Freddie began "buying up bad loans from banks, and securtizing them for sale on world markets. The seeds of the subprime meltdown were planted."

Furthermore, the CRA's "safe and sound" provision was further thrown own the window during the Clinton years. In the name of President Clinton's utopian and politically correct housing policies, he strengthened the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie gained even more leverage, effectively becoming "a government-run, privately owned home finance monopoly."

Of course, no good deed ever goes unrewarded. Fannie and Freddie demonstated their gratitude by providing generous campaign donations to Democrats in Congress who would protect them from much needed reforms that, if implemented, could have at least minimized the fallout we are now witnessing. Earlier this week, a bloomberg economist wrote, "We now know that many of the senators wo protected Fannie and Freddie, including BARRACK OBAMA, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd, received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years." This sounds to me like a modern day "Keating Five" scandal.

(As I mentioned in my prior post, Obama was second only to Senator Dodd, who heads the Senate Banking panel, in the amount of campaign contributions received from the two mortgage behemoths).

Tucked into the back pages of today's IBD was an editoral by Fred L. Smith, Jr., president of Competitive Enterprise Institute. He experienced first-hand the sheer futility of attempting to take on this "capitalist cronyism" when he testified in 2000 before the House Financial Services Committee. Smith recalls warning the committee that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers, and to the economy . . . the rapid growth of their debt portfolios and the new risks Fanie and Freddie are taking on . . . will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default."

However, Smith's warnings fell on deaf ears, and were even ridiculed by some. One committee member, Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski, dismissed his arguments as "almost fallacious." Another, New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney, didn't seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation because Fannie and Freddie, at that time had not yet needed to tap into their $2 billion credit line from the Treasury Department. As it stands now however, the department is now proposing to cough up over 300 times that amount (thus far) in an emergency "bailout." The situation has become so dire that I doubt Mr. Smith is in any mood to celebrate and jeer "told you so, told you so."

The precise problem with "crony capitalism" is that it is really not capitalism at all. In a genuine capitalist, free-market economy, the government allows the market to operate without excessive regulatory interference, and the natural rules of the market to dictate how things are done. In such an economy, people are taken seriously when they assert, as Mr. Smith attempted to, that tight government controls are suffocating the market's attempts to operate naturally. I guarantee you that were th houing market been allowed to operate in such a manner, there is no way on earth that $500,000 mortgages would have been reflexively doled out to families earning less than $50,000 per year.

A 1999 article in the New York Times reveals for us the root causes of the Fannie-Freddie fiasco (and thank you, Jared, for unearthing this article) :

"Fannie Mae, th nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

I just wonder how all of those stockholders feel now after losing all the money they invested in the artificially inflated "mortgage boom" when it finally went bust.

In the same New York Times article, then-Fannie CEO Franklin Raines proudly proclaimed, "Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's." When Raines left his post in 2005, he reportedly had taken in nearly $100 million for himself. I wonder how the stockholders feel about that.

And whatever happened to Mr. Raines himself, you ask? He's currently an advisor to the presidential campaign of- you guessed it- Barack Obama.

Obama's "Backscratches" From Fannie and Freddie

2008-09-25T17:55:00.000-07:00

As all of you have no doubt heard, the "ripple effect" from the subprime mortgage crisis has sent our nation into financial turmoil. The turmoil extends well beyond the victims of predatory lending (many of whom are poor and/or minority) who lost their homes to foreclosure once it became apparent that they were given mortgages they couldn't afford. On a much grander scale, though, countless bonds and securities had been issued that were "guaranteed" by these subprime mortgages. As long as these mortgages didn't default, everything would be just fine.

You don't need to be a financial wizard to know that attempting to issue bonds and securities without something to "guarantee" them is a futile waste of time. In this case, the problem was that the "guarantee" was guaranteed to fail. Nonetheless, we have seen once again that the love of the almighty dollar, along with the insatiable desire for instant gratification, often inhibits otherwise reasonable people from thinking in a sensible and forward-looking manner.

Once "shit hit the fan" and monthly payments on these mortgages began slyrocketing when the subprime period ended, mounds and mounds of them began to default. The "guarantee" was no longer, and you know the rest of the sad story. All of these bonds and securities became virtually worthless, and the Treasury is now proposing a nearly $700 billion emergency "bailout" This is an absolutely HORRIBLE proposal that has no place in a free market economy, but I'll go more into that in another blog.

So now, of course, the finger pointing has commenced. Barack Obama, as you'd expect, blames "Bush-McCain" economic policies as the cause of this crisis. He's once again attempting to dupe Americans into believing that the two are "joined at the hip." I find it quite odd, however, that Obama fails to articulate precisely which of these policies he thinks got us into this mess. Typical Obama- lots of grandstanding, but nothing to back it up.

Perhaps this is because deep down, Barack Obama knows that it is Democrats such as himself who were the catalysts for this disaster, as they consistently thwarted any efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two "giants" of the secondary mortgage market. These Democrats, including Obama, quickly downplayed prophecies of "impending doom" when warned numerous times that millions of Americans were being generously bequeathed with mortgages they couldn't afford.

Why would someone like Obama want to "bulldoze" such desperately needed reforms of Fannie and Freddie? Well, perhaps one reason why is because Obama received over $125,000 in donations for his Senate campaign from them. In fact, only Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator from Connecticut and head of the senate baking committee, received more in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Furthermore, two former CEOs of these companies are advisors to Obama's presidential campaign.

Renowned socialist financier George Soros has dubbed our current financial disaster as a "crisis of capitalism" due to a lack of strict government regulation of the markets (well of course, being a socialist, he'd blame just about any problem on this). However, perhaps Mr. Soros is correct, only the blame properly rests with a different type of capitalism than he's thinking of. Perhaps it's the "crony capitalism" within the Democratic party, which led prominent Democrats in our Congress to impede any credible attempts to fix both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So how in the world did we get to this point? Stay tuned for my next blog . . .

Boy Suspended From School For Anti-Obama Shirt

2008-09-25T14:29:00.001-07:00

Don't we still have a First Amendment?

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-suspended-over-anti-obama-shirt/185646?icid=100214839x1210042140x1200621296

Someone tell me how the shirt was "disruptive to the educational environment." Most likely, it simply offended a bunch of shameful and incompetent pro-union public school teachers (I used to work alongside these types).

I'm sorry, but the law requires a much more compelling interest in order to outweigh a student's constitutional rights. The boy's father says he plans to sue, and I say "go for it." This is the exact case I'd love to take on once I get my law degree.

OBAMA AND AYERS: From TalkStraight.org

2008-09-24T15:48:00.001-07:00

Obama and Ayers: Radical, Political Brothers
This was written by Glenn Chappell and the TalkStraight.org Staff contributing
___________________________________________

Barack Obama has a big secret. He has major ties to William Ayers.

Over the course of seven years, Ayers found his way into nearly every facet of Obama’s political and personal career. Yet, today, Obama doesn’t talk about it, the media doesn’t care about it, and most Americans don’t know about it.

Unfortunately for The Celebrity, the facts still remain.

To understand Bill Ayers is to understand the influences that shaped Obama’s early political career. The radicals and demagogues representing the Chicago establishment would make most Americans cringe. Yet, those very people constituted the voices and ideals that formed Obama’s own political education. The politics of the Chicago political establishment are a far cry from the politics of hope and change. Yet, as his associations with Ayers and other Chicago radicals show, Obama was a quick study in the ways of machine politics.

There is no better example of Obama’s political influences than Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Therefore, a brief review of the facts concerning the Obama-Ayers relationship is in order.

The Life of William Ayers

William Ayers is currently a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. [1] However, Ayers earned his place in history many years before he began his current job. During the Vietnam War, Ayers first became involved with a radical anti-war group known as the Students for a Democratic Society. During his involvement with this extremist faction, Ayers quickly became a leader among its ranks. Using his newfound power, he began to mobilize the SDS into a force for violent protest. [2]

In 1969, Ayers left the mostly-pacifist SDS to join the newly founded Weather Underground Organization. During the SDS convention of that year, Ayers was one of 11 SDS members to sign on to the foundation of the Weather Underground. This group was founded on the principle of immediate and total revolution against the government of the United States. [3] The Weather Underground, of which Ayers was a vital member, launched their first assault on October 8, 1969, in Ayers’ hometown. This event, entitled ‘Days of Rage,’ was a staged riot organized by Ayers and other Weathermen.

To begin their demonstration, the Weathermen detonated a bomb that destroyed a statue dedicated to fallen police officers. By placing the bomb between the statue’s legs, they ensured its destruction and caused pieces of the statue to be hurled in all directions. The blast blew out 100 windows and sent pieces of metal onto a nearby freeway. Not content to rest on their laurels, the Weathermen would again destory the rebuilt statue less then one year later. [3]

The ‘Days of Rage’ riot continued into that evening, with Weathermen ransacking countless buildings and assaulting dozens of police. Authorities were forced to eventually use tear gas and other weaponry to break up the demonstration. Following this event, the Weather Underground decided to ratchet up their radical attacks. They declared a ’state of war’ on the United States government, and planned another bombing on an Army officer’s club in New Jersey. Although the plot was foiled, the Weathermen made their intentions very clear. According to Brian Flanagan (one of Ayers’ close personal friends and fellow Weatherman leader), the plot was intended to be “the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory.” [4]

On February 16, 1970, Bill Ayers was directly involved in the detonation of a bomb that killed one San Francisco police officer and critically wounded another. According to an FBI informant within the Weather Underground organization, Ayers knew the precise location and contents of the fatal bomb, which was constructed of staples and lead bullets as shrapnel. According to the secret agent, Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, actually constructed and detonated the bomb. The agent testified that Ayers’ was either present at the bombing or had at least helped in the planning of the attack, due to his extensive knowledge and familiarity with the specifics of the plot. [5] In fact, David Freddoso argued this year that Ayers only escaped prosecution as a result of FBI management of the case. [6]

Ayers did not end his Weather Underground career with his involvement in this horrific murder. As a member of the organization’s Central Committee, Ayers helped oversee a bombing in New York City at the home of a state Supreme Court Justice. This bombing was launched in response to the judge’s presiding over the trial of several Black Panther members accused of planning multiple bombings of New York City public landmarks. At the site of the bomb, Weathermen painted an ominous phrase on the judge’s home: “FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.” Ayers also helped in planning several other bombings in New York, including an attack on a military recruiting facility and two police cars. [7]

A few months later, Ayers’ current girlfriend, along with two other Weather Underground members, were killed while constructing a massive bomb in New York. [8] This rose the Weathermen’s body count to four dead and one seriously wounded. However, the Weathermen did not stop after the death of their comrades.

They destroyed another police station in June 1970. [2] This attack served as a warm-up act for their greatest catastrophe. After two years of planning, the Weathermen (with Ayers heavily involved in the planning details) celebrated Communist leader Ho Chi Minh’s birthday by detonating a huge bomb in the ladies’ bathroom on the first floor of the Pentagon. This attack caused burn damage and flooding, and resulted in the destruction of sensitive equipment and a multitude of classified files. Following this direct assault on their command center, the United States government placed the Weather Underground Organization on their Top Ten Terrorist Organizations list. [9]

Following this brutal attack, the organization began to lose the last of its remaining members, and Ayers and Dorhn went into hiding. They would turn themselves in in 1980, but were never convicted of any crimes, despite the fact that their joint involvement resulted in the death of a police officer. [10]

Ayers: 30 Years Later

After several books, documentaries and commentaries on the Weather Underground, some might think that Ayers would have time to reconsider his actions during these turbulent times. While many former Weathermen have issued public apologies and expressed regret for their actions, Ayers remains defiant to this day. In his famed September 11, 2001 New York Times article, Ayers told his interviewer the following:

I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough…I don’t want to discount the possibility [of doing it again].” [11]

Ayers further explained his lack of regret on his own personal blog in 2006:

“I can’t think of a single action I took against the government and its murderous assault in Southeast Asia that I regret. Perhaps you can point to something in particular that you think I should regret, and then apologize for.” [12]

Ayers’ extremism is not confined to his days as a Weatherman. In 2006, he attended an education forum in Venezuela, in the presence of Hugo Chavez. He seemed to think rather highly of Mr. Chavez’s administration, and praised him directly during his speech:

“This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez.”

He concluded his oration by lavishing praise on the “beacon of the world” in a forceful manner:
“Viva Mission Sucre!
Viva Presidente Chavez!
Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana!
Hasta la Victoria Siempre!” [13]

In contrast, he has accused President Bush and John McCain of committing war crimes. He again shares his views concerning McCain on his own personal website: “the President and his Cabinet…and the reactionary front runner for the Republican presidential nomination…committed war crimes that they’ve refused to account for.” [13]

It appears that Ayers’ belief in President Chavez is much stronger than that of John McCain.

Of course, everyone knows what Ayers was doing while McCain sat in a prison cell in Hanoi. It is safe to say that the two shared radically different views of patriotism in America.
In summary, Bill Ayers’ life has been a narrative of violent, radical, extremist, socialist activism.

Ayers and Obama
After learning of Bill Ayers’ radical history, one might question Ayers’ relevance to the 2008 presidential campaign.

The answer is frightening.

Ayers has deep-seated and longstanding ties to the political and career aspirations of Barack Obama. While the mainstream media have refused to cover this major influence upon Obama’s politics, the facts are undeniable. Hugh Hewitt, a long time journalist and blogger, summed up this unsettling connection of Obama’s quite succintly:

”It is incredible that MSM has not covered or investigated this story or the related stories of Obama’s deep and long associations with Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. Never has so little been written about so large a series of stories about a modern presidential candidate.” [14]

No one knows exactly when or how Obama met Ayers. However, records show that Ayers had a prominent role in Obama’s political career from the beginning. He was most likely introduced to Ayers and Dohrn during the early days of his 1995 campaign for Illinois state Senate. Alice Palmer, the incumbent senator, had announced that she would not be seeking re-election to her seat, and endorsed Obama as her successor. It was shortly thereafter that Obama’s carefully concealed relationship with Ayers began.

In late 1995, Palmer introduced Obama to her most liberal supporters during a fundraiser at the home of Ayers and Dohrn. It is clear from eyewitness testimony that the former Weathermen were already enthusiastic about this new face in the Chicago political scene. Maria Warren, a fellow Chicago liberal, was among those attending this meeting and summed it up in 2005:

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.” [11]

There are many serious questions that remain about these early connections between Obama and the Weathermen. Why were Ayers and Dorhn so enthusiastic about Obama’s candidacy? How long had they known Obama before this meeting? Why did Obama choose to begin his candidacy at their home? The answers can be found in Obama’s only executive experience to date: as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

In 1995, shortly before Obama’s entrance into politics, Ayers apparently handpicked Obama to lead a foundation he founded, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Challenge (known as the CAC), was created to provide grants to educational initiatives and community organizers. No one-save Ayers and Obama himself-knows why Ayers and the executive board selected Obama for this paid directorial position, or how long the two knew each other prior to Obama’s appointment.

At that time, Obama was an unproven, unknown, and inexperienced individual with no apparent qualifications to lead a major education initiative. While Obama’s campaign has denied Ayers’ influence in the CAC, Stanley Kurtz has shown that Ayers, as the foundation’s organizer, was in fact the most powerful member of the CAC’s executive board. [15]

Under Obama’s leadership, the CAC routinely and consistently funded those initiatives that were personally selected or led by Ayers. This resulted in multiple conflict-of-interest complaints against the CAC, due to Ayers’ influence within the organization. According to Kurtz, the CAC reflected Ayers’ views that children should be educated through the lens of political activism, and funded numerous extremist organizations dedicated to the furtherance of these viewpoints. He described CAC’s funding as follows:

“In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression…CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).” [16]

According to the CAC’s organizational charter, Obama, as the organization’s president, worked closely with Ayers, who served as Director of Education. During their partnership, the CAC trafficked more than $100 million to various educational associations, many of which were favored by Ayers and Dorhn. Even after Ayers chose to reduce his own role within the CAC, Obama continued to chair the foundation through 1999. While the CAC would expand its funding to other organizations, many of Ayers’ pet projects received funding throughout Obama’s tenure as president of the Challenge. [15]

Some might be tempted to praise Obama’s leadership in heading up such a lucrative educational foundation. However, further review of his tenure shows that the CAC failed miserably to achieve its own goals. CAC-funded schools did not see any serious improvement in test scores, graduation rates, or other demonstrable metrics. In short, Obama’s only executive experience resulted in a multi-million dollar failure. [17]

Obama’s ties to Ayers did not end with their cooperation on the CAC. Obama and Ayers were both chosen to sit on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. They served together for two years, while Obama spent a total of nine years on the board (Ayers is still a board member). It is important to note that the Woods Fund donated money to Trinity United Church-Obama’s and Reverend Wright’s home church-and ACORN during Obama’s membership. [18]

In addition to their service together on the Woods board, Obama and Ayers reunited periodically over the next several years, attending two education seminars together (in 1997 and 2002). [19] In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s state senate campaign. [20]

Obama’s Response
While Obama and Ayers spent more than seven years together in various capacities, Obama predictably denied his association with Ayers. At first, he downplayed Ayers’ terrorist activities, even calling him “mainstream” on his campaign website. [21] When this did not work, he simply denied the seriousness of his connections to Ayers. During a democratic debate last year, he made the following statement in regard to this Ayers association:

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.” [19]

This excuse by Obama blatantly ignores his repeated collaborations with Ayers, and fails to explain why Ayers selected him to lead the organization he founded. It is important to note that Obama made this statement many months ago, prior to new discoveries which have only served to magnify his longstanding partnership with this terrorist. Today, he simply refuses to talk about his old friend.

Despite all of the information available concerning Obama’s ties to Ayers, one mystery that remains is the unflagging loyalty Ayers has shown to Obama’s political career. It is of consequence to note that Ayers, on his blog, repeatedly and harshly criticizes the Democratic Party. He calls them “cowardly” and labels them as “one of the two major pro-Imperialist parties in the U.S.” [22] The first question one might consider immediately is why Ayers is such an adamant supporter of Obama, especially given his disagreement with Obama’s own party. Only a few people know the answer to this question. Ayers and Obama are among them. But they are not talking.

During his nomination acceptance speech, Obama criticized John McCain for making patriotism the centerpiece of his campaign. He told McCain that “we all put country first.” Yet, in 2001, Obama’s friend posed for a photoshoot standing proudly on top of a crumpled American flag. Ironically, the article accompanying these pictures ran the week before the September 11 attacks.

That same week, Ayers responsed to a question about America being a fair and just country. On the notion that America is a great nation, Ayers responded by saying that the very idea “makes me want to puke.” [23] Bill Ayers was one of Barack Obama’s closest political allies in Chicago. Obama only denounced Ayers after being confronted with his friendship during his presidential campaign. That’s not putting country first. That’s putting Barack first.

Just like Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, Michael Pfleger, and other radicals, Obama’s link to Ayers shows that his closest political associations represent a violent radicalism far beyond mainstream American values. Ayers even describes himself as “a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist.” [24]

While Obama campaigns as a great uniter and a transformational, post-political visionary, his own record shows that his political views were formed by an astounding array of extremist hatemongers. Obama’s associations show repeated and inseparable links to the corrupt, scandal-ridden, racially-driven politics of division. He wasn’t ready to lead the Annenberg Challenge, and he’s not ready to lead the United States. In short, the politics of Barack Obama is change we cannot afford.

Sources:
[1] http://billayers.wordpress.com/biography-history/
[2] Bill Ayers. Fugitive Days: A Memoir
[3] Avrich. The Haymarket Tragedy, p. 431.
[4] http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/21/ex_weather_underground_member_kathy_boudin
[5] Grathwohl, Larry, “as told to Frank Reagan”, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen, Arlington House Publishers, New Rochelle, New York, 1976 pp 168, 169, ISBN 0870003350
[6] http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ODVlZTZlM2M5NTMxMzllMjJkODVkNzQ3YTFjMTY0NzE=
[7] Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family. City Journal April 30, 2008
[8] http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E14FF3C5A157493C5A91788D85F448785F9
[9] Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997.
[10] Terry, Don (Chicago Tribune staff reporter, “The calm after the storm”, Chicago Tribune Magazine, p 10, September 16, 2001, June 8, 2008.
[11] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
[12] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/09/
[13] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/
[14] http://townhall.com/blog/g/bca4e228-1411-45da-a8ec-8820cc8b305e
[15] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTViMGRmMmYxZTgwZTFjYmFjODU5YzM4Y2MwM2ViMjY=&w=MA==
[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
[17] http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ0MDBmMjQwZmYxYzhlZjc3ZGFkZjlkOWJlMTk2MWE=
18. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obama_and_the_woods_fund_of_ch.html
19. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/18/nation/na-radicals18
20. http://www.nysun.com/national/leftist-with-obama-ties-speaks-at-suny/71716
21. http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/17/fact_check_on_clinton_attacks.php
22. http://billayers.wordpress.com/2007/05/
23. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=267
24. Chepesiuk, Ron, “Sixties Radicals, Then and Now: Candid Conversations With Those Who Shaped the Era”, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers: Jefferson, North Carolina, 1995, “Chapter 5: Bill Ayers: Radical Educator”, p. 102

SEE, I'm Not The Only One!!!

2008-09-22T21:45:00.000-07:00

*Here's a recent blog posting from another young gay man who lives out in Oklahoma (he's pretty HOT too). I swear we'd be soulmates if we didn't live so far apart . . .

Why would any GLBT be a Conservative Republican? It sounds like an oxymoron. Let me tell you why I am. It is not because I'm embarrassed to be gay or that I’m in the closet. I'm proud to be gay. I am secure to be the unique individual that God created me. I am Republican because of my core principles, principles that I cannot compromise on.

I believe that all are created equal and worthy of the same rights to freedom, liberty, and equality. I work hard within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. My commitment comes from my firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, low taxes, free market capitalism and a strong national defense. I believe that entitlement programs are best administered by private charities. I believe that Federal beuracracy is inefficient and ineffective. I believe that it creates generations of “entitlement”. Americans are not supposed to look Uncle Sam for a fix to their problems. We have to look within ourselves, only we are responsible for our own development. Politics should be the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals. I believe that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.

I also believe all Americans have the right to life, liberty and equality. I believe equality for gay and lesbian people is consistent with the tradition of the Republican Party. Inclusion does win. I firmly believe that opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP's core principles of smaller government, personal freedom and individual choice and responsibility.

I am a loyal Republicans working for change from within the party. I work to secure full equality for gays, lesbians and all Americans. I believe it will create a stronger, larger, and more unified GOP, leading to the election of more fair-minded Republican candidates to public office at all levels of government. I am working to reclaim the GOP from the grasp of the Christian Coalition. While I believe everyone should have seat at the table (the Christian Coalition included) I don't believe that they should be able to dictate party policy to the exclusion of all others.

So this is who I am and this is what I believe. I am a gay Republican and a pariah in the gay community. I believe that Conservatism transcends gender, race, sexual orientation and other inherent, unchangeable qualities in any person who subscribes to those values. I am proof of that statement. I believe that conservative principles trump any party affiliation. However, I believe that Republicans offer the best hope of securing the vision of our forefathers and the future of our nation. It is up to people like myself to challenge the GOP to do what is in the best interests of this country in furthering the conservative cause while simultaneously opening up to those of us who are the new generation of the grassroots conservatives.

More On Bill Clinton's Views About Sarah Palin

2008-09-22T20:02:00.001-07:00

*Be sure to read this one all the way to the end, and catch the subtle "jab" he takes at the Obama campaign, specifically VP candidiate Joe Biden.

Bill Clinton says Dems shouldn't attack Palin
Posted: 10:36 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Bill Clinton said Dems shouldn't attack Palin.
(CNN) — Bill Clinton said Monday the Democratic ticket should steer clear of launching personal attacks on Sarah Palin over her relatively thin resume, and instead acknowledge she was a "good choice" for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket.

"Why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?" said Clinton, who faced repeated charges during the primary season he was overly negative toward Obama on the campaign trail.

Clinton's comments appear to echo advice Karl Rove gave to Barack Obama in his regular Wall Street Journal column last week, when the former Bush strategist noted attacking the VP candidate has rarely proven to be an effective strategy.

In one of the former president's few extended comments to date on Palin's surprise VP candidacy, Clinton also told reporters in New York Monday he knows why the Alaska governor is attracting massive crowds on the campaign trail.

"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton told reporters in New York, according to the Associated Press. "Why she's doing well."

"People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married,'" he said.

Referencing Palin's 5-month old child who has Down Syndrome, Clinton also said voters will think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid — one of them lives down the street, they're wonderful children.”

Earlier Monday, Clinton suggested his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, would have been a better political choice for the Democratic VP spot than Joe Biden.

“She would have been the best politically, at least in the short run, because of her enormous support of the country,“ he said on the daytime talk show The View.

Former President Clinton Praises Sarah Palin!

2008-09-22T19:38:00.001-07:00

Even Bill Clinton Will Not Endorse Obama!

2008-09-22T19:33:00.001-07:00

He doesn't directly endorse John McCain either, but sure has a lot of praiseworthy things to say about him. You all be the judge of what he might be trying to say. This must be a huge OUCH for the Obama campaign!

Watch The Obamas Insult America

2008-09-22T16:07:00.000-07:00

SHAMEFUL!!! Obama's Ties To Ayers & Others

2008-09-22T15:56:00.000-07:00

My First Video Blog!!!

2008-09-21T21:54:00.001-07:00

I had to chop into two parts because of YouTube's 10 minute rule. ENJOY!

Racism In The Democratic Party

2008-09-20T15:50:00.000-07:00

I've been trying to convince people that all this talk by the Democrats about being more sensitive towards the rights of women, blacks, gays, and other minorities is flat out nonsense . They just pretend to care simply because they want the minority vote.

The wonderful thing about this election is that the Democrats are FINALLY exposing their true colors for all to see. First of all, they snub one of their own prominent members for the presidential nomination, and then snub her again for the VP nomination. Then when the Republicans nominte a female VP, the Democrats attack her with many of the same sexist epithets they normally denounce (with no liberal feminist group coming to her rescue, not that Sarah Palin needs it or wants it lol).

Looking back, remember that the first woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court was nominated by a REPUBLICAN, and the only African-American currently sitting on the high court was also nominted by a REPUBLICAN.

So America finally gets to witness, first hand, the utter hypocrisy of the Democrats and how they end up betraying the very minority groups whose rights they claim to support. Believe it or not, I actually in a way feel sorry for Barack Obama, as a recent article I cite below points out that such racist betrayal by many whites in his own party might be what ends up costing him the election.

Although I sure hope that Obama loses the election, he shouldn't lose because of the color of his skin, but because he'd be a flat out horrible president who, among other things, would raise our taxes and place America's security at risk.
As Obama himself would say, a pig can be black, white, green, purple, or blue, but it's still a pig!

http://news. aol. com/article/racial-views-may-cost-obama-election/181935?icid=100214839x1209710216x1200549293

A Gay Man's Case Against Gay Marriage

2008-09-19T18:42:00.001-07:00

Yup, that's what the headline says.
You aren't that drunk or hallucinated yet lol

I'll say it very clearly: I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE.
" Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?

First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why the hell do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA- just ask Jessica Simpson).
Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married and be forced to suffer the same misery lol

Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.) and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.

I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"

To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how dare the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit.
I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!

*Oh, and contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin did NOT oppose domestic partner benefits for Alaska state employees. I exchanged e-mails last night with a lady who actually works for the state of Alaska, and she says that her gay and lesbian colleagues have always received such benefits. It never ceases to amaze me, especially in this particular campaign, how the media blurs the line between perception and reality, and how so many of us are still falling for it hookline and sinker. I’m working on a blog posting this weekend on that very subject.

This ought to generate some lively conversation, can’t wait to hear your thoughts =)

McCain On Iran (Contrast w/Obama)

2008-09-18T20:42:00.002-07:00

The Jewish Case For John McCain

2008-09-18T20:42:00.001-07:00

This is what "Jews for McCain" say on their MySpace profile. It's definitely worth reading:

Quote from Obama's Book- "The Audacity of Hope" : "I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION. " - BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Jewish Americans for McCain '08 consider Israel's protection a priority. Senator McCain has stated many times that he would protect Israel and not tolerate any attacks. With Iran's threats of building nuclear bombs, Senator McCain has made it clear that if he is elected President, he will allow Israel to protect themselves and will assist them in the fight against these Islamic extremists planning on mass murder. On the other hand, Senator Obama has already stated that he would not tolerate Israel fighting Iran back and believes that America should "stand back and provide and example of peace". To create peace, you must fight off the ones planning on destroying it! Sitting back and allowing Israel to be wiped off the map, is not the peaceful thing to do. Senator Obama is all words, no action. All of a sudden when he needed the Jewish vote, he starts saying he supports Israel. Yet, he still admitted that he would meet with Iranian leaders, while both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain said they would not meet with them until their threats had stopped. In additon, Senator Obama still has not claimed that he would engage in full protection of Israel! He has only stated "I support Israel" after his advisors told him that he needed the Jewish vote. Well, Actions speak louder than words and we cannot let Israel be destroyed by sitting back and doing nothing. We are not racist, nor are we against Obama because we believe that he is "muslim". However, we are accusing him of not taking action to help Israel because of his radical liberal beliefs of staying out of war. Sitting back is the same thing as allowing Israel to be destroyed. It is allowing a second Holocaust to happen. Israel was created so that the Jews could feel secure and know that no Holocaust would ever happen again.

NEVER AGAIN. Never again should the Jews be mass murdered. You cannot be a good commander in chief if you do not protect your important allies!

Senator Obama does not have the experience to lead this nation as commander in chief, while McCain does. Foreign policy is Senator Obama's weakest point and now is not the time to be taking risks on some young idealistic rookie. While many Jews are democrats (including the ones who created this page and Senator Joe Lieberman), we understand that Israel's safety is imperative right now and voting for Senator McCain ensures us of this. In addition, it pleases the democratic Jews to know that Senator McCain is more of a liberal Republican (so much that many conservative Republicans do not like him). His close friendships with many democrats (such as the Clintons) proves this. While, most of us Jewish Democrats wanted Senator Clinton to be President in '08 and admit that she was our first choice, we understand that there is only one candidate right now who will fight for Israel's safety. The fact that there is a democratic majority in Congress also keeps our minds at peace knowing that they will not allow McCain to make any extreme Republican changes. This is not just a group for Jewish Americans, this is a group for those who support Israel. You do not need to be a religious Jew, you may just appreciate your heritage, your family, your people and that is why you are supporting Israel. You don't need to be Jewish at all to want to stand up for one of America's most important allies. This is not only defending Israel, but it is defending the United States in the long run. By not tolerating any attack on Israel from these Islamic extremists, you are not tolerating terrorism. PLEASE VOTE MCCAIN '08 TO PROTECT ISRAEL!!!!!

The Jewish Connecticut Democratic senator Joe Lieberman, decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against Islamic extremism," a Lieberman aide said earlier.

From Israel National News:

Why should strongly traditional Democratic Jews change and vote for the Republican John McCain? Because he is the best candidate, with a pro-Israel bias and a proven track record, with military experience and knowledge. In other words, he is the real thing. Not a bunch of buzz words like "change" and "hope". McCain has a solid foundation and groundwork to build upon. He is the genuine real deal. Not a bunch of rhetoric, but solid substance.

Throughout his 25 years as a US Congressman and Senator, John McCain has clearly demonstrated a breadth and depth of support on critical issues; not only with his words, but with his actions. He is no newcomer to these issues, nor even to the Jewish state. Sen. McCain has visited Israel many times, dating back to his days as a Naval officer and as recently as March 2008.

Sen. McCain has consistently and publicly advocated for critical and necessary legislation, even when it was less popular. Early in his political career, during 1985, Sen. McCain sponsored legislation urging Egypt to honor the Camp David Accords - Egypt’s historic peace agreement with Israel, in which Israel gave up land equivalent geographically to three times the total land mass of Israel in exchange for peace.

During 1987, he supported Senate Resolution 205, signed into law by President Reagan, which called for the overturn of the United Nation’s infamous proclamation equating “Zionism with Racism” sponsored by the Arab League of Nations.

During 1991, when Israel showed considerable restraint by not retaliating against Saddam Hussein as SCUD missiles rained down upon civilians under siege, Sen. McCain supported the resolution recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself and America’s promise to help Israel maintain its safety, security and freedom.

Sen. McCain also stood up to leaders and political pressure within his own political party to tie together loans and funding to Israel.

During 2000, Sen. McCain strongly advocated the renewal of the Iran-Syria Sanctions Act.

Sen. McCain enjoys an excellent relationship with many Israeli elected leaders and officials, including but not limited to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak.

Sen. McCain understands and can discuss fluently the history of Israel ’s wars, the geography of the borders, and the moral values at the very core of the strategic alliance between the US and Israel.

But it is perhaps Sen. McCain’s grasp and great understanding of the serious threat of the spread of radical Islam that has made him such a staunch supporter and ally of Israel.

Sen. McCain clearly stands apart from his opponent Barack Hussein Obama. His clarity is evident in both actions and words. Responding to the rants and raves of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, McCain made his position clear: “I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran, we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.”

According to the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), “John McCain has proven that we can trust him to do what is right for the country, not only when it is easy, but when it is hard; to do what is necessary, not only when it is popular, but when it is not; and to tell us the truth, not only when it is easy to hear, but when it is not.... He will push all of us to work together to solve our biggest problems, and defeat our most dangerous enemies.”

Time and time again, McCain proves both with actions and words his strong support for Israel. And not just when it is convenient and politically correct to do so,(like Obama).

One can clearly see McCain’s proven track record shows he is the best candidate for America ’s Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. McCain is the real deal for leadership in turbulent times. A true blue friend and staunch supporter of the American Jewish community and Israel.

More Obama On Iran

2008-09-18T20:42:00.000-07:00

Those Desert Folks Are Mighty Smart!

2008-09-18T15:48:00.001-07:00

I was in Palm Springs this past weekend, and came across two very well written Letters to the Editor in the local paper. Thought I'd share them with all of you:

Obama's link to Ayers

Why is the media ignoring Barack Obama's connection to a radical professor who once engaged in terrorist activity?

Long before I ever heard the name Barack Obama, I knew the name William Ayers. Ayers was a rich kid turned domestic terrorist.

He helped found the radical Weather Underground and was responsible for bombings of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and a police station.

Ayers' followers would go on to commit murder during a bank robbery.

Like many rich kids, Ayers was able to escape prosecution for his violent acts.

Since the 1980s, Ayers has been an education professor devoting his time to an extremist education philosophy that seeks to infuse radical Marxist worldview into America's K-12 curriculum.

Obama has been a friend and associate of Ayers for years. The two have served together on the board of a left-wing foundation, and Ayers chose Obama to work on one of his education “reform” organizations. Sen. Obama's political career literally began at a meet-and-greet in Ayers' living room.

Here we have a clear case of a presidential candidate who has close associations with a hateful extremist, yet the media refuse to look at the story.

John Miller
Palm Desert

A Woman of Substance

As a woman, and a proud Republican, I am insulted by some of your contributors' letters such as “don't be fooled, women.” There are still those out there, some women I believe to be bitter, and many men who still have us in a “box,“ telling us what to do, think, and who to vote for.

Dan Quayle was weak and George W. has not proven to be anyone's favorite. How about Bill Clinton and Monica?

Is that OK? It must be that he didn't inhale.

We keep hearing how old John McCain is, Joe Biden is tried and tired. Obama is a wonderful speaker, self assured, but empty.

Considering all of his talent he'd sell better on a soap opera than as leader of this great nation. I was inspired by John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, and now that I've heard her, even more.

Get out of the box girls, don't be fooled by rhetoric!

Once again I'm proud to be voting Republican, and for candidates with real substance.

Alice Broich
Cathedral City

BIDEN: Paying Higher Taxes Is "Patriotic"

2008-09-18T15:48:00.000-07:00

Are you kidding me????

Read for yourself and have vomit bag on hand . . .

http://news. yahoo. com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes_3

McCain Offers REAL Change

2008-09-17T16:23:00.000-07:00

Conservatism would offer political change
John F. McLaughlin • Special to The Desert Sun • September 13, 2008

There's been much talk lately about introducing political change in Washington. Yet, upon examination, most of what is being called “change” looks just like more and larger doses of the same. I suggest that, in today's political environment, it is conservatism that offers real political change.

Webster's dictionary defines a conservative as “one who opposes hasty changes in the political, religious or civil institutions of the country.” Modern conservatism now means more than that.

Conservatives today seek positive objectives rooted in important principles of governance.

(1) All humans are born equal under the law but cannot be assured of equal outcomes in life;

(2) Humans derive inherent and inalienable rights from their Creator — not from men — and among those are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit (but not necessarily the attainment) of happiness; and

(3) Humans establish governments to protect those rights from enemies foreign and domestic — not to create new “rights.”

Based upon those principles and after a struggle lasting some 13 years, the Founding Fathers established a unique Constitution for the U.S. government. The original document began with the words “we the people” and ended with 10 amendments limiting the power of the central government.

The original Constitution contained numerous flaws — most of which were corrected over the next 150 years (and not without bloodshed). The resulting great “American experiment” of a free people living in a federal republic of sovereign states has proved successful beyond all historical measures. However, another concept of governance — the ages-old idea of central government control — threatens that American experiment.

People, alarmed at a record of continuing failure — particularly in the last 50 years — of more and ever-larger programs seeking centralized “collective” solutions to societal problems, now form the modern “conservative” movement.

Conservatives believe that only individuals — millions of them — unshackled by overreaching federal or state governments make choices best for themselves and their families. Their ingenuity, entrepreneurship and hard labor reap benefits not only for themselves but for society as a whole — results not producible by government bureaucrats.

In essence, conservatives believe in individual freedom (including the freedom to make bad decisions) with as little government control as possible.

Conservatives are NOT “anti-government.” They recognize government must maintain order, provide national security from foreign and domestic threats, and administer justice — including preserving individual rights. However, in stark contrast to liberals today, conservatives believe government (including an activist judiciary) cannot coercively solve societal problems. Only individuals can solve problems if government just gets out of the way.

Such freedom ensures boundless opportunities but not equal outcomes. Individuals and businesses enjoy differing levels of success — clearly providing the incentive to do better.

Liberals see inequality in the free enterprise system and demand that it be rectified — by punishing achievers. They use government coercion via taxation or regulation to redistribute wealth inconsistent with a free society, seeking “equality” by making everyone equally miserable.

While cloaking their actions in noble intentions, they diminish incentives to succeed, promote widespread dependency on a government bureaucracy they seek to control, and destroy civility as different segments of society fight over ever-increasing government largesse.

History shows entrepreneurial capitalism promotes wealth and prosperity. Big government policies advocated by the current “liberal” or “progressive” derivatives of socialism fail every time they're tried. The socialist credo “from each according to his ability — to each according to his need” repeatedly destroys the human spirit. The only individuals who do well under such systems become those who decide from whom to take and to whom to give. Such individuals cannot call themselves “conservative.”

Sarah Palin vs. The Feminists

2008-09-17T16:12:00.001-07:00

I offered my own little spoof on this issue in a "Top 10" list. If you haven't seen it yet, let me know and I'll send you a copy. Meanwhile, Cathy Young's recent column in the Wall Street Journal that sheds further light on the issue. The bottom line is that a woman like Sarah Palin threatens to turn the liberal feminist movement upside down, as she is a living and breathing refutation of the very core principles and foundation of the movement, thus threatening to expose its real agenda.

As a result we are witnessing quite a political revival, as women throughout the nation, who have long aligned themselves with the feminist movement, are beginning to question whether groups like NOW are truly dedicated to advancing women's rights, or are just another liberal advocacy group more concerned with a political agenda, regardless of the effect on American women. The nomination of Sarah Palin as VP, and the nasty feminist response, threatens to expose liberal feminism for what it really is. As you'd reasonably expect, the leaders of this movement are raging mad.

Ayn Rand, were she alive today, would classify the bitter feminist opposition to Palin as textbook egalitarianism. Here is the full text of Cathy Young's column. Talk about hitting the nail right on the head!!!

Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin
By CATHY YOUNG

Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.

On Salon. com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.

In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."

This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than "First Dude" Todd Palin?

Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is "subordinate to a great man." Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?

Not to Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women from the government. In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not. Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on discrimination) is feminist. Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."

I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.

Of course, being a feminist role model is not part of the vice president's job description, and there are legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin's qualifications. And yet, like millions of American women -- and men -- I find her can-do feminism infinitely more liberated than the what-can-the-government-do-for-me brand espoused by the sisterhood.

Ms. Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine, is author of "Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces To Achieve True Equality" (Free Press, 1999).

McCain's Comments to AIPAC

2008-09-16T18:33:00.001-07:00

If your stomach is still churning as much as mine after reading Obama's comments, perhaps a few of John McCain's remaks at the very same AIPAC conference will provide a somewhat effective remedy:

"Sheer survival in the face of Israel's many trials would have been impressive enough. But Israel has achieved much more than that these past sixty years. Israel has endured, and thrived, and her people have built a nation that is an inspiration to free nations everywhere."

"When we join in saying `never again,' that is not a wish, a request, or a plea to the enemies of Israel. It is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, aganst any enemy who dares to test us"

*This is clearly a much stronger and uncompromising stance than Barack Obama even pretends to have.

"The Iranian president has called for Israel be `wiped off the map' and suggested that Israel's Jewish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a `stinking corpse' that is `on its way to annihilation.' "

"A sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran has repeatedly used violence to undermine Israel and the Middle East peace process."

*As usual, McCain is a "straight shooter." He refuses to downplay or "sugar coat" the reality of how evil the Iranian regime really is.

"It's hard to see what a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another."

"Should the [UN] Security Council continue to delay in [imposing further sanctions against Iran], the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework . . . a severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons."

*Again, I doubt that such pressure would really make Iran change its ways, but it's definitely a positive sign when McCain is not afraid to bypass the often incompetent UN Security Council when it won't do its job. If we keep the sanctions coming, it might just make the Iranian people's lives so miserable under the already unpopular Islamofacist regime that they will unite together, overthrow their corrupt government, depose their moronic president, and send the mullahs running for their lives. Since the Iranians are used to public hangings, I'm sure that if incited enough, they'll know exactly how to rid themselves of the Ayatollah for good!

McCain added that he was one of three U.S. Senators (and it shouldn't even need saying that Barack Obama was NOT one of the other two) that called for "designation of the Revolutionary Guard, [Iran's military unit] as a terrosist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq."

"Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message- to Iran, to the region, and to the world."

Holding terrorists accountable? Imagine that, Barack.

"[The Iranians] are a great and civilized people, with little sympathy for the terrorists their leaders finance, and no wish to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons."

"[The Palestinian people] are badly served by the terrorist-led group in charge of Gaza. This is a group that still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, refuses to denounce violence, and refuses to acknowledge prior peace commitments."

McCain clearly shows much more understanding of these problems than his opponent, and knows exactly what will constitute the ultimate solution to them. Who caused the downfall of communism in the late 80's and early 90's? The PEOPLE in those countries themselves, who decided that enough was enough. Radical islamicism is the modern-day threat to freedom, liberty and peace, and it isn't at all far fetched to suggest that it can be defeated in the same way.

McCain demonstrates similar acumen with regard to Hezbollah:

"Hezbollah fighters recently took up arms against their fellow Lebanese, starting the worst internal fighting since the civil war ended in 1990. In the process, they extracted an agreement in which Hezbollah and its allies can veto any cabinet decision. As the leader of Hezbollah often reminds us, this group's mission is the defeat of Israel. The international community needs to more fully empower our allies in Lebanon- not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal . . . We simply cannot afford to cede Lebanon's future to Syria and Iran."

*McCain's position on terrorists and their State-sponsors is very clear: no negotiation, no compromise, no appeasement. He sees the Islamofacists for who they truly are- pure evil. He also possess a much deeper understanding of both past and current events in the Middle East than Barack Obama, as well as future implications of anything less than an uncompromising stance against terror. This final excerpt from John McCain's speech to AIPAC should leave absolutely no doubt who is more qualified to confront our terrorist enemies head-on as commander in chief:

"It's worth recalling that America's progress in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. It was the strategy he predicted would fail, when he voted to cut off funds for our forces in Iraq. He now says he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq- one to two brigades per month until they are all removed. He will do so regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for our national security, regardless of the consequences for Israel's security, and in disregard of the best advice of our commanders on the ground.
This course would surely result in a catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaeda terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States. Allowing a terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends, and would invite further intervention from Iraq's neighbors, including an emboldened Iran. We must not let this happen. We must not lead the region to suffer chaos, terrorist violence, and a wider war.
My friends, as the people of Israel know better than most, the safety of free people can never be taken for granted. And in a world full of dangers, Israel and the United States must always stand together . . . If there are ties between America and Israel that critics of our alliance have never understood, perhaps that is because they do not fully understand the love of liberty and the pursuit of justice."

Amen to that, maverick, Amen!