Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts

Monday, December 15, 2008

McCain sided with Obama and scolded the RNC

This explains one of the main reason why McCain lost - because he wants to bend on the issues and go to the other side - instead of standing for what is right. If there is corruption, then we need to find & expose it, not ignore it...

McCain scolds GOP for whacking Obama
In a surprising rebuke to the warriors who fought for him through tough times, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday sided with President-elect Barack Obama and scolded the Republican National Committee for fanning the Illinois corruption scandal.

read rest of article here - from politico
tip from Right Voices

Friday, November 14, 2008

Liberals Fail the Tolerance Test

So much for the audacity of hope. So much for all the lessons on tolerance and understanding that we received from the left... let's see what they are actually saying: "Do as I say, not do as I do" Right???



"As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we’re all united now, let’s consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching “inclusion,” and she decided to see how included she could be.

So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:

“McCain Girl.”

“I was just really curious how they’d react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters,” Catherine told us. “I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be.”

Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain’s name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.

“People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.

Then it got worse.

“One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed,” Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

But students weren’t the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

“In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain,” Catherine said.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

“Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said,” Catherine said.

One student suggested that she be put up on a cross for her political beliefs.

“He said, ‘You should be crucifixed.’ It was kind of funny because, I was like, don’t you mean ‘crucified?’ ” Catherine said.

Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be “burned with her shirt on” for “being a filthy-rich Republican.”

Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election. And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers. She didn’t want to jeopardize her experiment.

Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, “I really like your shirt.”

That’s when you know America is truly supportive of diversity of opinion, when children must whisper for fear of being ostracized, heckled and crucifixed.

The next day, in part 2 of The Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment, she wore another T-shirt, this one with “Obama Girl” written in blue. And an amazing thing happened.

Catherine wasn’t very stupid anymore. She grew brains.

“People liked my shirt. They said things like my brain had come back, and I had put the right shirt on today,” Catherine said.

We asked the teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney, whether it was ironic that Catherine would be subject to such intolerance from pro-Obama supporters in a community that prides itself on its liberal outlook.

“That’s what we discussed,” Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. “I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you’ve done? The students were kind of like, ‘Oh, yeah.’ I think they got it”.

Catherine never told us which candidate she would have voted for if she weren't an 8th grader. But she said she learned what it was like to be in the minority.
"Just being on the outside, how it felt, it was not fun at all," she said.

Don't ever feel as if you must conform, Catherine. Being on the outside isn't so bad. Trust me."
excerpts from: chicagotribune.com, tip from Burning Hot

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Christians cling to values not rasism...

Many Libs say that Conservative Christians did not vote for Obama due to racism. I guess it is their need to justify and not look into the real reason why we did not vote for him. Scott Thong also commented about this topic,click here to read

This article below gives percentages of Christians who voted for Obama. It is an interesting read.

Conservative Christians reject racism label in Obama vote
by Rachel Zoll - excerpts from and to see entire article click here: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=315148

"According to exit polls, while nonwhite Christians voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama , most white Christians backed John McCain. Several black clergy claim criticism of Obama by some white Christians over his religious beliefs and support for abortion rights crossed the line. But conservative Christians...including some black preachers...reject that accusation.

White evangelicals backed McCain because of his opposition to abortion rights, not because of the race of either candidate.

34 percent of white Protestants voted for Obama, while 65 percent went with McCain. Obama won the overall Roman Catholic vote, but white Catholics backed McCain by a slim majority, 52 percent to 47 percent. Among white Christians, the racial gap was most pronounced with evangelicals: 74 percent backed McCain, 24 percent backed Obama."

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Mourning in America



I subscribe to the Patriot Post - I highly recommend it - It's Right & It's free -
click here to subscribe. Here is a letter I received from them this morning. I've included the entire letter in this post as it expresses my feeling so entirely and accurately.

"Fellow Patriots,

Tuesday, 4 November 2008, is a date which will live in infamy. While most presidential elections are followed with calls for unity by both candidates, Barack Obama issued no such call in his speech last night, with the possible exception of his observation, "I may not have won your vote tonight, but ... I will be your president, too."

Of course, none was expected -- liberals have elected a Socialist with deep ties to cultural and ethnocentric radicalism, and his executive and legislative agenda poses a greater threat to American liberty than that of any president in the history of our great republic.

Obama has twice taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." He has never honored that oath, and, based on his policy proposals and objectives, he has no intention to honor it after again reciting that oath on 20 January 2009. Obama seeks to, in his own words, "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

For that reason, this morning, the symbol of our national heritage of liberty, the American flag atop the 35-foot mast at our editorial offices, was respectfully lowered, inverted, and raised to full mast as a sign of national distress. It will remain inverted until next Tuesday, when we right it in honor of Veterans Day.

Today, at least 55,805,197 Americans are concerned for the future of our nation's great tradition of liberty. Some 63,007,791 Americans have been lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a state of what is best described as "cult worship" and all its attendant deception.

One of our editors, a Marine now working in the private sector, summed up our circumstances with this situation report. It aptly captured the sentiments around our office: "It's been tough, fellow Patriots; tough to stomach the idea that more than half of my fellow citizens who vote, have booted a genuine American hero to the curb for a rudderless charlatan. What a sad indictment on our citizenry that some are so eager to overlook his myriad flaws -- his radical roots, his extreme liberalism, his utter lack of experience or achievement. Barack Obama is the antithesis of King's dream: He's a man judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character. If it's God's will that Barack Obama is our next president, then so be it. We Patriots will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and wade back to the war front, intent on liberty or death."

This battle is lost, but the war is not. Let's roll.

Mark Alexander,
Publisher"


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

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Obama is Scary!

An email from my sister-in-law... her perspective on socialistic health care from living in the Ukraine for a year and a half.

"I am wondering why in the world would you vote for Obama? Because of his charisma? There were a lot of charismatic leaders from the past that were extremely corrupt. He is steering our country towards socialism which to me is next to communism. I can say this having lived in the Ukraine (serving a mission for my church) a year and half and seeing plenty of socialistic views and communism. Anyone having a baby in a socialistic country can see the difference, health care is no good. You show up, bring the diapers, your own sack lunch, have the baby and go home. The doctors in the Ukraine knew less then the nurses. In the Ukraine you have to bring your own light bulb and alcohol to drink for the pain. As a business owner I can truly say we already feel taxed to death, he will hurt business, big time! There are such major differences between McCain (willing to die for our country) and Obama (hangs out with terrorists and socialist). "

Vote Your Values!

Bible-believing Christians can make a significant impact on the moral health of our country, the ethical character of our leadership, and the spiritual direction of our nation if we would simply live our faith and vote our values.

Do I believe Joe Biden (Roman Catholic), Nancy Pelosi (Catholic), and Harry Reid (The Church of Jesus of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) are living their faith and voting their values?

No! - All of their 'professed' religions are very against abortion and all three politicians support pro-choice (pro-abortion) legislation.

This is what their churches have to say about abortion:

from the Catholic Church: Catholicplanet.com:
"Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication.

Obtaining an Abortion:
Any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly obtains a procured abortion commits a mortal sin and is also automatically excommunicated, under canon 1398.

Under the laws of secular society, if one person commits a crime, then anyone who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for that person to commit that crime is called an accessory to that crime and is also subject to the penalties of law. Similarly, any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for any woman to procure an abortion also commits a mortal sin and also incurs the same sentence of excommunication.

Any Catholic who substantially assists another in the deliberate sin of abortion is also guilty of serious sin and also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Believing in Abortion:
Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral commits the sin of heresy. The sin of heresy also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Unfortunately, some Catholics obstinately deny that abortion is always immoral, and some Catholics claim that abortion can, at times, be a morally-acceptable choice, and some Catholics claim that a person can, in good conscience, choose abortion. Under the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, canons 751 and 1364, all such Catholics are automatically excommunicated for the sin of heresy.

This sentence of latae sententiae excommunication applies to any Catholic who denies that abortion is gravely immoral, regardless of whether they keep this denial hidden or publicly reveal it.

Promoting Abortion:
Those Catholics who publicly announce their denial that abortion is always gravely immoral, or who publicly promote abortion, or who publicly argue in favor of legalized abortion, also commit a mortal sin and also incur a sentence of automatic excommunication.

This sentence of excommunication applies to Catholics who are politicians, as well as to those Catholics who are political commentators, or public speakers, or who write or otherwise publicly communicate their erroneous view that abortion can be morally-acceptable or that abortion should be legal. This sentence of excommunication also certainly applies to those Catholics who claim to be theologians or Biblical scholars, but who believe or teach that abortion is not always gravely immoral.

Voting for Abortion:
Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.

When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy.

When such a vote is intended to have the effect of making abortion legal, or more easily obtainable, or more widely available, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canon 1398, as someone who is attempting to provide substantial or essential means for women to obtain abortions. Catholic politicians who pass laws which legalize, protect, or widen access to abortion, are providing essential assistance to women who want to obtain abortions.

It is not sufficient for Catholic politicians to claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. If any Catholic politician favors legalized abortion, despite a claim of personal opposition, such a politician commits a mortal sin by promoting abortion and by voting in favor of abortion."
quoted from: http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm,

From the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: lds.org
"Abortion: Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.
In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see "Adoption")."
quoted from:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=63c139b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____


"Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong.

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.

As Latter-day Saints, we should stand up for choice—the right choice—not simply for choice as a method.

Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency wrote, “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide."

By Elder Russell M. Nelson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - found at: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b4b8db98e2b9c110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

Family and faith issues have been ignored or ridiculed. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot retreat, vote your values.

See this voter's guide below to find out the values of the Presidential Candidates:
Presidential Voter Guide

To hear a special audio message for you on the importance of your vote in this election. Please go here to listen: http://www.libertyaction.org/1293/offer.asp?Ref_ID=1917&CID=293&RID=17903903

Friday, October 31, 2008

Information about Obama ...

This is a series of ten VERY interesting videos - that you MUST watch them before you go to the voting polls. These videos contains facts that you may have not been aware of or may have not seen before.
Ask yourself these questions:
What exactly has Obama accomplished as a congressman?
What experience does he have in ANY executive position?
Does experience matter or is 143 days enough?
Can hope defeat terrorism?
Who EXACTLY are his friends? - terrorist - Can we ignore that?
Who has helped him get where he is?
Is he patriotic, does he love America?
Is he racist against whites and Jews? - he embraces black liberation theology-
Why won't Obama produce his birth certificate or records? - that's an easy task-
Did you know that he was a citizen of Indonesia? - which doesn't allow dual citizenship-
Did you know Obama publicly supported Odinga in Kenya and Odinga's rise to power? - now people are dead in Kenya because of Odinga-
Why does Obama support infanticide and oppose legislation to protect these living babies?
Did you know Obama is elected he would cut our defense budget? -and Biden also warned us that we would have a international crisis because of it-
Where does Obama stand on foreign affairs? - as he keeps changing his mind-

Imagine if John McCain had this background. These are facts we can't ignore.

PLEASE pick the better of the two now that you have some facts.



















Thursday, October 30, 2008

I'm Voting for Those Not Yet Born

Excerpts from: Chuck Norris
from & to read entire article, click here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29233

"Abortion is not about a woman's "right to choose"; it is about a more fundamental "right to life," which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government's primary purpose: to protect innocent life.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. But he could have been. His belief in what should be "the first and only legitimate object of good government" still should stand. Like Jefferson, our next president needs to uphold those same concerns, not say that such arenas are "above his paygrade." If he and his administration won't protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? A left-leaning Congress?

he truth is if Obama is elected, we will place a man in the highest office in the land who has the most liberal views and voting record on abortion of any president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he led opposition three years in a row (2001-2003) to a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of babies unintentionally left alive by abortions. He also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion and strongly disapproved of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the partial-birth ban. He also voted to block a bill that would have required a doctor to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor from another state. He does not support the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid. Before a Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, Obama promised to give first priority as president to the signing of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make partial-birth abortion legal again. Strangely, Obama even once said he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" caused by an unwanted pregnancy. With the next president likely adding two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear that as president, Obama would appoint and support the most liberal judges and legal eagles, resulting in a pro-abortion advantage in our courts that would push abortion liberties to every extent of the law and land.

Winning the election is not just about what the underdogs -- such as John McCain and Sarah Palin, two maverick pro-life advocates -- should do. But it's about what the citizens who are fighting for the underdogs can do. We the people must stand up, go back to the basics, and once again vote our values."

Is the Media Honest??

great article about the media... from: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

(Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.)

"An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city."

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Should a Democrat Vote for McCain?

I'm a conservative republican - so I can't really answer that question. I honestly don't understand how ANYONE can vote for Obama. I wish McCain were more conservative and I disagree with him on some issues, however I agree with him on important issues such as Life, Family Values, Protecting Freedom and fighting Terrorism and War I do agree with him we need a smaller government, we need to cut spending and lower taxes (I don't know if he will do it enough) - we need more Reagan Conservatives.

However to answer the question above --- "Should a Democrat Vote for McCain?" I found an answer on the Galax Gazette Online: http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News

Millions of Democrats Will Vote for McCain

"Yes, please do investigate, analyze and vote your principles. This is why I'm a Democrat voting for McCain, and there are millions like me.

Obama does not have much of a record, but he does have policies that sound good for me, a Liberal Democrat.

But, here's the rub... Obama has said one thing publicly about FISA, taking publicly-financed campaign dollars, etc., then done the exact opposite of what he says he would have done!

This is why I started researching Obama myself and I do not like what I see. Aside from the questionable qualifications, and affiliations, including Rezko, Auchi, Khalidi, and Ayers (yes, he has had a working relationship for a long time with Ayers, and Michelle was a coworker of Bernadine Dohrn), you need to look at the words of Obama himself. Because this is what Obama intends to do, not what he says he will do when in front of crowds.

The audio from 2001 of Obama in response to a mere question about "economic reparative work" during a discussion about the civil rights movement is particularly chilling, and just one more example of why I, and millions like me cannot support this candidate.

Aside from the redistribute wealth comment, and since remember this was in response to a question about REPARATIONS, Obama plainly and without hesitation stated that he felt the Warren court had not gone far enough and that the Constitution itself is flawed, because it does not provide citizens certain proactive government deeds only negative rights. Obama doesn't even mention that the Bill of Rights, brilliantly provides for certain inalienable rights we have as human beings. Apparently, what Obama believes would have made the US Constitution without flaw is if it incorporated wording that the government should provide economic support or any other social need Obama deems important.

I find it amazing that a man who studied the US Constitution and was so regarded an expert that he was given a position as a lecturer, has such utter disdain for the foundation of our country! No wonder he won't release anything he has ever written as a law student or professor.

So we have a man who believes our foundation of our legal system is flawed, and has changed positions on important pieces of legislation which essentially gave corporations more rights to spy on us and immunity for doing so, and my Democratic Party demands that I support this man?

I will never go against my principles and vote for someone who has such little regard to the US Constitution, does not remain true to his word to the point he says one thing with one group and the exact opposite with another, and has split his own party by every socially-created division, whether it be class, gender, generational, racial, ethnic, or where one may fit on the political spectrum.

And, whether or not Obama is directly or indirectly responsible for the actions of his followers, his race-baiting has created such a level of hatred that ordinary people feel they have license to do whatever they deem necessary to reach their end of electing Obama.

Personally, I have never seen so much vitriol from a group of supporters in my over 20 years of being an active Democratic Party member."


posted by: CHKlaver@yahoo.com 10/28/2008

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Whose Health Care Plan is Better for America - Obama's or McCain's?

Recently, Roger Feldman and his team at HSI Network, LLC released a third-party assessment of John McCain's Health Reform Proposal similar to the one done for the Obama Health Reform Plan in August, 2008. Both studies are available at www.hsinetwork.com Please find highlights below:

Highlights of the McCain Health Care Plan:

"Greater Reduction In The Uninsured: The McCain Plan would provide health insurance coverage to 27.5 million uninsured Americans, more than half of the 47 million uninsured. McCain's plan covers TWO million more uninsured Americans than the Obama plan.

Lower Health Insurance Costs For Americans: The analysis found that Americans in every major income bracket will have, on average, "a reduction in their health insurance costs resulting from the tax credit proposal." In contrast, a corresponding analysis found that Barack Obama's plan would force people to pay more for their health care by increasing mandates on existing insurance. While the McCain plan would lower costs, the Obama plan would increase make health care costs go up even more.

Lower And Middle-Class Americans See The Greatest Benefit: In terms of income, the most dramatic increase in the percentage of Americans with health insurance would be for those with income below the 50th percentile of wage income. More than 25 million additional workers in this income range, more than a three-fold increase, would now receive health care under the McCain plan.

Dramatic Increase In Coverage For Vulnerable Americans: According to the report, the combination of the new tax credit for health care and the Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP) would help vulnerable populations (defined as those below the 25th percentile of wage income and having a chronic illness) see a five-fold increase in health insurance coverage.

Preserving And Improving Private Health Insurance: The analysis found that John McCain's plan will "preserve the private health insurance system." McCain's plan will also change the current incentives in the health care system that "lock people into jobs that provide health insurance" and "provide the greatest rewards for wealthy taxpayers." Millions of American families with employer sponsored coverage in all tax brackets with the same coverage as a "Members of Congress" will now come out ahead with additional funds going into a portable health savings account. Importantly, younger and healthier employees with the McCain health care tax credit will have a bigger incentive to stay with the employers. For example, a 25-year-old employee in the 25 percent tax bracket with a $2,500 tax credit could either purchase a policy in the individual market for the same amount or stay with his employer plan and receive a $5,000 policy with an additional $1,250 to invest in a portable health savings account. Why would people decline more benefits for less money? In contrast, Barack Obama's plan will shift tens of millions of Americans into a new government-run national public plan, increases taxes on businesses and drive down wages for workers, and exacerbate the current flaws in the system rather than improve them.

Highlights of the Obama Health Care Plan:

Barack Obama's Plan Covers Less Americans Than McCain Plan: Despite the enormous price tag and burdensome mandates, the Obama plan will cover 2 million less uninsured Americans than the McCain plan which allows American families – not government bureaucrats or insurance companies – to choose coverage that best meets their unique needs.

Barack Obama's Plan Continues The Push Toward Government-Run Healthcare: The Obama plan will create a brand new government-run health plan at the cost of $243 billion a year – a financial burden of more than $3,000 a year on American families.

Barack Obama's Plan Will Increase Premiums For Millions of Americans: The Obama plan will move more than 82 million Americans into plans that would cost more than they currently have as "[h]igh option PPOs as well as the national public plan would become dominant health plan offerings." So premiums will increase.

Barack Obama's Plan Will Harm Employer Coverage: The Obama plan includes a $179 billion a year employer mandate. The mandate requires employers to either provide "meaningful" coverage or pay a tax towards the government plan. Faced with tough economic conditions and rising health costs this creates a clear incentive for employers to drop coverage and move families into the new government plan. A Lewin Group study which examined a similar employer mandate combined with a national plan, like the Obama plan, concluded that almost 52 million individuals would lose their private employer coverage. To maintain their competitive edge, others employers will follow - spelling the demise of the employer coverage system.

Barack Obama's Plan Will Damage Private Coverage: The government-run plan will have a clear advantage over private insurance since it will be subsidized by American taxpayers. A recent analysis of both plans by the nonpartisan CATO Institute concluded that the Obama government-run plan will be able to "keep its premiums artificially low…since it can turn to the U.S. Treasury to cover any shortfalls" resulting in "undercutting the private market."According to Wall Street Journal, the goal of the Obama plan '…like HillaryCare in the 1990s, is to displace current private coverage and switch people to the default government option'."

Find more about McCain's health plan by clicking here.

Your Vote Counts!

"Civic responsibility is not a new concept. Church leaders have stressed its importance from the beginning, and members have been actively involved as concerned citizens or political candidates throughout history...

In fact, voter turnout in the U.S. has rarely exceeded 60 percent in the last century. And unlike the days past when political parties paid voters in cash, or offered a barrel of flour or keg of whiskey to those who cast a ballot in their favor (live pigs were given to voters during the 1890 New Hampshire Congressional race), U.S. voters now have little incentive to cast their ballot unless they view the act as a duty and a privilege.

But even with the historic nature of this November’s presidential election, voter turnout may not be as high as one might expect, if you use history as a predictor. For example, in 1960, 63 percent of eligible citizens voted. According to the Federal Election Commission, by 1996 that number had dropped to 49 percent; however, voter turnout for the 2004 elections rose to nearly 57 percent—the highest since 1968 and possibly driven by the war in Iraq and the razor-thin victory of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.

Many people don’t vote because they believe their ballot won’t make a difference in the overall election results. Some feel that no matter who is in office, nothing ever changes. And others have become disillusioned by the political process as they watch candidates spend millions of dollars, mount personal attacks on their opponents, and make deals with special interest groups to win their endorsements—to the point that neither candidate appeals to them, and they wash their hands of any voter participation. But in the end, these attitudes only contribute to the problem further.

In his article entitled “Why Vote?” Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, wrote, “When voting is voluntary, and the chance that the result will be determined by any single person’s vote is extremely low, even the smallest cost—for example, the time it takes to stroll down to the polling place, wait in line, and cast a ballot—is sufficient to make voting seem irrational. Yet, if many people follow this line of reasoning, and do not vote, a minority of the population can determine a country’s future, leaving a discontented majority.”

Singer then sites Poland’s electoral history as an example. He writes, “In the 2005 national elections, barely 40 percent of those eligible voted . . . As a result, Jaroslaw Kaczynski was able to become prime minister . . . despite receiving only six million votes out of a total of thirty million eligible voters.”

Two years later, when Kaczynski was up for re-election, voters turned out in greater numbers, and he was heavily defeated.

Your vote is your voice—your chance to represent yourself in local, state, and federal elections. The candidates and causes you believe in cannot be guaranteed success without your vote. But before you go to the polls, here are some things to consider:

Register

If you aren’t registered to vote already, there may still be time! In many states, voters must register thirty days before an election, but not all states have this requirement. Call your county clerk’s office to find out if you still have time, and how to register. Or, register online at websites like declareyourself.org or justvote.org.

Educate Yourself

You can’t choose the best candidate if you can’t make an educated vote. Don’t depend on other people to explain the issues to you, or tell you which candidate believes what. Find out for yourself.

In your mind, what are the major issues your country faces? What issues is each candidate emphasizing? And what solutions are each offering? In addition to their positions, consider the character of the candidates. Ask yourself questions like, “Why do I trust one candidate more than another? What are their perceived strengths and weaknesses? And who do they associate with?”

Websites like ontheissues.org provide detailed voting records of many U.S. politicians, including John McCain and Barack Obama. In addition, both presidential candidates (and most politicians) have their own websites where they state their positions on a number of important issues. Check out barackobama.com/issues and johnmccain.com/informing/issues to learn more about the presidential candidates.

Keep Emotions in Check

Studies show that emotions heavily impact most voting decisions. Try to set emotions aside as you watch campaign ads, and don’t get sucked in with catchy slogans. Instead, scrutinize them to see if they actually increase your understanding of the candidate and his ability to make tough decisions. What are the 2008 presidential candidates’ campaign slogans? Barack Obama: Change we need. John McCain: Country first.

Also consider if you’re voting for a candidate because of one specific issue. Is that the only reason? Or do you share his or her overall vision for your country and community?

Get Involved

After you have chosen to support a candidate, don’t be afraid to get involved in his or her campaign. Donate money, work the phones, stuff envelopes, or volunteer other talents. Someone is going to be elected—it may as well be the person you believe is best for the job.

It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of a presidential election, but don’t forget the state and local elections. You involvement will have the greatest impact on your local community as you campaign for city council members, school board members, and other local officials. Better yet, become a candidate yourself. The surest way to improve the political system is for good, honest people to enter the race and raise the standards for politicians.

The ballot is our connection to our country’s political process. It provides us with a way to express to our leaders what we think about a number of important issues that affect not only our lives, but the lives of future generations. Voting also serves to protect our freedoms—a democracy can’t survive unless its citizens participate in the political process. So go to the polls, let your voice be heard, and leave your own mark on history, wherever you live."


excerpts from: Your Vote Counts by Jamie Lawson -Tuesday, October 28, 2008 found at:
http://ldslivingmagazine.com/articles/show/1743

This is the American Spirit - The American Dream..

This is a letter from another Joe the plumber - You work hard and risk everything - that is how you become successful, not by sitting on your butt waiting for a Government handout from Obama. Worth reading every bit of it!!

Corey Miller Well Driller
self | 22 Oct 2008 | self

Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:04:07 PM by Vob

"Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me 'Cory the well driller'. I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go 'conquer the world' when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews.. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our countrys’ (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn’t want to take a risk, and wouldn't demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself.. I'm the guy you characterize as 'the Americans who can afford it the most' that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution 'to spread the wealth' to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach on every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce “politically motivated”), you averaged of less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else’s money you are giving to them. I won’t say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden (don’t you just hate goggle?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American... www.cmillerdrilling.com"

News media in bed with Obama?

Is this a surprise??-- No,of course not. Anyone watching the news or reading the newspaper during the last two years has known this fact; this study just confirmed it.

From: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297778
News media in bed with Obama? by Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 10/27/2008

"Yet another study backs up the contention that the mainstream news media's coverage of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is more favorable than its coverage of Republican John McCain.

An analysis by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that 57 percent of the print and broadcast stories about John McCain since the political conventions were decidedly negative, while only 14 percent were positive. The study concludes that 29 percent of the mainstream media's coverage of Barack Obama was negative.

Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, says the study affirms what many observers have known for quite some time.

"They remember all the news magazine stories with the halo around his head. That's the kind of coverage he's received for two years now."

Graham contends the percentage of negative coverage of Obama would be much lower if the study encompassed merely the so-called "objective news media." He notes the Project for Excellence in Journalism study is not completely scientific because it not only measures the news media, but also talk radio from Air America to Rush Limbaugh."

Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis - I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

from: Charles Krauthammer a conservative columnist who is not jumping ship due to polls to supposedly get presidential favors, like other moderate former GOP officials.
found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867_pf.html

"Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb."



He also writes, "Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain, I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years."

"I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling 'Stop!' I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings."

"I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory."

sources - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/weld-for-obama.html

A Nation founded on Christian Principles

Friday, October 24, 2008

McCain

To learn more about McCain, watch these videos...



I'm Joe the Plumber...

"Joe the plumber" has a secret plan to destroy Barack Obama.

If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type - he is a true threat to the "Anointed One" - Barack Obama - and his chances of becoming president of the United States.

This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it's true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber.

Why? Because he's an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.

One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.

Just by coincidence - and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence - Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.

When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question - something the press has not done during the past two years - the Anointed One wilted.

How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!

As Obama put it, shouldn't Joe want to help him "spread the wealth around?"

With that one remark, Obama's disguise as a moderate crumbled.

from: National Republican Trust PAC

Awesome videos below!







For More "I am Joe" videos click here: http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=8b14b7cf-bf1f-4c3f-8ee3-dc6b68912742

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

America deserves better







Another presidential poll-

AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch
Oct 22 01:23 PM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI
from: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VM4PO0&show_article=1

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.

"I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don't think Obama has been around long enough," said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.

But Karen Judd, 58, of Middleton, Wis., said, "Obama certainly has sufficient qualifications." She said any positive feelings about McCain evaporated with "the outright lying" in TV ads and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin, who "doesn't have the correct skills."

The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters..."

for the rest of the article see: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VM4PO0&show_article=1