Search This Blog

Monday, September 29, 2008

No posts or comments for a day or two

Democrats: There Is No Crisis at Fannie...Freddie (Pt. III in a series)

State Run Canadian Media Corp. Apologizes for Palin-Smearing Article

The meds I am taking and the illness have converged to give me a tough day. I have some great commentary to consider over the next day or two and I ask for your patience. I will let a couple of my blog buddies do the work for me today...

Saturday, September 27, 2008

a kiss from a rose

a kiss from a rose
Originally uploaded by _Neverletmego_
An early birthday present for my daughter, Sara, who is lovelier than any rose!

Senator McCain is right! Obama campaign is wrong!

I believe, by my count, Barack Obama acknowledged that John McCain was right about something eight times, in fact it may have been his favorite phrase in the debate. McCain's favorite phrase, directed towards Obama, seemed to be that "you don't understand."

I had a lit professor who maintained that the most oft-repeated phrase in a chapter or book was very likely a summary of the book itself. If the debate last night was a chapter, it would be entitled, "The night Barack Obama considered voting for John McCain as President of the United States."

John McCain pulled his punches, didn't use his suspension of his campaign to help get a solution to the "Fannie/Freddie/Lehman and Friends" financial crisis while Obama said that "they would call him if they needed him" to illustrate how peripheral Barack Obama has really been to the legislative process during his time in office. Leaving it unsaid didn't leave it untrue.

But Barack was willing to give us some flat lies. Like his stand on missile defense. Like his characterization of Henry Kissinger's position on meeting with Iran and similar rogue states without preconditions.


Man, John Stephenson, you are really on a roll this week!!! In reply to the faked pictures of Governor Palin in a bathing suit, you dig out an actual video of her back (and front) in her beauty pageant days.

Substantive arguments against the work Sarah Palin did in her various roles in town and state government in Alaska don't work, because she did a great job at every task she was given. Unlike some candidates we know, when she took office she spent her time trying to fix things and make them better and boot out the bad guys...rather than begin plotting for the next campaign for an even bigger job. Therefore the attack dogs come out. Charges of incest and aldultery and skullduggery and on and on and on, as I previously posted but Obama and his supporters continue to find more mud to throw against the wall. Someone connected to the Dems hacks her personal Yahoo email account and, does the ACLU rise up to defend her violated privacy rights? No, instead the liberal MSM have commentators speculating that she may have used her personal email to conduct official business!!! (She didn't, but it was illegal to look and they know it).

Appalling, the attacks on Sarah Palin. Now it seems that there may be charges brought against the Obama campaign after ties between the cowardly Ethan Winner and David Axelrod and the apparent voice-over actress hired to work for both "official" Obama ads and the smear video put out by Winner. Read Ethan Winner Calls The Waahmbulance! Don't miss the comments section.

Here is the apparent timeline:

Jawa Report exposes links between Winner, Axelrod and the actress.

Winner takes down his video from the site about an hour after Jawa's breaking post (Jawa has had lots more to say since).

Winner then takes the site down three hours after that.

Winner refuses to apologize for the lying smears and complains that Jawa posted private contact information on him on the blog (a lie) and that he took down the video because his family received threatening phone calls and emails (check the timeline and the time between the Jawa post and the taking down of the video. Think his family got lots of phone calls and emails at one in the morning???! )

Chicago has more about the links between the Obama campaign and the Palin smear video.

Actually, he must have made at least two different videos!

Ethan Winner, loser. Chicago Democratic Machine dirty politics for the entire nation to enjoy for another, what, 39 days?

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

What is your basis for morality? Part III

With thanks to scohen, we embark on another segment. His response to my second post are in italics and I respond back in normal print.

Given: All morality comes from God.
Given: God wrote the bible.
Given: The institution of slavery is immoral.

Yikes! We may have hit our first fallacy. Let's look at point one. All morality comes from God, followed by point two, that God wrote the Bible. So God determines what is moral or immoral. Where does scohen get that third statement? Is it from the Bible? Or has morality been snatched away from God as soon as it is ascribed to Him?

By what standard do you declare that slavery is immoral?

Follows: The bible would contain an unambiguous message detailing the immorality of the institution of slavery.

Again, by whose judgment is that statement true? You can easily find 100 verses in the Bible that relate to or directly speak to slavery. Funny thing about that. The Bible is a book written to apply to mankind during the time of wooden spears all the way to the times of atomic weaponry and apply to every age in between. I have covered this before, but in fact most "slaves" were the equivalent of what we would now term "employees" among the Jews. Some were born into slavery or servanthood, some by being captured in war, some by going into debt, some by volunteering to join themselves to a household.

Did you know that in Old Testament times slaves could own slaves to themselves? Ziba (II Samuel 9:10) had fifteen sons and 20 slaves and was the master of a large plot of land under his master Saul. This land was given to him to oversee, so he was the equivalent of a farmer who leased land and gave part of the earnings to the landowner. Ziba would be a middle class wage earner in our society, maybe upper middle class.

In the Laws as given in Exodus and Deuteronomy, slaves were to enjoy the same ability to worship as the master and were to be allowed to rest on the Sabbath with the master and his family. The women were sometimes the concubines of masters, sometimes they became wives. Often their sons would inherit from the master and become masters themselves.

Also, if a slave has escaped from a master, the children of Israel were ordered not to return him. Apparently if things were so bad for a servant that he would flee then God wanted that person to have a chance to get away and stay away (Deuteronomy 23:15 & 16).

In the time of Christ and thereafter, slaves were to be seen as equals by their brothers and sisters in Christ, mentioned several places in I Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians.

In the days before modern society, time cards, ready-made currency and all sorts of other modern developments, slavery was similar to having a job. Masters were the employers. Slaves, more properly called bond servants really, were provided with food and clothing and housing in exchange for their work. They were often compensated with additional wages in addition to food, clothing and shelter. This was the normal situation in the time of Abraham and Moses and on up to a millenium after the time of Christ.

Throughout most of mankind's history, most people have worked most of their lives simply to provide for themselves food, clothing and shelter. Slavery or servanthood within God's culture provided those things for them and enabled both them and their masters to have an opportunity to be enriched by the pooling of their resources towards common goals within this system. It worked.

Since: The bible does not contain an unambiguous message on the immorality of slavery,

Wrong. The Bible is quite clear. Slavery was employment. The conversion of society from dominance of master/servant relationships to employer/employee relationships is recent on the scale of the history of mankind. All during this time as well there have always been the individual workers or entrepreneurs who were neither servants nor masters. We still have all of this, only in differing forms.

If Rome, or Babylon or Egypt mistreated their slaves, that was cruelty and sin on their part. But that is covered by other areas of the Bible. You see, in the days of master and servant both parties were still under the Law in terms of how they were to treat each other. Masters were not allowed to mistreat servants.

a. The bible is not the work of god
b. God isn't the source of all morality.

c. God is the source of all morality. It is up to you to acknowledge the Bible and know the history and culture of God's people through the ages if you are going to intelligently speak to the subject of slavery.

You know this is all a broken record. Worldview schmorldview. You don't even *know* what my worldview is (and why is it that only fundamentalists use that word?), so how can you state that my logic is bound by it?

I don't know precisely what your worldview is, I am only extrapolating it from what you say. Everyone has a set of preconditions from which they make judgments about what goes on around them. My given set includes the idea that God is and that God made everything and that God is the giver of morality. I can at least say that your worldview tends to exclude God and you place your own moral code above God's as the example above illustrates. If you cannot even see that you have a point of view with preconceived notions, then you certainly have a blind spot. Surely you concede that you have a point of view from which you begin, assumptions you start with, as you consider life's problems and opportunities?

How can logic be bound by anything? It's *logic*.

Your logic above was bound by an assumption that your moral standards are greater than God's. You state that God is the giver of morality and then don't look to Him for the answer on slavery but rather illogically take that place away from Him and take it upon yourself. Logic bound ceases to be logic, but the phrase illustrates the problem. If you truly accepted givens 1 and 2, you would have then accessed the Bible to determine the truth of given number 3.

Is my math bound by my worldview as well? If I was a YEC, would that integral make sense? The fact remains that your reply has twisted Kant's universality into "if it feels good, do it" which is exactly the *opposite* of what Kant was saying.

There is a big difference between "if it feels good, do it" and "if you believe it is the best and right thing, do it." Kant, however, appeals to the individual to decide what that good is, no matter how many resources he brings to bear on the issue, rather than appealing to the morality given by God.

In fact, "if it feels good, do it" seems to be a strawman that you're fighting against, not Kant.

No, but you are fighting a strawman in saying that I take that position and then you will tear that strawman down. Here it comes...

Kant's philosophy makes for some extremely non-expedient decisions, but you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother to do any research.Look, if you want to actually learn about the other side, search for "all morality comes from god" and read some of the results. Read about Kant and then demonstrate a flaw with his system while at the same time showing that you understand it. That's debate.

Okay, I did. It appears to me that so far you have lost the debate.

Let me take this a step further. Whereas I have read Kant in school and am familiar with his philosophy, you are obviously not so familiar with the Bible and the culture of God's people throughout the centuries. But I am not castigating you for it, simply sharing information. Slavery as practiced by God's people was similar to what "having a job" is now. But cultures surrounding God's people tended to have a different form of slavery in which people were mistreated. God even had rules for treatment of animals. One of my favorites is this verse:

Deuteronomy 25:4 - "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

Paul mentions this and how that idea was inherent in the Law in treatment of servants and also paid laborers in I Corinthians 9:7-10

"Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest."

I Timothy 5:18 also says: For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

I go on...Other cultures had a different idea of what slavery or servanthood was. Africans sold Africans to Europeans to be used as animals and treated as such, or worse. Again, history tells us that slaves were sold around the world but, here in the New World, they were often beaten and raped and killed and treated as less than animals. Many plantation owners valued their cattle and certainly their horses more than their slaves.

It was Christians who saw how wrong this was. God, who had given his people codes of conduct in the Bible, was speaking through them, for the abolitionist movement began in the church and was peopled largely by churchgoers. It didn't matter that some slave owners treated slaves as paid workers, and sometimes even as family. The majority of slaves were treated poorly and God worked through His people to bring about an end to the practice. The modern version of slavery was wrong because it violated God's principles concerning how mankind should treat mankind. I remind you of that passage I quoted previously from Luke 10:27 - “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”

An "unambiguous message" concerning "slavery" is not possible for a moral code meant to apply to 1000 BC and 2000 AD. But a thorough knowledge of the Bible allows you to know precisely whether a form of slavery or servanthood is moral or immoral depending on what time in history it is, what form it takes, and how those involved in the system behave towards others.

This is just tedium and us doing your work for you (which seems to be a trend).

No, I was waiting for the point of view to be expressed so that I could expose it.

Oh, and if a state executes an innocent man, that's *murder*.

Really? Chapter and verse, please. Remember that God gives morality and the standard for morality is found in the Bible? If the state convicts a man of murder by mistake, that is an accidental death and that actually is covered in the Bible.

You can't have the death penalty without actual murder occurring on occasion.

I disagree. But it is possible that someone may have willfully lied or twisted the system to cause the system to execute an innocent man. God laid out a series of possibilities and punishments to go with those possibilities. He allowed for accidental death, careless death, conspiracy to commit murder, felonious murder and manslaughter in the Law. Exodus, Deuteronomy and Numbers all have long passages devoted to these things, as the judicial system of the children of Israel was a part of their compact with God. It is God's Law that is the basis for our judicial system now.

Look at the innocence project, these people --many on death row, were completely, 100% innocent of the crimes of which they had been convicted. If they had been put to death, how could anyone that claims any morality not see that as murder by the state (accidental or not). Where's that in the bible again?

That is why I am against the death penalty in all but the most grievous and obvious of cases. The possibility of putting an innocent to death needs to be avoided. Does it surprise you that I say that? Well, it is true that God states in the Law that a murderer should be put to death. But in context this was among a people who were one in culture and generally in agreement with the Law. Conviction demanded two or more witnesses asserting that a murder took place and no reliable dissenting witnesses, otherwise the death penalty would not be exacted.

Some Christians oppose the death penalty entirely. We don't all march in lockstep in every way. God gives us the Bible to understand His will and we do our best to live by it, if we are indeed Christians.

Monday, September 22, 2008

News Flash! Palin hacker an Obamite, son of Democratic politician!


"Bummer... Feds break up a party to serve University of Tennessee student David Kernell with a search warrant! A court date was set for this week.David is a self-described Obamacrat and his father Mike Kernell is a liberal Tennessee State Representative.All signs pointed to the young Obama supporter as the Palin hacker."

The headline link contains the entire article...

Two obvious conclusions: (1) It was a federal crime and absolutely a political dirty trick, no surprise considering the Obama campaign of late. (2) Yahoo has pathetically bad security.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Stay classy, Barack Obama!

The same day that Obama charged that decorated war veteran John McCain was a man who had "abandoned every principle" we find that he is attacking an abortion survivor.

Here is the issue.

You should read it all, but here is an excerpt:

In this powerful ad sponsored by, abortion survivor Gianna Jesson questions Barack Obama for his active opposition as state senator to IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Born Alive was introduced to stop IL hospitals from leaving babies who survived their abortions in soiled utility rooms to die.

Gianna was aborted 31 years ago by a saline abortion procedure.

Gianna testified for the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001 and attended the presidential bill signing in 2002

Barack Obama called this woman "sleazy."

There is no doubt that Obama lies in his ad, makes ugly charges against a brave woman whose life is basically a miracle, and you should check out all the information thoroughly.

This happens regularly.

Amy Proctor points out that it happens in Illinois and Barack Obama knows it.

Joe Biden calls this guy a "wise leader?" unbelievable.

Obama, Biden, Dodd and Frank? Disaster at the local bank!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that every time that bad news comes in from Iraq, Democrats cheer. If there is a hurricane, Democrats blame President Bush. If there are economic woes, they clap their hands and blame the Republicans. Having a Democrat in the White House is more important to the lefty side of the party, anyway, than the well-being of their own country!

When good news is reported on the terrorism front, on the economic front, in almost any circumstance then it is bad news for Democrats and they try to explain how that good news is really bad news (While scrambling to try to keep crooked politician Charles Rangel out of jail and in his seat).

"Senator Dodd has neglected his duties under his chairmanship and it is time that Democratic Leadership accepts responsibility and removes his chairmanship.

Meanwhile, Representative Rangel (D-NY) who has come under investigation for ethics abuses finally stepped up to the plate yesterday and paid $10,800 in back taxes, not including penalties, that he owed the federal government. First, let me state that there is something extremely disturbing that we would allow a Representative to remain in Federal Office when he has clearly worked to avoid paying taxes. The taxes were the results of unclaimed rental income on a beach house in the Dominican Republic extending back to 2004. In addition, Rangel has come under fire for use of three rent-controlled apartments in Harlem (one was used as a campaign office) and more importantly his use of Congressional stationary to raise private funds.

Rangel is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, but in three months, Democratic Leadership has done little to progress with the investigation. In addition, Rangel is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which is charged with writing tax law. That’s right; a man, who has purposely avoided paying taxes, is in charge of the primary committee for writing tax law. Democratic leadership, including the party leader Senator Obama, needs to remove Rangel's chairmanship. It is disgusting that once again political power has trumped common sense."

But this latest banking mess is primarily the fault of Democrats no matter how much they want to find a way to make it John McCain's fault. Well, (Barney F)rankly both parties have fault here. But since it is an election year and the Obama campaign is making so many ridiculous claims I am going to assert that the primary blame falls squarely on Democratic shoulders and I have the facts to prove it!

It is Democrats who were receiving the bulk of contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Follow the money!

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900 (chairman of the Senate Banking Committee)

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500

19 of the top 25 recipients of the money were Democrats, including Barney Frank (chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) and Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House).

Lehman Brothers and other sub-prime lenders have primarily primed the Democratic pump, and example one is Barack Obama.

I personally have to laugh when I listen to politicians excoriate Wall Street Financial executives for their mismanagement in recent years and policies which have endangered their institutions. After all, a federal government whose very policies have demoted competition and created fewer and more powerful financial institutions should share the blame. Moreover, the hypocrisy of these politicians is beyond belief as most Americans fail to recognize that even as their elected officials demonize these executives, they are accepting millions of dollars from them in the form of campaign contributions.

For instance, it is no secret that Senator Dodd who chairs the the powerful Senate Banking Committee has accepted millions in the past years from financial institutions. In his Presidential campaign more than a 1/3 (over $5.5 million) of the contributions Dodd received came from Finance and Banking related industries. Since 2003, Dodd has received more than $9.5 million in contributions from this sector, with an overwhelming majority of those contributions flowing in since the end of 2006.

But in the presidential campaign there is no candidate who shown a greater level of hypocrisy than Senator Obama. Obama has received over $395,000 in contributions from Lehman Brothers executives, not including the additional funds that Lehman Brothers employed bundlers have raised on his behalf.

The article goes on to assert and support the fact that "...Obama has received over $20 million during his presidential campaign directly from executive of Financial Services companies."

Even a columnist who is anti-Bush sees the truth behind this banking and mortgage industry disaster: Biden and Dodd play hooky while D. C. burns

Excerpt: "Worse, Reid allowed two important committee chairmen to play hooky for a year while their issues wallowed. One, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., is running as vice president in order to lend supposed strength to the Barack Obama ticket on overseas issues.

In the chairman’s saddle 19 months, the eternally grinning Biden has called his very first hearing on Russia for Wednesday. Pathetic. Dictator Vladimir Putin has been signaling for more than two years that he intended to menace former Soviet satellites like Poland and Ukraine.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has behaved even more outrageously. He’s the fast-talking chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which has been looking the other way while the government has bailed out one slimy securities operation after another.

The best-known effect of his seniority on that panel is his getting favorable mortgage terms from a troubled bank.

The recipient of massive campaign gifts from the securities industry, Dodd stayed with his delusional campaign for president while the mortgage market and the banking industry tanked.

Thanks in large part to Dodd, the government has been blind-sided by the troubles of two huge government-sponsored entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These are backstops for bankers who profited handsomely on mortgages they sold to borrowers who could not pay them back.

Estimates of the cost to taxpayers of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailouts range from zero to $300 billion.

Little is said about two former high-ranking Clinton administration officials, Franklin
D. Raines and Jamie Gorelick, who got paid $52 million and $26 million, respectively, at Fannie Mae while the agency cooked its books.

The Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N. Y., sounded the alarm about the two big agencies a full year ago. But the committee’s findings are advisory.

Dodd himself ran a hearing on Freddie and Fannie last March. There, a spokesman for the Mortgage Bankers Association urged passage of laws mandating a complete overhaul and stringent oversight of the two agencies. But Dodd walked off to the hustings and the talk shows.

This marks the second time in a generation that a Democratic Congress looked aside while banks were bailed out at taxpayer expense. The 1980s savings-and-loan bailout cost taxpayers more than $130 billion.

The explanation is easy. Since 1990, the financial industry has spent at least $900 million on campaign gifts to federal candidates of both parties. Since 1998, the banks, insurance and securities industry has spent $3.2 billion lobbying the victors.

And they got what they paid for: Your tax money! "

Obama Adviser And Former Fannie Mae CEO Was Warned Of Problems

"Not that the Associated Press mentions that Franklin Raines, who fled Fannie Mae in the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, is now a housing policy adviser to Barack Obama.
WASHINGTON - The former Fannie Mae accountant who raised questions about the mortgage giant’s bookkeeping said Wednesday that he took his concerns directly to chief executive Franklin Raines in 2002 and asked him to investigate.

The disclosure by Roger Barnes, who left Fannie Mae last November, came as Raines and chief financial officer Timothy Howard defended the company’s accounting and told Congress that regulators’ allegations of earnings manipulation represent an interpretation of complex rules.
The regulators have said that information provided by Barnes was important to their investigation of the government-sponsored company’s accounting.

Obama is busy blustering about how “Washington DC” failed Americans on housing/finance policy, and castigating McCain for adhering to “an economic philosophy that has completely failed,” but I wonder how seriously we can take Barack Obama on this issue when he’s taking advice from a man who is at the very heart of what went wrong at Fannie Mae?

Also, what economic philosophy is Obama accusing of having failed? Free market capitalism? If he really believes that the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle is the result of the failures of capitalism (and it isn’t), what economic philosophy would he see replace it?

Socialism? When has that economic philosophy ever worked?

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac failed because they were quasi-government agencies that, because their play has always been backed by the government, had no incentive to engage in good business practices. To blame this mess on anything else is to be dishonest. "


McCain and the Crisis


"For a decade reformers have tried to persuade Congress that they were allowing a serious risk to the government’s credit to develop in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but few lawmakers would take action.

One of the reasons for this was the extraordinary power of Fannie and Freddie. They not only spent close to $150 million in lobbying over the last decade, but they also got their constituents—the securities industry, the homebuilders and the realtors—all powerful industries that depend on Fannie and Freddie’s largesse—to support their sole legislative objective: the defeat of any attempt to control their growth. Congress, as usual knuckled under to the special interest.

However, a very small number of lawmakers saw this problem for what it was, and were willing to stand up to the power of Fannie and Freddie—and I am proud to say that John McCain was one of them. In 2005, he joined a small group of Republican Senators to cosponsor the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, the strongest legislation introduced up to that time to control Fannie and Freddie. In a statement, he noted that “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market…If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie and Freddie pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

These were prophetic words, given what we know now, but they did not spring from a sudden conversion in that year. Three years earlier, McCain had introduced legislation—co-sponsored with the House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt—to create a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission. The purpose of this group was to eliminate what McCain called “corporate welfare.” In a statement at the time, he noted that “There are more than 100 corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, requiring the federal government to spend approximately $65 billion a year...These programs provide special benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. In years past, Congress has insisted that it would eliminate the existence of this corporate welfare, but virtually no such program has been eliminated…This bill aims to remove the special treatment given to politically powerful industries…”

In other words, as far back as 2002, John McCain realized that underlying what would ultimately become the Fannie and Freddie crisis was the willingness of Congress to provide financial support to private corporations. And he was willing to take on powerful interests to stop this process. If his bill had resulted in action at that time, the unprecedented steps that the Secretary of the Treasury and Congress had to take in the last two weeks would not have been necessary. "


Follow the money. The top two recipients of lobbyist monies from the failed institutions are Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. Both Democrats, of course. Quoting John Gibson:

"Lehman Brothers' collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama. Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the Congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn't afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected 50 million dollars. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Apartment Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job. Now remember, Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy's lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem."

The Obama campaign just blithely lies about this financial crisis and his link to the people and institutions behind the problems and just about everything else. Follow the money. Go ahead and check out Barney Frank, Democrat, who should have been overseeing this situation rather than getting fat on lobbyist monies from them. Go ahead and research how this could have happened and you will find that it was Bill Clinton's administration that decided to allow banks and mortgage brokers to intermingle funds and "bet" funds on Wall Street with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall bill.

The 1999 bill was perhaps well-meant, but within three years of its passage John McCain realized that it had unintended consequences and could lead to economic disaster. Unfortunately his cries for reform were ignored by a group of Democrats who were making so much money from the aforementioned financial institutions that they couldn't see the smackdown coming.

Both parties bear some blame for passing laws like Gramm-Leach Bliley and Sarbannes-Oxley that were well-intended but have had unintended consequences that have hurt American businesses and the economy. Both parties need to stand up and take strong action in the current mortgage-banking crisis by:

1) Taking control of assets in exchange for bailouts, then selling the assets later for the profit of the American people. People forget that when the Chrysler bailout happened, the government later sold off assets at a profit. We don't want to "nationalize" any corporations as some Democrats have asked for, but, if we have to help them out we the people get a stake in the company that we can later sell off once things settle down.

2) Calling for personal responsibility. Top executives of these corporations should be prosecuted to recover massive bonuses and "golden parachutes" received while the disaster was brewing.

3) Calling for responsibility for politicians. All monies received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers and AIG and any other corporation needing a bailout should be returned by Dodd and Kerry and Obama and the rest, returned to the American people directly back to the government coffers that are being tapped to do the bailouts.

4) Admitting that GLB and SOX have been mostly bad bills. This is a bipartisan problem and requires a bipartisan solution.


No wonder 77% of Obama ads are negative attacks on McCain and no wonder Obama tries to tie McCain to Bush. Obama has gone so far as to call John McCain, an American hero, "dishonorable" and just today in a stump speech he said that McCain had "abandoned every principle" all the while lying about his own record at every turn.

Barack Obama, liar, a man who associates with felons, terrorists, American-haters and race-baiters. Yes, I now believe this is the most important election of my lifetime, for Barack Obama represents the worst of partisan politics, the most extreme of leftist socialistic policies and especially represents the fast-food, prepackaged sizzle in place of real steak. Barack Obama would make Jimmy Carter look like a good President! God help us all if he and his political handlers got control of the White House!

Hat tips to:

PS - Philadelphia Enquirer points out that McCain is no Bush, despite Obama's desire to run against a third Bush term.

McCain a Bush clone? These numbers dispute that

John R. Lott Jr.
is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland

Does John McCain represent a third Bush term? The Obama campaign claims the two are almost indistinguishable. It was the mantra during the Democratic convention, and it is the theme of new ads Barack Obama is running. The ads claim that McCain is "no maverick when he votes with Bush 90 percent of the time."

This week Obama has begun a constant refrain that there is "not a dime worth of difference" between Bush's and McCain's views. It is a consistent theme of Democratic pundits on talk shows.

Is this the same McCain who drove Republicans nuts on campaign finance, the environment, taxes, torture, immigration and more? Where has McCain not crossed swords with his own party?

As it's being used, the 90 percent figure, from Congressional Quarterly, is nonsensical. As Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman explained, "The vast majority of those votes are procedural, and virtually every member of Congress votes with his or her leadership on procedural motions."

Obama might want to be a little careful with these attacks, as the same measure has him voting with Democrats 97 percent of the time.

Fortunately, a number of organizations on the left and right provide useful evaluations on how congressmen and senators vote each year. These conservative and liberal groups pick the votes they care about most and figure out how often lawmakers match up with their positions.

Well-known organizations that rank congressional voting include the American Conservative Union on the right, Americans for Democratic Action on the left, and the nonpartisan National Journal in the middle. The League of Conservation Voters also ranks politicians from an environmentalist position.

These groups' rankings from 2001 to 2007 paint fairly similar pictures, putting McCain to the left of most Republican senators and to the right of most Democratic senators - though usually much closer to the average Republican.

The American Conservative Union finds that the average Republican senator voted conservatively 85 percent of the time, and that the average Democrat voted conservatively 13 percent of the time. McCain voted conservatively 74 percent of the time.

Although it's at the opposite end of the political spectrum, Americans for Democratic Action essentially agreed. It found that the average Republican senator voted liberally just over 12 percent of the time, and the average Democrat voted liberally 89 percent of the time. McCain voted liberally 24 percent of the time - twice as frequently as the average Republican.

McCain missed too many votes campaigning in 2007 to be included in the National Journal ranking for that year, but it found that he voted conservatively 59.4 percent of the time from 2001 to 2006.

According to the League of Conservation Voters, John McCain is the ultimate centrist. While the average Republican supported liberal environmentalist positions 13 percent of the time, and the average Democrat supported them 76 percent of the time, McCain's 44 percent put him in the middle.

Another way to look at these numbers is to see how many of the 99 other senators voted more conservatively than McCain. In 2006, these four groups ranked McCain as the 47th, 46th, 44th and 51st most conservative member of the Senate, respectively. Surely, McCain is not nearly as liberal as the typical Democratic senator, but rankings from the left, middle and right find he is more liberal than the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate.

What issues put McCain well to the left of the average Senate Republican? The American Conservative Union lists a number of specific votes on which he differed from most other Republicans, including:

Taxes. He opposed reducing capital-gains tax rates, eliminating the inheritance tax and lowering income-tax rates.

Environment. He opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, supported compliance with the Kyoto global-warming treaty, supported requiring businesses to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, favored stricter mercury-emission rules for power plants, and supported stricter fuel-efficiency standards.

Other regulations. McCain consistently supported stricter campaign-finance regulations and voted to mandate that handguns be sold only with locks.

A number of these votes were closely contested. Some of McCain's votes led to a 50-50 deadlock in the Senate, requiring Vice President Cheney to break the tie.

In contrast to the very liberal ratings given to Obama, the interest groups find that there are about as many senators to McCain's right as there are to his left. This might not endear him to many conservatives or liberals. But it is a real distortion to claim he is a Bush clone.

Friday, September 19, 2008

What is your basis for morality? Part II

I made an earlier blog post just before I got too sick to even blog: What is your basis for morality?

I've reread all the comments. Only one commenter actually addressed the question and that was IAMB.

"To answer the original question, I've always been a fan of Kant's method for weighing moral rights and wrongs. The basic gist is that you examine an action or decision by imagining what kind of world you'd be living in if said action/decision were essentially a law of the universe in that everyone in the situation in question would always act the same without exception i.e. you imagine the act as if it were a universal law. If it turns out that the world would still be a decent place, you're pretty safe to say that the decision is morally decent as well."

I was surprised that no one else even tried to answer. One commenter who is hung up on two or three issues that have been answered but not to his satisfaction and another who joined him in trying to focus on how to define the word, "kill."

I went over the definition of the word used in the Bible for "kill" which translates as "murder." Common sense tells you what murder is and is not. If Nazis kill millions of Jews because they are Jews, that is murder. If both sides in WWII killed soldiers of the opposite side, that was warfare. If a convicted murderer is given the death sentence because of his crimes, that is a judicial death sentence not murder. Many of you would disagree, but this means that abortion is murder and thus against the Law given by God. But in most cases it is legal in this country.

Genocide for the sake of genocide is murder. Cannibalism requires that someone be killed in order to eat them, which would be murder. Is someone trying to manuver me into a "gotcha" here?

Creeper, I answered ice cores and I answered Christians in jail. I disagree with you and believe you are wrong. You are only arguing with yourself when you continue to bring those old bones back to life. Stay on topic, maybe?

So back to topic one. Kant's philosophy boils down to "figure out what you think is right and do it." In other words, YOU make the call based on the sum total of your knowledge and wisdom and experience.

In the immortal words of Dwight Shrute; "Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

The problem here is that no absolutes are involved, no higher authority, no source of wisdom or knowledge other than one's self. But IAMB at age five would likely have a very different view of right and wrong than he would at age fifteen and then at twenty-five and then age fifty. Does that mean right and wrong is changing? In this viewpoint, yes, right and wrong are fluid and therefore actually indefinable. The concept of right and wrong then becomes a matter of opinion.

Taking on the philosophical viewpoint of a Kant, a LaVey, a Nietzsche involves integrating a worldview of another with your own but in the end you are still deciding with only your own intellect and judgment as resources.

Christians and Jews accept God as the authority and see God's Laws as being absolutes. Proverbs 3:5&6 states:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

And also as an example from Luke 10:27:

“ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”

Simply speaking, having a belief in God and respect for his Laws means that you incorporate your best judgment and intentions along with your sure knowledge of what a higher authority has revealed as "right" and "wrong" so that you have a basis for your decisions. The most well-meaning of unbelievers miss out on the absolutes and therefore have no sure basis for their decisions beyond their own limitations. We all have limitations. Having absolutes helps us avoid be bound by those limitations in making the important decisions of life.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

We don't know much about Barack Obama? Not Exactly!

This is just amazing - someone has compiled a list of Obamisms! Thanks to the guys at Stop The ACLU for pointing this out to me:

Black Talk Host Says Obama Not Truthful; Reveals Facts

Jim KouriSeptember 13, 2008

While the mainstream news media attempt to destroy -- yes, destroy -- Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, they cannot resist the impulse to overlook the lies, half-truths and deceptions of Barack Obama and his comrades on the left.

Terry Anderson, an African-American talk show host in Los Angeles, provides a list of 39 things Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama claims are facts, but further investigation shows they are not exactly correct.

Senator Obama is easily sailing through his campaign without media scrutiny, while reporters rummage through Gov. Sarah Palin's past in order to discover anything that may hurt her politically.

While Oprah Winfrey practically lap-danced for Obama, she's refusing to have Palin as a guest on her show (see petition urging Oprah to invite Gov. Palin to be a guest on her syndicated television show

Anderson's list is quite interesting:

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

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

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

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that...and for more. Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. Whe n Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

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

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

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

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

39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russan army did the liberating.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance ( In addition, he's the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund's weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at

If you support Obama, be sure not to read this blog post.

Friday, September 12, 2008

McCain as Jackson, Obama as Adams? Not quite.

I saw a passing reference to this election as being similar to the three presidential campaigns of Andrew Jackson versus John Quincy Adams. In that context, let us continue the discussion:

Back in the early 1800's, Presidential elections were almost unrecognizably different than they are today. Methods of communication were slow, rumors usually traveled as fast or faster than news (okay, that part is still true, ha ha), most people had little or no idea about who the candidates really were or what they stood for (hmm, that happens today as well) and the voting was often done by the state legislature with no vote by the populace at all.

In 1820, John Q Adams had run and suffered a Mondale-like overwhelming defeat. In 1824 there were several candidates that got significant electoral and popular votes, all of which were officially members of the Democratic-Republican Party. That controversial election is discussed in a post on this interesting website:

1824 - Adams vs Jackson

THE CRITICS CHARGE: In this election, critics point out that Andrew Jackson won both the electoral vote and the popular vote, but the House of Representatives circumvented the will of the people and chose John Quincy Adams as President.

BACKGROUND: In this election four men, all from the same party, were running for President. Each was popular in a different section of the country: Adams in the Northeast, Jackson in the South/Southwest, Crawford in the South/Mid-Atlantic, and Clay in the West. When the votes were counted, Jackson had won the most electoral and popular votes, but had failed to carry a majority of electoral votes. It fell upon the House of Representatives to choose the president from among the top three electoral vote getters: Jackson, Adams, and Crawford. With Clay throwing his support to Adams (who is rumored to have done so for a cabinet post), Adams carried the vote on the first ballot and was named President.

WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULDN'T BE BLAMED: The critics ignore the fact that the popular vote was not a true indicator of the will of the people in 1824. In fact, popular vote totals weren't even kept for elections before this one. Hardly any state had all four candidates on the ballot; most didn't have three. And six states didn't even have a public vote! Their legislatures chose the electors. This included New York, the largest state at the time, where Adams certainly would have been able to cut into or eliminate Jackson's popular vote lead.

CONCLUSION: To say the Electoral College failed in 1824 is incorrect, because this was not a campaign where the candidates went after the popular vote; this campaign was fought for electoral votes.


Clay was awarded with a cabinet post, that of Secretary of State. Jackson used that occurrence to charge Adams with dirty politics (terming it "a corrupt bargain") and then very easily defeated him in the 1828 election and then beat Clay and two other candidates even more thoroughly in 1832 to extend his Presidency. Actually, Clay and Adams most closely agreed on the issues so that their alliance was not surprising when push came to shove. The promotion to State for Clay looked like dirty politics. But Clay was a brilliant man who was sometimes called the "Great Compromiser" for his ability to work out disputes and get things done.

It would be easy to go on for paragraph after paragraph about Clay and John C Calhoun and Adams and Monroe and Jackson as prominent figures of the early 19th century and how they helped shape politics to come and the course of our nation.

Andrew Jackson does compare to John McCain in certain ways. Jackson was a war hero and had been a prisoner of war (during the Revolutionary War). He had multiple injuries and, in fact, a few bullets/musket balls lodged within his body and yet lived to a very old age for that time period (age 78), succumbing to a combination of ailments including tuberculosis. His politics might be considered generally conservative, acknowledging state's rights yet determined to keep the Union together as rumblings of secession had already begun.

John Q compares to Barack Obama in that he favored more government programs and controls and considered Europe to be a template to be followed in many areas. So very generally the face-off of Jackson and Adams resembles that of the candidates today.

We would not recognize life in the early 1800's. Duels were fought often among "gentlemen" such as Jackson, who fought 13 of them and had a bullet lodged next to his heart to prove it. No electricity or recognizable running water or sanitary or toilet facilities such as we take for granted now and no radio or television. The United States was still in the process of becoming itself, with squabbling over the power of states versus the federal authority far more common than now. A state would often threaten to secede from the Union in the process of a question of authority but before the Civil War this was more often a negotiating ploy rather than a real intent.

The oddity of Andrew Jackson is that he was instrumental in bringing about the forced movement of the Cherokee Nation from the areas around Georgia to the far West, yet he adopted an orphaned Indian boy. He fought alongside Indians and fought against Indians in various wars and struggles. He was the man most responsible for the annexation of Florida and possibly the man most responsible for ending the War of 1812.

I suppose I have him to thank for my small Indian heritage. As the Cherokee Nation began moving Westward one of my ancestors on my father's side met and married a young Cherokee woman, who was, I believe, my great great great grandmother. Or it might be great times four, but unfortunately my father has passed away and I cannot consult him to be sure. In any event, that woman did, in fact, keep and maintain a log cabin in Western Kentucky for a large part of one winter while her husband, my G G G Grandfather, spent the winter in the city working to make money in some kind of factory. It is factual that she fought off a small band of marauding Indians by herself. Whether she actually shot a musket up the chimney to wound and scare off one of the Indians or not, well, that might simply be an embellishment. Seems like the heat from the fire would have been enough to keep someone from coming down but maybe she was out of wood?

The trouble with looking at past Presidents and comparing them to the race of today is finding a President with as little experience and as meager credentials as Barack Obama. I finally gave up the search. Commenters, go ahead and try to find a President with so little experience in life and in government as Barack Obama!


OBAMA, Barack, a Senator from Illinois; born in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961; obtained early education in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Hawaii; continued education at Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif., and Columbia University, New York City; studied law at Harvard University, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and received J.D. in 1992; lecturer on constitutional law, University of Chicago; member, Illinois State senate 1997-2004; elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005.

As Creeper pointed out in a comment on another post, Barack Obama has been involved in some legislative efforts and sponsored or co-sponsored some bills in his brief career. His record in the Illinois Senate was not so impressive but, in Illinois, the Democrats could almost run a stop sign for the Senate and win (remember Carol Mosely Braun?) and would have to run a remarkably incompetent candidate to lose (CMB, running for reelection while trying to stay out of jail). It was no great accomplishment that Obama got where he is, because he was handpicked by the Chicago Machine to go out into the political world and succeed. His credentials include studies at two of the most liberal Universities in the country, Columbia and U of Chicago, where terrorists can receive tenure (William Ayers) or be invited as guest speakers (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). He has never had any executive or command experience of any kind, at least as far as his listed credentials go. He has four years of experience as a US Senator.

McCAIN, John Sidney, III, a Representative and a Senator from Arizona; born in Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936; attended schools in Alexandria, Va.; graduated, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. 1958, and the National War College, Washington, D.C. 1973; pilot, United States Navy 1958-1981, prisoner of war in Vietnam 1967-1973; received numerous awards, including the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Distinguished Flying Cross; elected as a Republican in 1982 to the Ninety-eighth Congress; reelected to the Ninety-ninth Congress in 1984 and served from January 3, 1983, to January 3, 1987; elected to the United States Senate in 1986; reelected in 1992, 1998 and in 2004 for the term ending January 3, 2011; chair, Committee on Indian Affairs (One Hundred Fourth Congress; One Hundred Ninth Congress), Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (One Hundred Fourth through One Hundred Sixth Congresses, One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001], One Hundred Eighth Congress); unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

John McCain's record is summarized a bit because it is extensive. He had graduated both the Naval Academy and the War College (preparation for military command) before Barack Obama was born! He had a remarkable career in the military, one in which his career path was hindered greatly by the inconvenience of being imprisoned and tortured by the North Vietnamese for several years. However, he did successfully return to duty and command responsibilities before turning his life towards political service. He has more years of command and national political experience than Barack Obama has years on this planet.


Let's look at the actual record. Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.0% of the time during the current Congress. (His running mate, Joe Biden, votes with the Democratic majority 96.6% of the time. In fact, the top thirty Senators in terms of voting along party lines were ALL DEMOCRATS! Barack is only number 11 on that list, but Biden does make the top ten at number 8.

John McCain has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 88.3% of the time during the current Congress. He has a record of working with Democrats to create and implement bills that has actually hurt him with many Republicans because he will seek out a Russell Feingold or a Joseph Lieberman to help him with a cross-party solution to a problem.


I found reasonable comparisons to Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt for John McCain as I researched. I found that Adams was a poor comparison to Obama because of accomplishment and experience.

John F Kennedy is sometimes mentioned as a comparable, but Kennedy has more in common with McCain than he does Obama.
1) Both Kennedy and McCain had military command experience in wartime and were awarded medals for courage and accomplishment.
2) He had a reputation of diverging from party lines in his congressional voting record.
3) He persevered despite nagging physical problems (back) that might have persuaded another man to pursue a leisurely existence. Both he and John McCain had access to enough family money to do little or nothing had they not had a desire to serve.
4) He had a long term of service in Congress (from 1947 to 1960) before becoming President. Not as long as McCain, but his six years in the House and eight in the Senate are far, far more than Barack and more comparable to McCain's four years of House and twenty-two years of Senate experience.
5) Kennedy carried the label of Democrat. His view of world geopolitics resembles that of McCain far more than that of Obama. It may well be that his assassination was due to his administration's pressure on organized crime, or a result of his conflict with Cuban and Soviet communist administrations. In either case, he was far closer in political point of view to an Andrew Jackson or a Teddy Roosevelt or a John McCain than to an Obama.

One good comparable? Both Kennedy and Obama are young and handsome guys with young wives and families.

John Q Adams had far more experience than Barack Obama, so that comparison just will not work. As I said, I was frustrated in trying to find anyone that compares. But the record shows that a vote for Obama will be one for the same old Democratic Party line with a relative juvenile in the driver's seat, while a vote for McCain puts a man of great experience and one who has a long record of being his own man at the wheel.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Obama campaign "jumps the shark" in nasty reference to Palin

Hopefully you know what "jump the shark" means? It's origin lies in a popular and long-running sitcom episode in which "The Fonz" jumps a shark tank. It is the moment when a series or a movie or some other long-running process moves in such a ridiculous direction that there is no turning back. It is the beginning of the end. Michael Dukakis had such a moment in his campaign. Howard Dean has been there. We know that Dan Quayle has never been the same.

Just a few days after Governor Sarah Palin compared "hockey moms" and herself to a "Pit Bull with lipstick", Barack Obama has sunk to a new low and perhaps marked the beginning of the end of his long run at the forefront of Democratic candidates and his Presidential ambitions:

John McCain, Sarah Palin are like lipstick on pig - Obama

BARACK Obama has dismissed the US presidential campaign of rivals John McCain and Sarah Palin as putting "lipstick on a pig" in his most direct attack on the Republican odd couple aiming to keep him out of the White House.

However the line is being interpreted by some - especially those in the McCain camp - as a personal sledge against Mrs Palin, Senator McCain's surprise running mate who described herself as a "pit bull with lipstick" when she accepted the Republican vice-presidential nomination at the party's national convention last week.


That observation is from the Aussies, with no dog in this fight! The remark has been a "cheapshot heard 'round the world!"

Obama: Lipstick, pigs and hockey moms

by Mike Dorning

LEBANON, Va.--If Barack Obama wasn't thinking about the joke Sarah Palin told about lipstick and hockey moms at the Republican National Convention last week, the crowd here this evening certainly was.

Remember the joke? What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Answer: Lipstick.

Well, in the midst of an extended riff on why Republican rivals John McCain and Sarah Palin would not bring change to Washington, he blurted out a familiar metaphor that took on added meaning given the Palin's tongue-in-cheek definition of her kind.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," Obama declared. "It's still a pig."

No mention of Palin. But the audience roared and jumped to its feet.

Obama paused to take in the applause and then moved on to another (also overused) metaphor.

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change," he began. "It's still gonna stink after eight years."

Sarah Palin and her husband are, among other things, commercial fishermen!


McCain camp: Obama's 'lipstick' remark disgraceful

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 9, 9:30 PM ET

LEBANON, Va. - What's the difference between the presidential campaign before and after the national political conventions? Lipstick. The colorful cosmetic has become a political buzzword, thanks to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's joke in her acceptance speech that lipstick is the only thing that separates a hockey mom like her from a pit bull.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama told an audience Tuesday that GOP presidential nominee John McCain says he'll change Washington, but he's just like President Bush.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."


I think Hugh Hewitt has nailed it...

Obama's "Lipstick On A Pig" Smear

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:00 PM

Either Obama's dim as can be, or he is angry at having been thrown backwards week after week. When Obama denies having targeted Palin, keep in mind that everyone instantly made the connection. Is Obama really that clueless? An angry outburst does less damage than his pleading he didn't mean it that way. Remember the raised finger?

Keep in mind as well that Obama has been telling us his genius at running his campaign is evidence of his fitness to be president. Some genius. We are watching a crack-up under pressure. His Chicago handlers might be able to put the wheels back on, but we now have a glimpse of "glass jaw" Obama in a crisis.

UPDATE: Callers and e-mailers are furious with Obama. Beyond furious, really. MSM is ignoring this tsunami of a story thus far, but it has traveled around the globe and back and will keep traveling. Millions of women will never forget and they won't forgive.

As promised, here's the James Bennett article of Sarah Palin from the UK's Telegraph.


If you haven't seen it, watch the clip on youtube. Obama delivers the line and pauses, waiting for the big laugh he KNOWS he is going to get because he KNOWS his audience is making the connection. Joe Biden made some reference to lipstick in a remark yesterday as well, nothing quite as obvious. But what is obvious is the smear, the denigration of Governor Palin by Obama. It reminds one of the way Obama's old paster, Jeremiah Wright, used to throw out a slur and wait for the crowd to react. I guess Obama was listening after all...and if not, one of his speech writers was. No one with half a brain could read that line in that speech and not see the connection with Palin's joking remark. Especially after he makes a reference to "Karl Rove politics" with a straight face (seeing as how he is the product of the Chicago political machine)!

So, you tell me. Is Barack Obama that stupid? Or is he just that nasty? Either way, it could well be the beginning of the end...

Chris Muir gives us a stylish concluding statement.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Rumors Run Rampant: Barack Obama Edition

Rumors Run Rampant: Barack Obama Edition

Did the Democrats just throw away 12,000 flags?

This post says yes and has the pictures to prove it...

This post (from the Denver Post) is not as inflamatory...

"I just spoke with the person at Invesco who found the flags and he thinks both sides are exaggerating a bit. The person claims the majority of the bags with flags in them were near the trash, on a dock, and would have been thrown away. The person thinks it was probably an “oversight” by the Democrats rather than any nefarious plot against the flag. But the person doesn’t believe anyone was coming to get them: “The flags were there for a week and a day and no one came looking for them.”"

It is clear that a flags put into trash bags or just thrown into the trash were not being prepared to be reused or rescued or disposed of properly. I don't think the Democrats were being deliberately offensive, they just didn't think or care. Someone who did care found them and gave them to the RNC. Political ploy? Absolutely! Sign that the Democrats care more about power more than country? Your guess/opinion is as good as mine.

You can be sure that no one will be swearing out a police complaint because when you leave something out for eight days in and around the trash dumpsters, the wonder is that they were still there. How come it takes so long for trash pickup in Denver?


Meanwhile, a new book is released that addresses rumors about Obama and...well, the point seems to be that the rumors addressed are true? David Freddoso is the author of a book entitled The Case against Barack Obama.

The book's primary blurb: The reality behind the rhetoric, the plans behind the promises, and the faults behind the façade

The Case against Barack Obama reveals:

How Obama won his first election (to the Illinois State Senate) by having his lawyers knock all his opponents --including the black, female incumbent -- off the ballot on technicalities, so he could run unopposed

How Obama voted to deny medical care to babies born alive after abortion -- a bill too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case)

A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: How he used his clout as a U.S. Senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses

How Obama's wife Michele's salary nearly tripled in 2005 -- the same year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate and began earmarking funds for her employer

How Obama's friendship with the hate-spewing Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident -- but a carefully thought out personal and political decision

Why Obama thought his association with '60s-era terror-bomber Bill Ayers wouldn't matter -- an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago's Hyde Park politics

How state Senator Obama was paid more than $100,000 for legal work -- then helped his client's company get $320,000 in taxpayer grants

How, at a time when he says he was short of work and short of cash, Obama obtained $112,000, plus campaign contributions, from someone he later made into a government grantee through his public office

Inside Obama's 17-year relationship and irregular land deal with developer Tony Rezko, whose livelihood depended on sapping the taxpayer for subsidies

"I've never done any favors for him," says Obama about Rezko. But he has -- lots of them, as Freddoso shows

Why Rezko's conviction for corrupting public officials might become the Whitewater scandal of Obama's campaign

How Obama speaks of the days when his family was making $240,000 per year as if he had been suffering poverty -- while, just last March, he voted to raise your taxes if you make over $32,500 per year

The Chicago Machine politician who "made a U.S. senator" out of Obama by giving him plum committee assignments and high-profile legislation in its late stages (often removing the original sponsors), and helping him spread money around through earmarks and "targeted" grants

How Obama avoided taking unpopular stands in the state Senate by voting "present" about 130 times -- or simply by absenting himself from tough votes altogether

Obama's little-known vow to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 -- and why it would mean the end of every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, and the end of all restrictions on government abortion funding

A "new politics"? How, in less than four years as a U.S. senator, Obama has voted for some of the worst special-interest legislation to move through the chamber

How Obama opposes school choice through vouchers or tax credits -- while sending his own children to an elite private school

How Obama wants -- and has voted -- to abolish secret-ballot elections in the workplace when employees determine whether to unionize, allowing unions to intimidate and harass workers who don't support them

Why Obama's foreign policy would take its cues from Jimmy Carter's

"Post-partisan"? Why the respected National Journal named Obama the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2007 -- beating out Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton... and the previous title-holder John Kerry


I am waiting to get my hands on the book so I can read it for myself. I knew that some of these points listed were actually true beforehand, so it may be reliable. Should be interesting.

Because Rumors Run Rampant: Palin Edition

Because Rumors Run Rampant: Palin Edition

I was going to go back to the last premise post, but the response to my last post was of a nature that requires further exploration:

{ 2008 09 06 }Palin Rumors (The actual post has a link for each number but they have either been swamped with hits or taken down by an attack, right now the server is down so I am sharing the list itself with you)

"Updated as of 2008-09-07 0845: This list has grown quite long and I’m finding people referring to the rumors more and more often by number, so I’m going to add all new rumors at the end, so the numbering won’t change any more. And see above.Also, I’m scheduled right now to be on Fox News at 0935 Eastern time Monday morning with Bill Hemmer and Megan Kelly to talk about the list. Excuse me while I have a minor fanboy moment about Megyn Kelly.
1. Yes, she is Governor of Alaska. No, she’s not the Lieutenant Governor. No, she’s not currently Mayor of Wasilla. Yes, she was Mayor of Wasilla, some years ago.
2. Yes, as Governor of Alaska, she’s the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. And yes, her professional military subordinate is quite impressed with her in that role.
3. And yes, the New York Times says the job of Governor of Alaska is one of the harder, and more powerful, jobs in state government.
4. Yes, there are people in Alaska who think she’s too liberal.
5. Yes, she did giggle when someone called Lyda Green a “bitch.” Yes, it was the same Lyda Green who tried to force a scheduling conflict that would make Palin miss her son’s high school graduation. Yes, this would also be the Lyda Green who complained no one had asked her about Palin during the vetting process.
6. Yes, she did push for and approve the Wasilla Sports Center. Yes, it did cost a lot of money. (People keep saying $20 million, that article says $14.5 million, but then they also added a $1.2 million dollar food service/kitchen piece. This year, after Palin was out of office as Mayor.) Yes, the city went into debt to do it (how did you buy your house, bunkie?) and raised the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay for it. Yes, the city is paying it off early.
7. Yes, she did want authority to have wolves culled from the air, because they were taking too many moose and caribou. Which people hunt for food in the back country in Alaska. No, she isn’t shooting them herself. I mean, not that she couldn’t, but I’m sure she doesn’t have time. (Thanks to bluemerlin in the comments.)
8. No, the Downs baby (Trig) isn’t Bristol’s kid, and no, the kid wasn’t born with Downs because (a) Palin flew on an airplane ( went home to have the baby after an amniotic leak © because he was the result of incest between Todd Palin and Bristol.
9. No, Track (the kid who is leaving for Iraq) didn’t join the NG because he was a drug addict. He may have joined the NG because he was tired of people saying his Mom was getting him into the good hockey leagues. (Yes, that one was original reporting. I’ve got sources in Wasilla.)
10. No, Willow and Piper aren’t named for witches on TV. Among other things, Willow was born before Buffy came on TV, and Piper was born before Charmed.
11. Yes, Trig’s name may be misspelled. Isn’t it usually “Tryg” as in “Trygve”? In any case, I doubt he’s named for the Secretary General of the UN (1948-1952), either. But at least that was before he was born, unlike the others.(Thanks to Chris, via his blog
12. Yes, it appears that she has a Big Dipper tattooed on her ankle. She lost a bet.
13. No, she’s never been in any porn as far as anyone can find (and God knows I get enough google hits on those very topics.) I would think the Big Dipper tattoo would be a giveaway.
14. No, no one seems to be able to even find swimsuit pictures of her from her beauty queen days; God knows I looked. The bikini pictures that are around are photoshopped, just like the Vogue cover I have up.
15. No she wasn’t a member of the (wild-eyed libertarian) Alaska independence Party, although her husband once was
16. No, neither the (Canadian) National Post, nor Marc Armbinder at the Atlantic have troubled themselves to issue a correction. Yes, the New York Times did finally correct their story of September 1 — on September 5. This was after Elizabeth Bumiller was quoted by Howard Kurtz as saying she was “completely confident about the story.” Yes, that was after the New York Times’s source retracted the story. Yes, this should embarrass the Times, Bumiller, and Howard Kurtz. No, there have been no signs of embarrassment.
17. No, she was never a Pat Buchanan supporter; even when Buchanan claims she was, she was on the board of Steve Forbes’a campaign in Alaska.
18. No, she’s not anti-semitic. In fact, she has an Israeli flag in her office. (Contrary to popular belief, the usual Evangelical thinks Israel has a right to exist, granted by God.)
19. No, I don’t think she’s being “indoctrinated by Lieberman and AIPAC as we speak”; I don’t get the feeling that being indoctrinated is something that Palin does well.
20. Yes, it seems unlikely that she’s going to be in hiding for the next two weeks seeing as she’s been in rallies twice in the last two days. Or at least it’s going to be real rough, given that she has three media interviews scheduled today (6 September) alone.
21. Yes, it does appear that Palin’s local pastor preached about an end time when God will judge everyone, even Wasilla, Alaska, and the United States. Duh. This is called the Book of Revelations, and while I don’t believe it personally, I don’t see it as a disqualifier for the hundred million or so Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Catholics, Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Lutherans (traditional and Missouri Synod), African Methodist, and so on Christians in the US.
22. Yes, I do sometimes wonder about the state of Andrew’s health.
23. No, she’s doesn’t believe that the Iraq War was directed by God. Yes, she did pray that proceeding with the war was God’s will: “they should pray ‘that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.’” (Ever hear the phrase “Not my will, but Thine, be done”?) Yes, this apparently freaks some people right out.
24. No, Buchanan doesn’t support her now; in fact he’s supporting Obama. (Buchanan did think her speech was amazing, but then so do 80 percent of the people who saw it.) Or maybe not. Buchanan sure doesn’t like McCain though.
25. Yes, she was apparently pregnant when she got married
26. No, so far there’s no confirmation she had an affair while she was married, and they’ve denied it pretty strongly. No, she wouldn’t be the first Christian woman who got a little on the side, if it were true.
27. No, she wasn’t named as a co-respondent in a divorce; there’s no evidence she had an affair with her husbands’ business partner. The partner tried to have his divorce records sealed because he was being harrassed by journalists who used them to get his phone number.
28. Yes, barring immaculate conception virgin birth (whatever), Bristol appears to have had sex with her fiancee. No, Bristol didn’t receive only “abstinence-only” sex ed.
29. Yes, I have it on reliable report that Sarah Levi’s mom has been heard screaming “Way to go Levi!” at her future son-in-law son. No, it doesn’t appear to have been when Bristol broke the news to her family.Note: I originally understood this story to be about Sarah, not Levi’s mom, in the context of hockey games. As such, it’s shouldn’t be in a Sarah Palin Rumors story, but I like the story too much to delete it.
30. yes, her 17 year old daughter is pregnant; no, the baby’s father is not an eighth grader; no, having sex at 16 is not statutory rape in Alaska. And no, there’s no way that a 17 year old can be 5 months pregnant as a result of having sex before she was 16. Learn to count for God’s sakes.
31. yes, she did fire the public safety guy — but he said in the Anchorage paper that, for the record, she never, and no one else in her administration ever, tried to make him fire her ex-brother-in-law
32. and yes, the state trooper (her sister’s ex-husband) she was worried about did: tase her 10 year old nephew; drive his state patrol car while drinking or drunk; did threaten to “bring her down”; and did threaten to murder her father and sister if they dared to get an attorney to help with the divorce.
33. yes, the state trooper was suspended when he was put under a court protective order
34. no, the trooper wasn’t fired
35. yes, she did fire the Wasilla Chief of Police as Mayor; yes, it was because he was lying to the City Council.
36. Yes, she did try to cut her own salary as Mayor by $4000 a year; yes, she had voted against the $4000 a year raise while on the City Council.
37. No, she didn’t cut funding for unwed mothers; yes, she did increase it by “only” 354 percent instead of 454 percent, as part of a multi-year capital expenditures program. No, the Washington Post doesn’t appear to have corrected their story. Even after this was pointed out in the comments on the story.
38. No, she didn’t cut special needs student funding; yes, she did raise it by “only” 175 percent.
39. yes, she did try, clearly unsuccessfully, to get Bristol married off to her fiancee before the story came out
40. yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute
41. No the list of books she wanted to ban that’s being passed around isn’t real; among other things, it includes a number of books published after her time in office there.
42. No, that hasn’t actually deterred people from claiming it really is true even if the list isn’t correct. For example:“This list might not in fact reflect the books Sarah Palin wanted banned. As more than one person in Comments has pointed out, some of them were not published when Palin was in office. It is my hope that the mainstream media will not let this story drop and that at some point an actual list will surface. The very thought of having someone who once advocated book-banning possibly occupying one of the highest offices of our land fills me with profound dread. It should fill you with dread too.”
43. No, I don’t understand why a fake list is supposed to fill me with dread, either.
44. no, it wasn’t won’t be [bad tense, hasn't happened yet] a shotgun wedding; Bristol and Levi been engaged for a good while according to Levi’s mother. It was either an accident or just an unconventional order.
45. yes, she’s an was an Assembly of God Holy Roller. No, she doesn’t attend an AoG church now. Yes, she did leave the AoG because they were getting too weird for her.
46. No, she’s not anti-Mormon. No, not all AoG churches are anti-Mormon. (AoG is even more hard-core about allowing each pastor and congregation to make their own decisions than the Baptists are.) (Thanks to AnonAmom in the comments.)
47. No, she’s not from another planet. No, I haven’t actually heard that one yet, but you wait. Okay, I have now heard it.
48. yes, she apparently believes in some variant of Intelligent Design
49. no, she didn’t try to force the schools to teach it; she said if someone brought it up, it was an appropriate subject for debate.
50. No, she doesn’t believe in “abstinence only” education. Yes, she thinks abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancy. Duh. Yes, she believes kids should learn about condom use in schools.
51. Yes, she did smoke marijuana, when it was legal in Alaska. Yes, she apparently did inhale.
52. yes, she kills animals and eats them, and wears their skins
53. yes, she was a beauty contest contestant
54. yes, she was once a sportscaster
55. yes, she has a college degree in Journalism, but I won’t hold that against her, as she seems to have found honest work as well
56. yes, she sometimes wears her hair up; no that’s not a “beehive”
57. yes, her husband is Not A White Person (he’s a Yup’ik; an Eskimo but not an Inuit as my Inuit cousins have taken some pains to explain)
58. yes, she has on occasion, as Mayor, tried to get money from the federal government.
59. yes, she did finally turn down the money for the bridge. Yes, that meant changing her mind about it.
60. yes, she was vetted extensively, not just in three days — I’ve got links to press reports about people coming to Wassila on 29 May, and we had her on our Veepstakes at PJM from the first day we ran it.
61. yes, she want to a bunch of colleges before getting a degree. No, that’s not illegal. Yes, she seems to have made something of herself anyway.
62. no, they didn’t talk to a lot of the R’s power structure during the vetting; that probably has to do with the fact that she beat them in elections and sent a bunch of them to jail.
63. Yes, Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech was written by a speechwriter. Duh. No, none of Obama’s, McCain’s, nor Biden’s speeches were impromptu off the cuff things either.
64. Yes, she did put the Governors plane on eBay. No, that’s not how it was finally sold. Yes, McCain did say it wrong. Bad McCain.
65. No, Sarah Palin doesn’t have such control of Alaskans that people are afraid to say bad things about her. (What, are you nuts? Look at this list.) No, I don’t think it’s likely that she called Obama “Sambo”. (Good God, man, I’m ten years older than she and I barely remember “Little Black Sambo.”) Yes, it seems unlikely to me that she’s be real racist and marry a Yup’ik (or a part Yup’ik.) But yes, people are capable of amazing things. Yes, I’m sure there are people who don’t like her — I’ve talked with some myself. And no, I don’t think this waitress would have been thrilled to be called an “aboriginal”. And yes, if she called Hillary a “bitch”, I’m pretty confident is wasn’t the first time anyone in politics has said that.
66. No, she’s not a “global warming denier”, and when the crush dies down remind me to explain why the very phrasing “global warming denier” is anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, and a clear sign of a desire to impose your beliefs by coercion. But in the mean time, while I do believe that she has expressed some skepticism that warming is wholly human-caused, the existence of the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet and the Alaska Climate Change Strategy work demonstrate that she’s considering the problem and has brought together people more expert than she to advise her.
67. Yes, Todd Palin did have a DUI. Twenty-two years ago. Get a grip.
68. No, Sarah Palin’s brother isn’t in jail. No matter what the commenter at Anderson Cooper’s page says. (Thanks to Galynn in comments.)
69. Yes, Sarah Palin’s pastor apparently does believe that gays can “repent” and be cured of homosexuality. No, believe it or not, even fundamentalist Christians don’t have to believe every litle thing their pastor believes. Yes, Palin seems to be more libertarian about this."

Chris Of Rights has more links and his server remains intact. Thanks to my good blogfriend Chris Muir and Plumbbobblog for information on this...