Ponderings of a Conservative Mind

Porkulus Bill

2009-02-18T10:55:00.000-05:00

Have you wondered what kind of useless crap was included in the Stimlulus, I mean, Porkulus Bill? Here is a very brief run-down of a very small part of the bill....

---The plan has more than $3 billion in "neighborhood stabilization" and Community Development Block Grant funding, much of which may go to benefit ACORN, a low-income housing and voter registration "community" organization that is under federal investigation for its suspicious voter registration practices.

---$1.3 billion to bailout AMTRAK, the perennial money-loser railroad.

---$1 billion for educational programs, including courses on sexually transmitted diseases.

---$30 million for restoration of wetlands to be spent in the San Francisco Bay Area - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district. The money will go in part to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

---$200 million for a low-pollution, coal-fired power plant in President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois.

---$45 million for ATV four-wheeler trails, and government office renovations, according to RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

---$200 million to provide computers to community colleges.

---$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.

---Over $650 million in coupons to help consumers buy digital TV converter-box coupons.

---A reported $300 million for hybrid vehicles and electric-powered cars. According to the Washington Times, this item will include buying golf carts for federal workers.

GOP Sen. John McCain summed up his view of the bill: "This measure is not bipartisan. It contains much that is not stimulative."

Assigned Reading: Ann Coulter

2009-01-27T11:00:00.003-05:00

MORE BOOS THAN BALLS
Ann Coulter
January 21, 2009

It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.

Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:

-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.

-- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.

-- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.

-- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?

It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.

Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.

Obama's inaugural address tracked much of Reagan's first inaugural address -- minus the substance -- the main difference being that Obama did not invoke God as stoutly or frequently, restricting his heavenly references to a few liberal focus-grouped phrases, such as "God-given" and "God's grace."

Obama was also not as fulsome in his praise of his predecessor as Reagan was. To appreciate how remarkable this is, recall that Reagan's predecessor was Jimmy Carter.

Under Carter, more than 50 Americans were held hostage by a two-bit terrorist Iranian regime for 444 days -- released the day of Reagan's inauguration. Under Bush, there has not been another terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.

But I gather that if Obama had uttered anything more than the briefest allusion to Bush, that would have provoked yet more booing from the Hope-and-Change crowd, which moments earlier had showered Bush with boos when he walked onto the stage. That must be the new tone we've been hearing so much about.

So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come together in a "unity of purpose" if only conservatives would stop fomenting "conflict and discord" -- as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We're not the ones who booed a departing president.

It is a liberal trope to insult conservatives by asking them meaningless questions, such as the one repeatedly asked of Bush throughout his presidency about whether he had made any mistakes. All humans make mistakes -- what is the point of that question other than to give insult?

When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made mistakes? Try: Never.

No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?

Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.

But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly endorse his liberal agenda.

I guess it depends on the meaning of "succeed." If Obama "succeeds" in pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not have "succeeded" at being a good president. If we didn't think conservative principles of small government and strong national defense weren't better for the country, we wouldn't be conservatives.

And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years?

Say, did liberals want Pastor Rick Warren to succeed delivering a meaningful invocation at the inaugural?

The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation -- all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama's stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.

Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.

Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just go away -- and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves.

Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that "the time has come to set aside childish things" -- as Obama said of his own assumption of the presidency. Remember? We're the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

BHO's Arabic Television Interview

2009-01-27T08:56:00.004-05:00

Anyone else NOT surprised that Obama's first television interview is to an Arabic TV network???

Here's a snippet of an old post of mine:

"Barack Obama, himself - Full name: Barack Hussein Obama II.

A little background: Claiming to be born in Hawaii (I say "claiming" because that is currently under scrutiny - click here for more info), may have ties to the Muslim faith. Obama has repeatedly claimed that he was given an "African" name. However, his grandfather's name was "Hussein Onyango Obama". "Hussein" is Arabic-Muslim. NOT African. He named his son (Barack Obama's father) "Baraka". Baraka is an Arabic word meaning "blessed". Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa. Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, Barack Obama II. Again, his name was Arabic and Koranic. Obama has said his father was born a Muslim. In the Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, you are too.

When Obama was only 2 years old, his parents divorced. His mother remarried and the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. In his books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," Obama makes reference to the years he spent in a "Muslim school" while living in Jakarta.

On June 27, 2006, Senator Obama voted against a proposed ban on the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

On August 30, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a bill that would authorize the US to monitor foreign communications routed through our country."

I'm wondering about his motives. Can anybody tell me where his loyalties really lie? Just by closing Guantanamo Bay makes me question things. Why would he release so many known terrorists? And then go on an Arabic television network?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama reaches out to Muslim world on TV
President tells Al-Arabiya U.S. will listen, not dictate in Mideast conflict

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 2 hours, 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama gave his first formal television interview as president to an Arabic cable TV network, saying that when it comes to Middle East matters "all too often the United States starts by dictating."

Obama taped the interview with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya network Monday as his envoy to the Middle East, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, set out for an eight-day trip to the region and elsewhere. The interview complemented the new administration's first efforts to reach out to Arab leaders in the region, who have been wary at best of U.S. efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Noting that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members, Obama said: "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy." He urged Muslims to judge him by his actions, pointing to the decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where detainees in the U.S. war on terror are held. He said he also would begin to implement his pledge to draw down troops in Iraq.

Obama reiterated that America was prepared to extend a hand of peace to Iran if it "unclenched its fist."

"It is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan," he added.

'Potential avenues for progress'On Iran, Obama said he believed it was important to use all the tools of U.S. power with Tehran, including diplomacy.

"Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful, " Obama said.

"It is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but (also) where there are potential avenues for progress.

"If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."
Obama said he felt it important to "get engaged right away" in the Mideast and had directed Mitchell to talk to "all the major parties involved." His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.

"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama told the interviewer.

Hard choicesThe president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally, and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that Israel has hard choices to make and that his administration would press harder for it to do so.

"We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said.

Obama added: "Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."

Obama stopped short of giving a timetable, but he said he is certain progress can be made.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday he was "optimistic" because Obama had assured him that he intended to maintain Washington's "traditional commitment" to Israel.

Racism is Alive and Well

2009-01-23T11:18:00.005-05:00

Ya'll ready for this: If BHO gets his way, racism will be the rule of thumb. Don't believe me? Well, just keep reading.

Can you just imagine the outrage if anyone proposed excluding BLACK males from anything?? Can you say: DOUBLE STANDARD??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert Reich Excludes White Male Construction Workers from Obama Stimulus Plan

Published: Thu January 22nd, 2009
By: Sylvia Cochran
Category: Business & Finance

Families of white, male construction workers may want to pay attention: Robert Reich has opined that the Obama stimulus funds allocated to businesses in the construction industry should be withheld specifically from white men. YouTube features a clip of this memorable little tidbit of political lunacy at work.

On his blog, Robert Reich reasoned "if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out."

While it is comforting that in the audio clip Mr. Reich is quick to disclose that he has "nothing against while male construction workers," the fact that he does not want stimulus generated jobs to go to "white male construction workers" is gravely disconcerting. Even more alarming is the fact that Barack Obama has remained mum about the opinions expressed by his economic adviser.

Would there have been an outcry has Mr. Reich suggested keeping the stimulus funds from being spent on "black male construction workers" or "undocumented alien construction workers?" Maybe it would have made waves had he opined on "Jewish construction workers" or "female construction workers?" As it stands, it would appear that Robert Reich has declared open season on white males.

Of course, it is also quite evident that Robert Reich has not walked by a construction site in California. As the USA Today reported as far back as 2007, the influx of Hispanic workers in Los Angeles and surrounding areas has led to a shift in construction job allocation, and now "67% of construction workers are Hispanic."

This brings up a number of disturbing questions. First and foremost, should affirmative action be instituted when saving American residents who are suffering economically? Is a Hispanic family who loses a home more in need than a Caucasian family in the same situation? Is an African American construction worker without a job more in need of work than an unemployed Caucasian construction worker with the same skills?

Moreover, if Robert Reich has a house built, does he care about the skin color of the construction workers or does he worry more about their skill level? That said, if he were to follow his own suggestion, his home should be built by unskilled labor derived from a minority population. Is this the "hope" and "change" we were promised?

BHO to Use Tax Money to Fund Abortions

2009-01-23T10:51:00.003-05:00

This just makes my stomach turn. NO WAY would I ever want my money going to pay for the murder of innocent babies, but I guess I should expect no less from BHO. I just wonder how much worse it can get.

BHO's Checklist (so far):
Disrespect the Constitution: CHECK
Disrespect Former Presidents: CHECK
Disrespect the Oval Office: CHECK
Use Tax Money to Fund Murder: CHECK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding
President Obama is expected to sign the executive order one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

FOXNews.com
Friday, January 23, 2009

President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama will sign the executive order one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The move, long expected in the Democratic president's first week in office, will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The so-called Mexico City policy requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.

The policy was first instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and continued by President George H.W. Bush. The policy was reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and re-instated by President George W. Bush in 2001.

On Thursday, Obama signed three executive orders to rein in secretive U.S. counterterror policies and end harsh interrogations.

FOX News' Major Garrett and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

No Jacket in the Oval Office

2009-01-22T10:45:00.001-05:00

I've always liked the respect that President Bush showed toward the Oval Office, quite the opposite of Bill Clinton and now Obama. What's next on Obama's agenda? I'm not sure I want to know.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 21, 2009

A major Bush rule gets scrapped by Obama

(CNN) — It's the same Oval Office. The same desk. Even the same curtains. But President Obama has already made one major change: Go through eight years of White House photos, and you won't find one of former President Bush in the Oval Office without his jacket on.

It wasn't just a personal preference. In the Bush administration, it was a rule: Jackets in the Oval Office — and now, it seems, one of the first Bush-era regulations to get scrapped in the Obama White House.

Presidential Oath

2009-01-20T14:38:00.003-05:00

Obama had trouble saying that he would faithfully execute the office of president of the United States.

Hmm....freudian slip?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama, chief justice flub oath'I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear ... '
Posted: January 20, 2009
11:54 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Obama and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. flubbed the presidential oath of office today, stumbling when attempting to complete the "execute faithfully the office of president of the United States" portion of the swearing-in statement.

Roberts administered the oath.

"Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?" he asked.

"I am," Obama responded.

Roberts began by stating the president-elect's name, but he was cut off before he could finish.

"I Barack …" Obama eagerly chimed in before Roberts could complete the first sentence.
Obama then allowed Roberts to continue.

"I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully," Roberts said, flipping some of the words.

"That I will execute …" Obama stumbled and stared blankly at Roberts.

Roberts repeated, " … faithfully the office of president of the United States."

"The office of president of the United States faithfully," Obama said.

"And will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God," he finally finished.

Obama began his inaugural speech falsely stating, "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

In fact, only 43 presidents have done so, as Grover Cleveland held the office for two nonconsecutive terms.

For the Kool-Aid Drinkers

2009-01-20T14:31:00.001-05:00

(Photo from Rush Limbaugh's website)

This is My Kind of "Hope"

2008-11-20T12:14:00.003-05:00

The fact that the Supreme Court Justices have decided to hold a conference to review the Donofrio case (as opposed to just simply tossing it out) is a great sign. I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but I am keeping my fingers crossed. If Obama is indeed a citizen and is indeed qualified to become POTUS, then why doesn't he just produce the appropriate paperwork? I'm hoping the Supreme Court Justices will be just as suspicious as a lot of citizens are right now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484

Supremes to review Barack's citizenship
Case challenging his name on ballot set for 'conference'

Posted: November 20, 20081:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.

The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

According to America's Right blogger Jeff Schreiber, there also was a development in a second case presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue.

His report said the Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.

"There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response," the blogger speculated.

"Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents," he added.

"If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I'm surprised," Berg told America's Right. "I'm surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn't seem to exist.

"However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion," he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General's office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

But he noted that "questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day."

Just last week, WND reported on worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office.

The disputes all cite "natural-born citizen" requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.

The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

An Obama spokesman interviewed by WND described such lawsuits as "garbage."

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote, when it is held in December, by a 2-to-1 margin.

The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.

"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

The "certificate of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

WND has reported other challenges that have been raised in Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii.

Looking Ahead - The 2012 Presidential Election

2008-11-20T09:44:00.009-05:00

I've decided to start looking ahead towards the 2012 Presidential Election. Here's a little info on two could-be candidates, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Sarah Palin:

Gov. Bobby Jindal

- Currently the Governor of Louisiana

- In 1996, he was appointed as secretary of the LA Department of Health and Hospitals. During this time, LA's Medicaid program went from bankruptcy and a $400 million deficit into three years of surpluses totaling $220 million. In 1998, the was appointed executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, a panel which had the responsibility of developing plans to reform Medicare.

- In 1999, he was appointed as the youngest-ever president of the University of Louisiana System.

- In March 2001, he was nominated by President Bush to be the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation, and was confirmed as the principal policy advisor to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in July of 2001. He resigned from this position in 2003 so thathe could run for governor (which he subsequently lost).

- In 2004, he ran for a seat in the US House of Representatives. Upon winning that election, he was was appointed to the House Committee on Homeland Security, the House Committee on Resources, and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. He was also made vice-chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks.

- In 2007, he ran for Governor of the State of Louisiana, a position he won in a four-man race with 54% of the vote. He assumed the position in January of 2008, becoming (at age 36) the youngest sitting Governor in the US. He is also LA's first non-white governor to be elected.

- The way he handled the evacuation during Hurricane Gustav was in stark contract to how Katrina was handled. He issued mandatory evacuation orders for LA's coastal areas and activated 3,000 National Guardsman to assist. The evacuation was credited as the reason that Hurricane Gustan on resulted in 16 deaths.

- Most notably, to me, he has a 100% pro-life voting record. "He does not condemn medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy. Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape. He opposes embryonic stem cell research and voted against increasing federal funding to expand embryonic stem cell lines." (Wikipedia)

- Voted yes on making the PATRIOT Act permanent

- Voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act

- Supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning

- Voted for the Real ID Act of 2005

- Supports co-payments in Medicaid

- In 2008, he signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill", authorizing the chemical castration (see below) of those convited of certain sex offenses.

"Chemical Castration - At least six states in the United States (California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana) have experimented with chemical castration laws. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In cases in which the victim is under 13 years of age, California judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense, treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 June 25, 2008, allowing Louisiana judges to sentence convicted rapists to chemical castration. Depo-Provera, a progestin, is a drug that is sometimes used on sex offenders, as is medroxyprogesterone."

Gov. Sarah Palin

- Currently the Governor of Alaska

- Prior to becoming Governor, she served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the Mayor of Wasilla. During that time, she reduced property tax levels while increasing services making Wasilla business friendly and drawing in new industry.

- She served as chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission, which regulates the state's most valuable resources: oil and gas.

- She was elected by her peers to serve as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

- In 2006, she was elected as Governor of Alaska, becoming the first woman to do so (and, at 42, the youngest in Alaskan history).

- While under her leadship as Governor, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program that provides support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to provide oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and the Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska.

- Her administration passed two major pieces of legislation – an overhaul of the state’s ethics laws and a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline.

- Governor Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multi-state government agency that promotes the conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and the environment.

- She was recently named chair of the National Governors Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee, which is charged with pursuing legislation to ensure state needs are considered as federal policy is formulated in the areas of agriculture, energy, environmental protection and natural resource management. Prior to being named to this position, she served as co-chair of this committee. (Information obtained from her website.)

- She is an ardent social conservative and her deep religious convictions guide her politics.

- She supports sex education in public schools that encourages abstinence but also discusses birth control.

- She opposes same-sex marriage

- She believes abortion is an "atrocity" and should be banned in nearly all cases, including rape and incest, except if the life of the mother is endangered.

- She does not support embryonic stem cell research.

- She believes the right to bear arms includes handgun possession, and is against a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. She has supported gun safety education for youth.

- She supports capital punishment.

- She has promoted oil and natural gas resource exploration in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

- She supports preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat, and supports U.S. military operations in Pakistan.

WARNING: Extreme IRONY Ahead!

2008-11-19T12:13:00.003-05:00

The audacity of this man will never cease to amaze me. BHO is scrutinizing Clinton's foreign ties? How can BHO, who has so many questionable foreign ties and questionable foreign campaign contributions, EVER question Clinton's foreign ties? Wow. Well, America, this is just a little insight into the tyranny that we have in store for us for the next four years. To BHO, it's okay to question everyone else, but he's allowed to be "friends" with terrorist, accept unidentifed foreign campaign contributions, have his college records sealed, have his birth certificate kept secret, etc. etc. etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5175364.ece

Barack Obama's vetters study Bill Clinton's foreign ties
From The Times
November 18, 2008

Lawyers for Barack Obama are examining Bill Clinton’s ties to foreign governments and his complex finances as they seek to clear the way for his wife to become secretary of state, aides disclosed yesterday.

Mr Obama’s investigative team, led by his chief vetter Christine Varney, are concerned about any conflicts of interest between the former President’s philanthropy and the duties that Hillary Clinton would undertake on the world stage as America’s top diplomat.

That Mr Clinton is undergoing a form of vetting shows that Mr Obama is serious about making Mrs Clinton his secretary of state, but also that her husband’s activities could complicate matters. Mr Obama met Mrs Clinton in Chicago on Thursday and aides on both sides say that the job of secretary of state was discussed.

The Obama team do not believe that Mr Clinton is a serious obstacle to appointing his wife. Yet if she were given the job she would face scrutiny over her husband’s connections with foreign governments – the same leaders that she would be dealing with on behalf of Mr Obama – and fresh calls for him to reveal the list of foreign donors to his presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas, and his charitable foundation.

Mr Clinton is not required to reveal the list of donors, and has consistently refused to do so. Known foreign benefactors include the King of Morocco, the governments of Kuwait and Qatar, the Saudi Royal Family and the son-in-law of Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine’s deposed President.
Since founding the Clinton Global Initiative, Mr Clinton says that he has garnered $46 billion (£30.6 billion) that has improved more than 200 million lives in 150 countries.

All Mr Obama’s potential Cabinet and White House appointees must answer an exhaustive 63-point questionnaire covering personal and professional dealings, including those of spouses. They are asked if there are “any categories of personal financial records . . . that you (or your spouse) will not release publicly. If so, please identify these records and state the reasons for withholding them”. In a copy of the questionnaire leaked by the Obama transition team to The Washington Post, the word Clinton had been scribbled next to that question.

One of the most controversial issues involved Mr Clinton’s dealings with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining executive. It has been alleged that the former President helped him to win a uranium-mining contract in Kazakhstan. Months afterwards a foundation run by Mr Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Another pitfall that the Obama team wants to avoid is any impression that she might be influenced in how she deals with foreign leaders because of their links to her husband. If Mrs Clinton does become the country’s chief diplomat, other complications could arise as she starts building her team. Some of her foreign policy aides and Mr Obama’s enjoy a relationship of mutual mistrust. Meanwhile, Mr Obama held a closed meeting with John McCain in his transition offices in Chicago. Mr Obama has vowed to govern in a bipartisan spirit, and having a cordial relationship with Mr McCain – who will be an influential figure in the Senate – will be important. He also hopes to use Mr McCain’s congressional weight on areas where they share common legislative goals, such as tackling global warming and closing Guantanamo Bay.
In a joint statement, the pair said they had “a productive conversation . . . about the need to launch a new era of reform”, tackling “government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington”.

From foe to friend

December 2007
Mrs Clinton’s campaign releases a memo describing an essay that Mr Obama wrote in kindergarten entitled “I want to become President”, in an apparent attempt to show him as overly ambitious

January 21, 2008
Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton trade jabs at a debate in South Carolina, over her work on the board of Wal-Mart and his involvement with the convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

June 2008
Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama campaign together, for the first time, in Unity, New Hampshire

August 2008
Mrs Clinton calls at the Democratic convention for Mr Obama’s unanimous nomination

How Obama Got Elected DOT COM

2008-11-18T15:55:00.003-05:00

I've said it before and I'll say it again: ignorance is what got Obama elected. Lucky for him, unlucky for America. ::sigh::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://howobamagotelected.com/

On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.

On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.

Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, we also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.

Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test
Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden
Read the story here >>Get full poll results here >>
Zogby Attacked >>
Zogby Forced to Defend Poll >>

Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

The Many Citizenship Lawsuits

2008-11-17T14:15:00.003-05:00

If you have not been keeping up with the issue of BHO's citizenship, you'll want to read this article in its entirety. It's pretty interesting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928

Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage'
Legal challenges spring up across U.S., demand proof of eligibility for office

Posted: November 13, 200810:30 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama's decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship
status.

An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

"All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage," she said. "There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed."

WND is tracking the progress of many cases across the U.S., including the following:

Ohio
David M. Neal of Turtlecreek Township, Ohio, filed suit in Warren Common Pleas Court in October to force Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

Warren County Magistrate Andrew Hasselbach denied Neal's request, saying, "The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence – not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation."

Connecticut
Connecticut resident Cort Wrotnowski challenged the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate on Oct. 31, and asked the court to order Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz to verify Obama's citizenship before allowing the candidate to appear on the state ballot. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers threw out the case for lack of jurisdiction within a half hour of reviewing it.

"I have not seen the ruling yet," Wrotnowski told WND. "So, in reality, the case was not heard on its merits. … Currently, we are assembling information for another and better try."

Washington
As WND reported earlier, Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Marquis said Obama's Hawaii birth certificate isn't evidence that the president-elect is a natural-born citizen because it doesn't reveal the hospital where Obama was born, a doctor's name or the baby's footprint, the Associated Press reported.

Superior Court Judge John Erlick dismissed the lawsuit, claiming the secretary of state does not have authority to inquire about Obama's birth certificate. He also said Marquis failed to name Obama as a party to the lawsuit.

New Jersey
In Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, retired attorney and New Jersey resident Leo. C. Donofrio asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay on Nov. 3 prohibiting three candidates from appearing on New Jersey's ballots: Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Worker's Party candidate Roger Calero.

Donofrio claimed the candidates are not "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which states, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

He wrote, Obama is not eligible for the presidency "even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, since … Senator Obama's father was born in Kenya and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' …"

"Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama," the request states. "Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. And the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been verified by Respondent."

Donofrio said Panama has never been considered U.S. soil, and that McCain is merely a citizen at birth by statute, and not a "natural born citizen."

With three ineligible presidential candidates on ballots, Donofrio warned, New Jersey voters will "witness firsthand the fraud their electoral process has become."

Justice David Souter denied Donofrio's application on Nov. 6. However, his case is still pending as an emergency stay application. Donofrio is resubmitting his request for an emergency stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pennsylvania
As WND reported earlier, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court three months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Berg claimed that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed Berg's argument on Oct, 24, ruling that he lacked standing to bring the case. He said Berg's allegations were "too vague and too attenuated."

"This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be president of the United States – the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?"

Berg filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct.30, to force Obama to produce his birth certificate. Justice David Souter rejected an emergency appeal on Nov. 3, for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Obama documented his eligibility to run for office. However, Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama, the DNC and all co-defendants on or before Dec. 1.

"I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama," Berg wrote in a Nov. 7 statement. "I believe Mr. Obama is not a consitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of the President of the United States."

Georgia
Rev. Tom Terry of Atlanta, Ga., appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court the day before the election to determine authenticity of Obama's original birth certificate and his qualifications to be president.

"I bear no personal ill will against Barack Obama," Terry, an independent, said in a statement.

"In fact, his election solely on the basis as the first African-American president-elect is a very positive thing for our nation. However, as an American, I have very grave concerns about Mr. Obama's possible divided loyalties since he has strenuously and vigorously fought every request and every legal effort to force him to release his original birth certificate for public review and scrutiny. I think that is significant."

On Oct 24, Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied Terry's request for an injunction against Secretary of State Karen Handel.

"I don't think you have standing to bring this suit," he said. "I think that the attorney general has argued the law. I think he is correct. I think you are not a lawyer."

Terry is appealing his suit even though Obama didn't win Georgia because he said he wants to set an example for other states. He is asking the court to direct Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel to decertify all votes for Obama.

"Hopefully, this action will be noticed by other states and they will also take a serious look at the meaning of Georgia's Supreme Court's actions," he said. "It is apropos that the Latin motto in the Georgia Supreme Court is interpreted: 'Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.' I think if the Court rules in my favor, that motto will come alive with meaning and impact."

Hawaii
On Oct. 17, Andy Martin filed a writ of mandamus in Hawaii's Supreme Court to compel Gov. Linda Lingle to release a certified copy of Obama's vital statistics record. His request to expedite the circuit court was denied on Oct. 22.

Martin now has a pending case seeking access to Obama's original 1961 typewritten birth certificate. The circuit court hearing is set to begin Nov. 18.

The saga continues …
Several unconfirmed reports also indicate that citizens of Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia have also filed lawsuits or requested court orders to verify Obama's citizenship status.

As reported earlier, WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi traveled both to Kenya and Hawaii to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth.

But his discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor's office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin – leaving some to wonder if the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicates a Hawaiian birth or whether it was generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.

The Obama campaign posted a certification of live birth, a document stating the baby was born on Aug. 4, 1961. However, according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, there is a difference between the two documents. A certification of live birth is not an authentication of Hawaiian birth, and critics say the procedure could have allowed Obama's mother to have the baby elsewhere, return to the U.S. and obtain the document in Hawaii.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands makes a distinction between the two:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the
original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete
record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout).
Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the
computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

However, Andy Martin has specifically requested verification of the original 1961 type-written certificate of live birth – or, as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands describes it, the "more complete record" of Obama's birth.

Further adding to complications, Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu; then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

But a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya.

Seeking to settle the issue, Hawaii Department of Health Director Director Chiyome Fukino released an Oct. 31 statement saying, "State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
The statement does not clarify whether "the record" is a certification of live birth or a Hawaiian certificate of live birth.

Before the election, WND retained a top private investigator in Hawaii with extensive FBI training and tasked him with visiting both the Queens Medical Center and the Kaliolani Medical Center to investigate claims that Obama birth certificates existed at either hospital.

However, the private investigator reported that sheriff's deputies were stationed at both hospitals to fend off press inquiries about Obama's birth certificate.

When WND asked the Obama campaign spokeswoman why Obama simply hasn't released the original 1961 certificate of live birth to make the lawsuits go away, she replied, "I have no idea. I think they released what they chose to release, and Hawaii has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii, so I don't know what else you want."

MSM Finally Covers the Pending Lawsuits - Kind Of

2008-11-17T14:07:00.003-05:00

It's about time the MSM* decides to cover one of the many lawsuits regarding Obama's citizenship status. Of course, they aren't covering the lengthy issues of the suit so I'm not sure if many people will even give the pending suits the credibility they deserve. I believe if BHO is indeed eligible to be POTUS, then all he would have to do would be produce the relevant documentation and be done with it. But he won't. That's why I think there is something to these suits. Be sure to check the blog in my sidebar: America's Right. He does a very good job of covering the lawsuits against BHO.

*Mainstream Media

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html

Former Obama opponent now suing to prove President-elect's citizenship

By Rich Rogers rrogers@nbcaugusta.com
Story Published: Nov 17, 2008 at 12:30 PM EST
Story Updated: Nov 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM EST

SACRAMENTO, Calif.- A former opponent of Barack Obama's has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama's citizenship.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of his American Independent Party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama.

Some conservatives have questioned Obama's citizenship in recent months. Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Keyes also ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate.

Freedom of Speech May Be A Thing of The Past

2008-11-17T10:11:00.004-05:00

BHO is plotting to take away our Freedom of Speech. I wonder what's next....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html

November 17, 2008
Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio
By Jim Boulet, Jr.

Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign. Now, with the ink barely dry on this November's ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio.
Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead "Fairness Doctrine". Instead, Obama's attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.

The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu.

Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago's Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky's beliefs and methods.

"Alinsky jujitsu" as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.

Team Obama and the "localism" weapon
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called "localism." Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.
On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.'s Operation Push.

Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent. The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of "the absence of localism in American radio markets" and urged the FCC to "[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Podesta's choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission's transition team is Henry Rivera.

Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:

In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.

Rivera's law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.

It was on Martin's watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations. According to TVNewsday: "At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him."

FCC complaints as politics by other means
Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States. A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station's license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.

There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry's war record:

Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.

Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company's willingness to respect "localism," a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.

One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:

But what isn't done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates' FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next. ... [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.

More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a "fill in the blanks" official FCC complaint form which begins "Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting."

Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments
These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized. That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th.

Every radio and television station would be required to create:

[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. ...

To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.

The "community advisory board as permanent complaint department" model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:

[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. ... [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. ...

By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York...[emphasis in original].

Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint. Just ask "right wing hatchet man" Stanley Kurtz.

For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.

Can localism be stopped?
FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters.

However, Kevin Martin's determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact. If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, "a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one."

This scare tactic -- agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow -- is having an impact.

What broadcasters need to do: speak up now
Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC's proposals.

If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.

This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.

The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism
While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.

A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful. A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.

Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..

Do You Want a Job in the Obama Administration?

2008-11-13T11:41:00.006-05:00

If any of you have checked out the Change.gov website yet, I'm sure you have noticed that you can apply for a "non-career position - whether in the White House or in any Federal Department, Agency or Commission." However, the questionnaire for the applicants is rather extensive. I'm just wondering: if Obama doesn't have to provide his birth certificate, school records, medical records, etc., then hopefully he won't ask the same of the applicants. That would be just a touch hypocritcal, don't you think?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All

Two of the 63 requests for personal and professional records from a questionnaire for applicants to the Obama administration. Some requests cover applicants’ spouses and grown children.

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: November 12, 2008

WASHINGTON — Want a top job in the Obama administration? Only pack rats need apply, preferably those not packing controversy.

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps.

Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.

The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”

The vetting process for executive branch jobs has been onerous for decades, with each incoming administration erecting new barriers in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past, or the controversies of the present. It is typically updated to reflect technological change (there was no Facebook the last time a new president came to town).

But Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members, in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back-scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.

“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.

Jobs with the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have served as lucrative incubators for Democratic and Republican administration officials. But those affiliations have become potentially toxic since the government seized both companies after years of financial irregularities that have stoked the economic crisis.

Not surprisingly, then, Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout.

Under “Domestic Help,” the questionnaire asks the immigration status of applicants’ housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers, and whether applicants have paid the required taxes for household employees. (Those questions reflect controversies that tripped up President Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for attorney general in 1993.)

“Every transition is cumulative,” said Michael Berman, a lawyer and lobbyist who worked in the transitions of both Mr. Clinton and President Jimmy Carter. After reviewing the Obama application, Mr. Berman added, “I am very happy I am not seeking a job in the federal government.”

A former Clinton White House official who insisted on anonymity said in an e-mail message, “I believe it is considerably more detailed than we had to fill out in ’93. Interesting that they want spouse information on everything — means lots of folks are going to have to list the very prominent — and controversial — companies that their spouses work/lobby for.”

The first question asks applicants not just for a résumé, but for every résumé and biographical statement issued by them or others for the past 10 years — a likely safeguard against résumé falsehoods, one Clinton administration veteran said.

Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests. Applicants must report all businesses with which they and their spouses have been affiliated or in which they have had a financial stake of more than 5 percent. All gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives must be identified.

Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”

The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”

For those who clear all the hurdles, the reward could be the job they wanted. But first there will be more forms, for security and ethics clearances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Government Ethics.

Bailout Lacks Oversight

2008-11-13T11:26:00.002-05:00

The bailout lacks oversight? Really? And people are surprised by this?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846.html?hpid=topnews

Bailout Lacks Oversight Despite Billions Pledged
Watchdog Panel Is Empty; Report Is Unfinished

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 13, 2008; Page A01

In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders.

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.
Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

"It's a mess," said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing."

In approving the rescue package, lawmakers trumpeted provisions in the legislation that established layers of independent scrutiny, including a special inspector general to be nominated by the White House and a congressional oversight panel to be named by lawmakers themselves.

Some lawmakers and their aides fear that political squabbling on Capitol Hill and bureaucratic logjams could delay their work for months. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which also has some oversight responsibilities, is worried about the difficulty of hiring people who can understand the intensely complicated financial work involved.

The legislation grants the special inspector, who is expected to be the primary overseer of the program, a budget of $50 million. The measure calls for him to conduct audits and investigations of how the government spends money under the bailout program, including on equity investments in firms. In particular, he is to report about any assets acquired and their value, plus an explanation of why they were acquired and details on individuals or companies involved in the transactions.

The leading candidate for the post is Neil M. Barofsky, a federal prosecutor in New York, and his nomination could come as soon as this week, according to people familiar with the matter.

Barofsky, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, is the chief of the office's mortgage fraud group and the lead prosecutor in the $2.4 billion accounting-fraud case against former executives of the collapsed financial firm Refco. He was formerly a white-collar criminal defense attorney in New York.
It is unclear that Barofsky would be confirmed by the Senate, as required, anytime soon. One complicating factor is a battle between the Finance and Banking committees over which has jurisdiction over the confirmation process. Spokeswomen for both panels said the issue has not been resolved and may not be until after President Bush names his choice.

Nonetheless, the finance committee has scheduled a hearing for Monday afternoon in the event that a nominee is named.

Several congressional aides, however, said they did not understand how the Senate could possibly do all the proper vetting for such a critical appointment in just a few days. Thorson's confirmation process, for example, took nearly a year. But Treasury officials and Senate aides worry that if the nominee is not confirmed next week, when Congress is back in town for a lame-duck session, then the process might be delayed well into next year.

It Was a Hoax

2008-11-13T09:06:00.002-05:00

An elaborate internet hoaxed fooled people into believing that Sarah P alin did not know that Africa was a continent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character. But under the circumstances, why should anyone believe a word they say?

“That’s a really good question,” one of the two, Eitan Gorlin, said with a laugh.

(For what it’s worth, another reporter for The New York Times is an acquaintance of Mr. Gorlin and vouches for his identity, and Mr. Gorlin is indeed “Mr. Eisenstadt” in those videos. He and his partner in deception, Dan Mirvish, have entries on the Internet Movie Database, imdb.com. But still. ...)

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.
Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.

An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. “It had not been vetted,” he said. “It should not have made air.”

But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.

The hoax began a year ago with short videos of a parking valet character, who Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish said was the original idea for a TV series.

Soon there were videos showing him driving a car while spouting offensive, opinionated nonsense in praise of Rudolph W. Giuliani. Those videos attracted tens of thousands of Internet hits and a bit of news media attention.

When Mr. Giuliani dropped out of the presidential race, the character morphed into Eisenstadt, a parody of a blowhard cable news commentator.

Mr. Gorlin said they chose the name because “all the neocons in the Bush administration had Jewish last names and Christian first names.”

Eisenstadt became an adviser to Senator John McCain and got a blog, updated occasionally with comments claiming insider knowledge, and other bloggers began quoting and linking to it. It mixed weird-but-true items with false ones that were plausible, if just barely.

The inventors fabricated the Harding Institute, named for one of the most scorned presidents, and made Eisenstadt a senior fellow.

It didn’t hurt that a man named Michael Eisenstadt is a real expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and is quoted in the mainstream media. The real Mr. Eisenstadt said in an interview that he was only dimly aware of the fake one, and that his main concern was that people understood that “I had nothing to do with this.”

Before long Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish had produced a short documentary on Martin Eisenstadt, supposedly for the BBC, posted in several parts on YouTube.

In June they produced what appeared to be an interview with Eisenstadt on Iraqi television promoting construction of a casino in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Then they sent out a news release in which he apologized. Outraged Iraqi bloggers protested the casino idea.

Among the Americans who took that bait was Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. A few hours later Mr. Stein put up a post on the magazine’s political blog, with the title “Hoax Alert: Bizarre ‘McCain Adviser’ Too Good to Be True,” and explained how he had been fooled.
In July, after the McCain campaign compared Senator Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, the Eisenstadt blog said “the phone was burning off the hook” at McCain headquarters, with angry calls from Ms. Hilton’s grandfather and others. A Los Angeles Times political blog, among others, retold the story, citing Eisenstadt by name and linking to his blog.

Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.

Among those taken in by Monday’s confession about the Palin Africa report was The New Republic’s political blog. Later the magazine posted this atop the entry: “Oy — this would appear to be a hoax. Apologies.”

But the truth was out for all to see long before the big-name take-downs. For months sourcewatch.org has identified Martin Eisenstadt as a hoax. When Mr. Stein was the victim, he blogged that “there was enough info on the Web that I should have sussed this thing out.”
And then there is William K. Wolfrum, a blogger who has played Javert to Eisenstadt’s Valjean, tracking the hoaxster across cyberspace and repeatedly debunking his claims. Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish praised his tenacity, adding that the news media could learn something from him.
“As if there isn’t enough misinformation on this election, it was shocking to see so much time wasted on things that didn’t exist,” Mr. Wolfrum said in an interview.

Obama Adviser Held Secret Meeting with Terrorist Group

2008-11-11T16:25:00.004-05:00

This does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings. I just don't like the idea that Obama's advisers have kept in contact with Hamas, a known terrorist group. Not to mention I do not like the idea that a terrorist group would endorse a candidate for the presidency anyway.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hamas: We met Obama advisers
Terrorist group says campaign asked it to keep contact secret until after election
Posted: November 11, 20089:39 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Hamas held a meeting in the Gaza Strip several months ago with aides to President-elect Barack Obama, but the terror group was asked to keep the contacts secret until after last week's elections, according to a senior Hamas official.

Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' chief political adviser in Gaza, told the leading Al-Hayat Arabic-language newspaper Hamas has maintained regular communication with Obama aides that even continued during the past week.

"We were in contact with a number of Obama's aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as they may have a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain (to attack Obama)," Yousuf told Al-Hayat.

Yousuf said Hamas's contact with Obama's advisers was ongoing, adding that relations were maintained after Obama's electoral victory last Tuesday.

Yousef could not be reached by WND for immediate comment. It wasn't clear which Obama aides Hamas is claiming to have met in Gaza. Obama's transition team did not immediately respond to a WND e-mail and phone message requesting comment.

Obama's senior foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, told the Jerusalem Post today, "This assertion is just plain false."

Yousef gave WND a series of recent interviews in which he praised Obama as the leading candidate. Last week, he called Obama's win a "historic victory" for the world and told WND that Hamas was sending a letter of congratulation to the president-elect.

Six months ago, Robert Malley, a Mideast expert described as an ancillary adviser to Obama, resigned amid a report in a London newspaper that he had contact with Hamas. According to some media reports, Malley is again representing Obama's positions in meetings in Egypt and Syria, although it wasn't immediately clear whether he was acting independently. FrontPageMagazine.com claims Malley was dispatched by Obama.

Hamas is responsible for scores of suicide bombings, rocket attacks, shootings and cross-border raids. Its official charter calls for the murder of Jews and destruction of Israel. Just today, Hamas members took responsibility for launching dozens of rockets from Gaza aimed at Jewish civilian population centers.

Last week, Yousef told WND of Obama's win: "This is a historic day, a turning point. I think this is the very first time in history that one country's election concerned everyone everywhere all over [the] world. Everybody is looking forward to Obama's change, for a change in the U.S. policy, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian equation, which is the mother of all conflicts."
Yousef said he believes an Obama administration will be more willing to engage in dialogue with Hamas.

He said Obama's job will be to "restore America's dignity in the world and put an end to the wars in the region."

Yousef took the occasion to blast the policies of President Bush, commenting he hopes "that after January the Bush administration will not be heard from again."

"We are sick of wars and conflict," the Hamas official said.

Yousef seemed aware his comments may generate some negative publicity for Obama, but he said he feels it important to "reach out and to express our thoughts and engage."

"I praised him six months ago, some people tried to use that against him. But I knew he would win. Like everyone else, we expected this important victory," he said.

Yousef was referring to an interview he gave to WND and WABC Radio in April in which he praised Obama and then found his comments had fueled a firestorm of accusations in the presidential campaign.

In April, Yousef stated he hoped Obama would become president, comparing the Illinois senator to President John F. Kennedy.

"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election," Yousef told WND at the time.

"I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. ... I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance," Yousef said.

Sen. John McCain repeatedly used Yousef's remarks to criticize Obama's judgment foreign policy.

He's Got A LOT to Learn

2008-11-11T12:19:00.002-05:00

This really screams of Obama's inexperience and unprofessionalism. I think someone needs to hire him a tutor......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BUSH ANGER: OBAMA AIDES LEAK CHAT DETAILS
Tue Nov 11 2008 09:28:10 ET

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim. "Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

"BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY," splashed the NEW YORK TIMES in an exclusive Monday evening, quoting "people familiar with the discussion." The two met at the White House in private, without staff.

"Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia," claimed the TIMES.

The ASSOCIATED PRESS quickly followed with details of the conversation, citing "aides who described the discussion on grounds of anonymity, citing the private nature of the meeting."

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained.

Developing...

The Ol' Bait and Switch

2008-11-11T09:41:00.004-05:00

Back-tracking already? Realizing he bit off more than he could chew? Makes me wonder.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXCLUSIVE: Agenda disappears from Obama Web site
Stephen Dinan - Tuesday, November 11, 2008

EXCLUSIVE:
President-elect Barack Obama over the weekend scrubbed his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda for his first term that appears on his campaign's site.

Gone from Change.gov are the promises on how an Obama administration would handle 25 agenda items — from Iraq and immigration to taxes and urban policy — which the campaign first laid out on the Web site www.BarackObama.com.

As The Washington Times first reported Monday morning, the official agenda on Change.gov has been boiled down to one vague paragraph proclaiming a plan "to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives."

"We are currently retooling the Web site," said Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro.

The 25 agenda items and Mr. Obama's action items for each are still available on Mr. Obama's campaign site.

The Obama team announced Change.gov on Wednesday, but because of an early glitch, the site wasn't available to the public until Thursday. The agenda items, which were active for at least part of the weekend, appeared to have been deleted by late Saturday.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama harnessed the Internet with incredible success, communicating with millions of supporters and providing live streaming video of his appearances. Mr. Obama said it was part of his commitment to transparency and is expected to translate much of that to www.WhiteHouse.gov when he takes office.

But political technology professionals said it appeared that Mr. Obama's team had been too abrupt with Change.gov and didn't want the new administration tied to the campaign's list.

"I believe they were a bit out in front of themselves and realized after the fact that they didn't want to limit their agenda/priorities to what they put on the Web site before they had a clear picture of America's needs in a postelection environment," said David All, who as founder of Slatecard.com helped pioneer grass-roots online political donations for conservatives.

Conservative interest groups demanded that Mr. Obama repost his agenda to make it clear where he wants to lead the country.

"Does this represent a shift in Mr. Obama's position on Iraq?" said Brian Wise, executive director of Military Families United, which advocates for finishing the military mission in Iraq.
Grover Norquist, president of conservative activist group Americans for Tax Reform, blasted Mr. Obama for deleting the agenda.

"This is the opposite of transparency," he said. His organization posted to its Web site, www.atr.org, a scanned copy of a printout of the "Economy" section of Mr. Obama's agenda.
Change.gov still contains pages about how to apply for jobs in the Obama administration, biographies of top transition team members and a call for Americans to serve as volunteers and for students to perform 50 hours of community service. The site also has press releases and a transition blog.

Barack Obama's transition Web site, Change.gov, went active on Wednesday and was available to the public Thursday. The agenda items, which were active for at least part of the weekend, appear to have been deleted by late Saturday.

Rep. Paul Broun Warns of Marxist Dictatorship

2008-11-11T08:43:00.004-05:00

Congressman: Obama wants Gestapo-like force
GOP rep invokes Nazis, Soviets, but Bush backed Obama's civilian corps idea

Associated Press
updated 3:16 a.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 11, 2008

WASHINGTON - A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun's remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

2008-11-10T16:36:00.003-05:00

Take the time to read this entire article, and even visit the website if you have a chance. Very, very interesting read.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
By Ali Sina

I must confess I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such a quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love, also believes, "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."

Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist.. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers' souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late.

One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia : a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.."

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.

Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become controversial when they don't help him personally? Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and at the end it devolved into., guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which, he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

This election is like no other in the history of America . The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others... They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven.

Let us call a spade a spade. This is racism, pure and simple. The truth is that while everyone carries a misconceived collective guilt towards the blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a bygone people to a bygone people, the blacks carry a collective rancor, enmity or vendetta towards non-blacks and to this day want to "stand up" to the white man... They seem to be stuck in 19th century.

The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom.

The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadi nejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.

America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

Is this the "Change" he Wanted?

2008-11-10T12:20:00.003-05:00

http://www.americanflags.com/baob08prusmi.html

Seriously, is anyone else deeply disturbed by this?

America Serves

2008-11-10T10:04:00.008-05:00

Upon the launch of Obama's website, Change.gov, it was announced that under the Obama administration it would be "required" for all middle school through college students to serve in community service programs.

Under the tab "America Serves" this was the original text:

Note the phrase: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."

And, after the backlash, here is the new text:

Note the new phrase: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year...."

Sounds like he's still going to require it, to me.

The idea of children being drafted into these "Classroom Corps" is eerily reminiscent of the Obama youth video.

This just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

Being a parent myself, I find it just flat out wrong for government to mandate that my child has to volunteer. First of all, "requiring" volunteer work is not volunteering. Secondly, I would rather teach my child to want to volunteer his time to a worthy cause; not be forced to do it. That would have the exact opposite effect on my child (any child).

This is being added to my list of many, many things I hope Obama will be unable to accomplish during his reign.

First Press Conference

2008-11-07T13:37:00.001-05:00

Obama held his first "press conference" and he's already insulting former first ladies....

I'm tellin' ya - this man has a lot of class.... (Please note the high level of sarcasm intended to be read into that sentence.)

I'm thinking before he attempts to make jokes, he needs to check the facts first. Hillary Clinton is the one who held seances, not Nancy Reagan.

(By the way, did anyone notice the awful sign on his podium: "Office of the President-Elect." Can anyone say "narcissism?" I wonder how long ago he had that made.)

And This Is How He Did It

2008-11-05T13:11:00.000-05:00

Ignorance? Yep, she couldn't get past the smoke and mirrors either.

And no, people. I'm not bashing her because she's an Obama supporter. If you truly believe in him, then of course you should have voted for him. I'm just disappointed because so many people like Peggy here thinks that having Obama as President automatically means her bills are covered now. And thanks to his "spread the wealth" theory, they might actually be. But he's not going to make money appear out of nowhere. An Obama presidency isn't going to promote money to grow on trees. No, taxpayers are going to be paying for Peggy's mortgage, gas, etc.

I'm thinking I should hit my boss up for a $9,000 pay raise to off-set the $9,000 hike in my taxes. The $9,000 that's going to help put gas in Peggy's car.

Whatever happened to working for your money? I'm sick of people who expect the government to just hand over money to them.

U.S.S.A?

2008-11-05T13:08:00.002-05:00

I wonder if they will re-name our country now. Will they call it the United Socialist States of America? Hmmm.....

This is the man that was just voted to be President of the USA (USSA?). What class. Congratulations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have to say, I am pretty disappointed with the outcome of the election. Not just in the fact that, obviously, the man I wanted to win did not win, but in the fact that now it seems like the majority of the US supports the idea of socialism. Obama is going to promote the poor lifestyle. I don't think Obama supporters fully understand the "change" that is about to be inflicted on our country. I just pray that Obama will be unable to follow through with all his promises. America, you just elected a person as President who has done nothing to prove that he even likes this country. In fact, he's proven just the opposite.

My mind is so busy this morning. I can't focus. I'm worried. I'm depressed. Ugh.

I'm worried about this total change he proposes in our healthcare system. I think it's going to have a huge impact on everybody, and not in a good way.

I'm also very worried about the changes to our judicial system. Obama wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices who ignore the law and the Constitution, but base their decision on how they feel. Ugh. Obama himself has said our Constitution is "fundamentally flawed." What?! Our country is based on the Constitution. It was created for a specific purpose, by people who knew what it was like not to have a Constitution. I really wanted a President that would respect that.

I'm worried about my future and my child's future. Ryan may be growing up in a very different country than I did.

There are a couple positive things that I can think of though:

- no one was killed in any riots last night

- after 4 years of Obama, electing a Republican President in 2012 will be a piece of cake

And one more: the economy will slowly get better. Yes, even under Obama. Actually, especially under Obama. He'll be handing out SO much money to people who will be turning around and putting it right back into the economy. It'll be a great boost for the economy. But, inevitably, it will catch up to us. Those who are paying massive amounts of taxes to provide that money will be suffering. Businesses will close. People will lose their jobs. People will even quit their perfectly good jobs to acquire some of this money Obama wants to hand out. Hey, why work when you can get government assistance and free healthcare??

But with just those three positive examples, I can think of 20 negative ones. ::sigh::

Hmmm.....Bush was nicknamed "W" for his 8 years in office. I wonder if they will nickname Obama "Hussein" for his 4 years in office. Just curious.

I also wonder: Can a President vote "present"? I wonder how that will work....

Also, I think we need to pray for Obama. The Presidency isn't an easy job. And quite frankly, 4 years at a job is a lot longer than Obama is used to. He will need all the prayers he can get.

Election Day!

2008-11-04T13:05:00.000-05:00

I can't believe Election Day 2008 is already upon us.

This is a day of historical proportions. A day I have been anxious for (and dreading) for so long. But, I believe (I hope) the vast majority of citizens out there are right now, as I type, casting their vote for America, for the preservation of our Constitution, for the future of this country.

I have to be optimistic. I have to believe that the majority of people don't want socialism, don't want higher taxes, don't want to support people who can support themselves, don't want to continue to support illegal aliens, don't want to continue to support the killing of unborn children, don't want their tax money paying for the senseless slaughter of our unborn, don't want our soldiers coming home with their heads hung in defeat, don't want higher utility bills, don't want to bankrupt the coal industry, don't want more unemployed Americans, etc. etc. etc.

I gotta say, it felt GREAT casting my vote for JOHN MCCAIN this morning. Even Ryan was pretty happy about it (but mainly because he got an "I Voted" sticker, too)!

I really hope that anyone who thinks that may want to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, will think twice before pushing that button, or popping out that chad.

If there are any undecideds out there reading this, here is some food for thought: In 1959, the majority of Cubans also wanted "change" from their dictator. A young Fidel Castro, relatively unknown at the time, swooped in, making promises to "spread the wealth" among other promises very similar to Obama's promises.

Not only are their similarities between Castro and Obama, but Castro endorses Obama.

Among other Obama endorsers:

- Louis Farrakhan, National Representative for the Nation of Islam

- Ahmed Yousef, top official in a radical Sunni terrorist group (Hamas)

- William "Bill" Ayers, an unrepetant terrorist

- Kim Jong Il, North Korean leader

- Hezbollah - The Iranian Parliament

- Hugo Chavez

SO THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!!

Great Cartoon!

2008-11-03T13:03:00.000-05:00

Let's Get Political

2008-10-10T12:49:00.004-04:00

I'm just going to put this rather simply: Obama scares the bajeezus out of me.

I'll tell you why....

THE FACTS

William Ayers - A little background: William Charles "Bill" Ayers is an unrepetent anti-American terrorist, who formed a radical group called the "Weather Underground". This radical group bombed public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s, including the Pentagon and the US Capitol.

In an interview in January 2004, Ayers was asked how he felt about what he did and if he would do it again under similar circumstances. His reply? "I've thought about this a lot. ...but the question of did we do something that horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so." He has also been quoted as saying "I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough."

His association with Obama? They lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago. Members of several of the same boards. Bill Ayers threw a party for Obama that launched his political career. This party took place in Bill Ayers' house. In addition, Ayers has contributed money toward Obama's re-election funds.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright - A little background: Reverend Wright is the former Paster Emeritus of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Lots of controversy surrounds Rev. Wright, including many anti-American statements. (Just go to YouTube and type in "Rev. Jeremiah Wright". It's horrendous.)

For the sake of this post, here is a direct quote from Rev. Wright:

"And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains, the government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton field, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, not God Bless America. God d*** America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God d*** America, for treating our citizens as less than human. God d*** America, as long as she tries to act like she is God, and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent."

He called America the "No. 1 killer in the world" and blamed the country for launching the AIDS virus. He said, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." He even blamed the U.S. for provoking the 9/11 attacks by dropping nuclear weapons on Japan in World War II and supporting Israel since 1947.

His association with Obama? Obama met Rev. Wright in the late 1980s when he became a member of his Church. Rev. Wright officiated the Obama's wedding ceremony and even baptised his children.

Michelle Obama - A little background: Michelle Obama is a lawyer and the wife of Senator Barack Obama.

In February of 2008, she stated, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."

Her association with Obama? Well, that's a no-brainer.

Barack Obama, himself - Full name: Barack Hussein Obama II. A little background: Claiming to be born in Hawaii (I say "claiming" because that is currently under scrutiny - click here for more info), may have ties to the Muslim faith. Obama has repeatedly claimed that he was given an "African" name. However, his grandfather's name was "Hussein Onyango Obama". "Hussein" is Arabic-Muslim. NOT African. He named his son (Barack Obama's father) "Baraka". Baraka is an Arabic word meaning "blessed". Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa. Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, Barack Obama II. Again, his name was Arabic and Koranic. Obama has said his father was born a Muslim. In the Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, you are too.

On June 27, 2006, Senator Obama voted against a proposed ban on the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

On August 30, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a bill that would authorize the US to monitor foreign communications routed through our country.

Campaign Contributions - A little background: I think everyone knows about Campaign Contributions. This is obviously money that is raised by any candidate running for almost any political office. The presidential candidates file monthly financial reports. To review these contributions and the contributors for each candidate, click here.

What's this got to do with Obama? The candidates usually disclose the names of all the contributors. However, Obama currently has $3.1 million in campaign contributions from unidentified foreigners.

(All that is stated above is pure fact. Not conjecture, not opinions, just pure simple facts. It's up to us to connect the dots and figure out what it all means.)

----------------------------------------------------

What this all boils down to is that as an American, you have to wonder:

Why does Obama seem to surround himself with people who really, really, really dislike America?

Obama claims that he is really not William Ayers' "friend". Well, then ask yourself this: why would someone, who Obama doesn't consider as a friend, help launch Obama's political career? Why would someone, who isn't your friend, throw a party for you in their own house? Give you some of their money to help finance your campaign? What would he have to gain?

Obama also claims that he didn't know Rev. Wright was anti-American. Really? Really? He sat and listened to Rev. Wright's blatantly anti-American sermons for 20 years. Either Obama is completely oblivious or just plain dumb (neither of which I would want as a President). Why would anyone continue to go to a church that spewed Anti-American venom on you at every sermon? After 20 years, don't you think you would start believing it (if you didn't believe it in the first place)?

Why would Michelle Obama only just now start being proud of her country? Why did it take her husband running for President to make her proud of her country?

Why are there so many unanswered questions about Barack Obama himself, his citizenship, his faith? He has even written about attending a Muslim school. Even though Obama can claim to be Christian now, according to Islamic law, once a Muslim, always a Muslim. So even if Obama thinks he is a Christian now, Muslims certainly do not. Would this explain the $3.1 million in anonymous foreign campaign contributions?

Why would Obama keep foreign campaign contributors anonymous? Why would they so desperately want Obama as the President of the US? So much so that they are willing to just hand over 3.1 million dollars. What would they have to gain?

Why would Obama vote against legislation that would prohibit the desecration of the American flag? Why doesn't he have any respect for one of the greatest symbols of the United States?

Why would he vote against allowing the government to monitor foreign communications that are specifically routed through our country? If that monitoring would protect our country, why would anyone NOT want it?

What is he hiding?

The possible answers to all these questions scares the crud out of me.

I'll give Obama credit, he's a very eloquent speaker. It doesn't matter what topic Obama is talking about, it's going to sound good. He's just a very, very good speaker. Well, as long as he has a teleprompter. (Sorry! I just had to put a little humor into this very serious post. And please click the link, the video is hilarious!) But when he is prepared, and has use of a teleprompter, the man is very convincing. He speaks so well, you really want to believe what he says. He can be telling you that the sky is green and the grass is blue, and you will want to believe him.

I won't go into all his political views, all his Socialist, Marxist ideals. I just want everyone, every American, to think long and hard about who they are voting for, what that vote might mean for our country. A vote for Obama is most certainly a vote against America.

It's no secret who I plan to vote for. I'll tell anyone who wants to know. As a Christian, there is no choice - there is only one candidate I can vote for. But as an American, there is certainly one candidate that I cannot vote for.

I think this year's election is far more important and reaches further than the candidate's political views. Think about their views on the country, on your country. Do some research, check to see what each candidate has done for his country in the past, what each candidate has sacrificed for his country. A candidate's record speaks volumes. It says a lot more than I can ever put on this blog.