Republicans want to leave tax rates as they are while progressive Democrats want to enable a tax hike on incomes progs deem ‘rich.’

The rich have been variously described at levels beginning at either $200,000 or $1,000,000 (single filers) depending on who’s doing the talking.

Conservatives in general believe tax rates should be left alone for a number of reasons. First, Heritage Backgrounder No. 928 shows when a tax increase is enabled, Congress spends more. Progs have set records in Congress for spending since taking control of Congress in 2006, and it is statistically likely the ideology will not change.

Another reason is that American wealth does not belong to the government or to progs who love the concept of taxing “richie.” The prog approach is endorsed by most government-friendly media—almost every headline about the tax issue suggests Democrats want to give the “middle class” a tax break and levy more taxes on “richie.”

Richie icon Warren Buffett has been outspoken in calling for a tax increase—apparently he has a certain amount of guilt over the wealth he has accumulated. Other fellow zillionaires have joined him in calling for tax increases that would also impact any number of small businesses. Incidentally, political fact often overrides common sense where progs are concerned.

The solution to the dilemma rests in introducing a ‘Warren Buffett’ regulation. The regulation can be named to honor one of the wealthiest tax fans in the world.

Rather than rewrite any tax code, the regulation could be designed as a stand-alone form. The form could be used for zillionaires and any other tax increase fans (regardless of income) to donate money to the federal government for any purpose Congress or the president deems aligned with progressive spending.

The contribution would not be tax deductible because according to Vice-President Joe Biden, paying taxes is patriotic (Rep. Charlie Rangel and others aside).

The simply worded stand-alone regulation could simply be filed with the taxpayer’s income tax forms and payment could be accepted by existing procedures.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid should be first in line to contribute funds—they’re big pushers in the tax increase movement and they have contributed to historically record levels of spending.

Introducing the regulation into whatever package is agreed upon is a simple way of seeing exactly which progressives are willing to put their own money where they’d like to put others’ money.

Meanwhile Mr. Buffett can man up and be first to contribute some of the wealth that apparently troubles his conscience.

 [First publication at The US Report.]

Obama’s move came after his administration pushed for growth in the federal employee sector. The Washington Times said the administration grew that sector, “by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.” To accomplish that growth, the US Office of Personnel Management created the ‘End to End Hiring Initiative’ to fill positions that would be vacated by employees slated to retire.

Obama moved left (repeatedly) by stressing the federal government cannot “afford” to give a tax break to those the government considers wealthy.

As Obama spoke (repeatedly) about the tax increase he wants on the so-called wealthy, the US Dept. of State announced allocating $1 million to send 15 artists abroad to do community art. The Bronx Museum of the Arts was tapped to administer the grant.

Asked what type of artist the Museum might be looking for, the director told The New York Times about an artist she admired. That artist “created special sneakers and distributed them to people in Tijuana who were planning to cross the border into the United States. Each pair was equipped with a compass, flashlight, painkillers and insoles printed with maps of the border area.”

As Congress convened the Lame Duck session with Democrats still in control, the US sugar program was in full swing. Citizens Against Government Waste detailed the cronyism: “The wealthiest one percent of sugar farmers receives 60 percent of the subsidies.  The sugar program inflates the price of sugar to at least twice the world price of the commodity…”

CAGW said eliminating the sugar program would save taxpayers more than $800 million over a five-year period.

Obama has pulled another fake to the left by pushing for the DREAM Act. No one has costed this bill officially, so the numbers are all over the place. The bill is supported, by the way, by some vote-hungry Republicans in Congress and GOP luminaries in the private sector. The Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, projected the base cost for tuition subsidies for the DREAM Act at $6.2 billion a year.

As I write this column, I recall something a 79 year old retiree said to me a few weeks ago.

This woman picked cotton and other crops as a child, worked as a waitress when she was in high school and then became one of the first women to take a job in the weave room at a cotton mill. The job was brutal but it paid more than jobs women traditionally took. She often worked overtime because her family needed the extra money.

Her husband died unexpectedly, and when she was in her 40s, she returned to school, got her high school diploma and went on to earn a nursing degree. She had saved enough money to pay her tuition. She won her hospital’s humanitarian award several years after starting her new career.

She paid off her modest home in a small Southern town by living frugally and by working hard all her life. Waste not, want not was her motto.  She remembers the Great Depression well because she and her numerous brothers and sisters sometimes went hungry, even as a Democrat president had crops plowed under and livestock slaughtered so that food prices would increase.  That president’s policies are detailed in the classic book ‘Great Myths of the Great Depression’ by Lawrence W. Reed. The book is a counter to the revisionist history taught in many schools.

With the help of the US healthcare complex, the woman whose personal story reads like a novel also triumphed over cancer.

Despite her modest income, that senior has helped many needy people. She raised her children to give to the less fortunate and even more importantly, to help the less fortunate directly. She is a woman of great faith.

She supported Obama for president and, like many in my family, she has often struggled to understand why I will not vote for Democrats.

I stood in her kitchen on that early fall afternoon as she opened her mail. She frowned.

“What’s wrong?” I asked.

“My medicine is going up again,” she said. “And I don’t know what I’m going to do about my Medicare Advantage. Everything’s going up.”

Then she gazed at me sadly. “I thought Mr. Obama was going to help us,” she said.

I gave her a hug and told her not to worry because my brother and I would see to it she gets what she needs. I refrained from reminding her our president faked to center when he was running.

That woman is my mom.

She is in the same demographic former Republican senator Alan Simpson, who is on Obama’s debt commission, categorized as “selfish.”

Simpson faked right and left, by the way, with the same skill and frequency as our president. Faking comes in handy in basketball. And politics.

The Pew Center for Global Climate Change explained the suit: “On April 2, 2007 the Supreme Court released its ruling in the case of the state of Massachusetts vs. the Environmental Protection Agency. Massachusetts and eleven other states, along with several local governments and non-governmental organizations (petitioners), sued the EPA for not regulating the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), from the transportation sector. The petitioners claimed that human-influenced global climate change was causing adverse effects, such as sea-level rise, to the state of Massachusetts.”

SCOTUS bought into science by consensus, dismissing any assertions contradicting manmade global warming, and ruled 5-4 in favor of Massachusetts. Some might say SCOTUS also dismissed common sense.

But the suit suggests a legal door swung open a bit wider and there may be possibilities that don’t just apply to the environment or to leftwingers.

Numerous federal agencies involved in immigration refuse to uphold the law when it comes to undocumented aliens. One example is the housekeeper who, allegedly with union support and a celebrity lawyer, damaged Meg Whitman’s reputation and thereby damaged her gubernatorial campaign. The housekeeper confessed to fraudulent acts publicly.

She’s reportedly still in the country.

A similar situation happened in Jacksonville, Florida, when local deputies answered a call at an apartment. The tenants were fighting among themselves and they volunteered to police they were in the country illegally. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told a local TV news station they would not investigate the case. The aliens worked for a popular local restaurant chain.

There are countless public cases of the federal government doing nothing even when a person’s status does not comply with federal law.

As for damages related to lapses in immigration enforcement, that’s fairly easy to prove in a general way. Even Mexico acknowledged it by filing a suit against the U.S. on behalf of 51 death row inmates who were in the U.S. yet claimed retention of their Mexican citizenship. Some of those inmates had received an education in the U.S. and lived here for years. How many American citizens’ families were harmed by those 51 convicted criminals? Imagine the extent of the damages, not just monetary but emotional.

Even the American Federation of Government Employees, National Council 118, expressed concern about federal enforcement lapses. Members cast a vote of ‘no confidence’ on behalf of more than 7,000 ICE employees in ICE director John Morton and his assistant director in June.

Did the Massachusetts et al case open the door wider for lawsuits that seek redress of grievances when certain federal employees don’t uphold the law and damages can be proved? It appears the standard for proving those damages is not very stringent, based on the case against the EPA.

At the least, possibilities might be explored in situations where refusal to regulate exists. What works for the left may conceivably work for the right.

On Facebook more than 54,000 people belong to the DREAM Act 2010 group. At the top of the page, a message seeks to assure, “The DREAM Act is NOT Amnesty.”

Advocates rightly point out the plight of children brought to the U.S. by parents who found it too bothersome to complete the paperwork that every country around the globe expects legal immigrants to complete.

Advocates claim the bill will  result in a net gain for the U.S. economically, although at least one version (S 729) promised DREAM Act students they could obtain student loans, work study positions and “Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.” That last may be deliberately obscure because it actually opened the door to Pell grants and other federal assistance.

On Nov. 18, one of the newer DREAM versions S 3963 was placed on the Senate calendar.  Although proponents claim there are rigorous standards, a cursory read of the bill reflects an exception for almost every standard set.

One provision in S 3963 is a requirement that the applicant be “of good moral character.” How exactly is that determined and conclusively validated?

Another provision addresses breaks in the applicant’s presence. The bill states, “An alien shall be considered to have failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United States under subsection (a) if the alien has departed from the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.” Predictably, the very next provision permits exceptions for that requirement if there are “exceptional circumstances.”

Although the states will certainly shoulder the economic burden of a number of unintended consequences of this bill, the secretary of Homeland Security has “exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for relief under this Act.”

Meanwhile there is no stable infrastructure to support the implementation of this bill. If there was, our president and various congressmen would not describe immigration as a “broken system.”

Besides all that, there is a worrisome development that escaped Congress and perhaps President Barack Obama.

When the U.S. filed a Human Rights Report with the United Nations, Obama pledged compliance with the Avena decision. That decision was relevant to the case of Medillin vs. Texas in 2008. Jose Ernesto Medillin belonged to a gang that brutally raped, sodomized and murdered two teen girls as they hurried home to beat their curfew in Houston. The crime was so brutal I can’t bring myself to describe it in detail.

Medillin was sentenced to death. Mexico sued the U.S. on behalf of Medillin and 50 other death row inmates in an attempt to have their cases reopened. Medillin was technically a Mexican citizen even though he had lived in the U.S. and received a free education here. Incidentally, he wrote a handwritten confession.

Mexico took the position Medillin was deprived of his rights because he wasn’t informed of his right to speak with Mexican consular officials.  Even the Republican administration attempted to yield to Mexico on this point.

Texas governor Rick Perry executed Medillin anyway—a small victory for the families of the girls who had waited for years to see justice delivered.

Will Avena impact the DREAM Act during the wait period for students who apply? No version of the DREAM Act addresses this issue wherein our president yielded American sovereignty to international court jurisdiction. It appears the idea escaped Congress.

The DREAM Act specifies a period of 7 years for the General Accounting Office to come up with statistics on the impact.

It is impossible for anyone to accurately gauge the cost of this act simply because the population is so undefined. Most proponents see it as a pathway for Hispanics because of Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) political debt. In fact, the DREAM Act will apply to students of any nationality. All the versions of the Act are listed at Thomas.gov—you can follow links from the pages for S 3963.

A reader, in response to a column I wrote recently, sent me an email message. That reader, an individual with experience within an immigration agency, wrote, “Tens of thousands already come in, invited to do so, through processes of 1)diversity visas (50 thousand every year); I-130 petitions of alien relatives (to include fiancee visas); I-140 petitions for residence based on work and the perverted political asylum process. ..There are more than 900 immigration laws in the United States.” This individual has asked me to source this and other information to ‘anonymous.’

Regardless of the version you decide to review, the DREAM Act is in fact amnesty. Many of us are old enough to remember the Amnesty of 1986 when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), then congressman Leon Panetta (D-Calif.) and Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) led Americans to believe the border would be secured and we would never face immigration chaos again.

They lied and just as troubling, they failed. An excellent backgrounder on the 1986 Amnesty is provided at the Center for Immigration Studies.

The GAO has 7 years to determine whether the Act was a good idea or a nightmare.

I believe, based on hundreds of hours of research on our immigration system and policy, it will likely be a fiscal nightmare.

Until the federal infrastructure is reformed, it is not in the best interest of the country to pass an entitlement act or to enable amnesty through a side door.

Section 1201, School-based Allotments, has been amended to expand programs for elementary and secondary school students. “Purpose-based school learning programs” basically will require students to “meet community needs with demonstrable results.” Like all government results, those in this amendment will be subjective. Included are costs for “providing professional development for teachers, supervisors, personnel from community-based agencies (particularly with regard to the recruitment, utilization, and management of participants), and trainers, to be conducted by qualified individuals or organizations that have experience with service-learning…” Maybe they can include a spelling champ in the mix. The bill as written misspells the word ‘development.’

Section 112 covers allotments: “Minimum Amount- For any fiscal year for which amounts appropriated for this subtitle exceed $50,000,000, the minimum allotment to each State (as defined in subsection (b)(2)) under this section shall be $75,000.”

Amendment 38 includes a new activity under the Opportunity Corps focused on a musician and artists corps program that helps meet educational needs in low income communities. Public libraries are full of art for the asking.

Campuses of Service will be designated. Amendment 41 (numbered 4 printed in House Report 110-39) authorizes a new grant program, the Volunteer Generation Fund, to be administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. When you hear the word ‘grant’ in a federal document, the taxpayer cash register goes bing, bing, bing at high velocity.

Amendment 48 (numbered 10 printed in House Report 111-39) creates a National Service Reserve Corps and requires an annual service requirement of at least 10 hours and/or annual training.

The alleged projected cost for this expanded “volunteerism” program is $3 per American in 2010. If you are a taxpayer as opposed to a tax recipient, be aware you will pick up the tab for those who do not pay. If you read the entire bill and the amendments, it is questionable whether $3 is even slightly realistic as some program costs are pegged to inflation.

As our country teeters on financial collapse, that the Congress is considering a funds-laden bill with a benign title like the National Service Reauthorization Act is astounding. That this act calls for mandatory service by young children is even more troublesome.

Media outlets are apparently (and predictably) unaware this bill is proceeding unchallenged. Taxpayers will be aware when we get the bill for yet another massive social program that delivers far less than desired results if it delivers any at all. Facebook Group Stop HR 1388 is asking everyone to contact their senators and ask them to vote ‘no’ on this bill.

Read further analysis at theusreport.com.

There’s Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)for instance. Dodd could just say a quick ‘I appreciate it’ for media and voters not being able to add 2+2. Because Dodd’s sweetheart loan deal could creatively be construed as a gift—multiply his savings over the life of the loan. Nobody’s figured out Dodd’s situation is very comparable to that of convicted felon (former) Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK.)

Then there’s Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) He might say thanks because no IndyMac employee has lobbed a frozen turkey at him, since Schumer’s leaked letter caused a run on the bank and many employees lost their jobs just before the holidays.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) should say extreme thanks for potential foreclosure help on mortgages. He may need it. The Palm Beach Post, a newspaper with a definite liberal lean, reported :“[h]is campaign held a second mortgage until this year on a West Palm Beach house that’s now in foreclosure.” The self-dubbed ‘fire-breathing liberal’ also allegedly amended 25 FEC reports going back to 2001. The campaign shifted money around by a sophisticated method allegedly in hopes of increasing earnings on cash in hand [Orlando Sentinel.]

Then there’s Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) Lucky ducky (or in the spirit of the season, turkey). He won’t go to trial on corruption and bribery charges until 2009—the judge pushed the trial date back just in time for Thanksgiving revelry.

Some might say Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should say thanks she gets to keep her post as Speaker of the House. A lesser woman (or any Republican) might be fired for permitting so many infractions. Or for promising us a more honorable Congress when Democrats took control in 2006.

And there’s a special something all Democrats should say thanks for—all the love standard media gives the liberal party who can, in the minds of newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post and pundits like Chris Matthews, do absolutely nothing wrong enough to necessitate skulking home from Washington.

Those are but a few of the gratitudes Washington politicos should express when they sit down at their tables on Thursday. Most of all, those politicos should say thanks for all the turkeys in the U.S., those who voted to put them in office.

First posted at The US Report.

RNC donor here—McCain campaign donor too.

I’ve followed news reports about money spent on Gov. Sarah Palin’s large family—clothing, baby goods, what have yous. Gov. Palin is in the news 24/7 it seems; Democratic media just cannot get enough of our vice-presidential candidate. And now we’re talking line items on financial disclosures.

Now I saw Sen. John McCain tonight on the news. He said the items purchased for Gov. Palin and her family will be donated to charity once the campaign ends. But I am a little confused. I mean, money is money, right?

Remember that *Greek temple *at the Democratic National Convention? I never did see a price tag on that. Could you ask a major media outlet what that cost? Where did the Obama campaign donate the temple once their political revival ended? I hope it was put to good use. Betcha Michael Pfleger would be right at home in that temple.

And I confess now that clothing and sundries are drawing so much attention, I’m beginning to notice other politicos’ appearances. Even Democratic media wonders about Sen. Joe Biden’s Botox possibilities. Say it ain’t so, Joe! Did Michelle Obama get a makeover? Are those designer dresses she’s wearing?

And it’s not just money that worries me. Did the Democratic National Convention offset all that carbon from those tons of fireworks at said revival? We don’t have to worry about all those little American flags that were going to be tossed. The McCain campaign recycled them. I mean if we’re going to question what these campaigns do, in the interest of democracy, shouldn’t we be fair and look at everything? Shouldn’t we investigate every decision by both parties?

Another question. Is there a donor out there—and the donor will absolutely have to be charged with a felony to qualify—who would give Gov. Palin a chic lot in William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan’s neighborhood to build a house so she and her fam can move in with instant equity? Maybe Rep. Charles Rangel could help her figure the interest deduction on her taxes since he’s such a whiz at his own income tax form.

Now going back to the bucks spent on the Palin family, I figure you’re having to buy stuff because it’s not like they can run back and forth to Alaska, right? And according to that article at ABC News, the money appears to have been spent in the U.S. We certainly could use a little more consumer spending here at home!

Did you know supporters of Sen. Obama outsourced two major fundraiser events to Europe? How much of that green stuff benefited clothing stores, jewelers, restaurants, servers, limos and hotels? I am so glad the Democrats are helping our European friends out.

The questions could go on and on, at least if we think creatively, and I guarantee you I am one creative donor.

In closing, please give Gov. Palin my warmest regards. I intend to send another donation tomorrow to help some of our GOP candidates face off against those fun-loving Democrats in the Congressional races. And as long as you put the money I send you towards the battle for the White House or Congress, I honestly don’t care what you do with it. However you spend it, it helps the U.S. economy.

And by the way, since we’re talking money, I truly believe Gov. Palin would never earmark $3 million of taxpayer money *for an organization headed by a former priest who is listed on the official Archdiocese of Chicago ‘Sexual Misconduct with a Minor’ list. That would be *Sen. Obama’s earmark—part of the nearly *$1 billion *he requested in the short time he spent in the Senate.

Did I mention the $3 million earmark went to a program involving children?

Best wishes in our upcoming election,
A Palin fan in Florida

P.S. Feel free to share this letter with Democratic media outlets—ABC, CNN, MSNBC and especially, The New York Times! Tell ‘em to check out a couple other Obama earmarks. I heard he made some clients of David Axelrod very very happy!

Zhong told Al Jazeera, “The frequent exchanges between the US and Chinese military are good for our future development and I think they’ll happen more and more and the relationship will get better.”

Chief Master Sergeant James A. Roy [U.S.] said “informal discussions” had helped to break down suspicions on both sides. “We’re interested in what their intentions are, and obviously as China, we want them to partake in the peace and stability across the Asia Pacific region,” Roy told Al Jazeera. The news service pointed out that similar meetings planned were cancelled by China for the near future because the U.S. government sold $5 billion worth of missiles and attack helicopters to Taiwan.

Al Jazeera noted the Pentagon has complained about transparency from China related to that country’s military buildup. The news service reported, “There are also concerns that China’s aggressive pursuit of energy resources in Africa and other areas well beyond Asia, could create areas of conflict with the Unites States.”

The only story of note in relation to Hawaii recently is presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s leaving his campaign to visit the state to see his maternal grandmother who is elderly and according to
The Honolulu Advertiser, seriously ill.

McCain basically wants to take a hatchet to the federal budget first he said, “and then get out a scalpel.” If he could do that as president, it would be the greatest contribution he could make to the American people. We are so close to the fire of socialism you can feel the heat here in Florida even though we’re quite a distance from Washington, D.C., pork capital of the world. Obama’s scalpel will not make a dent, I can promise you that. We definitely need to start with a hatchet. Try cutting down a diseased tree with a butter knife and you’ll see what I mean.

McCain’s vow to freeze spending would spur immediate interest from the business sector—the sector that creates jobs that actually contribute to the economy in sharp contrast to jobs created by government. Government jobs cancel their contribution because they cost the taxpayer. This is a concept Obama and his economic advisors just don’t get, and he’s got some of the same advisors President Bill Clinton had. We all know what that team did for the economy and for our taxes, including the Alternative Minimum Tax stagnation and devotion to the marriage penalty. George W. Bush took office after the dot com meltdown as a recession began. Then, partly due to soft policy on terrorism under Clinton, 9/11 happened. Does anyone think that didn’t cost us vast sums of money? Read the 9/11 Commission Report we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for McCain and others who pushed it and get a perspective on the lapses that in part led to where we are economically today.

McCain’s record backs up his claims

McCain stands on a record of refusing earmarks, but Obama dismisses that as a small fraction of the budget. Since when are billions a small fraction? That is precisely the problem with Obama’s mindset—he cannot conceive how a business should run because he has never run one. He has run government sponsored budgets. It’s like a person who runs his household finances irresponsibly, not realizing that yes, Virginia, nickels and dimes count in the long run. The billions in earmarks are very significant and it is deceptive to claim they aren’t because they’re deceptive in the first place. They’re not even entirely trackable.

McCain also called Obama’s hand on the Democratic strategy based on an absolute lie—that McCain is like Bush. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and McCain said, “If you wanted to run against Bush you should’ve done so 8 years ago.”

Obama’s same-old same-old on his judgment

Obama came back with a glib quip, saying McCain and Bush are indistinguishable—a flagrant lie easily recognized by anyone who’s followed politics. And Obama once again dodged questions about his judgment on associations—a long list of troublesomes including 21st century socialist/educator and former Weather Undergrounder Bill Ayers, felon Tony Rezko who worked a sweetheart deal with Obama on his home, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger and if recent news accounts are accurate, Prime Minister Rail Odinga of Kenya. I’ve basically dubbed Obama *‘Teflon Barry’ *because nothing seems to stick, and that will cost this country dearly in the long run in my opinion.

Obama offered the same-old-same-old on ACORN. Democrats, who wish all these associations would go away, and who are comforted by mass media’s refusal to ask hard questions, say the GOP is trying to ‘suppress the vote.’ That’s ridiculous. Right now there are 200,000 voting records discrepancies in Ohio and countless examples in other states—registrations for *Mickey Mouse *and the entire Dallas Cowboys football team. That isn’t a GOP issue, that issue goes to the core of the integrity of the U.S. vote.

I didn’t see a clear winner tonight, but I did see McCain appeal directly to ‘Joe, the Plumber,’ a real person we identify with. Joe is the guy who will make a job for another guy and he is Main Street. Joe is me and he is you.

Let’s face facts for a minute, though. Very few presidents come close to doing what they pledge to do. Once the winner’s in the Oval Office, it’s a whole new ballgame. The most liberal Democrats in history control our current Congress. If there’s a Democrat in The White House, the only benefactors will be tax recipients at the lowest end of the income rung. Those of us who pay taxes—and I guarantee you an increase will not just go to those who make more than $250,000 a year—will continue to see our common-sense bank accounts and savings depleted. Obama says he’s going to create 5 million new jobs. McCain’s plan can easily create that many with one difference. Those jobs will grow from the private sector as opposed to coming from a socialist platform where government is the only thing growing.

Tonight on CNN, Anderson Cooper mentioned McCain didn’t use the term ‘middle class.’ This is a faux criticism borne of a lazy, uninquisitive media. Economists do not use that term at all. It’s a sophistic term used solely for political and social purposes. McCain views every American as equal and he isn’t pandering to single interest groups. Joe the Plumber would call himself middle class, but you can bet your 1040 long form Joe’s taxes will go up so, as Obama said, he can “spread the wealth.” That one even sticks to teflon.

As McCain and Obama jousted on NAFTA and health insurance, McCain slipped and called Obama, *“Senator Government.” *It was a moment of pure truth in a narrative I hope McCain’s campaign strategists are astute enough to shape.

Sources

‘About 200,000 Ohio voters have records discrepancies’
by Associated Press, 10-14-08

‘Obama and ACORN ‘
by Lowell Ponte at NewsMax, 10-6-08

‘Why Palin and Biden should think about using term ‘middle class’ in debate’
by Kay B. Day at The US Report, 10-1-08

Really, you’d have to have a hole in your head (the size of the Grand Canyon) to think this has anything to do with copyright.

Anyone can flag a video at YouTube, and that ties the content up until the complaint can be resolved. There’s a pattern of this sort of action—liberal activists doing their parts to squelch voices from the opposition. I had a creative writing blog flagged as SPAM—I’d written an article and made the mistake of using the word ‘terrorists.’ Blogger notified me, and after I complained, they put the content back up. This happened to other bloggers who wrote articles critical of Sen. Barack Obama at the Google-owned website—one reason I now pay to have my site hosted at SquareSpace. That, by the way, is worth every dime.

Obama strategists and his campaign harp on the idea the McCain campaign has been unfair by criticizing Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, well-known Weather Underground member in the 1970s and 21st century socialist/educator. Obama gave a series of confused answers, changing his story from Ayers being a “guy in my neighborhood” to admitting they sat on a charity board together. Ayers’ home was the site for Obama’s entry into the political world. Mass media has diligently avoided the subject of that association as well as associations with Tony Rezko, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Rashid Kalid and others.

Go to any conservative forum, and you’ll find lots of liberals posting snarky comments, often using profanity and racist statements. I call this sort of thing ‘blogwhacking,’ for lack of a better term. And I suspect that’s exactly what happened with the vids removed by YouTube. In my opinion the current Democratic Party represents the greatest threat to freedom of speech in modern times and if you read here often you’ll know that is a top issue for me in choosing my candidate. Mass media has consistently apologized, hypothesized and given a free pass to Obama’s campaign in order to keep ‘Teflon Barry‘s’ image nice and clean.

It’s worth pointing out CBS and Google employees heart Obama with cash. Here’s a compare and contrast for 2008 cycle campaign donations courtesy of Open Secret:

• CBS employees contributed $97,290 to Obama; $4,800 to McCain.
• Google employees contributed $486,711 to Obama; $20,600 to McCain.

If you think the donations are insignificant, go to a mirror and enjoy the view of the Grand Canyon.

Sources

CBS complains… by Ira Teinowitz (10-14-08) at TV Week

McCain campaign letter to YouTube by McCain campaign 10-13-08

McCain campaign protests… by Declan McCullagh, 10-14-08 at CNET

Obama’s Odinga…humdinger at Atlas Shrugs, 1-6-08

Obama raised $1 million… by Jerome Corsi, 10-14-08 at World Net Daily

Blogwhackers taking aim at conservatives with false…
by Kay B. Day, 8-4-08 at The US Report

Campaign donor information from Open Secrets

Khalid Rashid page, Articles at Columbia University

Memo to David Axelrod: these people, like your own constituents, are angry at Washington. And let me assure you it has nothing to do with race. Let me add I also realize race is a valuable card for Democratic Party supporters. And let me make a case for who the real race-baiters are.

Sen. Barack Obama’s own campaign and supporters have repeatedly, while preaching unity out of one side of the mouth, spewed race-baiting from the other. I believe no political party, especially the current leadership, has been so successful in preying on race as a tool. After all the senior member of that party in Washington, Sen. Robert Byrd, former dedicated member of the Ku Klux Klan, is a Democrat.

Let’s walk backwards through recent history for a few moments:

• Fatimah Ali, columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, wrote, “If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness – and hopelessness!” (Sept. 2, 2008)
• Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, asked about the election being close, “That [race] may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn’t show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
• Democratic congressman John Lewis compares McCain to George Wallace.
• Michael Pfleger* did his Hillary/white people rant giving a political speech during a service at the Chicago church Obama attended for many years. Obama claims he missed the racist statements his own pastor made during all those services.
• In his book ‘Dreams From My Father,’ Obama writes about what his mentor, a poet named Frank, told him about the ‘price of admission’ for college: “They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit. They’ll give you a corner office…[U]ntil you want to actually start running things, and then they’ll yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid n_, but you’re a n_* just the same.” [pg.97] [Insert familiar word from rap music, a word also used frequently by black comedians.]
• Read columns by Obama supporter Frank Rich at The New York Times. His favorite theme is Obama with a favorite subtheme of race. That may possibly have to do with guilt–the NYT has a great deal of racist content in its past. Check the archives.
• Recall Toni Morrison who dubbed President Bill Clinton with the title, ‘first black president.’ [Huffington Post, 5-8-08]
• There are leaders in other countries who agree with the latest Democratic strategy—Fidel Castro. He said, “[a] “profound racism” in the United States will stop millions from voting for Barack Obama in next month’s presidential election.

A Republican president freed the slaves, another Republican president called for unity and pluralism (Teddy Roosevelt) and yet another pushed through legislation for Civil Rights, including the Civil Rights Voting Act. The final act pushed by Eisenhower was weakened by Congress due to the lack of support among the Democrats.

If Democrats want to call me a racist because I will not vote for Obama, that’s their choice. But they are telling the most egregious lie I can imagine and it is a lie that will further harm this country.

Obama, for me, represents his Congress—Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and Schumer among them. I consider these politicians among the most damaging in our country’s history. I am too well informed to vote for a presidential candidate who stands for congressional leaders who booted an Iraqi oil contract to China, managed to run the mortgage industry in the ground in two years of leadership after years of fighting against regulation, even fighting their own party’s president on that issue, who (some) took sweetheart mortgage deals while their constituents were preyed upon by subprime lenders, and who will assuredly raise my middle class taxes in the long run, in my opinion because—as I am fond of saying—*a Democrat never met a tax he didn’t like. *

Not long ago, I heard a caller on the Neil Boortz show. His voice had melodious tones of a Southern man. He gave me the impression his father had a poor opinion of all politicians, but his final comment stayed with me—“Democrats will come at you from behind, but Republicans will come at you head on.” I think that caller hit the nail on the head. Did I mention the caller was black?

And I’d like to remind Congressman Lewis that George Wallace, devout segregationist, was also a dedicated member of the Democratic Party.

*Ed. note: Because of his expressions of hatred, I will not use the term ‘Father’ or ‘Reverend’ when referring to Pfleger. *

Sources

‘We need Obama…’ by Fatimah Ali, 9-2-08 at The Philadelphia Inquirer

‘You are a racist if you don’t vote for Obama…’ at Live Leak (Comments by Gov. Sebelius)

‘Obama mocks McCain’ by Kathleen Hennessey, 9-17-08 at San Francisco Chronicle

‘Congressman says McCain sowing seeds…’ by Associated Press, 10-12-08 at My Way News

‘Castro: Racism in US’ by Associated Press, 10-11-08 at My Way News

‘The Secret Side of David Axelrod’ by Howard Wolinsky, 3-14-08 at Business Week

‘[Democrat] Sen. Robert Byrd, One Time KKK member’ by Andrew Malcolm, 5-19-08 at L.A. Times

‘The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama’ by Frank Rich, 10-11-08 at THE NEW YORK TIMES

‘Civil Rights Act, 1957′ by The Eisenhower Library at The Eisenhower Library

‘[Democrat] George Wallace Remembered…’ by Richard Pearson, 9-14-98 at The Washington Post

A husband and wife are both seniors with a combined income of $49,500. Under Obama’s plan they would pay no income taxes. But then they decide to sell their coin collection. They sell the coins for $500 and report the capital gain to the IRS. Since only those making less than $50,000 are exempt, they expect they might owe a few cents on the excess $1 of income over $49,999. But when Tax Day rolls around they are hit with a tax liability totaling a whopping $3,585. Now instead of having an income of $49,500 and owing no tax, their income is $50,000 and they owe $3,585, putting their after-tax income at $46,415. They would have been better off not earning the extra money at all.

The Tax Foundation elaborates on the plan and in my opinion raises yet another warning flag about the junior senator from Illinois. Of course, Obama is subject to change his positions frequently, but the article I cite is based on his latest plan.

*Source: *

The Tax Foundation
‘Obama’s income tax cliff for senior citizens’ by Mark Robyn
taxfoundation.org

*Q: So how can you guarantee Obama has won a debate that hasn’t even occurred yet?
A: Oh, it’s as easy to understand as hope and change and community organizing! Obama always wins, whether it’s a debate or a controversy over the lack of information about his past! Just ask The New York Times!

Q: But how can you possibly announce a victory ahead of time?
A: Well, partly because every time I hear him speak, I get shivers that run from my Birkenstocks all the way up to my fanny pack. And I totally trust Keith Olbermann. And Google employees love Obama. And all the major networks love him so much they completely ignore his racist pastor and his friendly neighborhood (according to Gov. Sarah Palin) former terrorist. Actually, I prefer calling William Ayers a straight-talking socialist, but that’s another matter. Google loves him, ABC News loves him and Oprah is overcome by him—if you don’t love Obama you are a racist and you are just not American! [Snorts]

Q: So what debate points do you think Obama’s already won?
A: That’s easy—his tax plan that won’t raise taxes for 95 percent of Americans (I admit, a lot of Americans don’t pay taxes anyway, so that one’s a no-brainer!) And his foreign policy—it’s to die for, literally, if you’re Osama bin Laden and you’re hanging out in Pakistan. [Giggles]

Q: But we can’t just go into Pakistan and start shooting without good cause. And a report by the Tax Foundation suggests Obama’s not being completely accurate about his tax plan.
A: Oh, he’s not going to go barging into Pakistan without a reason! I can’t see Obama shooting anybody! He wouldn’t know one end of a gun from a pack of granola! And on taxes, well, you don’t want him to get too detailed—people don’t want facts, they just want to hear him speak. Just look at videos—women cry when they hear this man, they are so filled with hope. Obama is a hope dispenser! [Sighs]

Q: Frankly, I’m having a hard time with this. I mean, in all of these debates I hear Obama repeating over and over that he blames President Bush for everything. Bush dealt with 9/11, Katrina, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdowns. We’ve had a Democratic Congress for two years now. And the Tax Foundation says Obama’s statements about Bush on the deficits aren’t accurate either. So can you elaborate on that?
A: What’s wrong with you? ARE YOU A RACIST? [shakes head] Because Rep. Barney Frank says if you find fault with Fannie and Freddie you are, and Frank is frankly [Grins] a genius. Just ask Nancy Pelosi! And everything is Bush’s fault—I mean, I planted sunflowers this year and they didn’t grow and then my car battery went dead and last night I uncorked a 2000 Bordeaux and it sucked—it just tasted absolutely tinny—and I said, ‘That damned George Bush.’ And the Democrats in Congress just haven’t had time to get anything done—I mean it takes years in Washington, you know? [wrinkles forehead] And who exactly is this Tax Foundation, anyway?

Q: They’re experts on taxes.
A: Well, we don’t want them looking over our shoulder! They’ll just get everything confused. We already have people like Sen. Schumer and Sen. Kerry—may Mother Nature bless them both—for our experts. [Checks cell phone] Ohmigod. I have to go—I’m behind on my Twitters and then I have to go give a talk to the youth for Obama and then I’m going to a fundraiser for Obama—I have to get to the airport.

Q: You’re going to the airport so you can go to a fundraiser? Where’s it going to be held?
A: [Smiles, does the Obam-Uh] Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. It’s a secret. A clue–it’s not in the US! But lots of celebs will be there plus I want to talk to a lawyer and I know there’ll be lots of those there.

Q: Why do you need to talk to a lawyer?
A: [Fumes] Because I was shopping yesterday—I am so over the sterling coffee urn I use for my dinner parties—and I went into the department store and suddenly my sinuses started bothering me. I was close to the cosmetics counter when I realized ohmigod! They’re spraying a floral-based perfume, which I am severely allergic to, and they didn’t even offer me a mask! Damages! I have the perfect trial lawyer in mind. [Stands] I really have to go now. [Blows air kisses.] You’re not bad, you know, for a conservative! [Turns briefly] Oh, I forgot my wallet. Can you get the check this time?

Further Reading

Weather Underground files at the FBI

Fact Checking the Tax Talk at The Tax Foundation

Obama and McCain tax proposals raise marginal rates at The Tax Foundation

Obama decries outsourcing but supporters outsource fundraising

George Clooney hosted the Geneva fundraiser, and another supporter hosted a fundraiser in London. Both were widely publicized by media but not a single reporter could wrap his or her mind around the significance. Consider what is involved in holding an upscale fundraiser; at one event, dinner tickets were $10,000 a plate. Here’s what Obama supporters may have spent money on overseas:

1. Catering and food supplies; serving supplies
2. Wine and other alcoholic beverages; lots of designer water products
3. Flowers and other decorative items
4. Party Favors
5. Shopping associated with attending an upscale do or shopping just for fun
6. Hotel and other lodging fees
7. Cab fares, or more likely, limo fees
8. Plane fares [think of the carbon footprint and grab your nearest government issued safety mask.]

Sen. Joe Biden loves to tell us paying taxes is ‘patriotic.’ But isn’t spending money at home also patriotic? Why would Obama supporters send what must have been a large sum of money spent for goods and services to other countries while the U.S. economy struggles? Media for some reason portrays Obama as an expert on the economy. I think the overseas fundraisers prove otherwise. Economy starts at home, does it not?

Obama should also seek counsel on what the term ‘middle class’ really means. According to the Tax Foundation, that’s a term economists do not use. It’s purely political.

Source:
The Ambler Gazette (Penn.), Oct. 3, 2008
Obama supporters rally in Abington

Shortly after McCain’s announcement about Palin, I went to get a haircut and ended up stumping for her, though not intentionally. A customer overheard me telling my stylist about Palin, and the next thing I knew, the 25 or so other customers and employees—all females—were all ears. The excitement was palpable. The GOP had placed, for the first time ever, a woman on the presidential ticket. And what happened next was entirely predictable for those of us who know media.

Mainstream media responds

Within days, mainstream media renewed their parasitic relationship with dirt. Mini-dramas, like soap operas, began to fill screens and pages. There was nothing there however, to discourage those of us who bonded with Palin in those first halcyon moments. We expected this. She was a newcomer, an outsider, a female who chose to keep a child who would be born with Down Syndrome. We knew her right-to-life views would alienate the academic elites and the aging feminists. We didn’t care then and we don’t care now. By the time an Associated Press headline screamed, ‘Palin got zoning aid, gifts,’ we were no longer listening to mainstream media. That sensational headline, by the way, was based on Palin keeping a zoning variation that was in place before she bought her property. Somebody gave her some fresh salmon. The horror.

Then a few left hooks began to come from certain conservative quarters. Was Palin truly qualified? Should she remove herself from the ticket? The day she does that, the GOP can kiss a lot of supporters on good old Main Street goodbye.

Uncertainty is a serious flaw in some GOP analysts and strategists. The GOP has media phobia. I can’t tell you the times I became angry at President George Bush when he didn’t respond to all those eager young ink-pushers who managed to miss significant national defense developments in the 90s. I say they must have missed them. Otherwise the questions would not have been so stupid. At the first sign of a public fracas, our frontrunners often run for the hills, unlike our Democratic Party brethren who place $90,000 bundles of money in the freezer and dig in to run another day. The GOP seems especially worried about mass media. That’s rather foolish. Developing your own media conduit is a simple matter. It just takes money and public information. How do you think the DNC did it? Do you realize that probably every single school kid you might ask about Abraham Lincoln believes he was a Democrat? And that all of Civil Rights advancement came about via John F. Kennedy? Where is our narrative and why are we not telling it?

Early reports on the governor

When Palin was elected governor of Alaska, newspapers from the US to Iran carried positive coverage. CBS News reprinted an editorial from National Review. The *San Francisco Chronicle *praised her, saying, “Palin forced the Alaska legislature into special session to increase oil taxes—yes, that’s oil taxes—in Alaska, a Republican welfare state. And she vetoes public works projects.”

By the end of her first year as governor in Alaska, *Alaska Business Monthly *noted her ability to juggle the state, the family and her own needs. ABM also said she stood up to her own party leaders, citing the tax issue. She also introduced natural gas pipeline legislation, the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. The legislation passed, enabling construction of a natural gas pipeline.

We all want alternative energy, but it makes sense to use the resources we have to help McCain’s “Main Street” or Obama’s “Middle Class,” depending on your semantic preferences. Vast responsibility for the economic crunch of those with lower incomes is a direct result of myopic energy policy pushed by Al Gore and now promulgated by Obama. We’ve locked our own resources up in an environmental chastity belt. Somehow we moved from wise use of resources to enclosing them in glass, and that’s a ceiling many Americans would love to see carefully shattered.

Palin was also named chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She had already served on Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Media desperate for ratings

When Katie Couric attempted to elevate herself from an “infotainer” to a journalist, hoping to lift her dismal ratings, she drilled Palin or tried to. Palin appeared more reserved than I think she really is, but she did answer the questions acceptably. If you don’t believe Couric turned up the heat for Palin, check out videos at YouTube of Couric interviewing other politicians, among them, Sen. Joe Biden, with that sweet girl-next-door smile she can muster when she puts her verbal, admittedly passive, fangs away. Couric did manage to inflict sortie-like damage on Palin, but it didn’t go very deep.

For contrast, consider the lack of a reaction from Couric when Sen. Joe Biden spouted his famous FDR-on-TV when the stock market crashed metaphor.

Some might ask if an “infotainer” unfamiliar with the Democrat iconic equivalent of our own President Ronald Reagan—and apparently unfamiliar with 20th century American history—is qualified to interview vice-presidential candidates.

The media will continue to hammer Palin, no doubt, and McCain as well. Going into this election, everyone assumed Obama would glide into the White House and then deliver one of those memorable Ted Sorenson styled speeches, much like John F. Kennedy. But McCain and Palin are fighting hard. Mass media leans left, and if you don’t believe me, simply pick a network or publication and do a search for campaign donors. Once Democrats and media realized the GOP candidates weren’t going to offer themselves up for roadkill, the strikes began. What, other than an all-out assault could be expected? How this could surprise or alarm a conservative is really bizarre. How this could make a conservative run scared is shameful.

The real Main Street

Palin is Main Street. Her kids, like mine, went to public school. Like me and like millions of other parents, she helped the PTA and if you want to learn down in the dirt politics, try being active in that organization. Those who dismiss it lightly do not have kids in public school. I have a total of 25 years of experience with both my children, and the PTA at times left tire tracks on my backside. Palin has served as a mayor and governor. Do you assume that was an easy path? She is already in the history books as a trailblazer.

Furthermore, she is a woman of strength and character. Most women upon learning their child’s chromosomes aren’t standard make a decision to abort the child. Not Palin. She took a righteous road in keeping with her faith.

She may not yet be a whiz on foreign policy. Despite myth to the contrary, nor is Biden. Check his record. Obama in my opinion is a whiz at rhetoric and eventually, you can count on him to be a whiz at taxes like every Democratic president before him. I puzzled over why the Democrats didn’t reverse their ticket, but then, they’d have lost the charismatic edge a Harvard lawyer brings to the cameras along with the message every politician since Caesar and even before his time has brought to the podium: hope and change. Show me a stumper that didn’t promise those in some form or fashion and I’ll show you a politician who lost.

During the first presidential debate, McCain said two words no candidate has uttered in the primary or at any point after—cut spending. Palin endorses that approach and it is my sincere belief that is the greatest need for our country, other than self-defense. If we continue to grow government, by the time our children are middle-aged, the wealth will be almost completely in the hands of the government and personal freedoms will not be far behind if they’re still there at all.

There’s a telling passage in a story about Palin from the Anchorage Daily News. The reporter questioned an Alaskan about Palin’s readiness as governor. The man responded, “She’s willing to come out and say, ‘This is what I know and this is what I don’t know.’ She’s not going to give you a line. I think she’s going to listen to people.”

So for those in the GOP who are a little nervous about Palin, I’ll say to you what I say to my daughters when they have a moment of weakness. Buck up. This isn’t a race for the faint of heart and your candidates need your loyalty as well as your support, both emotional and financial. McCain and Palin can do great things for this country if we let them. I firmly believe they will listen to Main Street and curtail excess spending because both have a record of doing that. And I trust McCain with national defense. I base my decision on history.

In 1986, Reagan was interviewed by Fortune magazine. Asked about his management style, he responded, “Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere.” I have absolute faith McCain will follow that advice. He already has. We have a sound, durable narrative. All we need to do is share it.

Sources

“Who’s Sarah Palin?” by Carolyn Lochhead (3-1-08); The San Francisco Chronicle

“Appeal came from being an outsider and a fresh face” by Tom Kizzia (11-9-06); Anchorage Daily News

“Don’t Be Down on Palin” by Kathryn Jean Lopez (7-31-08); CBS News, reprinted from National Review

“Reflections at the top: Gov. Palin rewinds her first year…” (12-1-07); Alaska Business Monthly

I haven’t read Rolling Stone in years, a magazine that has fallen into a state of confusion in my opinion. But let’s add it to our don’t-buy list as well. Also Men’s Journal. Talk to our teens—probably the age group that might buy that magazine. According to The New York Times (8-11-08), “The magazine [Rolling Stone] had 486 ad pages in the first half of 2008, according to the Publishers Information Bureau, down 33 percent from the same period in 2005.”

Let’s email sponsors who place advertising in both these magazines, expressing our outrage at editorial content that assails a candidate on a personal basis. And let’s complain to businesses that rack these magazines. Do pass both mags up when you’re standing in the grocery checkout line—scan them if you must but put them back on the rack. And if you have a subscription, cancel.

It’s easy to see why Wenner would have nothing in common with Palin. After Wenner and his wife had kids, Salon said Wenner hooked up with his young male lover and began to acquire some new kids via surrogate. Wenner, his boyfriend and his brood live on a 65-acre estate in Tivoli, NY. Wenner, a longtime Dem enthusiast, might apply the headline he wrote about Palin to himself. How does it affect your children when you bail out of your marriage, change your sexual persuasion and acquire more babies by surrogate? I wouldn’t ask those questions but (1) the arrangement is common knowledge and (2)Salon posed the same questions publicly after a glowing interview with Wenner. Hopefully Wenner’s commitment to his new family will last.

Elitist narcissists like Wenner can’t possibly hope to connect with a down-to-earth woman who carved a career in public service, as mayor, commissioner and governor and who is solidly connected to mainstream America. A boycott of his products is the least he deserves. A poll on his US Weekly site posed the inane question: Will Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy affect your vote? Responses: Yes-14295 votes; No-123530 votes.

Considering the overwhelming show of support for Palin by that poll, I’d say it’s easy to understand why Democratic media strategists are having a collective panic attack. (-Kay B. Day/The US Report)

Sources:
New York Daily News: Sidedish

Salon: interview with Jann Wenner, owner of US Weekly, Rolling Stone, Men’s Journal

New York Times: …Rock Magazine Switching to Rack-Friendly Size

New York Post: Wenner ditching US Weekly

Now I admit you had to read the whole (long) report to find this and it was in really small type. And if you really cared about the integrity of figures you’re feeding your readers, you had to email the public information office at the US Census to confirm that yes, Virginia, those who are here without legal papers are counted too. Even when the “47 million” without insurance are cited.

Noting the official poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3 percent or 36.5 million people, the report for 2007 included “a new direct question to capture the relationship of couples that do not include the householder, in addition to those who are already identified as the unmarried partner of the householder. The addition of a second-parent pointer to children’s records adds accuracy…”

What all that boils down to is this, as far as the 2006 results: “…about 3.4 million individuals classified as poor under the official measure may be sharing resources with others that allow them to adequately meet their basic needs.” Finally, the government figured out income goes under the table. I’m betting that 3.4 million is a conservative figure. Not everyone likes to cough up the full financial picture for Uncle Sam.

This American is neither deflated nor depressed. I don’t have time to be. I work hard and so does everyone I know. Elsewhere in that column, the author references “rich Republicans.” I feel lots better now—I’m rich because a Philly newspaper columnist says so. Can’t wait to tell the fam.

Other stories are equally hysterical—a Baltimore columnist called McCain’s VP pick “insulting.” A Washington columnist called Palin a “cynical” pick. And a New York Times reporter completely made up some facts for her story, James Frey style. Reality isn’t good enough for the pro-Obama contingent.

Remember Michael Pfleger, the alleged priest who stood in Jeremiah Wright’s pulpit and did a little role playing, pretending to be Sen. Hillary Clinton wailing that she didn’t expect Barack Obama to take her prize away? He pretended to cry and moan and wail. It was embarrassing to watch.

That’s what media is doing now—pulling a Pfleger. Crying, moaning and wailing, because the GOP isn’t going down without a unified effort. McCain stunned the country by selecting a very capable woman as his running mate. That so many newspapers have refused to give the story even a dot of positive ink, attacking a pregnant teen instead for bringing life into this world, goes directly to the heart of problems in the newspaper industry.

This country doesn’t just have one major political party, it has two. In a race, one party loses. I realize many backing Obama prefer to transform the country into a monarchy, with his becoming president because they believe they are entitled to it.

I have no idea who will win, but whoever does, I will get over it and start on the next election.

Might be a good idea for media to attempt to recapture their glory. Maybe re-vet the Democratic candidates since there wasn’t a very thorough job the first go ‘round. Then again, asking for professional coverage may be way “above the pay grade” of many pundits and columnists.(Kay B. Day)_________
Sources
…Why this woman? at The Baltimore Sun

We need Obama at The Philadelphia Daily News

Bumiller writes her own story (at John McCain official website)

The Fox News reporter did the job right, asking hard questions and catching the congressman off guard as he headed for his car, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt. The congressman was tongue-tied, apparently unable to recover from the unexpected barrage of questions about his residency.

Wexler has been touring with his new book, ‘Fire Breathing Liberal.’ He’s done talk shows and author events, and The Daily Pulp blog says it was actually Wexler’s book that raised the residency issue. The blog noted: On P. 52 he states, “While many members don’t bring their families with them to Washington, choosing instead to fly home each weekend, Laurie and I decided it would work best for our family if our three young children attended school in the Washington area.” It was that statement the caused this candidate to look further into Rep. Wexler’s past.

There’s another issue in this scoop as well, one with an elitist motif. Like many congressmen, Wexler’s children apparently attend private school. Many Democrats criticize the use of school vouchers for children who are stuck in failing public schools, but whose parents cannot afford a private school.

Wexler’s dilemma and what promises to be a lively race in District 16 suggest the GOP may have a solid chance at recovering those seats in Congress. Wexler probably didn’t expect that fire breathing to affect his seat, both literally and figuratively.

The food will be multi-colored, the delegates are supposed to buy credits because 5,000 tons of carbon are expected to be emitted, and they’ve banned fried foods but Cajun music is officially approved. In early July, it was announced the protesters’ area would be surrounded by a chain link fence.Bloggers will have a big green tent. Concerns have already been expressed about the water necessary for bathroom needs for all the guests who actually book a hotel room.

Tent State comprises eager young people who plan to save the world, much like those who came of age during the 1960s. The group even has a martyr icon, the Rutgers 3, who were busted for anti-war protests in Brunswick, New Jersey. Meanwhile churches are planning concerts and spiritual counseling for those in need, certain to be stressed out by all the social injustice the DNC plans to address. Stay tuned. The newest green party may turn a lot of real estate brown in Denver—a tribute to the environmental sensitivity of progressive proponents.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. **The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:**

1.Radiative forcing ?F;
2.The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter ?;

3.The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. **More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.**

The APS, hanging onto dogma like a seal with a fish, promptly put up a disclaimer stating essentially the organization’s position remains unchanged—“an article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS…This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.”

Nice try. The newsletter article Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered might not technically be peer reviewed, but there are more than 30 citations from distinguished sources. It took me many attempts to pull up the page at both Daily Tech and APS, a sign both sites were getting tons of traffic.

This dustup is a signal—scientists whose voices have been gagged are beginning to speak up. This follows Lawrence Solomon’s explosive book completely ignored by mainstream media. ‘The Deniers’ cites expert after expert, all with reams of credentials and work cited in numerous scientific journals as well as official government reports about global warming. Solomon makes the case that science was done by consensus rather than logic.

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition asking for a debate with Gorian proponents. None would take the challenge. There is a myth that legitimate scientists do not disagree man is causing global warming. They do disagree and those experts have in some cases, according to Solomon, been severely punished for their attitude, with research funding going only to proponents of Gore’s ideology.

There is a complete free-for-all right now at Daily Tech, with Gorians vs. deniers exchanging scientific claims, some of which may be suspect. The article at Daily Tech notes, “Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton’s paper an ‘expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and extensive errors.’”

Meanwhile, global warming which the EPA now insists be called ‘climate change’ which the APS is now referring to as ‘climate senstivity’ is costing the United States both money and goodwill. Countries where people don’t have enough to eat are given the impression the U.S., rather than natural events, wars and lack of leadership, is causing food shortages. I predict we’ll see this heat up (pun intended) in weeks to come, and it may emerge as a campaign issue.

[Sources: APS Physics and Society Unit, Daily Tech("Myth of consensus Explodes: APS opens global warming debate), The Heartland Institute]