December 31, 2008
December 29, 2008
Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming.” U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus.”
In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet.
Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, “I am a skeptic … Global warming has become a new religion.” Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist, said warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming,” said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, “Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”
The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says, “Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”
Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?”
That’s a vital question for Americans to ask. Once laws are written, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to repeal. If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it’s not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more.
See also: Whatever happened to global warming?
December 25, 2008
December 24, 2008
December 23, 2008
And Congress just ended the year by giving itself a 2.8 percent pay raise. The $4700/member raise would go into effect in January of 2009, raising the average congressional salary to $174,000. The raise is part of an automated process incorporated in a bill Congress passed in 1989. While some members of Congress sponsored legislation to stop the pay raise, it failed to gain enough support for passage. Concerned citizens of diverse organizations are decrying the raise, given the state of the nation’s economy and the performance (or lack thereof) of the members of Congress. The Senior Citizen League’s Daniel O’Connell spoke out against the hypocrisy of the raise. “As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” he stated in a press release by the organization.
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) president Tom Schatz had even harsher criticism. "If Congressional leaders believe that the taxpayers should gives pay raises to this rogue's gallery of ineptitude and venality, they ought to step away from the spiked egg nog,” he stated, after saying that Congress didn’t deserve “one additional dime of taxpayer money in 2009.”
Both the Senior Citizen’s League and CAGW—among others—have called for Congress to freeze its pay. And there’s actually some (limited) precedence for such an act of conscience. Under intense pressure, lawmakers froze pay in 2000, and again (temporarily) in 2006.
Beyond the pay raise issue, however, this controversy reveals something deeper about Congress—their attempts to go out of the way to avoid blame for unpopular measures. In other words, unwillingness to take responsibility. If Congress truly wanted to be held accountable, they would vote each time they wanted a pay raise. If the people thought they performed well—a good source might be approval ratings—then they could consider a small raise. But if their performance is unpopular—and ineffective, as it is now—they have no business lining their own pockets after picking the nation’s.
Yet in spite of—or rather because of—this fact, Congress has attempted to shirk much of the blame that would arise had they actually voted on the pay raise. Vacationing members of Congress, besieged by enraged constituents, will be able to honestly say that they “did not vote for the pay raise.” While technically true, it would also true that they did nothing to stop it, but rather allowed it to happen unopposed. The few who attempted to repeal the 2008 raise should be commended, as well as those under the table and who voluntarily decline the pay raise. But the remainder—the majority—of Congress must know that it will be held responsible for its actions.
Once the American people see through their duplicity, they will reward their actions with something less flattering than a pay raise. Perhaps, if fairness ever asserts itself, Congress could even reduce its pay by the same percentage it exceeds its budgets. And, perhaps, pigs will one day fly.
Tags: ALG, Americans for Limited Government, ARRA, pigs fly, US Congress To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
December 22, 2008
It may be that, in Illinois, the state's reputation encourages a certain bravado. Blagojevich used the f-word to accentuate his adamantine insistence on getting a return from doing his constitutional duty. Governors elsewhere, perhaps just as corrupt, practice a little more suavity, and thus don't hit the newspapers. We don't see headlines like this:
Understated Master Rhetorician Schwarzenegger Bribes California's DemocratsJournalists report news, and news amounts to a politician getting caught. A politician raising money in the ways politicians usually raise money is definitely not news, even if politics as usual has all the ethical uprightness of the Tower of Pisa. The truth is, it's hard to raise money in politics . . . if you are out of power. I know. I have been involved in fundraising for ballot measures or lobbying efforts around the country. It's not easy. All I can offer is a chance to change public policy.
New York Governor Raises Eyebrow During Crucial Negotiations With Donors
Our Governor Remains Pro at Avoiding Quid Pro Quo
Sitting politicians, on the other hand, have huge advantages. Their duties include passing legislation and handing out lucrative government contracts that pack quite a wallop to the wallet. Incumbent politicians are positioned perfectly to say, "You have to pay to play." Government has powers for which some folks will pay a lot. A politician could make a lot of money for providing such private services attached to public goods. It's understandable. Renting a politician's services can go a long way to increasing one's own wealth. And, moreover, the politician's wealth.
Most ways of paying are legal, though often ethically questionable. Some ways -- more blatant and obvious -- can be illegal while remaining hard to catch. Politicians know which words to use in avoiding a literal quid pro quo statement. Blagojevich suffers, now, from his bluntness, his gruff, vulgar corruption. But every politician is tempted with similar activity. Blagojevich serves as the tip of a much larger iceberg. Most just play it more subtly. So, Americans outside Illinois have no reason to gloat. The fact that their governors haven't been arrested does not mean their governors are not also dirty. Just, perhaps, more clever.
Of course, some politicians are honest. Most people don't get into politics for the money. They get into it to "do good." Inevitably, politics is run on money, and money often becomes the only gauge some people can find for "goodness." And, my goodness, does this standard have awful repercussions. The longer a person stays in strategic loci of power -- that is, in office, or in bureaucracy -- the more that person will see funneling money through government as the solution to every problem. If all you have is a hammer, everything soon looks like a nail.
Some folks are more resistant to this education in nail-pounding than others. This is a matter of personal psychology, I suppose, as well as personal morality. It helps if you make a public stand to resist the process. Self-term-limiters like Dr. Tom Coburn come to mind (as does the fact that public support for congressional term limits is at an all-time high). It also may help to know something of economics, for instance -- that is, the economics that recognizes limits to knowledge. To understand the complexity of that fabled beast, "the economy," and then to realize that no prediction can be certain helps inoculate oneself from schemes to control it all with varying amounts of power fueled by increasing amounts of money.
Governor Blagojevich surely deserves the hammering he's received in recent days. But it is important to hammer home a much broader point. Power corrupts. Politicians (being human, only more so) are susceptible to this corruption. Good government requires that citizens have practical ways to nail down the power of politicians. I bet there are politicians who worry that Bagojevich's latest bit of corruption might cause citizens to look more closely at all the rest.
December 21, 2008
"Members of Congress don't deserve one additional dime of taxpayer money in 2009," said Tom Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. "While thousands of Americans are facing layoffs and downsizing, Congress should be mortified to accept a raise," he said in a written statement.
Members of Congress make an average of $169,300 a year, with Congressional leaders making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cailf., makes $217,400, while the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate each make $188,100. The raise will increase the average salary to about $174,000, up 2.8%. Pelosi's and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's offices did not respond to FOXNews.com's requests for comment. Pay raises for public officials, whether at the federal, state or local level, usually spark outrage among taxpayer advocates. But the deepening financial crisis has led even a few lawmakers to object.
Earlier this year, Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, introduced legislation that would have stopped the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which drew 34 cosponsors, died in committee. Two other members of Congress, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind, and Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-SC, also tried to block the wages but didn't get very far. Burton plans to return his pay increase to the Treasury Department. "As we face the most challenging economic crisis in our history, and with many Americans and Hoosiers enduring personal financial hardships, I am opposed to any pay increase for members of Congress in 2009," he said in a written statement. He said he'll try again next year.
Lawmakers have received automatic raises since 1989. As part of an ethics bill, Congress gave up its ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless lawmakers voted otherwise. Lawmakers have rejected pay raises six times since then, most recently last year, when Democrats, newly elected to the majority, had vowed to block an increase in their paychecks until Congress raised the minimum wage.
For the past eight years, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, has been trying to end the automatic salary hike for House members, arguing that spending priorities in a time of war and economic crisis do not include pay raises for lawmakers. Matheson wants to put the automatic pay raises to a vote. "At a time when people are losing their jobs, their homes and their retirement, I think the least we could do is openly debate whether we should take the pay increase this year or do some belt-tightening," he said in a written statement. As he has done for the past eight years, Matheson plans to donate his pay raise to charity, his spokeswoman said.
The Senior Citizens League asserted the pay raise would rank each lawmaker in the top six percent of American households. "As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain," the group's chairman, Daniel O'Connell, said in a written statement. "This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter." The group estimates that a senior receiving average benefits will get a $63 monthly increase to just $1,153 per month next year, increasing their annual total to $13,836. The pay raises come as the economic recession deepens. The economy lost 533,000 jobs in November, bringing the unemployment rate to 6.7%.
December 20, 2008
Contrast this with what he called "the Interior Boomtowns." Their population has grown 18 percent in six years. And this means that the nation's center of gravity is shifting. Dallas is now larger than San Francisco, Houston is larger than Boston, Charlotte is now larger than Milwaukee. Another section would be the old Rust Belt. The six metro areas (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester) have lost population since 2000. And you also have "the Static Cities." These 18 metropolitan areas have little immigrant inflow and little domestic inflow or outflow.
The political impact of this realignment is significant. Many of the metro areas voted in significant proportions for John Kerry in 2004 while the Interior Boomtowns voted for George W. Bush. But there is more at stake than just the presidential election. In less than two years we will have another census, and that will determine congressional districts. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey, and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. Social scientists say: "Demography is destiny." That is a simple way of saying that demographic changes alter our future. But you don't have to be a social scientist to see the impact. We all know that people move around, and that changes the political landscape. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
December 17, 2008
November 27, 2008
November 26, 2008
On these and many other issues, the Republican Party embraces what the majority of Americans believe, and the Democratic Party opposes those same positions. These policies naturally flow from the basic Republican principles of limited government, economic opportunity and personal responsibility. Such policies represent the three legs of the Reagan Coalition: economic conservatives, social conservatives, and national-security conservatives.
Unfortunately, Republicans have not been true to Republican principles. Federal spending has been at utterly disgraceful levels for years. The past eight years have seen a massive expanse of federal power into areas formerly left to the states or to individuals. The plain truth is that some of the things that President Bush and the Republican majority did gave conservatives a bad name, and so the GOP lost the voters' trust. These repeated and constant failures sapped the energy out of the GOP base. It led to some voters staying home or not contributing their time and money. Some even jumped ship in protest.
Republicans have failed to communicate new and innovative ideas to persuade new voting blocs that GOP principles are something they should support. Hispanics, working women and Reagan Democrats can all be persuaded to vote for the GOP. Republicans must have solutions that reach these voters where they are. And there are solutions that represent Republican principles that can win their support. . . . Republicans must excite, energize and mobilize their base, while reuniting old coalitions and forming new ones. They must provide bold and innovative leadership to recapture that sense of optimism and opportunity. In 1994, the party refocused and found its way back. It will do so again.
|Michael Quinn Sullivan: The Plymouth Colony was established as a communal society -- an experiment in socialism. No one had an incentive to work, so disease and famine forced the pilgrims to adopt liberty and capitalism. The result? Much for which to be thankful! The following video tells the story of the real cause of the problems at the Plymouth Colony: socialism. It was liberty and property rights that saved them. Their wisdom in rejecting the flawed "communal life" is something for which we can be thankful.|
Conn Carroll: Giving Thanks for the Free Market: There is much talk these days of how conservatives need “new ideas” in these troubled economic times. And as we look at our nation’s troubled landscape, there is much work that needs to be done if we are going to return economic prosperity to the country. But as we sit down to celebrate Thanksgiving with our friends and family, recalling the true story of the Pilgrims should remind us all that the core principles that have made this nation great are unchanging, and that we risk ruin if we abandon them.
Most children learn that the Pilgrims’ salvation at Plymouth Colony stemmed from the generosity of local Indians. And while there is no doubt that the American natives did help the immigrants through some early tough times, it was not until the Pilgrims rediscovered the importance of private property that the colony began to thrive and was able to give thanks for their own blessings. When the Pilgrims first arrived, they attempted a form of, in Gov. William Bradford’s words, “community” or “commonwealth.” In other words, they attempted to “spread the wealth around” by destroying private property and replacing it with a communally owned property system.
The result was disastrous. According to Bradford, this system bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the settlers’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” It was not until the colony changed course and allowed the private ownership of farmland that prosperity returned. Bradford reported, “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. Their success, he observed, “may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients and applauded by some of later times … that the taking away of property … would make [men] happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Bradford surmised, “God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them.” Amen to that.
November 25, 2008
by Fausta: There are four countries in Latin America with nuclear power plants: Cuba, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, but here’s what’s in the news regarding recent nuclear agreements in Latin America. Wednesday last week, the Guardian reported, . . .
Russia’s deepening strategic partnership with Venezuela took a dramatic step forward yesterday when it emerged that Moscow has agreed to build Venezuela’s first ever nuclear reactor.This should not come as a surprise to Latin America watchers, since Chavez has been hinting for quite a while, and France and Venezuela have been working on a nuclear energy deal, too.
President Dmitry Medvedev is expected to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chávez, during a visit to Latin America next week, part of a determined Russian push into the region.
The reactor is to be named after Humberto Fernandez Moran, a late Venezuelan research scientist and former science minister, Chávez has announced. It is one of many accords he hopes to sign while hosting Medvedev in Caracas next week.
The prospect of a nuclear deal between Moscow and Caracas, following a surge in Russian economic, military, political and intelligence activity in Latin America, is likely to alarm the US and present an early challenge to the Obama administration.
“Hugo Chávez joins the nuclear club,” Russian’s Vedomosti newspaper trumpeted yesterday.
Cuba’s nuclear plants may present a threat to the US, but for a different reason: Cuba’s crumbling infrastructure: As this 1992 Heritage Foundation report explains, the two Soviet-designed VVER-440 nuclear reactors in Juragua, near Cienfuegos, just 250 miles from Miami, are mired in faulty design, shipshod construction, and the support structure of the plants contains numerous faulty seals and structural defects.
Meanwhile, Argentina’s president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner signed a nuclear energy agreement with Algeria last week, and one with Libya on Friday
A Libyan official says Argentina’s visiting president has offered her country’s help in developing nuclear energy in the North African nation.Argentina has three power stations: two in Atucha and one in Embalse, and back in 2006 pledged more funds to catch up with Brazil’s nuclear program. Brazil and Argentina have had, at times, their own nuclear weapons race. According to this Global Security.org report, . . . [Nuclear Latin America]
Libyan Cabinet official Mohammed al-Mesmari says the Argentine leader also signed areements in trade, agriculture and science during her meeting with Moammar Gadhafi.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez’s six-day tour of North Africa also included stops in Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria. The trip was meant in part to help ensure developing countries aren’t forgotten in efforts to solve the financial crisis.
Argentina has also helped build atomic reactors in Algeria and Egypt.
November 24, 2008
Testifying before Congress. . ., Wagoner admitted that GM has “put virtually all effort into avoiding” bankruptcy and has not worked out a detailed contingency plan. By contrast, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli said his company has “looked at all aspects” of a potential bankruptcy filing and has “gone through advisers to help us think this through.” The Wall Street Journal reports: "Because of its refusal to make plans for a bankruptcy, GM is “courting a Lehman-like situation,”. . . ." In other words, by willfully failing to plan, Wagoner is trying to maximize the pain a GM bankruptcy would cause so that Congress is forced to act. Giving in to Wagoner’s cynical game of chicken would be a disaster for the economy. . . . If Congress, or the Obama Administration, grants GM its bailout, they will have created a perpetual bailout machine, one that prompts every troubled industry in the country to abandon its fiduciary duty to plan for the worst and, instead, come to Washington demanding a handout. . . . [Source and comments] See also: Romney Advises "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"
November 23, 2008
November 22, 2008
|Here is an advance copy of a Our Country PAC new television ad thanking Gov. Sarah Palin. The ad will run around the Thanksgiving holiday. H/T ARRA News|
Tags: 2012, Deserves Better, Governor, Our Country PAC, Sarah Palin, Thank you To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
November 21, 2008
November 6, 2008
After 2000 and 2004, the radical Left did not fold up and go away quietly. It immediately redoubled its efforts to defeat us. Leftwing groups organized, raised money, registered voters and, finally, yesterday they succeeded. Will we be as tough and committed as they were? Or will we slink away demoralized and defeated? I have already made my decision. I intend to fight! I intend to do everything I can to save innocent unborn children and preserve normal marriage. I will defend our country from the Islamofascists and resist the Big Government socialists who want to turn us into Europe. I will defend free enterprise and the entrepreneurs who grow our economy and create jobs. I am counting on not being alone. Can I count on you? [Hat Tip to the ARRA News Service]
November 5, 2008
Tags: 2008 Elections, Tony Perkins To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
October 27, 2008
A few weeks ago was "Joe the plummer" and last weekend was Barbara West a veteran reporter from a local TV station in Orlando, Florida. Should we expect from an Obama administration respect for freedom of speech; or that freedom will be gagged like in Venezuela, Cuba and other dictatorial States?
October 25, 2008
If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.
To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.
The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":
"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?
Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."
Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).
Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.
The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?
October 22, 2008
1)Redistribution of Wealth
2)More taxes for businesses: small, medium and large.
3)Friendly converstions with enemies of USA.
4)Liberal Supreme Judges.
In his Miami visit yesterday he said: WE CAN'T LET UP FLORIDA, AND WE WON'T Translated into Spanish "No podemos bajar la guardia" Very familiar phrase used by another leader that wanted to redistribute wealth back in 1959 but he redistributed poverty to the entire population of the island of Cuba. The masses followed that slogan and today their children and grandchildren are suffering the consequences. Will the American people
follow that same slogan?
October 20, 2008
"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.
Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.
Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."
Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"
October 18, 2008
|ARRA News Service - Featured on Fox 35 News - Orlando, FL: |
She's only 12 years old but Ashleigh Jones is feeling the heat of this election year. That’s because the seventh grader at New Smyrna Beach Middle School was called a racist by classmates for wearing a pro-Sarah Palin t-shirt. Jones is volunteering at the Republican Headquarters in New Smyrna Beach. The Palin t-shirt was a gift from her fellow volunteers. But when she wore it to school she learned just how tough politics can be.“Some of the students were calling me racist because I was Caucasian,” she said. “I wanted the Caucasian man to win. And I told them that’s not true. It’s my freedom of speech, it’s my opinion.” - Video Available online at Fox 35This election has become super heated but is it really necessary to get disrespectful? When this New Smyrna Beach Middle School 12 year old wore a Sarah Palin shirt to school, her classmates called her a racist because she was white and was rooting for a "white man" to win. These are kids who can't even vote! No one got in trouble. What would have happened if the tables were turned? What Do you think?
|1st Part of McCain's Comments:||2nd Part of McCain's Comments|
Oh please, please, let this be a sign that McCain will be McCain in the last weeks of this election.
Text of 30 Second Ad
Nineteen terrorists infiltrate the U.S.
Thirteen get driver’s licenses.
The 9/11 plot depended on easy to get licenses.
Obama’s plan gives a license to any illegal who wants one.
A license they can use to get government benefits, a mortgage, board a plane, even illegally vote.
[Wolf Blitzer of CNN asks:] “Senator Obama, yes or no.”
[Obama responds:] “Yes.”
Barack Obama. Too radical. Too risky.
The National Republican Trust PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
Tags: 9-11, ARRA News, Barack Obama, driver license, Election 2008, illegla aliens, Obama, terrorist threat, terrorists To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
H/T ARRA News Service
October 16, 2008
|Hank Williams JR supporting john McCain and Sarah palin singing - "The McCain-Palin Tradition"|
Tags: American tradition, ARRA News, Election 2008, Hank Williams Jr, John McCain, Sarah Palin, tradition To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
There is something missing at all the Barack Obama campaign rallies which was even more conspicuous by its absence at the Democratic convention. Something you never hear and will not likely hear through election day. But it is always heard at McCain campaign rallies and was certainly in evidence at the GOP convention.
Before I say what is missing, let me be unmistakeably and abundantly clear: I believe in overwhelming numbers that Democrats—even the hard core ones who consider themselves Bush haters—at their very core are patriotic, loyal Americans. Having said that, let me tell you what you never hear at an Obama rally: The chant "USA-USA-USA-USA-USA".
What I conclude from this is not that Democrats are unpatriotic or disloyal. Not at all. The conclusion I draw is that Barack Obama, in what he says and how he says it, makes people feel that America's best days have long since past. He does not make us feel good about ourselves. If people believe his rhetoric, the United States of America is on the precipice of total and utter collapse. Americans, Mr. Obama will have us and the world believe, are unable to cope with difficult issues and only he can lift us up from mediocrity to once again give the United States of America standing in the world community.
Barack Obama, in particular, fails to inspire men and women who served in the military or who currently are on active duty. From the aging WW ll veteran to Vietnam veterans to those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to those currently on active duty, Barack Obama does not make you want to snap to attention and salute the flag. He just does not have "the right stuff" to be our Commander-in-Chief.
Go to a McCain campaign rally, however, agree with his issues or not, and at very least he makes you proud that you are an American. He leaves you feeling that America's best days are ahead of us. That we will leave Iraq with our heads held high. That serving in the military is honorable. That our economy will survive.
What I want in a president is not a Preacher-in-Chief but a Commander-in-Chief.
So I close by chanting: USA-USA-USA-USA-USA
Barack Obama, the . . pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him . . . by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president. "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion. The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."
Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript) "I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."
Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc. Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act. . . . Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, . . . saying Obama . . . would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion.
See related links:
Sen. Barack Obama's July 17, 2007 Speech to Planned Parenthood (transcript)
Senate version of FOCA
House version of FOCA
Editorial: The Hope of a Sophist: The Rhetoric of Barack Obama
Obama says Sermon on the Mount Supports Same-Sex Unions
October 14, 2008
One of the true strengths of the United States has been the accepted process for the peaceful transfer of power from one group of people to another. This process, elections held at regular intervals, has conferred that most precious of all commodities on the United States Government: legitimacy. But in 2008, in a desperate drive for power, that most valuable of gifts from our Founding Fathers is being abused and discarded. Simply put, it is becoming more and more evident every day that the elections this year may not be legitimate, that the “winners” will not be able to claim they assumed office in a fair and open manner. In short, we could be about to be ruled by an illegitimate government founded on fraud and outright criminality. All across America reports are coming in of obvious voter fraud. . . . [ARRA News -- Full Story on Legitimacy]
Tags: ACORN, Americans for Limited Government, Arkansas Election Commission, ARRA News, Barack Obama, Bill Wilson, Electon 2008, legitimacy, registered voters, voter fraud, voters To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
|ARRA News Service - Dinesh D'Souza spoke at AFP 2008 Defending the American Dream Summit. An author and political science expert, D'Souza at age 26 was the senior policy advisor to President Reagan. The video has several vignettes. One of D'Souza's best is his attempt to explain to his mother, in India, about the American political system. He said, "there are two parties: the stupid party and the evil party. He is a proud member of the stupid party, but occasionally, (like with the bailout), we do things that are both stupid and evil - and we call that bipartisanship."|
October 8, 2008
October 5, 2008
William (Bill) Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama’s Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.
A Series of Bombings - The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s — including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that “I don’t regret setting bombs.” . . . Ayers said he had no comment on his relationship with Obama.
ARRA News has the story and links to more info!
Update - ARRA News Service - Obama Talks About Job Bill Ayers Gave Him: In an interview with Fox News, Obama admits that his work with Bill Ayers gave him the qualifications to run for political office:
Tags: ABC News, Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Fox News, Jeremiah Wright, Meeks, political, Tony Rezko, video, Weather Underground To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
October 2, 2008
William (Bill) Smith, Ph.D. is editor of the ARRA News Service and National Political Director of Let's Get This Right. He is a conservative political activists working for limited government, traditional family values, individual freedom and responsibility. He is a retired Air Force officer who served as Director of the $2 billion European F-16 co-production program. In his career, he also taught military political science and spent a 3 year tour with the U.S. Army. After retiring, he was a graduate professor and held varied administrative and faculty positions. He has authored professional journal articles on varied topics. He also blogs as Ozark Guru.
Tags: 2008, Army Times, ARRA, ARRA News Service, Bill Smith, History, military, NorthCom, police, police state, Posse Comitatus, President, United States, US Army, US Government To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to America's Best Choice. Thanks!
September 30, 2008
September 26, 2008
A republican senate source has confirmed that the questioned provision reported in this post is being opposed by Senate Republicans which has upset Democrats. Republicans are not opposing the obvious issues identified by Reid. They are working to get rid of the questioned provision "if they can." Also, they have already gotten the Democrats to back down from providing "most" of the money ("future profits") to the groups mentioned in the article "to a much smaller percentage." Negotiations are likely to continue throughout the day. Obviously no one is happy - especially the majority of the American public.
While on the surface the agreement looks generic and positive, However, the "devil is in the detail." There is one detail that Democrats are concerned that Republicans will not agree to in the bailout agreement. That is if the Republicans even see the item. It seems that this issue may be one reason that many Democrats have hounded Sen. John McCain and pushed for his speedy approval. Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) has already identified that it is Sen. John McCain's approval, not Barack Obama approval, that is needed to secure the agreement of Senate Republicans. In fact, the questioned provision indirectly focus on some prior concern regarding Sen. Barack Obama involvement with various organizations. Maybe that is why Obama would prefer being at a debate in Mississippi than being in Washington D.C.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) cohorts are also hounding Sen. McCain to agree. They know that neither the House Republicans nor the House Blue Dog Democrats are going to sign on easily to an agreement extending $700 billion "bailout" if Sen. McCain disagrees. Pelosi does not have control of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs who are not happy with committing $700 billion to the "bailout" effort.
In the "agreement in principle," there is the effect of a major "earmark" which commits money from future "profits" to be given to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza and potentially the National Urban League. This agreement clearly evidences that the Government expects to benefit in the future from the bailout when the values of property rises and mortgages or properties are then sold by the Federal government. The agreement --
"Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs."In the proposed bailout agreement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee and other Democrats desire to pre-direct that future funds (profits) not be returned to the taxpayers via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite potential questionable (maybe even illegal activities) of certain nonprofits which have had a hand in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities, illegal voter registrations and extensive lobbying activities.
Let’s examine the connection of the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund with the various nonprofit groups mentioned above. In July, 2008, a Wall Street Journal article addressed the previous housing bill signed into law:
ACORN is the agency where Sen. Barack Obama worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud. It is this same organization from which a large part of the mortgage mess has grown. After Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.
Provide[d] a stream of billions of dollars for distressed homeowners and communities and the nonprofit groups that serve them. One of the biggest likely beneficiaries, despite Republican objections is Acorn, a housing advocacy group that also helps lead ambitious voter-registration efforts benefiting Democrats. Acorn -- made up of several legally distinct groups under that name -- has become an important player in the Democrats' effort to win the White House. Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record.
The organization's main advocacy group lobbied hard for passage of the housing bill, which provides nearly $5 billion for affordable housing, financial counseling and mortgage restructuring for people and neighborhoods affected by the housing meltdown. A third Acorn arm, its housing corporation, does a large share of that work on the ground. Acorn's multiple roles show how two fronts of activism -- housing for the poor and voter mobilization -- have converged closely in this election year. The fortunes of both parties will hinge in part on their plans for addressing the fall of the nation's housing market and the painful economic slowdown. . . .
Partly because of the role of Acorn and other housing advocacy groups, the White House and its allies in Congress resisted Democrats' plans to include money for a new affordable-housing trust fund and $4 billion in grants to restore housing in devastated neighborhoods. In the end, the money stayed in the bill; the White House saw little choice. What most riles Republicans about the bill is the symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and the housing advocacy groups, of which Acorn is among the biggest. Groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League also lobby to secure government-funded services for their members and seek to move them to the voting booth. Acorn has been singled out for criticism because of its reach, its endorsements of Democrats, and past flaws in its bookkeeping and voter-registration efforts that its detractors in Congress have seized upon. . . .
Sen. Obama is especially reliant on registration drives, such as Acorn's with Project Vote, to help him win the White House. The Illinois Democrat draws his strongest support from blacks, Hispanics and young people, groups that are among the least likely to be registered. After law school, Sen. Obama was the director of Project Vote in Chicago. . . .
Democrats on Capitol Hill have helped to steer millions of dollars in housing and other grants from the federal government toward Acorn and groups like it. The groups must qualify and compete for the money, which is typically doled out from the federal government to states and municipalities. The housing package includes a new, permanent source of affordable-housing money that congressional Democrats and grassroots groups have sought for years. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund will be funded by a tax on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage titans.
That tax eventually will channel upwards of $600 million annually in grants for developing and restoring housing, mostly as low-income rentals, available to Acorn and other groups. Democrats on Capitol Hill and housing groups say the housing-assistance money is vital to helping Americans hit hardest by what some call the largest drop in home values since the Great Depression. But they acknowledge the perception of political conflict in giving federal funds to an organization that does political work. "We are guarding against it," said Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank in an interview. He secured the Affordable Housing Trust from his seat as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. . . .
Acorn describes itself as the nation's largest grassroots community organization, with more than 400,000 families organized into 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities. Over four decades, Acorn has turned its broad membership into a powerful lobbying tool. Its representatives are well-known in the marble halls of the Capitol, and press local, state and federal governments . . .
In 2006, the Wall Street Journal addressed Acorn Indictments. In a recent article, additional complaints, indictments and arrests and conviction of ACORN members for voter fraud have been detailed for Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Wisconsin. Democrats on Capitol Hill have steered billions of the taxpayer monies to risky ventures and to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza through the government’s Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. As a result groups like ACORN have developed powerful lobby groups to secure tax money for their organizations. Now the proposed "agreement in principle" for the $700 Billion "bailout" seeks to continue the protection of this process. In another article by James H. Walsh, a former federal prosecutor, it was noted that:
ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which has plagued the mortgage markets since 1977. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to “communities of color” disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of “outdated” risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were “communities of color” required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of “subprime” loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets.Open Secrets reveals the investment made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Democrats and details the Top 25 Democrat Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions in 1989-2008. The top three in order were Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Barack Obama.
In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora’s Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and a zero down payment.
In 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife’s lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama.
When government tries to fix social issues through the use of the taxpayers’ money, there are consequences. Now the American taxpayers are being called upon again to underwrite the problems exacerbated by the prior actions of former and the current Congress and past administrations. It is hoped that Senators and Representatives will avoid this massive "earmark." All "future profits" from the resolution and disposition of the alleged current bad mortgages ("bad paper"), should accrue to the American taxpayers as a whole and be returned to the Treasury. Any determination as to the use of "future profits" should be determined by those elected and representing the people at that future point in time. No agreements should include an obligation on the potential "future profits." No agreements should support questionable programs that support organizations that contributed to the failures of mortgages or to the bad lending practices promoted by prior Congresses and administrations.