Today there are three U.S. Senate races currently unresolved: Norm Coleman faces a recount in his victory over Al Franken, Ted Stevens has a narrow lead in his re-election bid, and Saxby Chambliss faces a runoff on December 2 against his Democratic challenger. Chambliss deserves any support you can offer -- financial or otherwise -- and we urge all conservatives to do what they can to make sure he wins his runoff and returns to the Senate to fight for strong national defense, free markets, and a smaller government.
National Democrats have made the defeat of Saxby Chambliss one of their top priorities this cycle. They never forgave him for defeating Max Cleland in 2002, and they have resented his conservative stance on issue after issue.
They recognize that Chambliss is a vote against Barack Obama's agenda of tax increases, profligate spending, radical education policies, and surrender in the war on terror. They know that Chambliss can be counted on to sustain filibusters against card check and giveaways to liberal constituencies
Beyond that, the liberal leadership in Washington D.C. recognizes that Chambliss' vote is critical. They have already secured 57 votes in the Senate, and if the Democrats manage to win the three remaining races, they'll attain their longstanding goal of a filibuster-proof majority. We can't count on our lawyers being shrewder than their lawyers in Alaska and Minnesota as the only way to preserve 41 votes in the U.S. Senate. We need a clean victory in Georgia that creative vote counting can't take away.
As Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid begin to plan their agenda for the years ahead, conservatives must not let up until the 2008 elections are concluded. And that means doing everything we can to re-elect Saxby Chambliss today.
After all, regardless what happens in other races, we can't gamble that all Senate Republicans will stick together on every radical proposal from the Obama administration. Some may vote in favor of some Democratic initiatives; some may be replaced by Democrats in the next few years.
In other words, 41 Senate Republicans may not be enough to prevent the enactment of terrible policies. We need to re-elect principled conservatives like Saxby Chambliss at every opportunity.
Please consider making a donation to Saxby Chambliss today. If you can't donate to support this effort, there are other ways that you can help out. Please consider signing up as a volunteer. Anything you do today will help promote good government for the next 6 years -- or more.
Election '08: This year's presidential contest was not, as some predicted, a historic blowout handing unfettered power to the Democrats. A credible Reaganite, in fact, could have even beaten Barack Obama.
One of the most telling numbers in the IBD/TIPP Poll during the final days of the campaign was the survey's unique measure of intensity among supporters of Barack Obama vs. those of John McCain. Obama backers expressed enthusiasm and confidence that registered in the high 70s, finally finishing at well over 80% on the eve of his election. McCain devotees, by comparison, rarely topped 70% in this gauge of voter passion.
In other words, a whole lot of committed Republicans didn't think McCain — with his late conversion on the Bush tax cuts, his opposition to new drilling in Alaska, and his soft stances on immigration and global warming — would make the ideal GOP president.
Did this "fervor gap" prevent the possible defeat of Obama? It's impossible to know definitively, but it's clear that an un-GOP-sounding McCain echoed Obama and congressional Democrats in blaming "greed" on Wall Street as the cause of the financial crisis instead of strongly defending private markets over government control.
What is also clear is that, once again, the GOP's Reagan coalition was split apart in the primaries — with Mitt Romney getting votes from free market enthusiasts and Mike Huckabee energizing religious conservatives. As a result, a "maverick" who four years ago mulled the idea of switching parties got the nomination by default, campaigning mostly on his compelling life story as hero and POW.
The Republican Party was thus re-taught a stinging lesson in 2008: Its success, as in the past, does not come from narratives that capture the people's imagination, but from ideas that work — economic freedom, caution on government solutions, principled assertiveness in foreign policy and defense of traditional values.
Bob Dole, the 1996 nominee, also suffered the wounds of war. He also chose a running mate that electrified the GOP base. But he too had a credibility problem. As selflessly as Dole served his country in war, few believed that someone who voted for so many tax increases in his career had finally seen the light on Reaganomics, even though he put the author of the Reagan tax cuts, Jack Kemp, on the ticket with him. Bill Clinton had little trouble beating him.
McCain may have named as running mate one of the most exciting up-and-comers in his party in Gov. Sarah Palin, electrifying economic and social conservatives alike. But his campaign kept her on a leash and harshly complained about her anonymously in the press. And it is undeniable that a big reason he chose a conservative heroine to run with him was that his own Reaganite credentials were in serious question.
In the coming weeks and months, President-elect Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders will be claiming that we have just witnessed a far-reaching realignment of the political landscape. In fact, as reporter Robert Novak noted, Obama "may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities."
As a new generation of GOP leaders resist Washington's impending dalliance with socialism and plan for 2010 and 2012, the party must also remind itself that it had a good chance to win the White House in 2008. But it blew it by choosing story over substance.
Race+Economy(what can my government do for me)+new voters (young and naive about life and usually vote straight ticket)+liberal white guilt+Bush Hater Syndrome+GOP Candidate who WAS NOT Conservative (think Reagan)+just plan ignorant+so called "christians" who had idols (race, economy other issues)a head of the Lord and his will (abortion & homosexuality IS sin+group think=Obama in 08
However, lets look at some of the victories.
In California no less, approved a ban on gay marriage.Voters in Arizona and Florida also approved a ban on gay marriage.
Also in California, Proposition 4-Minor Abortion which was a Parental notification if a minor wants an abortion, Passed
And Proposition 7 (which is really Obama's energy plan) plan also defeated by 72%!
Proposition 7, which would have required that California’s electric utilities get half of their power from renewable sources by 2025 (the current requirement is 20 percent by the end of 2010), was easily defeated with 65 percent of voters casting ballots against the measure which included an unusual alliance of environmentalists and public utilities, which are not covered by current requirements but would be folded into the new mandates argued that, as drafted, the initiative would have driven up electricity rates,( ya mean like bankrupting coal power plants?) stalled the state’s already steady shift to clean power and strangled small alternative-energy companies.
So even California environmentalists reject Obama's "energy" policies
Bankrupt coal plants and 150 billion for 10 years and we'll be totally free of gas!
So remember folks, this election IS NOT a repudiation of conservatism.
Take some time, grieve, be angry and get some well deserved rest Because we have planning, strategy and fighting to do.
I have finished my course, I have kept the faith 2 Timothy 4:7
Today is Election Day, and I have along with many others have done our best. We have went door-to-door, wrote letters to the editor, lit drops, fund raisers, delivered yard signs,e-mailed,blogged,contributed our money,made calls and prayed.
Prayed. For righteouness in our land. That the Lord would show His grace and mercy to America and to those Americans who are truly called by His name. That He would show favor to John McCain and Sarah Palin who know that abortion and homosexuality is sin and an abomination. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.Proverbs 14:34
And now all that's left to do is vote.
And wait and pray
I have no predictions except the ones below:
1. The Bible will still have all the answers. 2. Prayer will still work. 3. The Holy Spirit will still move. 4. God will still inhabit the praises of His people. 5. There will still be God-anointed preaching. 6. There will still be singing of praise to God. 7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people. 8. There will still be room at the Cross. 9. Jesus will still love you. 10. Jesus will still save the lost when they come to Him
I love this crazy, tragic, Sometimes almost magic, Awful, beautiful life Darryl Worley
Thursday, October 30, 2008 The Barack Obama Lack-Of-Variety Show [Mark Steyn]
...This is an amazing race. The incumbent president has approval ratings somewhere between Robert Mugabe and the ebola virus. The economy is supposedly on the brink of global Armageddon. McCain has only $80 million to spend, while Obama's burning through $600 mil as fast as he can, and he doesn't really need to spend a dime given the wall-to-wall media adoration. And tonight Chris Matthews' doctors announced that his leg tingle has metastasized leaving his entire body like a vibrating cellphone whose ringtone is locked on "I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love With A Wonderful Guy."
And yet an old cranky broke loser is within two or three points of the King of the World. Strange.
I ran across this blog surfing the web. First person account from this blogger how he was able to ILLEGALLY contribute to the Obama campaign. It has been reported as the author states about that the Obama campaign gathered a never before total of 150 million in one month, in a down economy and how many of those contributions were illegal such as this article on Townhall.com
However the larger concern is what is being done about it? According to the Townhall blog,"The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions"
Outrageous!
Written by John Ronning Wednesday, 29 October 2008 PBTS
How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign
It’s pretty easy — all you need is a credit card (foreign card is OK), a phony name, phony US address, phony telephone number, and just keep each contribution less than $200 so your illegal contribution never needs to be reported. As a foreigner you can even give more than Americans are allowed to legally contribute, by just using a different phony name each time you contribute, so that your contributions are never tallied, thus never exceed the limit.
And of course American supporters of Obama can also contribute more than the legal limit by following the same procedure. Not to mention the fact that you can easily steal someone else's credit card number and contribute through it, not needing the correct name etc. (yes it has happened), and just hope the victim doesn't notice it.
Last Friday I read on various web sites (e.g. NRO) that the Obama campaign was facilitating illegal credit card contributions by disabling standard security verification procedures. Normally, a credit card payment is rejected if the name you give does not match the name on the card. Duh. Not so the Obama campaign.
I said to myself, "If Americans can do this, I wonder if foreigners could too?" I’m a US citizen, but I have lived in South Africa for the last ten years and have a foreign credit card, from a South African bank. So I googled the Obama campaign web site and used my foreign credit card to contribute $5 (the minimum accepted) to his campaign. Sure enough, my account was charged $5 (54 Rand) on Monday. I assume that if I could do it, all those French who want Obama to be president could do it too.
Money translates into votes, because propaganda is effective, including obvious lies which are endlessly repeated.
Here, then, are the step by step instructions for fraudulently contributing to the Obama campaign, and participating in the mother of all campaign swindles:
Go to the Obama web site, find the page where contributions are accepted (I won’t link to it, but it’s not hard to find).
Listen to Obama’s spiel which automatically plays, telling you that since he’s not taking money from PAC’s or Lobbyists (nothing about foreigners), he’s depending upon you to contribute.
Fill in the name, address, etc., according to your imagination. Nothing needs to be correct except the credit card number. I used the name "Good Guess", a phony address etc., and got the message that my donation was accepted; three days later the money was charged to my account.
During those three days a couple of mainstream newspapers did some whitewashing work for Obama, failing to make clear the deliberateness of Obama’s disabling of standard security checks to prevent credit card fraud, failing to point out the obvious, that you cannot get away with such fraud on the McCain/Palin web site, etc.
Next I had the opportunity to have Obama e-mail my friends, inviting them to follow my example. I had them send an e-mail from "Good Guess" to one of my e-mail addresses, and a short time later the e-mail arrived.
I know from experience that the Obama web site could be set up to automatically detect if it is being accessed from a foreign country (South Africa, in my case). I know from experience that it could be set up to reject foreign credit cards, even if the names and addresses were correct (for example, I cannot use my American credit card for certain transactions in South Africa).
And by the way, you can also contribute to Obama anonymously through those pre-paid credit cards you buy at the drug store. As another Republican candidate said 12 years ago, "Where is the outrage?"
Disclaimer: I did not investigate this site as to the their doctrine of Christianity. As such I am not endorsing or not endorsing any articles devoted to doctrine on this blog
From one corrupt Ohio Democrat official to another, the state of Ohio’s voter fraud may now be complete—all it’s missing are the palm tree in this newly emerged banana republic. And said voter fraud has now been “officially” sanctioned by a liberal—if not leftist—Ohio judge.
First there was Democrat and ardent Obama-supporter Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner who admitted she had hidden over 200,000 suspect or outright fraudulent voter registrations—which have, now, apparently been turned into early Ohio votes. As in at least 15 states, Democrat candidate Obama’s election fraud group ACORN had delivered said registrations.
Although both Ohio State and Federal law demanded that Brunner adhere to the law, she refused to do so. She had also refused to allow Ohio’s elections’ boards to check whether or not there is voter fraud. US District Court Judge George C. Smith ordered Brunner to uphold the law. Stating that forcing her to check all fraudulent registrations was too much work and constituted “voter suppression”, Brunner appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court.
Subsequently, SCOTUS delivered a ruling that may just sway the election in favor of allowing voter fraud to continue. In its unsigned decision, the US Supreme Court ruled on neither the merits of the original case and ruling nor the same of Brunner’s argument. Instead, in a per curiam ruling (one issued by the court in toto instead of individual judges and not generally associated with the merits of a case), the court ruled in Brunner’s favor on a technicality with “Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO.”
Ohio’s early voting laws allow voters to register and vote on the same day. This has given birth to even more voter fraud, including the voting of individuals who are not even residents of the state and ACORN-registered voters registering to vote multiple times (one admitted and subsequently testified to having registered 70 times or more for money and cigarettes given to him by ACORN).
Now, in an apparent move to further destroy the state’s (and ultimately the nation’s) voting laws in favor of the Socialist/Communist candidate, Clinton-appointed liberal US District Court Judge Edmund Sargus has ruled that those claiming to be homeless voters may list their “homes” as any specific park bench. Of course, anyone and/or everyone may now register as “homeless in Ohio” even if they are from other states or even other countries.
In order to complete—to the best of his ability—said destruction of real voters’ rights, Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots cannot be invalidated because of poll worker errors. Note: I imagine there are LOTS of ACORN workers in Ohio who are now functioning as “poll workers.”
Like it or not, this unprecedented voter fraud is being waged against We-the-People by Democrats—either elected or appointed. As we have witnessed in other countries, most recently Venezuela, once any candidate has enough operatives in place the fix is in. We are seeing it now in the USA.
With nationwide voter fraud firmly ensconced in the system, elections will mean nothing and we will never be able to get rid of them. Just ask those who have managed to escape third world dictatorships. With Barack Hussein Obama as POTUS, we will soon join them.
JERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.
The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama.
Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president.
The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.
The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities."
It reportedly has worked on projects with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which supports open boarders and education for illegal aliens. The AAAN in 2005 sent a letter to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in which it called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims."
Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948.
According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands - some Palestinians claim over one million - Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.
Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.
The theme of AAAN's Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom." Another AAAN initiative, titled, "Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding.
A post on the AAAN site asked users: "Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?" That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction.
Pro-PLO advocate held Obama fundraiser, describes Obama as 'sympathetic' AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi was reportedly a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, while the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group.
Khalidi's wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA's English translator during that period. Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed worked on behalf of WAFA.
Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991. During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state.
He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.
While the Woods Fund's contribution to Khalidi's AAAN might be perceived as a one-time run in with Obama, the presidential hopeful and Khalidi evidence a deeper relationship.
According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity.
Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004. Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.
Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor Show of New York's WABC Radio and Los Angeles' KFI Radio, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama. "I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated. Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."
Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can't talk with the Iranians." Asked about Obama's role funding the AAAN, Khalidi claimed he had "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago." He terminated the call when petitioned further about his links with Obama.
Contacted by phone, Mona Khalidi refused to answer WND's questions about the AAAN's involvement with Obama. Obama's campaign headquarters did not reply to a list of WND questions sent by e-mail to the senator's press office.
Obama, American terrorist in same circles Obama served on the board with Ayers, who was a Weathermen leader and has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough,"
Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released on Sept. 11, 2001 "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.
A $200 campaign contribution is listed on April 2, 2001 by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two taught appeared speaking together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"
The charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance. Ayers is married to another notorious Weathermen terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who has also served on panels with Obama. Dohrn was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the "most dangerous woman in America."
Ayers and Dohrn raised the son of Weathermen terrorist Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for participating in a 1981 murder and robbery that left 4 people dead.
The revelations about Obama's relationship with Khalidi follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.
Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.
Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.
Blogging is fun. However, some days are more fun than others. Like today. Today I got an opportunity to be on the gun range with Congressman Mike Rogers. The Congressman was at Total Firearms a full service gun shop in Mason to meet with his constituents to discuss the current state of our Second Amendment rights , as well as other critical issues.
Smaller and more casual event, which was great for meeting other shooters and "hanging out" with Congressman Rogers. I have had several occassions in the past few months to interview or be at events with Mike Rodgers and I find him to be a genuine nice guy with a great sense of humor. Hunters, gun owners, veterans as well as some local candidates including, Chris Greenshield candidate for Ingham County sheriff were in attendance.
Gun owners have cause for concern in a Barack Obama administration as he has consistently voted against gun owners rights including;
• Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008) • 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007) • Concealed carry OK for only retired police officers. (Aug 2007) • Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998) • Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005) • Supported the D.C. handgun ban, and said that it's constitutional
And Barack Obama said in August 14, 2007, "I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
I asked Congressman Rogers;
What would it mean to our 2nd Amendment rights to have an Obama presidency?
Congressman Rogers;
"First of all you have some who is not a passive person about taking away our 2nd Amendment protections. He has aggressively taken steps to make it harder to own hand guns or any firearms for that matter." In his time in the state Senate and in his words and speeches, he has very clearly said, he does not believe in the fundamental right of gun ownership.
He has also said that he believes in the 2nd Amendment however, he believes the government can and should regulate those individual rights. Which is him saying one thing but meaning another. And when you get an aggressive president with an already controlled Democrat House and Senate, my concern is that, it makes it very easy to get back in the business of restricting gun ownership in the United States. That's what concerns me and that's why this issues needs to be talked about. And really hasn't been. If you believe that the 1st Amendment is important than the 2nd is equally important and so is 3rd and down the line.
They are all important and there for a reason and they all need to be respected. And for them to pick and choose the ones they like is, A. Unconstitutional and B. Dangerous. So once again my concern is that because he is very aggressive about taking away our 2nd Amendment protections he will certainly continue to pursue that goal if elected"
After a few other questions and answers a few of us accepted the invitation of Doug, the owner to Total Firearms, to go to the indoor shooting range for a little practice. Doug had a newer firearm that he invited Mike to shoot, a 5.7x28 FN Herstal FS2000 Semi-Auto Carbine Rifle.
So Mike, a former FBI agent was happy to try it out. After firing off a few rounds, he commented that he didn't have the opportunity to get to the range as much as he wanted. A couple of us took turns with a Smith & Wesson M&Pc 9mm. I squeezed off the magazine and hit center of mass. Dead prep Yeah me!
I had not done any shooting in a couple of years, since I got my CCW. However, I forgot how much fun it is! I got a S&W catalog and looks like there will be a "new member of the family" shortly, a S&W M&P9c
Then a couple of Rogers's staffers shot for the 1st time and they loved it! I think Total Firearms have more new customers.
A big thanks to Total Firearms for hosting the event and for the shootin' fun. If you are looking to purchase a firearm or need some questions answered the staff at Total Firearms are top notch and with an indoor as well as an outdoor range you are able to get in year round practice.
Another big thanks to Congressman Rogers for his service and for always being so gracious to this blogger
Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.
That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.
"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."
Ross purchased 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium for $550 million earlier this year with the intention he would eventually become majority owner. NFL owners approved the eventual transfer this month, meaning it can take place anytime.
"If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes," Huizenga said.
But the Obama campaign disputed Huizenga's figures on Monday, saying the candidate's plans are to raise the capital gains tax maximum from 15 percent to 20 percent -- a 33 percent increase, not double. And the top rate would be for families earning more than $250,000 or individuals earning more than $200,000.
"Mr. Huizenga is wrong about Senator Obama's tax plan, which calls for a maximum capital-gains rate of 20 percent -- a third lower than the rate that President Reagan set in 1986," said Bobby Gravitz, Obama campaign South Florida spokesman. "Furthermore, Senator Obama's tax cut for 95 percent of working families will mean a whole lot of Dolfans will be better able to afford those ever-rising ticket prices."
Regardless of when he sells, Huizenga vows to maintain a 5-percent stake in the team.
"It's been 19 years and after 19 years, it's kind of time," he said. "I don't want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there, we know some of those stories already, I don't want to be one of those guys."
Ok here we have Obama confirming that his tax plan INCLUDES small business "or individuals earning more than $200,000."
And the lie that of "tax cut for 95 percent of working families"
Information below is from The Tax Foundation that refutes "Senator Government's" claim
The major findings include:
To the surprise of some, even though Senator Obama's tax plan lowers taxes for the bottom four quintiles, marginal tax rates would fall only for the very lowest-income couples. Taking both income and payroll taxes into account, those at the very bottom of the income distribution would see their effective marginal tax rates fall from 27.4 percent to minus 58.6 percent due to proposed changes to the earned income tax credit and Senator Obama's new "Making Work Pay" credit.
Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, some low- and moderate-income taxpayers will see their marginal rates rise to more than 50 percent.
Under Sen. Obama's plan, the already negative marginal tax rates for low-income taxpayers drop further, due to his proposals to expand the EITC and for a new "Making Work Pay" credit.
The new credit would equal 6.2 percent of the first $8,100 of a worker's wages, and it would phase out for moderate-income taxpayers. Both of these provisions would sharply reduce marginal tax rates for taxpayers with the lowest earnings, reducing their combined income and payroll tax rates to minus 58.6 percent.
However, these and other provisions are phased out in short order under both current law and Senator Obama's tax plan, which causes effective marginal tax rates to rise for moderate-income taxpayers.
Senator Obama also expands the child and dependent care credit and begins to phase down this expansion at $30,000 of income. The combination of the phase-out of the EITC, the "Making Work Pay" credit, and the child and dependent care credit pushes the effective marginal tax rate to as high as 51.7 percent.
That is, the taxpayer who benefits from all these provisions at a lower income discovers that he gets to keep less than one half of every additional dollar of earnings in the roughly $30,000-to-$43,000 range
Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory By Steven M. Warshawsky
Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.
What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.
This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)
Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.
Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.
There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)
Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.
The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.
Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.
Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.
So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.
Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!! In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth!!!
A cool wind and dry weather greeted the big Our Country Deserves Better bus as it pulled up to the State Capitol but The Stop Obama Tour received a warm welcome from McCain/Palin supporters gathered there for the Stop Obama Rally.
There were folks there from Ingham, Eaton and counties beyound. Whole families were there as well as veterans, seniors,GenXers,NRA members, friends, neighbors and local candidates running for office. Mark Williams a veteran journalist and conservative radio talk show host started the Rally and introduced yours truly who did did my best to fire up the crowd with a short speech. Which if you have the patience can be heard on the YouTube video below. Side bar: when I spotted the sign held by the young man I went over to ask him if I could get a picture because I thought it was a great sign, Obama o8 Osama 09. The young girl with him said, "Oh I know you, you don't me but I was on your blog today." So bloggers take heart, even if you do not get lots of comments does not mean that people aren't reading and following your blog. So fellow bloggers, keep on doing what you do!
Next up was Lloyd Marcus, self professed black conservative and a talented singer/songwriter who sang "Sarah Smile" a tribute to Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Great song, crowd loved it.
Marine Mom Deborah Johns spoke next, very eloquently to stand up to Barack Obama's anti-military, "Blame America First" policies in his campaign for president and Commander-in-Chief.
Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, candidate for U.S Senate seat now held by Carl Levin spoke next reminding us how badly Carl needs to go!
Interesting side note, as I waited for the bus I noticed a woman who looked she was there for the Rally so I asked her if she wanted to hop in my warm car as I practiced my little speech.
In the course of our conservation she told me she was an Independent voting for McCain. Voted for Democrats and Levin in the past but no more. What she has seen of Barack Obama, she related to me, was enough to scare her to death. I guess this was one Michigan Independent for McCain the pollsters missed. Bottom line; Its still a close race and it ain't over till the fat lady sings!
Lloyd Marcus,wrapped up the Rally by singing,"Proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood and pulled Norm Shinkle, Ingham County chair out the crowd who sang his heart out!
Great time and thanks to Our Country Deserves Better for the tour and their great TV ads to STOP OBAMA. If you wish to donate to keep their TV ads coming, please visit their web site by clicking on the Our Country Deserves Better link above.
My neighbor and friend Nancy who helped me do lit drops in the sub for Mike Herter running for State Rep
Old bud of mine, Georgia from the "Friends of Funding Fathers Days". A citizens action group several of us politicos founded back in the day.
The spectre of a Democrat super majority continues to provide more chills than a Hollywood Halloween movie. The assault this time is against our 401k and the attempt to "help us" to not lose money on Wall Street by eliminating the tax break on 401ks, and requiring payment into a government administrated program that invest our money for us and guarantees a whopping 3% !
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
(Teresa Ghilarducci in an article entitled," The End of Retirement" calls Social Security privatization a "nightmare". And laments "decline of union contracts" and "the substitution of defined contribution or 401(k)-type accounts for traditional defined benefit pensions. " She concludes that "401(k) plans reveal that workers will never be able to accumulate enough assets in individual accounts and choose payout options that will provide a steady stream of income for life after retirement. This means that Americans will turn to the option that American adults have always relied on—contingent, low-paying jobs—"
In other words, the government need to make sure we are "taken care of" in retirement because its obvious to her that we are doing a poor job of it ourselves! The answer? Socialized retirement program. Obama will love this)
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.
The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.” Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said. “I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said. “This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott. “That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist. Savings rate“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said. “If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said. The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year. However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.
The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals.
Proposal 1 was put on our ballot here in Michigan by a group almost entirely funded by the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington D.C.
They spent a couple million dollars to hire petition circulators to get enough signatures to put this on our ballot. They then wrote a 100 word description of the proposal and went to the Michigan Board of Canvassers and were successful in getting pretty much their wording of the issue.
The problem is not what is in the proposal but what isn’t.
Because the law is very vague and full of loopholes,it will not be legalizing marijuana for extreme medical reasons,it will be legalizing marijuana pretty much across the board.
In California where this was done a few years ago, the law is used to allow anyone to get a doctors note and they can grow their own or “designate someone” to grow it for them. This designation of someone else to grow it for you opens the door to “Pot Clubs” which they have in California and they actually outnumber Starbucks in Southern California.
Proponents of Proposal 1 want us to believe that “medical” marijuana will only be smoked by those who have extreme serious medical conditions. Again one only needs to look to California to see who is really being “treated.”
In cities like San Diego where the issue has been closely examined, only 2% of those smoking marijuana under the guise of medicine have serious conditions such as AIDS, glaucoma and cancer. A full 98% are “treating” more minor conditions such as back and neck pain, anxiety, muscle spasms, insomnia, headaches and other insignificant conditions. But even more troubling is that 12% of the users are under 21!
And while this proposal does not require an employer to “accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working under the influence of marijuana,”it does not address what would be required of any employer if an employee tested positive on a drug test during employment.
Supporters of this proposal say it would not allow an individual to be intoxicated while on the job, but no impairment level has ever been established, and drug tests detect the presence of drugs,not impairment. Studies however, indicate the impairment caused by marijuana use can persist as long as 24 hours - even though the user may no longer be aware he is still impaired.
This proposal is very misleading and if it passes, it can only be repealed or changed by a super-majority of the legislature or a statewide vote (which would take millions of dollars).
In the last 3 weeks,a coalition of Doctors, Hospitals, Law enforcement and Family groups have come together to oppose this and get the word out. They include:
Michigan State Medical Society, Michigan Osteopaths, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Michigan Sheriffs, Prosecuting Attorneys of Michigan, Michigan Chiefs of Police, Michigan Fraternal Order of Police, Citizens for Traditional Values, Michigan Family Forum and More).
I wanted you to be aware of what’s about to happen in Michigan. There is no campaign staff, there aren’t lots of dollars but we have been aggressively getting information out to the press and in fact the Grand Rapids Press just came out with their editorial on the issue Mlive.com
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO SPREAD THE WORD.
The biggest need right now is to get lawn signs out which say “Docs and Cops agree NO on 1” with the website www.nopotshops.com
If you would like to help, please email noonproposalone@gmail.com
Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause.
The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs. Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.
Ronald Reagan, 1977 40th President of the United States
The opinions expressed by our contributors are the individual authors own views and do not necessarily reflect the views of The World According to Me.
Opinions included in articles written and or cross-posted by anyone other than the blog owner, do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog owner.
The World According to Me is not responsible for the content of sites linking to this blog or sites that this blog links to. These independent sites are subject to change by their site operators and we have no control over the content on their sites.
This blog is an exercise in the author's First Amendment Rights as pertaining to Free Speech with all the protections as afforded & granted by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Posts
Prayed.
