$250,000

$250,000.

That's all I've heard for the past 6 weeks from Senator Obama.

$250,000.

This is the cutoff. Above it, your taxes go up. Below it, your taxes go down.

$250,000.

This is wealthy, according to Senator Obama. It's not middle class.

$250,000.

95% of Americans will get tax cuts, says the good Senator. So, I guess that only 5% of Americans make over $250,000. Okay.

$250,000.

So, I watched his Obama informercial the other night.

$200,000.

Okay. We know! We've heard you spout the same number over and over and o...(pause) Excuse me?

He dropped his number! Everyone under $200,000 will receive a tax cut? What the heck? He just dropped his number by 20%. I'm no math teacher, but it seems pretty significant, especially since he's slyly changed the number during his primetime special.

I won't say that he's a liar, by any means. It just seems as though the past six weeks he hasn't been telling us the truth about the centerpiece of his economic tax policies. I don't care for that, Senator Obama.

What can you do?

So, if you're looking for something to do over the next week, the GOP could sure use some help getting out the vote. While Iowa may be lost for John McCain, unfortunately, we must remember that the down ballot races are very important.

Especially considering this poll.

Research 2000 Poll - 10/20-22. Likely voters. Margin of Error ±5%
Tom Latham (R) 47
B. Greenwald (D) 42

Now, a big concern is that Barack Obama is going to have some serious coattails in this election. Thus, Congressman Latham could potentially be in for a tight race. He really need to win this, though.

I'll be blunt. I'm not that excited about having a Democrat speak for me (or not listen to me as the case would be) in the House of Representatives. Tom Latham is the perfect representative for us here in Dallas County and the entire 4th district. He's a solid, common sense conservative.

In the words of our County GOP Chair,

"It is VERY important that we retain Congressman Latham, State Senator Behn, State Representative Watts, State Representative Tymeson and Supervisor Hanson in office"

Well stated.

Just in case we forgot...first 18 seconds of clip

Sometimes we forget about these clips from the Democratic Primary...and how these opinions were coming from a woman who pretty much agrees with Senator Obama on every major issue.



As always, if you're friends say Barack is inexperienced, and your opponents say that Barack is inexperienced, he's probably inexperienced.

Saturday Morning Musings

How is Barack Obama's Get Out the Vote (GOTV) Campaign going to work?

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." - Barack Obama, September 2008.

Ahh...there's nothing like the old "Get In Your Face" politics. I guess this is the "Hope" and "New Kind of Politics" that Senator Obama has been talking about since he started running for President 5 years ago. Two things.

1. I've only had a few Obama supporters get in my face, thusfar this election. Fortunately, their talking points are repetitious and overused, and thus, easy to debunk. So, it's actually been all right. It's a nice self-esteem booster for me.

2. Frankly, John McCain's message of government getting out of your face has been one that I've admired. It's very Reaganesque, i.e. government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem. However, I think that Senator Obama is going to run the government like he runs his campaign. Get in your face government!

What would this look like?

1. The 2nd Amendment

In his speech that day, Senator Obama goes onto say that the 2nd amendment will be protected under his administration. I just don't believe him though. As previously discussed in earlier entries, the justices that he would appoint would be very hostile to the 2nd amendment.

2. Federally funded abortions.

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is receiving millions of dollars from you, I, and the American people every year. Plan on the government to "Get in your face!" and take even more.

3. Finally, get in your face government overall.

The size, scope, and budget of the federal government will no doubt increase under an Obama administration. Period. Between 2009 and 2013, I guarantee you that the government, with Obama as the chief executive will be "in your face."

I can't wait!

Tax "Plan" Corollary

One final note

It’s not a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes. Let’s repeat that. It’s not a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes. 44% of the people in this country do not pay income tax. Yet, Barack Obama likes to include these folks in his “95%” that he drones on and on about.

He should really take away that 44% from his fancy 95% statistic, so he’s, you know, being truthful.

Tax "Plans"

I’m sorry, but we have to talk about this…because it’s why I have a big problem with Barack Obama and his tax plan.

From the Wall Street Journal

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

So, let’s be clear on this.

You’re an American with a lower income. Due to our very progressive tax system, you don’t pay income tax. However, you can receive a tax refund (oh, I’m sorry, tax credit) from the government for doing a number of things...check out the article for that list.

This is bad. The reason we complain about taxes is because we believe them to be too high. However, I’ll be blunt here. If you don’t pay income taxes, you really should NOT get a tax refund. Perhaps it’s the fair, logical bones in my body, but it’s how I feel.

Sunday Musings

On occasion, something happens on the campaign trail that strikes me as curious. A couple of months ago, it was Senator Obama's campaign airplane.

This time around, my curiosity is focused on one of his posters.


First off, they are very Obama-centric (i.e. not just "Vote for Obama", but "Vote for Obama, and here's who he is in case you don't recognize him"). In recent history, it's not very common for presidential candidates to put their faces on their posters.

Second, it's curious how Senator Obama portrays himself on his own campaign posters. The posters bears a stylistic resemblance to a Che Guevara poster.


It's an odd move for someone who has been trying to:

• Woo moderates
• Convince independents that he's not too radical
• Woo unsatisfied Republicans into his camp
• Generally convince all Americans that he is not scary.

After all, according to Time Magazine, Che Guevara remains to this day a "potent symbol" of rebellion, revolution, and radicalism.

Simply a curious thing to do. Slightly concerning, but mainly curious.

What the other side is thinking

One far left blogger has thrown the gauntlet down, making the following statement.

"We're going to win the White House, we're going to win big in the Senate, and we're going to rack up big gains in the House. Republicans know this and are preparing for the worst. Now think of 2004 -- we really thought Kerry was going to pull it off. Remember that? And remember how utterly devastated we were when Bush pulled it off? The pain was so much worse because we expected to win."

So with conservatives bracing for the worse, they won't experience the kind of pain we did. Not unless we deliver a defeat even worse than their worst nightmares. And I'll be honest with you -- I want them to hurt as much as we did. I want their spirits crushed, their backs broken.

So the way we do that is we deliver a defeat worse than they ever imagined. The day after the election, I want to see an electoral battlefield littered with defeated Republicans."

A couple of things about this.

First, the confidence that the far left has going into this election is insane. Keep in mind, these are people that criticized Bill Clinton for not being liberal enough. These are the folks who criticized Hillary Clinton for not being liberal enough. These are the people who are getting ready to explode with excitement that one of their own is being elected President of the United States.

While they have many reasons to be confident, the election is not over yet. I truly believe that McCain can pull this one out. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but there are still more than 3 weeks until this election. It's not over, yet.

Second, for a "tolerant" left winger, this blogger sure is intolerant....AND HATEFUL. Although, he is right about one thing. As a conservative, I'm AM really frightened, of having my spirit crushed and my back broken...but not by a McCain loss. I fear my back will be broken by excessive taxes, an activist Supreme Court, the erosion of the First and Second Amendments, and, in general, the socialist Obama Administration.

As such, I'll continue to issue the call for volunteerism. Whether it be for city, county, state, or national, I encourage you to lend a hand over the coming 4 weeks. Trust me...we really need all the help we can get. Plus, you'll want to get out and help before you're laid up with a broken back.

Sub-prime thoughts Pt. 3

It appears that Senator McCain is going to continue to tell the American people how the Democratic Party is partially responsible for the economic issues of today.

The link below will take you to a slideshow with 15 slides that explains how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got off track.

It's pretty interesting, and slightly unnerving that the Democrats, i.e. the self proclaimed 2008 "Saviors of the Economy" were in on the ground floor of some nasty financial behind-the-scenes chicanery.

McCain's Fannie Mae Slideshow (via RedState)

Once you follow the link, you'll be able to click through the slideshow.

The Supreme Court: Part 9

How about one more Barack Obama quote about who should be on the Supreme Court?

“We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.” Barack Obama - July 2007.

Gee, Senator Obama. It must be tough to find someone like that...who understands what it's like to be all of those things.

Well, I guess you could look to the court right now. While there are no gay or disabled justices, it seems as if most of them are rather old. Check. I will say that none of the justices have ever been young teenage moms, unless Ruth Bader Ginsburg is hiding something.

As for being poor and black, where can we find an African American who grew up rather poor, with a single mom after his dad ran away?

Ahh! We found someone! It’s Clarence Thomas! Lucky for you Senator Obama, he’s already on the court, so you don’t have to go through the trouble of nominating him.

Hold on…would you have even nominated him, Senator?

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.” – Barack Obama, August 2008

Hold on, Senator. Let’s not be hasty. Did I mention that his mother was a young teenage mom, giving birth to Justice Thomas when she was only 18 years old? That’s a good perspective to have, and it’s on your list. What about now?

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.” – Barack Obama, August 2008

Are you sure? Clarence Thomas’ mother was a young teenage mom, he was poor, and African American, and now he’s over sixty. It seems as though he has 4 of your 6 “qualifiers” for serving on the Supreme Court. Would you have at least CONSIDERED nominating him?

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.” – Barack Obama, August 2008

Oh, that’s right. You’re rhetoric is simply a bunch of nonsense. I forgot.

To reiterate what I said yesterday: I don’t trust this man’s appointments.

(Author’s note: I really got quite angry as I was writing this…rarely happens, but here we are. I really would like to say more words, that are not as kind, but that’s not what 1007 East Grand is about.)

The Supreme Court: Part 8

Finally, there’s one more disturbing fact about Barack Obama’s views about the Supreme Court, and the justices that he may appoint.

Rather than using experience, intelligence, qualification, and other MEASURABLE indicators, as to whether or not someone should be nominated to the court, Barack Obama said the following:

“I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.
. . . [S]ometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.” Barack Obama - November 2007

The absurdity of this statement is off the charts. So, for Obama, pretty much all lawyers/judges/academics are out of the question, unless they’ve had life experience.

Question to Obama:
Well, what’s life experience?

Answer from the Obama Campaign
Barack Obama will tell you when the time comes.

Hmm. I don’t think I’m going to like his appointments.

Campaign Thoughts

There’s no doubt that Senator Obama has run a better campaign than Senator McCain, thusfar. Fortunately, there is still about a month left to turn it around. It’ll be tough, but McCain needs to do three things:

1. Focus on Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, and Virginia. If he loses any of these states, the overall Presidential effort is futile. I’d love to think that Republicans in Iowa can get out the vote, but it’s a tough go here. Talk to your friends, make phone calls, knock on doors, and anything else you can to get people to the polls and vote for McCain.

2. Get the message out to the American people that an economy run by the Democrats would be very disastrous. In fact, there’s been an email circulating around, but it bears repeating:

At the beginning of 2007:

• Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
• Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
• The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
• The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +

However, just months earlier, the Democrats ran on a platform against the President, and they took over Congress, with gusto.

What has happened over the last 18 months since the Democrats have been in charge of the budget, lawmaking, and this country's legislature?

• Consumer confidence has plummeted
• Gasoline is now over $3 a gallon...it's only recently come down to this level.
• Unemployment is up to 5.5%
• Americans have seen their home equity drop by trillions of dollars and prices are still dropping;
• Tens of thousands of American homes are in foreclosure.
• The Dow has reached an even more ridiculous low.
• $2 trillion dollars has evaporated from their stocks, bonds, and portfolios.

Since Barack Obama is trying to pin this on President Bush and Senator McCain, the McCain campaign really needs to push back against the Democratic Party by saying, “You are culpable!”

3. Finally, deeply drive home the fact that Senator McCain is the most qualified for the job. There’s simply no doubt about it.

Do these three things, and maybe things can turn around. It’s time for a media blitz, but it’s a longshot when even Vegas has you down by a 2:1 margin.

Steak Fry!

This Thursday Night (Oct. 9th) is the Dallas County Republican Annual Steak Fry.

Our speaker for the evening will be U.S. Representative Tom Latham, who has been fighting the good fight in D.C. for us in the 4th District for years. It truly is an honor for us to have the Congressman speak with us this week.

Tickets are $35, Master Griller is catering, and there's a pie auction too, so come on by.

Thursday night: 6pm in the Waukee High School Commons.

Hope to see you there!

The Supreme Court: Part 7

So...let's talk about two decisions this summer:

1. The Supreme Court ruled a severe gun control law in Washington D.C. unconstitutional.
Generally, this was a conservative ruling…and it was popular.

2. The Supreme Court ruled the Louisiana death penalty for child rapists law unconstitutional.
Generally, this was a liberal ruling…and it was unpopular.

So...here are two facts about Senator Obama.

1. Senator Obama praised the first decision that struck down the restrictive gun ban. Of course, in reality, Barack Obama LOVED the law the year before. Hypocrisy…there’s no other way to put it, unfortunately.

2. Senator Obama criticized the second decision that struck down the Louisiana law. Of course, in reality, Barack Obama would love to abolish the death penalty…it’s just not politically convenient to say such a thing right now.

So, Barack Obama sided with the conservative, strict constructionists, such as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia on these couple of high profile cases. So, Senator Obama, who would you NOT nominate to the Supreme Court? Keep in mind that all 9 justices had more legal/judiciary experience when they were appointed than you have executive experience, well…right now.

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas…I don't think that he was as strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia, although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree.” – Barack Obama, August 2008.

Wow…so many words I want to say, but I think I’ll turn it over to Senator McCain. To repeat, after the 5 more liberal justices declared the Louisiana law unconstitutional, Barack Obama criticized the decision, and then McCain responded:

"Why is it that the majority (in the Louisiana case) includes the same justices he usually holds out as the models for future nominations? (Obama) may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama court." John McCain, June 2008

Booyah. And, John McCain hit the nail right on the head.

The Supreme Court: Part 6

So, to continue our Supreme Court discussion, we need to discuss two more terms: Strict and Loose Constructionists. On the Supreme Court today, we have two groups.

Strict Constructionists: Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas
Loose Constructionists: Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

Anthony Kennedy is somewhere in the middle, which makes him the crucial swing vote in most 5-4 decisions. Let me share with you my opinion of these terms.

Strict Constructionist --> One who believes that the Constitution was written “for all ages.” All cases/questionable laws brought before the Supreme Court should be viewed through the lens of the actual words of the Constitution, and nothing else.

Loose Constructionist --> One who believes that the Constitution is more archaic than modern, and that it needs to “evolve” as time progresses. All cases/questionable laws brought before the Supreme Court should be viewed through not only the lens of the Constitution, but through the lens of the justice’s personal view on how the Constitution has “evolved,” and even international law. Again, how do we know the correct way in which the Constitution should “evolve?” Well, I guess we’ll just have to trust the loose constructionist.

Personally, I believe that the philosophy of loose constructionism smacks the faces all of those founding fathers who created a dynamite system of government that has lasted for 2 centuries.

Now, some might say, “But the Founding Fathers were racist, and the Constitution they created was racist! It needs to evolve!”

Indeed. The founding fathers were very racist. And the Constitution was racist. And it needed to evolve. However, there’s a right way, and there’s a wrong way.

The Right Way: Constitutional Amendments. Our Constitution is changeable, through 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. Over the years, our system has needed to evolve, and when necessary, it has.

The Wrong Way: Judicial Activism and Loose Constructionism. A justice feels very strongly about something, and so they twist the words of the Constitution, incorporate their own opinion, look at laws from outside of the United States, and make a decision that suits them.

This is simply dangerous. Here’s an example.

Now, here in Iowa, we do not have the death penalty on the books. However, more than 30 states do. Earlier this decade, Louisiana created a law that allowed the death penalty for child rapists. It was challenged in court, and with the 4 loose constructionists, plus Kennedy in the majority, the Supreme Court invalidated the law. Now, if they had looked at the U.S. Constitution as the LONE basis of their opinion, that would be fine. However, they did NOT.

John Paul Stevens, Supreme Court liberal loose constructionist since 1975, said the following in this high profile decision.

“I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty (is unconstitutional).”

Justice Scalia, in response, said,

“Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat.”

Well said, Scalia. Let me repeat that Stevens' quote one more time, in case you missed it.

“I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty (is unconstitutional).”

Your experience? You’re one man! And you’re not greater than the Constitution. In essence, a Supreme Court justice pretty much said, “Look. I know that we’re supposed to look at the Constitution as our only guide. However, I don’t care. I really don’t like the death penalty, and through my own experiences, I say it’s unconstitutional.”

Now, I don’t question Stevens’ intelligence, although some may. Gerald Ford called him a brilliant jurist. However, this opinion is simply absurd.

And that is loose constructionism for you: Absurd.

By the way, Obama is just itching to nominate a loose constructionist in the mold of John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. We should try and stop him.

The Supreme Court: Part 5

Finally, the mainstream media is turning some of its attention to the Supreme Court, and the high stakes that this election holds for the court.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/supreme.court.politics/index.html

We’ll talk more about this later tonight.

Sub-prime thoughts Pt. 2

Quote from John McCain – May 2006

“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. (We need) to reform them without delay.”

Yesterday, I spoke of Barack Obama’s sub-prime thoughts and offered my critique on his statements. Now, we look at John McCain’s thoughts on the mortgage crisis.

The Democrats in Washington are delighting in one thing right now. They are loving the fact that the current economic woes are being pinned 100% on the Republicans. Not 75%, not 85%, or 93%, but 100%. They are using President Bush as a criticism shield, and sure enough, all of the criticism is being blocked by George W. Bush. Nice strategy, eh? It's been going on for 7.5 years.

I would say that President Bush does deserve some blame for the American economic problems as of late. However, just because the Democrats in Washington D.C. are weaseling out of some of the blame, doesn’t mean that they aren’t actually responsible for many of the economic issues that are surrounding the United States right now.

One thing that Democrats should really own up to is the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae crisis. As discussed in the previous post, the Democratic Party took a vested interest in allowing Freddie/Fannie to liberalize their loan requirements. And again, if the corporations fail, it’s OK! The federal government to the rescue! Hooray for socialism democracy!

However, more than two years ago, John McCain made the statement above. While the Democrats would have you believe that John McCain wants to de-regulate everything on this planet, it’s simply not true. Senator McCain just wants to make the regulations that we currently have more modern, coherent, and straightforward.

Many economists believe that the credit crisis, the nationwide recession, the fall of the dollar, and the weakening of the American economy began with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. So, when it comes to economics, it seems as though John McCain appreciated, understood, and foresaw the mortgage crisis in a wise way.

As I like to do from time to time, I’ll be blunt. John McCain is no economic wizard. His strength comes from leadership, national security, heroism, bipartisanship, and common sense. However, regardless of whatever you have heard, or whatever you will hear in the coming weeks, Barack Obama lacked some serious judgment in regards to this crisis, while John McCain called for reworking the regulatory structure.

By the way, when it came to a vote for this reworking (due to concern about the sustainability of looser lending practices), all of the Democrats on the Senate committee voted AGAINST it, while all of the Republicans voted FOR it. This is a little secret that the Democratic Party would love to keep from you as you head to the voting booth next month.

Sub-prime thoughts

Quote from Barack Obama – September 2007.

“Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories and spread them out among investors around the country and around the world.”

In other words, there are many Americans who could not afford a home. These sub-prime mortgages allowed for the loosening of normal credit requirements, and we had quite a few Americans who bought homes utilizing these new rules which increased the loan amount and/or decreased the adjustable interest rate.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with the purchase of a home, nor should any American be denied applying for any home loan. However, with the backing of the federal government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unfortunately became too liberal in their lending practices, with the blessing of the Democratic Party and such Democratic Senate leaders such as Chris Dodd.

At this point, a large (but false) financial infrastructure began to be constructed, but with no real foundation. As such, by last year, this “mirage” of a secure financial infrastructure began tumbling to the ground.

So, what is Senator Obama saying here? He’s basically saying, “Well, it was a good idea in philosophy.”

But now everything is seriously messed up, so in reality, it’s not a good idea even in philosophy, mainly because we live in reality.

Senator, how about, “I was wrong.” When he made those comments a year ago, the sub-prime crisis had already begun, and yet, he was still believing that sub-prime mortgages were a good idea. This makes me question his judgment.

Sure, it’s nice to say things like,

• “All Americans should have a home”
• “We need a President in the White House who cares about people”
• “Change is coming, and we will mark this moment as the moment that the oceans began to fall and rise and fall again, because the moon constantly changes the tidal patterns along our coasts.
• “Puppies are cute”

But the reality is, Senator Obama, making fine statements about ideas that MAY work is one thing…you are VERY good at making these types of statements. However, I would prefer fine statements about good ideas that ACTUALLY work. They’re generally…better.

The Supreme Court: Part 4

Judicial activism: A popular buzz word in Republican circles. A judicial expectation in Democratic circles.

At its heart, this idea revolves around the courts acting as legislatures. Generally, in our constitutional democratic republic, our elected officials create laws. The judiciary then rules whether these laws are constitutional or not. This idea is pretty standard in America, established by John Marshall 200 years ago.

However, Democrats have a different idea for the Supreme Court. They prefer for the court to make decisions FOR THEM, because those decisions are either unpopular, or not politically convenient. This is judicial activism.

For example, if I’m a Democrat in Congress, I really don’t want to announce support for gay marriage right now, because I would probably lose my reelection bid. (Both Obama and Biden are doing this right now, actually. Of course, as I said in my last post, they’re either lying or hypocritical) So, as a Democrat in Congress, since I can’t just create a bill, sponsor it, and bring it to a vote, (because I’m frightened of my constituents, and I don't understand how the constitution works) I will simply wait for the Supreme Court to create gay marriage in America for me. Then, I don’t have to make the tough decisions, and I can say something like, “I do NOT support the court’s decision…but I will honor it.”

Judicial activism is generally not a good thing. And you better believe that Barack Obama is absolutely itching to appoint judicial activists to the court system across the country.

Saturday Morning Musings

So here’s what Sarah Palin SHOULD have said.

Biden: I do not support gay marriage. I do support the same domestic partner benefits for all, regardless of sex. Gay partners need to be able to visit each other in hospitals, prepare wills, etc.

Palin: While I appreciate your candor, Senator Biden, I must ask you 2 questions.

1. If you do not support gay marriage, then why are you against the proposition in California that is trying to define marriage between one man and one woman? The state of California has always had domestic partner benefits that allow gay couples to do exactly what you're talking about (wills, visitation rights, etc.) So, clearly you’re not happy with the status quo, and you’re not supporting the one man one woman California proposition. So, Senator Biden, why are you lying to the American people?

2. Do you support domestic partnerships for more than two people…i.e. a man with two wives? Clearly, you believe that gender does NOT matter constitutionally. So, does that mean that the NUMBER of people involved in this domestic relationship is irrelevant as well? It seems to me that if you don’t believe that the sex of people matters in this case, logically, the number of people does not matter either.

Obviously, Gov. Palin did not ask these questions. However, these questions that I pose do address the radical social agenda of the Obama/Biden administration. And this radical agenda should concern us all.

VP Debate thoughts

Pretty big debate, eh? 70 million people watched the VP debate, and while a majority said that Biden won, it’s important to look at their goals of the debate.

Biden had two goals: Calm down and don’t attack Sarah Palin.
Palin had two goals: Prove her competence and attack Barack Obama by using facts

I would say that both achieved their two goals for this debate. However, “debate winners” are usually declared using superficialities. As such, I wanted to focus on the actual statements made during the debates, particularly those made by Senator Biden.

Now, we all know that Joe Biden has been in Washington for 35 years, and we know that he’s been on the foreign relations committee for many years as well. I’ll be blunt here, he should have destroyed Gov. Palin in a debate, yet he did not. I believe some of the blame must go to Biden’s fact checkers, because some of the statements he made were not true.

Let's look at four of his statements

1. Dick Cheney is the most dangerous VP of all time.

All I could think of was, Aaron Burr, Aaron Burr, Aaron Burr. Assassinating Alexander Hamilton, not stepping aside in the Election of 1800, and planning to SECEDE from the Union? These are pretty dangerous things, Senator Biden. Now, this one is not a big deal, but the next three are pretty big.

2. Obama NEVER said that he’d meet with Iran without preconditions.

I guess that’s true, if you don’t count those times when Obama said he’d meet with Iran without preconditions during the Democratic Primary Debates. Sorry, Joe.

3. The Surge won’t work in Afghanistan.

Sure. We shouldn’t use a Surge in Afghanistan. Joe just wants to add more troops, money, equipment, and focus to Afghanistan. Senator Biden, what is a surge then? Perhaps you’re referring to a late 1990s lemon-lime flavored, sugar infested beverage.

4. Finally, I’ve always supported Clean Coal.

"We're not supporting clean coal.” This Direct quote from Biden (September 2008). Enough said.

I’m sure we could find a few more misplaced, misrepresented, or simply inaccurate facts, but in front of 70 million people, let’s stick to the facts, Joe.