$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.

The Audacity of Negativity

A new kind of politics. The audacity of hope. Positive messages. No negative advertisements.

These are the slogans that Senator Obama is dedicated to. He certainly says these things enough. In fact, it’s a big reason he defeated Hilary Clinton in the primary.

However, it’s important to look at the facts. Lately, it seems as though the Democrats have been crying foul of the evil Republicans and their vicious ads and their attack machine.

“It’s politics as usual!” cry the Democrats
“It’s Swiftboating all over again” howl the Democrats!
“Change we can believe in is a positive message” yearn the Democrats!

So…who is actually responsible for more negative ads that we’ve been seeing?

GASP!

It’s Senator Obama!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/17/1410673.aspx

77% of Obama’s ads are negative, while only 56% of McCain’s are negative.

So, it seems as though Barack’s vision of post-partisanship and positive messaging is simply a load of fresh manure from the heart of Dallas County. In essence, his entire campaign message has been undermined by…the facts.

The Supreme Court: Part 3

The Supreme Court has become increasingly hostile to gun ownership over the few years. Several justices on the court seem content with interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather liberally. It’s times like these where I am very pleased that President Bush nominated two people to the highest court that interpret the Constitution strictly.

So, what kind of Supreme Court Justices would McCain and Obama appoint?

MCCAIN
“John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right.” (McCain’s website)

Now, Senator McCain has the voting record to back that statement up. No doubt about it. However, Senator Obama’s record is a little more furry.

OBAMA
"I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." (Politico, February 2008)

It’s a nice saying, but I guess we just need to look at the record, though. For example, back in 2004 when Senator Obama was a state senator (seems like just yesterday), the Illinois State Senate voted on a measure that would allow homeowners to defend their home with their firearm. The measure was fairly straightforward. In fact, it was passed by almost 75% of the Senate, including many Democrats by a margin of 41 to 16. That’s fairly overwhelming.

However, Barack Obama was an opponent of this measure.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may2004/home.htm

At issue is the fundamental right to own a gun in your own house. Barack Obama basically said that the government can trump your right to own a gun, even if it’s in your own house, and even if you want to use it against home invaders.

As citizens of Dallas County, we know that the right to bear arms exists in our county and state. However, it seems that if Barack Obama had his way, that right would be diminished, seriously curtailed, or even denied. As I’ve said before, I just don’t trust him with the responsibility of appointing justices to lifetime Supreme Court positions.

The Supreme Court: Part 2

Let’s continue on with our discussion about the Supreme Court.

But first, a history lesson. In 1801, with about a month left in his term, Federalist John Adams appointed John Marshall to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was approved by the Senate, and he began serving. Adams left office in March of 1801, being replaced by the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson.

Little did Adams know, when he left office, the Federalist Party had begun its march towards dissolution. Yet John Marshall remained on the court. The Federalist Party would be finished by 1816. Yet John Marshall remained on the court. John Adams would pass away on July 4th, 1826. Yet John Marshall remained on the court. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, and Jackson would all be elected President. Yet John Marshall remained on the court.

For 35 years, John Marshall remained on the court. 34 years after his nominating President left office. 9 years after his nominating President had actually died. The lifetime appointment can indeed be, a lifetime appointment.

Let’s just say that the Supreme Court is incredibly important.

As such, we again look at Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama’s positions on important Supreme Court issues.

Senator McCain, when does life begin?

“At conception” (Rick Warren Debate)

Senator Obama, when does life begin?

“I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know is above my pay grade.” (Rick Warren Debate)

Above your pay grade, Senator? I hope you realize that this issue is very important for millions of Americans and unborn children. Aren’t you being a little too flippant?

‘‘Probably. ...What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into ... It’s a pretty tough question.” (September 7, 2008)

Senator Obama, we appreciate your candor. However, if you’re hoping for a job that doesn’t deal with tough issues and tough questions, perhaps you should look for another line of work. One of these tough questions deals with Supreme Court appointments and I’m sorry to say, I simply don’t trust you to answer this question correctly.

Life Issues

Saturday, I mentioned that Sarah Palin had more executive experience than Senator Obama. The media narrative has continued, comparing the experience of Palin to Obama. I’m fine with that, because that’s an argument that John McCain wins. The underlying assumption to this argument is that John McCain is WAY more experienced than Barack Obama. This underlying assumption pleases me…because it’s true.

However, we move on to major issues that revolve around the Supreme Court.

The platform of the Dallas County Republicans is pro-life. As such, I enthusiastically support Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate this year. However, I had no idea that her pro-life stance would be personified so quickly in this race.

So, let’s continue in this Palin/Obama comparison, as we move back towards our discussion about the Supreme Court

On abortion:

Sarah Palin: Concerning her child’s pregnancy.

“We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. (August 31, 2008)

Barack Obama: Concerning her child’s (potential) pregnancy

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information." (March 29, 2008)

Sometimes, someone says something so terribly offensive, you really don’t know which part is most offensive.

First, babies are not punishment. Prison is punishment. A child is not.

Second, comparing human life to STDs? STDs are disease. Babies are miracles. I’m rather speechless.

So, when it comes to life issues against Obama, I’m going to side with Palin. And since McCain’s first “appointment” was Gov. Palin, in regards to judicial philosophy and attitude towards the unborn, I’m going to side with McCain.

Labor Day

As we enjoy a beautiful Labor Day weekend up here in Iowa, let's be sure to keep the Gulf Coast in our thoughts and prayers.

This hurricane is devastating, and let's be sure to do all we can to help out those who need it the most. We came together earlier this summer to give ridiculous amounts of help to those in need in Iowa. Let's try and do the same for those who are in the path of Gustav.

Saturday Morning Musings

We'll talk some more about the Supreme Court in upcoming posts, but the big news today is:

Sarah Palin:


What should we think about such a unique choice? Here are a few of my thoughts

1. She has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. Period. Don't let anyone tell you differently. I'll be blunt, it's not a great deal of national experience, but keep in mind that Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and W. Bush were all PRESIDENT, with little national experience, but quality state governing experience.

The Democrats are going to make the argument that Barack Obama has lots of executive experience. After all, he's run a campaign for the past 18 months, making decisions, leading a staff of thousands, etc. So running a campaign means executive government experience?

No it does not, and don't let anyone tell you any differently. Gov. Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama, and even if she didn't, Palin's not the one running for the chief executive of the United States of America. Senator Obama is.

2. I like that Gov. Palin is an outsider. Senator Obama likes to tell people that he's an outsider too, coming to Washington to change it. When it comes to being a Washington outsider, Senator, you're no Sarah Palin. In fact, with the exception of Hawaii, no one could be geographically MORE of an outsider than Gov. Palin.

3. She's a solid conservative. This is the kind of pick that helps shore up conservatives, but does not alienate moderate women.

4. She's just so likable.

5. I think that Democrats are secretly very concerned about this pick.

Overall, I give McCain's pick a B+.

The Supreme Court

Our nation’s highest court is ever important when discussing the Presidential race. The role of the President in selecting judges for these appointments on the court is crucial, especially in the coming years. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t really been mentioned by the media too much, people deep inside Republican and Democratic circles are thinking about it. A lot.

Going back to 1960, we can see the importance of nominations.

• JFK nominated 2 justices
• Lyndon Johnson nominated 2 justices
• Nixon, 4
• Ford, 1
• Reagan, 3
• HW Bush, 2
• Clinton, 2
• W Bush, 2

Only Jimmy Carter never nominated a justice to the Supreme Court.

Now, nothing is certain, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. However, on average, a President has the opportunity to nominate two justices during his term in office. Lifetime justices. No campaigns. No elections. A Lifetime on our nation's highest court. Wow.

So, who do we want nominating these justices? These next few posts will revolve around the Supreme Court, as John McCain envisions it, and the Supreme Court, as Barack Obama envisions it. Let’s just say their visions are fundamentally different.

A Quick Note

This statistic means different things to different people, but Barack Obama keeps saying that John McCain votes with President Bush 90% of the time. It’s true (in 2007). If you’re a Democrat, that generally makes you dislike John McCain.

However, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight, I would really like Senator Obama to tell his supporters that he has voted with President Bush more than 40% of the time. Many have probably been thinking that Obama has opposed the President on every one of his “wretched” policies and I really just want to see how the truth would go over at a stadium full of the President's opponents.

Saturday Morning Musings

After a small hiatus from 1007 Grand, we're back for the homestretch. This weekend was pretty big, with Senator Obama choosing longtime Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

And in perhaps one of the most clever advertisements in recent memory, here is the McCain campaign's response.



Should be an interesting couple of months.

Saturday Morning Musings

Cash on Hand. These three words are very sweet if you’re a presidential candidate. Cash on hand is exactly what is sounds like. It’s how much money you actually have RIGHT NOW.

Here’s the official COH stats for today, August 9^th, 2008.

$71.6 million – Barack Obama

$35.6 million – John McCain

While $35 million certainly isn’t bad, Senator Obama has more than twice the amount that Senator McCain.

And I know what much of the money is going to be used for. It’s going to be used to try to convince Americans that Barack Obama is

• Centrist
• Experienced
• Moderate
• Mainstream
• Prepared

During this coming week, we’ll be looking at ways that Senator Obama is none of the above, and why a President McCain would be more ideal than a President Obama.

Gridlock in the District of Columbia

Clearly, there is quite a bit of gridlock in Washington D.C. Clearly, someone needs to get things moving…someone needs to work with opposing political parties to work for the American people.

Who is that more likely to be?

Senator Obama? He often speaks of unity and working together, and it sounds nice. However, I look at his actions in the Senate before I look at his friendly speeches. Throughout the past 4 years, he has consistently been one of the most liberal senators. Generally, he is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. As such, it’s hard for me to believe that such a left-wing ideologue would be willing to work together with the opposing party. In fact, it’s more likely he will say, “My way, or the highway.”

Senator McCain? He’s been called a “maverick” by many in Washington, but is it true? Is he really willing to bring Democrats and Republicans together to compromise? Do Democrats even like him? These are all good questions. Recently, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton (among other prominent Democrats) have been heavily criticizing Senator McCain. With such criticisms, how could McCain possibly work together with Democrats?

Here’s what the same Democrats think of Senator McCain.

Apparently, the Democratic Party has a love-hate relationship with Senator McCain. When I juxtapose the clip with the past few weeks of McCriticism, I really don’t know how these folks feel about John McCain. After viewing the clip, it sounds as though they respect the Republican nominee…actually, it sounds as if they LIKE the Republican nominee.

So, back to the original question. Who would be more likely to get things moving, working together with all in Washington? Judging by these comments, the answer is John McCain. It seems as though the Senator from Arizona is the most likely to get the ball rolling in Washington D.C. in January of 2009.

One Final Thought:

I am aware that John McCain is not the most conservative member of the Senate. To some in the Republican Party, it’s an unfortunate truth. However, given the choice between McCain and Obama, I’ll choose McCain any day.

McCain is superior on the following issues:

• The Supreme Court
• Taxes
• Energy
• Size of government
• Foreign policy
• Free market economics
• Experience
• And many other issues

Because of these things, I’ll choose McCain any day of the week.

**Extra note. McCain is not perfect. Some of the compromises that he has made have been unfortunate. But, again, he is the best choice for President in 2008.

Gas Prices

They affect most us here in Dallas County. Many of us drive to work in Des Moines from where we live. Many of us need gas for our farm equipment and vehicles. Many of us have social lives that take us to family and friends that reside throughout our state. In any case, gas prices are, no doubt, a concern for those living in Iowa (and the U.S.).

So, the question that many are asking is this: Why hasn’t the government done anything about high gas prices?

First, the concept of gas prices being critically influenced by government is folly. Now, government can do little things here and there to create minor changes in the economy, such as the stimulus checks. However, unless a government is socialist/communist, there are few ways that government can seriously influence the free market and the national/global economy. However, the Democratic Party seems to believe that the government has the ability to effect massive changes in the American and even the global economy.

While that may not be the official party platform, the party certainly believes that there is only one person responsible for the economic downturn we are currently in: President Bush. The Democratic Party believes (and wants us to believe) that high gas prices, higher unemployment, and the weakening dollar are because of the actions or inaction of this one man. You see, they like to tie the President to the economy for two reasons.

• It fits into their narrative that George W. Bush is one of the worst Presidents because the economy was woeful during his Presidency…and therefore, Republicans shouldn’t control the White House in 2008.
• It fits into their narrative that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents because the economy was wonderful during his Presidency…and therefore, Democrats should control the White House in 2008.

Democrats love the idea that the government seemingly controls which way the economy goes, because it fits within their delightful political narrative of the past 15 years. Now, most economists would say that the President and the government can’t affect the economy THAT much. The boom of the 1990s was not the doing of Bill Clinton.

However, let’s go ahead and say that the government CAN affect MASSIVE change within our economy. Congress has been controlled by Democrats during the last 18 months. What have they done? Let’s look at gas prices as an example.

We reached a high of $3.15 in mid-May of 2007. The prices went down a shade, and then shot up about a dollar over the next year.

So we have two conclusions:

1. Either the Democrats in Congress have done a terrible job taking care of the economy for 2 years

OR

2. Government really can’t strongly influence a complex economy.

So which is it? Are the Democrats in Congress poor stewards of the economy, causing gas prices to go higher than ever? Or is the market economy so diverse that the United States government can’t really do that much, and the Democrats have been wrong to criticize the President for his “poor economic leadership.”

For me, I like to think that the former is true, but I know that the latter is the correct answer, but I’d sure like to hear that from a Democrat in Congress.

Pursestrings

In Fiscal Year 2004, the total budget for the government of the state of Iowa was $4.5 billion. In Fiscal Year 2008, that budget had grown to $5.7 billion. That's an increase of more than 26% in four years. Even allowing for inflation of 2% or so a year, the state is clearly on a big spending spree. How long can we afford that?

Saturday Morning Musings

Over the coming weeks, we’ll be hearing a lot from the left about how John McCain is a slave to big oil…how he voted time and time again to give billions in subsidies to oil companies. How very nice of them to point out the votes of John McCain. In fact, the Sierra Club made up a nice little video about it.

$4 billion? Wow! That’s a lot of money! Let’s check the votes of Barack Obama. Certainly he wouldn’t do anything like this. Or would he?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

In 2005, Barack Obama voted yes to HR 6, giving $6 billion, (yes, $6 billion) in subsidies to Oil/Gas companies. In fact, check out what Public Citizen had to say about the bill. They say it’s a MASSIVE gift to oil/energy companies ever.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980

By the way, Public Citizen is the super liberal group founded by perennial Green candidate Ralph Nader.

Whether you agree or not with the subsidies, consistency must be maintained. If the Sierra Club and other liberal conservationist organizations are going to criticize John McCain for his votes, they better criticize Barack Obama too. Let’s not give Senator Obama a(nother) free pass.

Oh, by the way, John McCain voted no on that bill that Senator Obama voted yes on. Perhaps the Sierra Club should create a cute little video criticizing Obama…but we know that won’t happen.

UPDATED -- UPDATED

Wow...that was quick. Sure enough, an Obama ad targeting McCain's vote for $4 billion to help oil companies. All I can think of while watching it is $6 billion...$6 billion...$6 billion. Thank you Senator Obama, for helping me prove my point.

George W. Bush and John McCain

The primary goal of the Democratic Party over the last 4 months has been to tie John McCain to President Bush. It seems like a good strategy, due to Bush’s less than stellar approval rating, and I would do the same if I were in their shoes. Of course, while there are some similarities between the two politicians, there are some big differences as well.

One of the most notable differences is in regards to fiscal responsibility.

When the Republican Revolution of 1994 came along, one of the big hopes of Republicans was to balance the budget and to reduce the federal deficit. In one of the rarer signs of bipartisanship, President Clinton signed the bills that Congressional Republicans created to balance the budget, thereby reducing the amount of debt we accumulated yearly.

However, when President Bush came into office, the fervor in Washington D.C. to keep a balanced budget faded away. With this fervor gone, the federal coffers (in essence) opened up even more, resulting in massive pork barrel projects. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress wanted to bring home the bacon (in the form of federally financed projects in their home states) and billions were spent. Unfortunately, President Bush did not veto these billion dollar pork bills.

This is where a major difference lies. John McCain is not George W. Bush. Senator McCain hates pork barrel spending and he has promised to veto any such bills. While President Bush missed an opportunity, John McCain will seize it. Check out his platform.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/reform.htm

So, in essence, President George W. Bush presided over a deficit that grew too big. President John McCain will preside over a deficit whose growth will be stunted.

There are a few major differences between McCain and Bush! Don’t let the Democratic Party tell you differently, as this campaign continues.

As the mantra of 1994 Republicans went, “Why should we pass along massive debt to our children and grandchildren?” I wish more politicians felt this way today. John McCain does.

Iraq, the Surge, and Obama

John McCain has pinned his entire campaign on the success in Iraq. Fortunately for Senator McCain (politically), there have been many improvements in Iraq in the last year, thanks mainly to the surge in troops authorized by the President. Since the surge began last year, Both Republicans and Democrats agree that there have been many improvements in Iraq.

So, what does Barack Obama think about the surge?

From the New York Times, after finally visiting Iraq:

Beforehand, Mr. Obama said he was “pleased with the progress taking place” in Iraq and said that it was his impression that among Iraqis there was “more optimism about what is
happening. You see the activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets, clearly there’s been an enormous improvement,” he said.

Wonderful! John McCain has been telling you for months, “Go to Iraq, see the progress, you’ll like what you see.” It’s outstanding that Barack Obama sees the steps forward that have been made in Iraq during the surge.

From ABC News

Question: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?
Obama: "No…because, keep in mind that…” (cut off by host)

WHAT?

Senator Obama will claim that the surge is unsuccessful because political progress has not been made. However, if he had it his way, those nice things that he saw firsthand in Iraq would probably not be happening.

I believe that Barack Obama cannot say the surge is a success because it would score political points for John McCain, while simultaneously underscoring his anti-war rhetoric credentials with the left side of the spectrum. It sure sounds like politics as usual to me.

Come on, Senator Obama. The surge has been a good thing for Iraq. It’s okay to admit it.

Iowa - The Republican Candidates for Congress in 2008.

Since we’re on the subject of Congress, here’s a quick rundown of this years congressional elections in Iowa.

Behold: Iowa Congressional Districts

For the House of Representatives:
4^th district

Tom Latham is our most excellent representative here in Dallas County. He has always been a great friend to both rural and suburban voters in Dallas County.

1^st and 2^nd district

Two Democrats, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, came in Congress two years ago as a part of the new Democratic majority. They are among those Democrats who have been very unpopular with the American people for not getting a whole lot done while in the majority.

David Hartsuch and Mariannette Miller-Meeks will be the Republican challengers for these two seats. They both have difficult roads ahead of them because Braley and Loebsack’s incumbency, even in the most unpopular Congress EVER, is a very powerful weapon. Let’s do all we can to support them.

3^rd district

60^th/128^th street is where Dallas County ends and the 3^rd district begins. If you’re not a big street name fan, I’ll put in this way. Methodist West is in the 4^th district, while Mercy West is in the 3^rd district. The 3^rd district is where we have Republican Kim Schmett battling against Leonard Boswell, a member of the “Do Nothing” Democratic majority in the House. Many of us in eastern Dallas County probably have friends living in Polk County, i.e. 3^rd district. We want to be sure that Kim Schmett gets their vote.

5^th district

Steve King has always been a solid conservative voice in the House of Representatives. Let’s make sure it stays that way.

For the Senate

Christopher Reed, a navy veteran will be trying to unseat long time Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin. He has a long road ahead of him and he needs as much help as we can give him.

We should be working hard to ensure that the Democrats in Washington D.C. don’t get another two years to “do nothing.”

What the Democratic Congress does not want you to know

For quite some time, President George W. Bush has had a low approval rating. In recent polls, only 28-35% of Americans approve of the job that the President is doing. Because of this, Democrats throughout the country use the President against the Republican Party, saying that Bush is one of the most unpopular Presidents ever (which is true…the polls prove it).

Some Democrats have even stated that he is the worst President in the history of this nation, which of course is untrue because no one could approach James Buchanan or John Tyler in this category.

Because of the President’s unpopularity, the Democratic mantra of the last two years has been “Blame Bush.”

For example, you'll hear:

• It’s Bush’s fault that nothing is getting done to help the people of the United States.

• Bush does not know how to govern or lead.

• It’s Bush’s fault that Washington D.C. is not taking care of business.

These are things that you are likely to hear from Democrats in Congress, talking about how THEY are the ones that can get things done to help the American people. Put the Democrats in charge, and the higher gas prices and other issues will be history!

However, the Democrats have a dirty little secret. Since the 2006 elections, the Democrats HAVE been in charge of Congress. That’s right. For nearly 19 months, the Democrats have had the majority in the House, and the majority in the Senate. The Democrats came to power after the 2006 elections by promising to do a better job leading that the Republicans. Unfortunately, it hasn’t gone very well for them. Just ask the average American.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080708/pl_rasmussen/ratecongress20080708

Throughout the left wing, you’ll always hear about Bush’s near record unpopularity. However, the reason that Democrats in Congress are hiding behind Bush’s unpopularity is because they are even MORE unpopular. However, this current Congress blows President Bush out of the water when it comes to unpopularity. Only 9% believe that Congress is doing a good job, which is a record, albeit an abysmal one. Around 30% generally believe the President is doing a good job.

It is the duty of the Congress to make laws that will make our lives better. I really haven’t seen that over the past two years. Again, the problem is rhetoric vs. reality. They promised, but they didn’t deliver.

So what do we do? Well, we here in Dallas County have an opportunity to make a difference. Vote Republican this November, to wrestle control of the Congress away from Democrats. They’ve had nearly two years to demonstrate to America that they can get things done. Judging by the article above, America has made its decision:

• It’s Bush’s the Democratic Congress’s fault that nothing is getting done to help the people of the United States.

• Bush The Democratic Congress does not know how to govern or lead.

• It’s Bush’s the Democratic Congress’s fault that Washington D.C. is not taking care of business.

The Middle East trip of Barack Obama

So, here’s the quick background on the big Obama trip to the Middle East.

1. John McCain makes several trips to the Middle East.
2. Barack Obama is criticized for not visiting the Middle East for almost three years.
3. John McCain invites Obama to visit the Middle East with him
4. Obama refuses the invite, and then sets up a trip on his own, which McCain praises.
5. Because it is Senator Obama’s first real* trip to the Middle East, the press fawns over him and his trip.

Now, it’s hard to blame the press. Had Obama been to the Middle East many times to scope out what would define his potential presidential foreign policy, it probably would not be news. However, because this was Obama’s first real trip to the made to the Middle East, he had the benefit of CBS, NBC, and ABC’s major anchors traveling with him.

Imagine! Your own personal media entourage!

The left side of political spectrum will constantly pout about the media and its bias. But at this point, I think it’s clear where the bias is. When a Presidential candidate takes an important trip abroad, and it gets the sheer amount of attention that Senator Obama is receiving now, there can be no question about where media bias lies.

A running joke on Saturday Night Live has been the media’s huge crush on Obama. Now we see how far it has come. Now we have the most prominent members of news organizations (Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charles Gibson) who actually insist on vacationing** to Europe and Asia with Barack.

Clearly the media’s love for Obama has become a whole lot more than just a crush.

*By real, I mean a trip where he, as a presidential candidate, would get a real look as to what struggles the United States faces, and what successes the United States has achieved.

**Of course it’s not a vacation. Actually, I’m very pleased that Senator Obama has chosen to heed the advice of Senator McCain. Any information he receives while over there can only help him gain much needed experience. I do wish him Godspeed on his trip.

Saturday Morning Musings

Just a quick note: Senator Obama has a new campaign plane, a Boeing 757. Here it is:

Actually, that was the original plane, before it was repainted to look like this.

Now, he didn’t get rid of all American flags on the plane. As you can see, he did keep the one above the window. It’s not quite as big as the one he painted over, but its still effort.

Now let me be clear about this. I don’t believe that you need to wear an American flag pin to show patriotism. If Obama wants to replace Old Glory with his own campaign logo on his plane, it’s fine with me. It’s his aircraft, he can do what he wants.

Mostly, I’m curious WHY he chose to do this. From his Democratic opponents in the primary to his Republican opponents now, Senator Obama has been criticized for not being patriotic enough, not caring about the American flag, etc. I simply find it odd that he would choose to do something that will actually increase the likelihood that he’ll be criticized for being unpatriotic. A unique move for the Senator, but hey…it’s got him this far.

A Short Political History of Barack Obama

Less than five years ago, no one outside of Chicago, Illinois knew who Barack Obama was. Obama was a state senator. However, considering how far he has come, we know that a series of events have occurred which allowed State Senator Obama to rise to U.S. Senator, and eventually the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.

Five short years. Such an amazingly stratospheric rise in politics hasn’t been seen since Teddy Roosevelt. So, the million dollar question is, “How did he do this?”

Let’s go back to the 2004 Illinois Senate race. His major opponent in the Democratic Primary was Blair Hull, a well known Democrat, who had loads of money, and a large lead in the polls just weeks before the primary. For all intents and purposes, Blair Hull was going to be the nominee. What happened to him?

In the weeks leading up to the primary, supporters of Barack Obama discovered that Hull probably had some skeletons in his closet, in the form of private, sealed divorce records. These records had been sealed for some time, but Obama supporters (among others) worked tirelessly to convince the powers that be to unseal them. In the end, the private records became public, against the wishes of Hull. Sure enough, allegations of Hull abusing his wife emerged. Hull dropped in the polls, and he would eventually lose to Barack Obama in the primary.

With the Democratic nomination in his grasp, Barack Obama turned to his general opponent, the popular Jack Ryan. At this time, Jack Ryan had higher favorability ratings that Obama. However, in a fortunate twist for Obama, a private controversy was swirling around Jack Ryan and his divorce records.

Therefore, supporters of Barack Obama felt that Jack Ryan probably had skeletons in his closet, in the form of private, sealed divorce records. These records had been sealed for some time, but Obama supporters worked tirelessly to convince the judge to unseal them. Jack Ryan attempted to intervene, chanting that “these are PRIVATE records.” However, in the end, the private records became public, exposing Ryan’s poor behavior. Once the decision to release the records had been made, Barack Obama naturally made a statement that he opposed the releasing of these private records. The statement made no difference, because his supporters had already worked to have the records released.

Once released, Jack Ryan was forced to drop out of the race, allowing Barack Obama to soar to election, becoming the junior senator from the great state of Illinois. Thus, the rise of Obama to national politics was complete. So what has been learned?

First, Jack Ryan and Blair Hull are despicable. Nothing excuses them for their rotten behavior. However, do they not have the privilege of privacy?

As for Obama, I think it’s important to see how he rose to prominence in America. Now, I believe that these tactics that his supporters used were pretty unfortunate, but I’m not going to heavily criticize the moves themselves, simply because it’s politics. Politics is a nasty business, and things like this are always going to occur.

What REALLY bothers me is the hypocrisy. For years, Barack Obama has been preaching several ideas:

“A new kind of politics.”
“No personal attacks.”
“Post-Partisan politics.”

Barack Obama holds himself to a higher standard, which sounds great. The ideas that he espouses sound great, and when you hear him talk about rising above the political fray, you say to yourself, “Yeah…I like that. Political attacks really need to go away. He’s so hopeful and enthusiastic.”

However, when you hold yourself to a higher standard, as Senator Obama has done, the public must hold you to a higher standard also. As such, his feet should be held to the fire. In fact, the entire reason that he is known nationally is because of shady tactics in the IL-Senate race four years ago. If his supporters had not pushed for the release of not one, but TWO sets of private records, he would not have become a United States Senator, in all likelihood.

I highlight this in particular because is demonstrates that Barack Obama does NOT transcend politics, as he wishes you to believe. He is NOT beyond political nastiness. Simply stated, Barack Obama is a politician, and let us never forget that. He may preach hope, but I personally hope we don’t believe that he is “beyond the pettiness of politics.” In fact, the pettiness of politics is a major reason the entire world knows his name.

Who is Barack Obama?

Undoubtedly, when we think of Barack Obama we think of several things:
1. Change
2. Positive thinking and positive words
3. Youthful enthusiasm and idealism

There is no doubt that Senator Obama has made change the central theme of his entire campaign. And why wouldn’t he? The most recent poll by the Associated Press states that 75% of those polled say that America is headed in the wrong direction. There’s no doubt that a majority of Americans want change. After all, America is fatigued by an economy that isn’t exceptional, an Iraq war which many oppose, and rising gas and food prices.

But the question the most important issue this election season is not just general change. Rather, it is the KIND of change that will occur. Either way, both McCain and Obama will alter the course of the ship of state come January 2009. However, which candidate will lead us into more treacherous waters? To answer that, we ask a very important question: Who exactly is Barack Obama?

First - the common misconceptions. This blog is not about slander, lies, or outrageous statements. As such, Barack Obama is not a Muslim, he is not a terrorist, he is not un-American. Senator Obama is an American citizen just like you and me, and he certainly does not hate this country. However, we will take a hard look at some of his policies, stances, opinions, and speeches to get a better idea as to who this one-term senator from our neighboring state is.

Therefore, let’s get a few facts straight on Barack Obama.

1. Senator Obama is relatively new to national politics, but he is very intelligent.
2. Obama was a professor of constitutional law before he became a state senator in Illinois. He has never served in any branch of the United States military.
3. He was an underdog in two major Illinois elections, and came out on top in both, after his two opponents (Blair Hull and Jack Ryan) were forced to drop out due to scandals in their private lives. (More about these two elections will come later)
4. Due to these victories, he joined the United States Senate in 2005.
5. After two years in the Senate, he put into motion plans to run for President in 2008, eventually defeating Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination.
6. Obama has earned praise from many for his good speeches, powerful words, enthusiastic approach to politics, idealistic policies, and his belief that Washington D.C. can and will be changed under his administration. His entire platform’s foundation is “Change.”

These things have defined Barack Obama, and the senator has emerged as the standard torch bearer for the Democratic Party. But when it comes to Barack Obama, what kind of change does he want? What are his beliefs? What does he advocate, and how will his future policies affect the lives of those living in Dallas County, the state of Iowa, the United States, and the entire world?

The goal of this blog is to demonstrate that while Obama is intelligent, enthusiastic, and excellent at public speaking, he simply does not have enough experience or the right policies to serve as President of the United States. Obama claims to be progressive, or forward moving. Unfortunately, America does need to move forward, but in the right direction.

As this blog expands, we will be looking at the policies of Obama that simply do not align with the needs and wishes of the citizens of Dallas County.