And the Republican party is supposed to be for all those old, rich, white guys. Or so the legend goes. But if all that is true, then I have a question...John McCain has quite a few "every day people" standing up for him. I mean, there's Tito the Builder:
There's Joe the Plumber:
There's Joe the Veteran:
And let's not forget the most visible of us "common people", Sarah Palin:
So where are Obama's common "folks" (as he so charmingly calls us)? Where are they at? I see lots of politicians endorsing this "Agent of Change". Kind of makes me wonder what kind of "change" Obama is selling them on because surely they're not all volunteering to get the heck out of DC so that real change can happen if only we'll elect The One, are they? I see a lot of Hollywood "folks" endorsing Obama. Barbra Streisand, Matt Damon (Lord how I weep for your attitude about Palin, Matt!), Jessica Alba, Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and oh yeah, Oprah Winfrey among many, many others. Not sure if I see the benefit of having people who lie for a living endorse you, but politicians do seem to like that, don't they? I see lots of Obama campaign workers who support him. And they're all trained like good little robots. Doesn't matter what question is asked of them, they come back with the same tired old lines, "We don't want 4 more years of failed Bush policies" or "Senator Obama has been very clear that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans". They never seem to mention that McCain isn't Bush and, in fact, McCain has differed from Bush in several very meaningful and public ways. Sure, he voted for lots of stuff that Bush wanted. Maybe that's because Bush was actually right about some things. I know the Left likes to paint Bush as being damn near as inept a president as Jimmy Carter was, but let's be serious...Carter set such a high bar in the field of ineptitude that it's pretty much impossible for anyone to even come close. They also fail to mention that of those 95% that Obama is going to cut taxes for, at least 40% of them don't even pay taxes to begin with. Hard to "cut" their taxes when they don't pay any, eh? But pointing that out is seen as quibbling and therefore, too far beneath response, so the Obama-bots just keep repeating their lines over and over and over without so much as acknowledging the issues. I also see a lot of ACORN workers endorsing Obama. Only problem with that, of course, is that ACORN is supposed to be non-partisan and by claiming to be non-partisan, have managed to obtain beau coup bucks from our Federal Government in the form of our tax dollars. Not cool. So again...normal, every day, common Americans like Tito and Joe and Joe and Sarah put their butts on the line in order to endorse John McCain for president and Obama's big endorsements come from fellow politicians, pretenders, paid campaign workers and ACORN. So tell me again.......how is it that the Democratic party is geared towards "the common man" and the Republicans are only good for rich, old, white guys?
I did a post yesterday about Obama telling his supporters to ask for Tuesday off in order to make calls on his behalf, knock on doors on his behalf, as well as vote for him. I received some interesting comments on that post, but I feel the need to respond publicly to one person in particular. Well, actually two, since Brenda agreed with Brian, the commenter I'm referring to. Before I go any further, I should point out that I actually know Brian in real life. I know him and I thoroughly like and respect him. I want to make that perfectly clear. His family and my family are friends and, in fact, one of my kids even babysits his kids every know and then. Brian is also a dedicated Star Wars fan which, as some of you know, wins BIG points with me. The point I'm trying to make here is that Brian is my friend and while we have much common ground (hey! Star Wars counts for a lot!), we also have areas of disagreements. Brian's opinion about election day in this country is one such area. Here's some of what Brian had to say (by the way, those of you who didn't pay attention in civics class back in the day or if "back in the day" is too far back to remember {ha!}, Brian explains the reason why election day is held on the day it is. It's good info!):
"It goes both ways. You could take the day off and push for McCain as well. There are some people that want to see the voting day moved to a more practical time. The 1st Tuesday in November was chosen by President Taylor in 1845. At that time, it was a good day after the harvest when predominantly agrarian men would have plenty of time to go to the polls. It was also when the weather was still mild enough and dry enough as to not hinder travel. After observing Sunday as a day of rest, farmers used Monday to travel to often far-away voting sites for the Tuesday vote. We should examine making election day a bigger deal in this country. The US lags behind many other nations in voter turnout (this year may be an exception). A friend from Russia, spoke of the parties and celebrations they had on election day. It was a national holiday so nobody had to work. Many things were available in the markets (he mentions bananas) that couldn't be had any other time of the year. All of these things were incentives to get people to get out of their home and vote.There has been some push to move election day to a more practical day. Scheduling elections on a day when so many Americans must also go to work or school flies in the face of our nation's mission to open democracy for all, makes it difficult or impossible for most parents to take their children to the polls (instilling the importances of voting), and makes chaos at polling centers inevitable.*"
(*Brian's comments as posted here are a compilation of two comments he actually left due to a confusion over my blog moderator procedure.)
Brian, dude, I love 'ya, you know I do. But I not only disagree with this, I have to say I vehemently disagree with it. First I'll address the view of moving election day to a more practical day: It no longer matters what specific day the election is held on. According to The National Conference of State Legislatures, early voting is available in every state in the union. Voters are no longer restricted to having to be at their particular polling place on a particular date during a particular time. For the most part, you can now avoid long lines, you can vote in a more convenient location, you can even mail in your ballot, if need be. Heck, in our area alone, there's been 9 locations available for early voting (which started 17 days prior to the official election date). With the early voting available all across this country, I think it certainly gives a wide enough time frame for people to get in and cast their vote if they want to. Now, my big area of disagreement...the notion of making election day a "bigger deal" in this country. I'm not sure what you mean by that. A bigger deal? Heck, it is a huge deal to me. Why? Because I pay attention. Because I seek out information and views. Because I make it my business to learn what I can and try to discuss with others so that I can learn even more. So how could election day be a bigger deal? I assume everybody who cares about the direction our country is going in is making election day a big deal. Who isn't? The person who doesn't care? The person who only gets involved when he's offered a cigarette or a buck for his efforts? The person who expects his government to take care of his every need? I gotta tell 'ya...voting is a privilege. Yeah, a privilege. Not just a right. This is a prime example of (to paraphrase President John F. Kennedy) what we can do for our country, not what our country can do for us. It shouldn't be made into a national holiday. It shouldn't be "celebrated" with incentives and enticements to get people out to vote. People should get out to vote because they feel driven to say their part, cast their ballot, have their voice heard. You make election day a national holiday and voter turnout will plummet to all time lows. "Election Day Sales" down at your local Lowe's, Home Depot and car dealerships nationwide might skyrocket, but I can guarantee you that voter turnout will not increase in any way, shape or form. For heaven's sake, look at our current national holidays: Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday. What do you do on that day? Me? Not much. Hang out with my husband, since he's off work that day. I'm not out there talking up the best points of what was most assuredly a great man. Not many Americans are. Presidents Day/Washington's birthday. What do you do on that day? Me? Same as MLK day. Hang with my husband. I'm not thinking of ways of honoring Washington or Lincoln. Sorry. I think very highly of both of them, but hey, that day isn't truly dedicated to thoughts of them. I'd venture to say most Americans feel the same way. Independence Day. What do you do on that day? Me? Well, we might go check out some fireworks. Or we might drive up to my dad's. Go to a BBQ maybe. Usually, we just hang out, though. I do think of the blessing of being an American. I do take some time to marvel at what a great country we live in. But I'm not out there trying to improve America in any other way on that day, other than telling my kids how blessed we all are to live here. Veteran's Day. What do you do on that day? Me? Well, we might go to a local parade. We might take a moment to think about our family's and friends' service to our nation. But by and large, we don't make a big effort to congregate with other people in an effort to "celebrate" the day. Not many people do, really. It's a good day to honor our fallen, but that doesn't take any truly physical effort on our part. We only have to use our prayers and our hearts to do it. The bottom line is, you give Americans a holiday, and you'll get a bunch of laid back Americans. Sorry, but that's the way of it. We all love a holiday, but we don't necessarily honor that holiday with its intended purpose. But even if that wasn't the case, even if it was made into a holiday and Americans made a big effort and decided to go out and vote before they hit the couch, I would still disagree with making it an actual holiday. Because again, voting is something we should be doing for our country. Getting the entire day off of work in order to cast our vote is not something our country (or employers for that matter) should be doing for us. We all have ample time and opportunity to get our votes in. It's a matter of what, if any, effort we want to put out. It doesn't actually take a lot of effort now. Making it a holiday won't make it any easier. It'll just make it easier to turn election day into another free day off from work. Period. The problem with voter turnout isn't "getting to the polls". It's a mindset of some Americans who feel like it's too much of a "hassle", or it's too "inconvenient" or it just "doesn't matter". Giving Americans the day off won't change that thinking. It's a personification of that old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Exact same thing. As far as instilling the importance of voting in our children, I think I've done that with my kids. I talk to them about the candidates, about the issues, about the vote. I love discussing politics with them even though politics has become a dirty subject to many of my fellow citizens for some reason. I show my kids how excited I am to vote. I show them my passion for finding out the truth and for investigating issues and stands. I don't need for my kids to see me "touch the screen" or "punch the chad" or "fill in the little circle" in order to instill the importance of voting in them. They understand that by the importance we give election discussions that go on in our household. And finally...Brian, I have to say, when we start taking voting cues from the likes of Russia, we're in bigger trouble in this country than I could have ever imagined. Prime Minister Putin and his puppet president can keep their damn bananas. I'll take my reward in the form of knowing I did my part. I cast my ballot. I let my voice be heard. Considering all that America has done for me, I figure voting is the least I can do for her.
For those of you who think the sides of this election are too divided, here's a tribute to our togetherness...in all our ridiculous glory.
Little gems of truth are in this thing. Including the fact that most conservatives don't like John McCain because they think he's too moderate. Me? I think he's the perfect person to work with both sides of the aisle. Obama's smear campaign against him, trying to convince the American public that John McCain is just an extension of Bush, has succeeded in diverting the American people from John McCain's record of reaching out to both sides of the aisle and his willingness to do what's best for our country. If you examine the records and not just the sound bites, you will see that John McCain is someone who has devoted himself to ending the divisiveness and has shown a willingness and ability to just get on with the business of what's right for America. This truly is a man who has put country above party and duty above self, time and time again.
Barack Obama wants America to "take the day off" on November 4th (Election Day, for those of you not following along) so that we can "make calls" and "knock on doors" and "get the vote out". That's right, America. Ask your boss (or your professor for those of you who are installed in one of many institutions of higher learning across this country) if you can take the day off to serve Barack Obama your country.
He's talking to YOU Betty the Beautician, Cody the Construction worker, Arnie the ACORN employee, Stanley the Student, Tony the Tiger and Buffy the Vampire Slayer: TAKE THE DAY OFF! Nevermind our faltering economy, nevermind your good work ethic and nevermind that big paper you were due to turn in on Tuesday...your candidate country needs you to pressure and harass everyone within your grasp to get out and vote for Barack Obama your candidate of choice for the office of President of the United States of America. (By the way, this message does not apply to Sarah the Governor, Kari the Republican or You the Common Sense Advocate. Nor does it apply to hard working successful business owners, upper middle management of any and all companies or corporations in this country or anyone who makes over $250,000, $200,000 $150,000 per year. You guys need to keep your asses at work 'cause somebody has to pay some taxes in this country. And let's face it, it's about time somebody took you kind of people down a peg or two anyway. After all, your mantra of "personal responsibility" is becoming downright annoying to listen to so nose to the grindstone you crazy Republicans! Work, work, work so that others can vote, vote, vote!)
Neither Barack Obama or Michelle Obama gives any indication that they are proud of our country which, for me, begs the question: When did some people become convinced that Americans should be ashamed of America? When and why did that become okay? I'm not ashamed. I'm extremely proud of our country. I'm proud of the way my fellow countrymen come together in times of crisis. I'm proud of our military for protecting our freedom and defending freedom for others all over the world. I'm happier than I could ever possibly express at being blessed enough to call the United States of America home. Furthermore, I take great offense at those Americans who express shame of and for our country. Americans like these two:
Ashamed of our country, but this is who they spent 20 plus years cavorting with? This is the person who performed their marriage ceremony, the person who baptized their children, the person who, before it became to too politically expensive, Barack Obama declared was "like family" to him?
Barack Obama is not a person who should hold the highest office in our land. The person who holds that office should go into it with a deep and abiding love of our country. The person who holds that office most assuredly should not be a person steeped in sermons of hate and division. Shame on those of you who refuse to believe your own eyes and ears. Your ability to "transcend" the issues of this election doesn't make you enlightened. It makes you frighteningly and willfully blind.
And Obama finds something to like about this guy...despite the fact that Ayers is proud of his past and has never apologized for it. Obama wasn't 8 years old when he wrote this review of Ayers' book....
And he wasn't 8 years old when they served together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board and he wasn't 8 years old when they collaborated on the Woods Fund together and he wasn't 8 years old when he kicked off his political career in Ayers' living room. If you won't question Obama's judgment in whose company he has kept and does keep, at least ask yourself what do these people like about Obama? What does Ayers see in him? What does Louis Farrakhan see in him? What does Jeremiah Wright see in him? What does that corrupt organization ACORN see in him? To attract radicals, racists and nut cases to your side, you must surely be espousing something they find attractive, no? Ask yourself what is it that they like about Obama....and then ask yourself if it's something you find attractive, too. And if it is, ask yourself why.
The Orlando Sentinel reports that Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions Thursday from reporter Barbara West of WFTV.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.
Watch the video and you decide whether these questions were out of line:
So what'd you think? Bad questions? Harsh questions? Or questions that many Americans have been wanting to hear answers to? I very much wanted to know more about Obama's plan to "spread the wealth". I very much wanted to know what Biden meant about Obama being "tested" within 6 months of being president. (And despite Joe the Biden's word dance, he did specifically say that Obama would be tested...not just "the next president", as he now claims he meant. Oh and by the way Joe, it's not Obama and/or McCain who would be tested, seeing as how they can't both be president). I also would have liked to have heard more about Obama's ties to ACORN. Joe said here that Obama was a community organizer for them. No secret there, except that last week, Obama changed the wording on his website to say he was never hired by ACORN. Semantics, really. Whether or not he was hired and paid back in the day doesn't negate the fact that he did indeed collaborate with them and knowing that he's working so hard to minimize the appearance of their relationship now concerns me. It's a form of dishonesty and I don't know why America tolerates it. Finally, at long last, someone from the media has actually asked Joe Biden to explain a few of his very own comments, as well as those of his would-be boss, and the Obama campaign shuts that media outlet down. No more interviews. This concerns me mightily because these were questions I wanted answers to. I do believe Obama wants to take our country to socialism - he's given every single indication of it and, no matter how harshly and frequently the left may mock that viewpoint, it doesn't change the facts...Obama wants to "nationalize" health care, he wants to "spread the wealth", he wants to nominate Supreme Court judges who have "empathy" for the downtrodden, rather than ones who are concerned with the letter of the law (which is kind of their actual role in our government, by the way), he wants to put government in charge of our retirement accounts ('cause the government has done so well with Social Security's funds)...how many more clues do we need before we see the light? I'm constantly amazed at people's willingness to accept lame explanations for these blatant signs. It stuns me. It truly does. I don't want the government taking so much control over my life. Why do you? Is that the kind of "change" America wants? To abdicate responsibility and authority of their own lives and give it to the government? Say it ain't so, Joe! Oh, wait a minute, that's right. Joe doesn't talk about those issues. He (and apparently the whole Obama camp) doesn't like those kind of questions....
You've got to listen to this audio from Howard Stern. I'm no fan of Howard (I usually find him too crass for my tastes) but someone sent me this audio in an e-mail. I have to say, after listening to this, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or roll my eyes or scream. I probably did all of those things at one point or another. Made me wonder if maybe we should have to take a competency test before being allowed to vote. I say that rather sarcastically, but now that I think about it, it might not be a bad idea. Listen up and tell me what you think.
You know, I've always been an advocate of people getting out there and voting. But I kind of think it's important to know who and what you're voting for. Who'd of thought that needed to be specified? Geez. Now for this: "The price John McCain paid for his country, you couldn't even pay the taxes on." That's a quote from the guy in this next video. His entire video is about 10 minutes long. I suspect that not many will take the time to watch and listen, though. Politics has become an almost taboo subject among most Americans. It's like talking about abortion, women's rights, racial issues and religion...most of us won't discuss these things in public for fear of "offending" someone. Welcome to the Politically Correct United States of America...where personal views are to be mocked and discouraged and silenced because to give voice to them might cause someone to have to respond with personal thoughts of their own, which might actually result in a debate on the issues and gee whiz, who wants that? I question America's new-found propensity for being silent, unoffensive sheep. I don't think it's what our founding fathers had in mind for us when they began their quest for freedom and created this wonderful place called the United States of America where we can express views without fear of retribution. Seems like, in the main, the only people who want to express a political view are the ones who are members of an actual campaign. Most of us regular "folks" have taken on the role of bystander. We've sure come a long way, baby...too bad we took that U-turn somewhere along the way.
Have any of you guys seen this video? The one that features young girls, some very young, calling Sarah Palin to task on Women's Rights issues, as well as abortion, the war in Iraq, book banning, rape and domestic violence.
For those of you who found this video to be "deep" and "thought provoking" and "a reason to question John McCain's choice as vice presidential running mate" (actual comments made by some viewers), I would ask that you look into these ridiculous allegations for yourself. Get the facts - this video is nothing more than a prime example of "mud slinging" - something the left has done over and over again to Sarah Palin during this campaign. I only wish Barack Obama would get even half the scrutiny that Palin has gotten and I wish that even a quarter of that would be in depth scrutiny. I think America would have a whole different view of Obama if they actually looked into him, his past and his stances for themselves instead of letting the media tell them what to believe. But I digress. This post is about Palin and this latest horrible attack on her. After watching this video, think of these things, if you will:
Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006. This organization is a Pro-Life Feminist group (a group after my own heart, I have to tell you!). In August 2006, Sarah Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that "no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child", a belief held by the Feminist for Life organization, as well. Some of you may not realize this, but one of our earliest feminists in this country also was against abortion. Her name was Susan B. Anthony. In her writings, Anthony occasionally mentioned abortion. She opposed it. She blamed men, laws and the "double standard" for driving women to abortion because they had no other options. Here's a quote from Anthony:
"When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869
She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Anthony used her anti-abortion writings as yet another argument for women's rights. Sooooooo, the makers of this video are reminding Sarah Palin who she should thank for the opportunity to run for VP and what do you know? Sarah Palin carries on many of the same views held by the Great Susan B. Anthony, a woman who was a prominent American civil rights leader who played a pivotal role in the 19th century women's rights movement to introduce women's suffrage into the United States. Exactly who's forgetting who to thank here? I would venture to say that Sarah Palin is well aware of our foremothers efforts and sacrifices that have brought her to the point where she is on the verge of being the first woman elected to the office of Vice President of the United States of America. What I find immeasurably shameful and unworthy of our foremothers efforts and sacrifices is this bizarre attack (and others like it) by women against a woman. What do you think Susan B. Anthony, Lydia Chapin Taft, Francis Wright, Ernestine Rose and all those other women who fought to get us the vote would think of these attacks? Honestly. What would they think?
By the way, on the issue of abortion, when asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Sarah Palin responded "it would not be up [to me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska, but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.
Regarding the war in Iraq, Palin supported the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but has expressed concern that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place". Her own son is serving over in Iraq. To suggest that she wants Americans to die over there is nothing short of obscene.
To address the purported "book banning" that Palin has been accused of: According to Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, she and Palin discussed the question of library censorship in October 1996. Emmons recalls Palin asking whether Emmons would object to censorship, and recalls Palin raising the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved. In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads, stating that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." She further added that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy" and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library. From 1986 to 2008, several books acquired by the Wasilla Public Library were challenged by various citizens as poor selections, such as a challenge to Heather Has Two Mommies in 1997. None of the challenged books were opposed or removed by Palin.
Finally, the issue of rape and domestic violence in Alaska. Just as a matter of interest, you should know that Governor Palin signed into law bills designed to protect victims of domestic violence and raise awareness of domestic violence crimes (House Bills 213 and 215).
HB 213, sponsored by Rep. Andrea Doll, D-Juneau, provides for the imposition of greater sentences, up to the maximum for the offense, for crimes committed on the premises of a domestic violence shelter.
“People who come to domestic violence shelters need to know that they are safe and protected,” Governor Palin said. “They need to know that they are not in harm’s way when they come to a shelter.”
HB 215, sponsored by Rep. Anna Fairclough, R-Eagle River, establishes the Task Force to Review the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. This task force would prepare and present a report to the full Legislature by March 1, 2008 – and then will be repealed on April 16, 2008. The task force would bring members of the Legislature and administration together with members of the public to have frank and comprehensive discussions about the council and the issues it addresses.
I've watched a lot of political coverage, I've read a lot of political news, columns, opinions and blogs. I've tried to get stories from both sides of the issues so that I can have an understanding of both sides. And I'm telling you right now, this election is being won not only by low down underhanded moves from groups like ACORN (who claim quite loudly to be non-partisan, a fact disputed by numerous videos of ACORN conventions, ACORN workers and ACORN policies), but also by the media. I have no idea why the media is so determined to elect Obama, but if any of you out there don't believe that to be the case, you are either woefully ignorant or willfully blind. Obama has gotten a pass on his relationship with Bill Ayers, his affiliation with ACORN and his 20 year membership in a racist, "white America" hating church that was run by one of the most vocal racists in recent history. He gets a pass on his voting record in the Illinois State Senate, where he apparently couldn't manage to stand for anything, opting to vote present rather than vote a position. What has he not gotten a pass on? For those of you who claim that he has answered questions regarding these things, tell me what those answers where. Tell me where Obama answers honestly. He hasn't. He's danced around the subjects and the media has let him. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has been eviscerated at every single turn. She has been called every name in the book, she has had her integrity, her parenting skills and her intelligence questioned. She's been mocked at every level, she's been subjected to sexist remarks and she's even had her devotion to her Down Syndrome child called "pandering to the pro-choice crowd". I don't know how this woman has stood up under this nightmare. I don't know how she hasn't hit back at some of these people who are so intent upon tearing her life apart. I don't know how she has kept her sanity. All of this strife, all of these untruths, all of the vitriol and hate...and this woman gets up in front of crowds of Americans every day with her head held high, always on message and always with a positive attitude. And some of you question whether or not she could handle life with the "big boys" in Washington and around the world. Sarah Palin has proven she can handle them. And much, much more.
As some of you may have noticed, I've made some changes to my blog in the past day or so. I seem to have picked up a "Blog Stalker" due to my political posts. I've always welcomed comments here, good or bad, but this person was starting to abuse that policy. I don't know much about my little disturbing commenter, other than I believe this person is located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and uses a Verizon ISP. This person told me their name was "Tom", but I believe he/she told another blogger the name was "Sue". Who knows the truth and really, who cares? I had to stop allowing "anonymous" comments because, as I said, this one particular person was abusing the practice and was using my comment section as a place to spew worthless bile against certain political figures. I don't mind some good old fashioned disagreements, but talking ugly just for the sake of talking ugly is boring. Hence the change in my blog. And now that I've explained all that, I'll get on with the post. Here's yet another reason why I, a woman, support John McCain for President of United States of America: McCain actually walks the walk when it comes to equal pay for women. (for the full story, click here)
Actually, a case could be made that McCain does more than walk the walk, as his female staffers actually average slightly more in salary than his male staffers. The story linked to above deals with McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton with regards to the number of women each had on staff compared to the number of men, as well as compared the salaries for both. From the above referenced article:
Both McCain and Clinton also employed more female than male staffers, while Obama employed more males than females. However, Obama's staff was more balanced between male and female staffers than either McCain's or Clinton's. Also, McCain and Clinton had more female than male staffers making six-figure salaries, while Obama had more male than female staffers making six-figure salaries.
The reason I find this information so telling is this (from another article that you may read in its entirety by clicking here):
While Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has produced a television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain’s position on equal pay for women and pointing out that women in America are paid only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, Obama pays his own female Senate staffers, on average, only 78 percent of what he pays male staffers.
The referenced Obama campaign ad says:
“Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy.”
It goes on to say that McCain said equal pay would be "a burden on business". That is not what McCain said regarding equal pay, it was what he said regarding the Ledbetter legislation proposed by Dems (more on that in just a bit). Meanwhile, also from the article:
NOW President Kim Gandy did not view the pay disparity as a problem. “It depends on what positions they’re in,” Gandy told CNSNews.com. “Certain positions are paid more than other positions. I do know quite a number of women very high up in his staff and in his campaign who are extraordinarily strong supporters of women’s rights. We don’t advocate people be hired because of their gender. We advocated people be hired and paid without regard to their gender.”
Okay, first of all, I just gotta say...how dumb of a statement was that? The part about "I do know quite a number of women very high up in his staff and in his campaign who are extraordinarily strong supporters of women's rights". Well, duhhhhhhh. If they're women, one would hope they would be supporters of women's rights, wouldn't one? Anywho...other than that goofy part, I agree with the general assessment of reasons for equal pay. It does depend on what job someone is doing, how long they've done it, etc. I will even go further and say I advocate paying someone based on ability and aptitude, not gender or race or hair color or shoe size or batting average or any other criteria (unless you are a player in Major League Baseball in which case that batting average issue would be of some importance, obviously).
The point as I see it, though, is that Obama's camp made this big deal out of saying that McCain does not understand the economy because he doesn't support equal pay when it would appear that Obama doesn't understand or "get it" too well himself. I'm simply not seeing how McCain has illustrated his so-called "not understanding" of equal pay - he seems to have a firm grasp of that concept, certainly within his own staff. The only other thing I've found regarding John McCain and equal pay has to do with Lilly Ledbetter. Anybody remember her name being brought up in the 3rd debate? Obama brought up the legislation regarding Ms. Ledbetter during the debate as a supposed example of McCain's unwillingness to support women. If you remember, McCain very firmly called that legislation "a trial lawyer's dream" and I believe he was right about that. This whole accusation of McCain's failure to support women came from McCain’s reservations about a bill that would overrule the Supreme Court’s take on a technical statute of limitations issue. The bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, is named after the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case at issue, Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The Court rejected Lilly Ledbetter’s claim that Title VII’s statute of limitations is reset with each paycheck, declining to establish a special rule for pay discrimination cases. Regardless of what you may think of the technical issue in the Ledbetter case (and I happen to think it does bear some looking at), it's sheer bull-hockey to equate McCain's opposition to overruling the decision with opposition to equal pay for women. I think this country is lousy with lawyers willing to sue anybody over anything and I wholeheartedly agree with having laws in place to prevent too much of that nonsense. As I alluded to earlier, though, I also happen to believe that the Ledbetter case brought to light some interesting aspects of the fair pay laws that should be addressed and looked at, but the sort of sweeping legislation that the Dems tried to pass through is not the answer. As far as the issue of equal pay goes, please keep in mind that pay discrimination against women legislation has been in place since the 1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As John McCain was serving in the United States Navy during those time periods and not the United States Congress, I think it'd be a tad bit disingenuous for the Obama camp to claim McCain either supported or opposed that particular legislation.
I see this as another example of the differences in the candidates. John McCain is certainly "walking the walk" on this issue and not just "talking the talk". What do you think?
Thanks to Jeanne, I'm back into the Brenda Photo Challenge. I've missed the last several because I couldn't manage to get my photos done on time. While these pics aren't the best, I'm pretty darn pleased to have them anyway...and at least I'm back in the game! The theme this time is "old". Yeah. Not one of my favorite topics either (Thanks Donna! ha!) Especially when I look in the mirror these days (cringe). I tried to get a close up picture of the wrinkles under my eyes - because what screams "old" more than that, right? - but I damn near blinded myself in the attempt so I settled for these pics instead (*smile*). This first one is a photo of one of my very favorite old movies...It's a Wonderful Life. Who doesn't love this old classic? This next one is a photo of an old homemade toy truck that Randey found at an antique mall several months ago. It currently sits in front of our fireplace and is decorated with mini hay bales, pumpkins and scarecrows. This picture is of my feet - you might say I'm kickin' it old school. Remember this foot fashion from back in that day? (Susan, I know you're groaning as you see these. LOL) I love these shoes - I even have a pair in yellow. As a bonus, I thought I'd throw in a picture of a really old guy. Meet Yoda, of Star Wars fame. Okay, so this isn't the real Yoda. Sheesh. This is a life size replica and it's only about 4 years old, but still...it's representative of a 900 year old Jedi...I was going to say he looks pretty good for his age, but...well, that wouldn't be entirely true, now would it? LOL Thanks for reminding me about this, Jeanne! Can't wait to see what everyone comes up with.
ANONYMOUS #3!!! Congratulations, Anonymous! You've just won an all expense paid vacation to a place of your choosing, provided you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to navigate your way out of that padded room you must surely be living in!
I have received 4 comments from 3 different "Anonymous" commenters regarding my political posts of late. One, regarding my last post, said this:
Kari, I have to admit like Vee that I voted for Carter--what a diasterous, weak president. American prestige in the world took a nose dive -it is what will happen IF a Obama person wins (I HOPE not)!!! If the American people elect Obama, they will get what they deserve. I'm only afraid that we who did not support him will suffer along with them. He will NOT stand up to aggressors, he will try to "understand" them-- VB
Okay, so it won't shock anyone that this is actually a comment I agree with (lol). VB, this Darwin award is not for you (and not just because we happen to agree, but also because you explained your reasoning behind your comment). I thank you for taking the time to say your piece. Also, just as an aside, this technically isn't an "anonymous" comment since you did sign your initials, eh? Thanks again for weighing in.
Another comment, also regarding today's post, said this:
oh sorry, I had to laugh out loud when I read Vee say we were a prosperous country until the democrats took over 2 years ago LOLOL!! You women are hilarious and I sure as H*L* don't know where you been livin!!!
Huh. Us women, eh? Well, golly, I'm not sure if it's okay for me to respond to this condescending ass. Wouldn't want to overstep my boundaries, being one of the dreaded "you women" of which this person speaks. Hey, by the way, you are one popular person on my blog today, Vee! I know you're laughing just like I am to have gotten a reaction like this. I won't waste anymore time on this particular putz, except to say this: We women (I think I speak for you here, too, Vee. If not, I apologize!) have been living in the United States of America, where we have been safe from terrorist attacks from 9/12/01 forward, thanks in large part to the actions of President George W. Bush. I don't know where you've been living, buddy, but I hope it's just as safe there for you, too. Hate to say it, but this Darwin Award is not for you either. Not that I don't think you're worthy, but rather I've got someone even more worthy in mind. Now enough of this woman's time has been wasted on you. Let's get to today's big winner... The next two anonymous comments I got are from the same person and they're the ones that really burn me up (hence the reason I've declared this person the winnerof the previously mentioned Darwin Award!). This first comment was in response to my "Preaching to the Choir" post. Here it is:
Hello, I don't have a blog but enjoy reading them! I would like to point out something, this ACORN mess is voter REGISTRATION fraud, NOT voter fraud! There is a huge difference! ACORN pays their workers by the number of people they can sign up in a day, thats why they commit fraud, so they can make bigger bucks, IT WON'T affect the voting process! Please understand that, thank you!
Uhhhhhh, okay. Excuse me. It's Voter REGISTRATION Fraud, which is like totally different from Voter Fraud, right? I mean hel-lo, dudes! That's like not nearly as bad, right? Hardly worth mentioning. Well golly gee, boy howdy, I feel like an hysterical, hand-wringing ninny, let me tell you. Well, okay, so that's not really how I feel. No, I feel more like a person of superior intelligence compared to ANONYMOUS because I think it is abundantly obvious that ANONYMOUS doesn't have the sense God gave a goat. Understand this, ANONYMOUS: the voter registration fraud that ACORN has committed has already affected the voting process. Let me walk you through it. First of all, think about the sheer expense to the states as a result of ACORN's actions. Election board employees are having to work extra hours, hire extra help and devote untold man hours to determine which registrations are genuine and which are suspect. In most states, that is done by sending out verification letters to the people who have registered so they can verify that the address given is correct. (Can anybody say POSTAGE FEES = EXPENSE?????). If there are multiple addresses used for one name, they still have to send a verification to each address. If the address is verified, fine - that person's name is added to the voter rolls. If they are unable to verify a person's address, (in some states) that person's name is not added to the voter roll, but is put aside in case that person shows up to the polls to vote. Should that person show up to vote and their name isn't on the roll, they are referred to the other list. If they are on that list, they are given a ballot, but that ballot is not counted unless and until their registration information can be verified. Imagine standing in line behind just a few people who have to be processed in this way. So you're right, genius, just because a person registers to vote 72 times does not mean they will get to vote 72 times. It does, however, mean that by virtue of registering multiple times, that person has effectively and needlessly cost the election board in funds and time and if enough of these people who registered multiple times show up at any given voting site, they could slow down the voting process enough to discourage lawfully registered voters from actually casting their votes. So you keep on believing that Voter REGISTRATION Fraud is nothing more than a silly ass game played by some low-level flunkies who just happen to work for ACORN. Way to soak in "the big picture"! I can tell how well you actually think issues through, ANONYMOUS. 'Course, I was able to ascertain that by your next comment (left on my Voter Fraud post), which was:
Dear Lord, please please read my comment on the post before this one, I said, VOTER FRAUD IS NOT VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD!!! Voter fraud is what happened in the last 2 elections where Bush stole the election! YES HE DID!!!
If I didn't realize you were a blithering idiot before, I surely understand it now. Thanks for the clarification. I have had it up to here (picture my hand scraping across my forehead) and two feet over with blatant stupidity and/or willful blindness. I don't mind that someone might have a different opinion than me. Hell, I even welcome it. I have to admit, I'm fairly easily bored and it gives me something to do when someone points out a differing view. We can open up a dialogue and exchange views and ideas back and forth. Good times! Happened just this morning with Brenda, as a matter of fact. She pointed out what she felt were fallacies with my Obama Tax post and, thanks to her, I was able to get a broader picture of some things. It was great learning from her and while I still have the same opinion over Obama's Tax proposal, I'm more clear as to the specifics. That was exciting stuff for me. I love to learn - sometimes I love it more than at other times (particularly when I realize I've been wrong about something), but nevertheless, learning is always welcome. This ANONYMOUS, however, was not attempting toopen a dialogue. This ANONYMOUS was seeking to lay down an opinion as fact and then just skedaddle on off my blog without so much as a scratch. Think again, dufus. ANONYMOUS, you apparently suffer some deep-seated resentment regarding George W. Bush. I sure do hate that for you. Now get over it. You truly need to because your resentment of W runs so deep that you seem quite willing to overlook and/or ignore a terribly vicious attack against our democracy, i.e., Voter Fraud (the Registration kind, of course). ANONYMOUS, you probably couldn't explain one iota of either candidate's stand on any given issue, other than to say who is the Democrat and who is the Republican. For whatever reason, you seem to think that by trivializing the actions of ACORN and their personnel, it somehow makes their actions "okay" or even "inconsequential". To that I say, DON'T BE AN IDIOT. More to the point, if the sanctity of our electoral process means so little to you, then why in the hell are you even commenting on my blog about it? There are innumerable ways you can show your ignorance without cluttering up my blog. Go give one a try, eh? And do yourself a favor and seek therapy over this W fetish that seems to have such a grip on you. It's not healthy to live like that. (Yeah, okay, that was a cheap shot. I'm just pissed to be confronted with so much ignorance out of one person. In the words of that great American, Senator John McCain, "it's remarkable".)
Okay, I'm done with that. For now. It burns my butt to no end to hear someone say something so ignorant about Voter Fraud. Like even a little bit is okay. Geez.
Okay, I'm really done now. Let me change the subject before I pound my keyboard into oblivion. On to other things...oh yeah, I got pretty good news at my Weight Watchers meeting. I'm down another 1.6 pounds for a total of 44.6. It was much better than last week, when I lost a whopping 2 ounces. Two ounces...good grief. I probably lost that by wearing a different watch or something. But no matter - this week was better so I'm feeling pretty good. I gotta tell you, though, this last bit of weight seems to be the hardest to get off. It's like trying to whittle a chunk of oak using nothing but a feather. It's hard to make much progress! lol
Okay, so I've discovered that I am quite incapable of just keeping my mouth shut about politics. For those of you who don't enjoy my political posts, I'm terribly sorry. But, as was mentioned in a comment from Cassie, if we were friends IRL (in real life) odds are good we'd be talking about this face to face so why would it be wrong to "talk" about it in Blogland? However...in the interest of maintaining variety, I'll make an effort to throw in some stuff other than politics, too. After all, it's not like I sit around IRL, talking about politics 24/7. Okay, so maybe I do, but variety is the spice of life, right?, so I'll work on spicing things up a bit. I'll start with this post and we'll call it "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Here's "the Good"... my 3rd child's senior pictures: PICTURE DELETED BY BLOG OWNER Isn't he adorable? This is Kaleb, my most kind-hearted child. Don't worry - I'm not showing favoritism. I think even his siblings would agree with that characterization. Kaleb is so kind-hearted, he can't even bear to kill a spider. He tends to "set them free", something that I, his arachnophobia afflicted mother, totally disagree with. In most areas of life, he's such a mature kid - I take that for granted sometimes. Like the day he had his senior pictures taken, for instance. I told him to wear the black dress shirt (he looks good in it, no?). I assumed that would be the extent of the wardrobe advice needed from me. I was wrong. I was a bit...taken aback when we got the proofs in and I saw that Kaleb had added the hat and the fingerless gloves and hadn't bothered to button the shirt. I knew I should have gone with him that day. But, even though this is not what I would have chosen for him to wear, I think the pictures themselves came out pretty darn good. We're going to have more pictures taken when he receives his letterman jacket. (I think I'll attend that photo shoot and make sure those gloves don't put in another appearance.) Now for "the Bad": I was watching TV the other day when an advertisement came on for some new diet cookies.
Before any cookie company lawyers start preparing a lawsuit against me, let me make clear that I am not commenting on the effectiveness of this product. Their commercial cracked me up, though. Not for their claim that these cookies can help you lose weight...no, no, no. The funny thing to me was when they said "Many clients comment that they have actually saved money on our program by eliminating the need to purchase food." When I heard that claim, I thought "Geez! Now even these diet places are appealing to our economic fears!". Ummmm, don't most all nutritionists say that we should eat a balanced diet for optimal health? Eliminating food seems like an awfully drastic diet plan to me. lol
Now for "the Ugly"...Barack Obama's Tax plan. I've been doing some research on this tax plan. I've found points from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institute. Who are they, you ask? The more conservative American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation, along with the more liberal leaning Brookings Institute, are generally considered the three most influential policy institutes in the U.S. Here's what they have to say about Obama's tax plan. This chart is from the American Enterprise Institute and it shows the effective Marginal Tax Rates of Obama's plan compared with the current tax law:See how Obama's plan can actually raise taxes for us "middle class people"? By the way, wondering what "Marginal Tax" means? Yeah, me too. Here's the definition for you:
Marginal Tax Rate The amount of tax paid on an additional dollar of income. As income rises, so does the tax rate. Notes:Many believe this discourages business investment because you are taking away the incentive to work harder.
Uh, huh. Really clear, isn't it? I'm not an economist, I don't get the tax code all that well, and a lot of this is gibberish to me (hey, I'm being honest here! The only math I'm really good at is figuring out how much an item will cost me if it's on sale. You give me the starting price and tell me the percentage off, I can tell you PDQ just exactly how much that item will cost in the end. lol). However, you can go to the wikipedia link here for a better explanation. (Maybe. Depends on your aptitude to decipher economic talk, I guess.) Anyway, while I don't have a firm grasp on this subject, I think I understand what the basic gist is. And I don't think it's as good for us "middle Americans" as we've been led to believe.
Now here's what The Heritage Foundation had to say about Obama's tax plan:
Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned. High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.
Wow! Are we simply out to punish success in this country? You know, I'm not happy about those Wall Street CEOs and their outrageous pay packets, either. In fact, I think it's absolutely ludicrous what these people have been paid in salaries and bonuses. Heck, I'm just as outraged about the huge sums of money actors and athletes get paid in this country. It's crazy! But make no mistake, people. We're not talking about those "ultra rich" people here. These are people who make over a quarter of a million dollars a year. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's not an outrageous sum of money. To tax those people at such a rate should bother each and every one of us. These people are not the greedy bastards that ran Wall Street into the ground...they are people who managed to excel in America, something this country has always advocated for. Punishing them for that is not the American way, nor should it be. Here's more from The Heritage Foundation:
Historically, Senator Obama's tax rate would be the highest individual tax rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax shelters and tax avoidance strategies were common when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. This new top tax rate will again encourage these gimmicks, reducing investment and economic growth as resources are squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive taxation.
As to the effect on our work force, The Heritage Foundation says this:
These high tax rates could also have a large impact on the labor force. Many workers could choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue a great deal about what effect minor changes in the tax code will have on incentives to work. However, the Obama plan calls for a tax increase so large that economists will be focusing on the harm to the overall economy rather than just the isolated effects on labor and on capital.
You can read the entire article from The Heritage Foundation by clicking on this link.
Okay, so you think these are just the views of conservatives. Fine. They are. They make sense, but I can see where a liberal would find them suspect. So here's the breakdown from TheBrookings Institute as outlined in the Washington Post (click to enlarge):
Looks like Obama is really sticking it to the rich, eh? And what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, I'll tell you. Many of those rich people are the ones who own the companies that employ Americans. You start punishing them for their success and you'll soon find them taking those jobs elsewhere (to a place more friendly to their bottom line) or downsizing their success (and therefore OUR success) in an effort to escape the burden of those outrageous taxes. You'll probably see an increase in the demand for CPA's, though. Everybody and their dog will be hiring them to navigate the way through the tax code in search of each and every loophole available. Also, many of those rich people are the ones who make the biggest contributions to charities. You start taxing them senseless and soon those charitable donations will begin to dry up. I guess that won't matter too much with the Obama doctrine, though. He seems to want the government to provide everything to every citizen. As Obama said, he wants "to spread the wealth around". Sure it's quite a romantic concept, isn't it? I mean heck, America fell in love with this idea back when Errol Flynn slipped on a pair of tights and took on the Sheriff of Nottingham. But do you know what this concept truly is, ladies and gentlemen? It's called SOCIALISM. The definition of socialism?
so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) n. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Honestly, people. Look at that chart, the one from The Brookings Institute. It shows you that Obama is taking from the richest and giving to the poorest. Many of you think that's okay. It's not. I'm all for eliminating poverty, but this isn't the way to do it. This is America. We're supposed to strive for success, not aim for mediocrity. Why can't some of you see that's what Obama's plan is geared towards? When did you confuse Wall Street's greed with Main Street's hard work? If socialism is the abhorrence to you that it is to me, you'd better start spreading the word so that your friends and neighbors will feel the need to look into this themselves. As always, don't take my word for anything. Do the research yourself. And decide for yourself which way you want this country to go...
doesn't actually accomplish anything, does it? And that's pretty much what I've been doing, I think. Sure, there's been one or two readers of my blog who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. There's also been more than one or two readers who appear to be downright apathetic about the election process, this election in particular. But by and large, the rest seem to be of the same frame of mind as I am. Although saying "the rest" may be a misleading turn of words as it would imply a "multitude"of readers, which is not the case. I fear I've lost many of my blogging buddies due to my political obsession of late. I've been spending most of my free time researching the candidates and writing about my concerns regarding one candidate in particular. Unfortunately for me, most people don't seem to want to engage in political discussion. Or maybe they just don't want to engage in political discussion with me (perhaps I come off as too right wing? I can see how it would seem that way, although I'm much more moderate than most Republicans or Democrats I know). Either way, Blogland is becoming a lonely place and, although I realize it's a situation of my own making, knowing that doesn't make it any more enjoyable to get up in the morning only to see an inbox empty of comments.
I'm torn as to what I should do...continue to post about this or shut the heck up about politics and hope I can rebuild some of the blogging relationships that I've run off and/or neglected. Believe it or not, this really is a tough decision to make. I'm honestly afraid that this country is on the verge of electing someone with questionable and dangerous associations in his current life, as well as his past... a person who, for 20 years, was a member of a church that espouses contempt and hatred for "white America", a person who has shown an alarming habit of associating himself with the leaders of a political machine that often put private issues ahead of the public good, and a person who is closely tied with Washington politicians and even some CEOs who are directly responsible for the American public suffering the consequences of the greed and willful blindness of those politicians and business people in matters relating to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. I hear the supporters of Barack Obama throw around words like "hope" and "change" and "dreams" like so much confetti. I've seen ordinary citizens on TV telling the entire world that they are voting for Obama because "he's different" or "we need a change". I've seen ACORN workers on TV telling reporters how they have encouraged people to vote for Obama during their "voter registration drives", even though that is supposedly not the purpose of those drives. I've seen video of poll workers telling voters as they came in to vote during the primaries that "this is Obama's house", then asking how many people inside the voting precinct building were voting for Obama (something that is blatantly illegal to do). I've seen video of Obama campaign workers actually having tables set up inside a voting precinct building during the primaries, ostensibly to provide "help" to those who were having "difficulties" voting. I've seen all of these things, heard many more and have read even more than that about matters that should outrage each and every one of us who enjoy the freedoms of this democracy. But what do I hear? I hear "yeah, the whole process is corrupt" or "so what?" or "what difference does any of that make?". Or, even worse, I hear silence. Our democracy is being corrupted every day and we, as Americans, are too damn lazy, apathetic or blind to care.
You know, maybe I'm just more aware of the consequences than the average American. Everytime I see my husband in uniform, everytime I talk to my son who is stationed half way across the world, everytime I remember the good-byes to family and friends as they've headed to the Middle East to fight the War on Terror, I'm reminded forcefully that freedom isn't free and it is, in fact, something that must be constantly and ferociously protected and guarded. Having a front seat to the sacrifices of our military doesn't make me a better American. That is not what I'm saying. But maybe it makes me more cognizant than others of the price paid for freedom. Maybe it makes me question our leadership a little more because the lives of my husband, my son, our friends and other family members depend on who's leading us. I'm not looking for hope and change and dreams in my president, as pretty as those words may sound. I'm looking for freedom and integrity and progress. If I could believe that Barack Obama could deliver those things, he'd have my vote. But after having done hours upon hours upon hours of research, I've come to believe that he simply is not qualified for the job, nor is his "vision" of America anywhere near the same as mine. His past, as well as his current, associations and connections are with people and groups who have worked, and are still working, to undermine the very values of America that set us apart from the communists, the fascists, the dictatorships and the socialist governments around the world.
I don't want or expect anyone to take my word for anything I've said in these political posts. I would have a hard time respecting anybody who did. We are (or at least we should be) responsible for our own research, our own conclusions and our own votes. My problem comes in when people declare their support for a candidate without doing that research. What is that about and how can you justify it? Do you honestly believe that using words like hope and change are enough? I guess you do. Okay then, I'm willing to give it a shot myself...here goes: I hope you change you mind and do in-depth research yourself, if you haven't already. I hope you get the stars out of your eyes and the cotton out of your ears and start listening and seeing the very real issues in this election. I hope you, along with me and others in this great country of ours, start demanding that our so-called "news" outlets change their policies of being part of the news and go back to simply reporting it. And finally, I hope the change you're hoping for isn't one that signals the end of a democracy and the beginning of a socialist government. In the meantime, while we're all hoping and changing and dreaming and scheming, I'll be taking a few days off. Got to decide what this blog is for...talking about the things on my mind (of which politics is the main focus these days) or simply reaching out for friendship here in cyberspace. I don't think either purpose is wrong...but I do see where they might be in conflict. Before I sign off, I do feel compelled to throw one more political plea in here...please, please, please research the candidates. As important as voting itself is, it's even more important to cast an informed vote.
Yeah, that was actually what a Democratic strategist had to say on the subject of voter fraud. He said people were acting "hysterical" when it came to groups like ACORN not only being accused of voter fraud, but in many instances actually admitting to it. Ummmmm....I'm just spitballing here, but shouldn't the issue of voter fraud be of paramount importance to America? Are we not a democratic society that prides itself on spreading democracy around the world? Do we not monitor free elections all across the planet in an effort to insure that the process is free from corruption? So....at what point did voter fraud in this country become so acceptable that speaking of it would get you labeled "hysterical". Are the inmates now running the asylum or what?? (Never mind. Don't answer that.) I first heard about this latest round of voter fraud when someone called me and asked if I'd been watching the news day before yesterday. I hadn't been. Boy, was I missing it! Seems like there's been allegations of recent voter fraud all across the country. Being somewhat outraged about this, I asked where this person had gotten their information. They told me Fox News was reporting on it. I tuned into Fox and caught part of the story. Very interesting. However, not wanting to depend on one source only, I scanned the other news networks as well and guess what? I didn't hear a peep about it from any of the other so-called "news" networks. Strange. So I turned to the internet. CBS had a story on it, but it wasn't on their front page. I had to type "voter fraud" into their search engine to find the story. Same with ABC. Why these guys don't have it on their front pages is totally beyond me. Voter fraud is, or at leastit should be, a huge issue! I went to msn.com and couldn't find a story about it there, either. I clicked on their "MSNBCnews" button, which led me to another page where I could see the word "politics". I clicked on that, which conveniently enough, led me to a list of political stories. The sixth story down was titled "Mo. officials suspect fake voter registration". Two questions...why was it not featured any higher or more prominently than that and why not just come out and say the word "fraud" in the title? Because it was just too painful a word for them or what? But hey, as an added bonus, msnbc.com does still have that wonderful old picture of Sarah Palin wearing her beauty queen crown up on their "politics" page, 'cause that's real news, right?
CNN, however, was the absolute worst offender in this "let's ignore the voter fraud" game. I went to CNN.com and found nothing on the voter fraud stories. Nothing. Nada. Zip. I clicked on their "politics" page. Instead of voter fraud stories, these were what they considered of the utmost importance for the American public to learn about:
Nothing, not one word, about the voter fraud currently being investigated all across this country. Did you know that it is being investigated in over 10 states?? Doesn't that seem like a substantial story? All depends on your priorities, I guess. (**Note: CNN did finally have a story titled "Voter registration forms faked, officials say" located on their "politics" page, posted this morning - 2 days after the story first broke.) By the way, most if not all, of these fraud cases involve Barack Obama's old friends, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). I would urge all of you to do your own research on this organization. They are frequently referred to as "extreme left wing" and have a history of committing voter fraud. They have used strong arm tactics in the past to get what they've wanted (things like mortgage loans for people who actually could not afford such loans). And Senator Barack Obama has a rather long and involved relationship with them. In fact, his presidential campaign has paid ACORN more than $800,000 for voter registration drives during this campaign. Read more on that here. There's also a story in The Washington Times on this payment, but I couldn't get the link to work. Google it, though, if you'd like to read more.
There's plenty more out there, too, if you'd just take the time to investigate. I think every American should be aware of this. Don't be lazy, don't be naive and don't be blase' about something that means so much to so many. It is your job to be informed. Do it now before "Vote Early and Vote Often" becomes our national motto.
In my last post, I asked Obama supporters to tell me why they support him because I wasn't seeing the reasons for myself. I heard that they favored Obama's stance on the economy, health care, drilling for oil and abortion rights. I also heard that he would at least be different than the last 8 years. (I may have to cover that particular view in another post entirely) But okay...so let's break this down. 1) The Economy: The biggest reason why our economy is in the toilet? Sub-prime mortgages. Companies like Countrywide Financial made loans to people using predatory practices. The following is from Wikipedia regarding Countrywide Financial.
Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposal income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses. This guideline was not established by Countrywide, but rather the investors to whom they sold their loans. However Countrywide had no qualms in following through despite it knowing those families would likely fail to make monthly payments: these loans would be sold to investors shortly after anyway. Employees were given scripts as a sales aid when talking to customers about taking out loans. But get this; Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003. Furthermore, in June 2008 Conde Nast Portfolio reported that numerous Washington, DC politicians over recent years had received mortgage financing at noncompetitive rates because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo". The politicians extended such favorable financing included the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, DemocratChristopher Dodd, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, DemocratKent Conrad. The article also noted Countrywide's political action committee had made large donations to Dodd's campaign. Democrat Senator Dodd proposed that the federal government buy up to $400 Billion in defaulted mortgages. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington(CREW) has called for House and Senate to investigate Senators Conrad and Dodd. It was reported that James Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae and an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had received loans under the "Friends of Angelo". Johnson announced he would step down from the vice presidential vetting position on June 11, 2008 in order to avoid being a distraction to Obama's campaign. In June 2008 The Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin Raines, a former CEO of Fannie Mae, received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo). He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae.
By the way, Obama's buddy, James Johnson of Fannie Mae fame? An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million. What does this have to do with your choice of either Obama or McCain? Well I'll tell you. All of you Obama supporters, Independents, McCain detractors, and/or hard line Democrat voters, when you start talking about wanting a "change" or wanting to have "hope" or trying to get away from the last 8 years of "The Bush Presidency", I would ask that you look towards members of the Democratic leadership in Congress for some clues as to how this economic nightmare came to fruition. And no, I don't hold the Republican party harmless in all this, if for no other reason than they should have been screaming louder about the dangers of letting the sub-prime crisis reach such epic proportions - long before it actually happened. By several accounts, the warnings were there. That president, the one you all love to hate, was trying to sound the warning bell way back in 2001 and again in 2003. Nobody wanted to listen. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, tried to warn Washington in 2005. Again, no one wanted to listen. In 2006, John McCain co-sponsored legislation pushing for the regulation and reform of entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That bill made it out of the Senate Banking Committee with a party line vote; all democrats voted against it. Fearing that they, the Republicans, didn't have the votes to pass it, this bill wasn't even brought up on the senate floor. Yeah, I think the Republicans should have fought this much harder than they did. This effort looked more like partisan politics as usual than it did an honest attempt at preventing an economic disaster for America. Nevertheless, despite not actually getting anything done, the Republicans would at least get a "C" for putting out some effort, while the Democrats would get a flat out "F" for displaying such a willful intent to ignore what was, even then, a major issue. These inept political leaders who so blatantly ignored all the warning signs are the very same ones that Barack Obama aligns himself with and who align themselves with him. Think that over, would you? I mean, how will "change" occur when the person you are selecting for that "change" is a supporter of and is supported by many of the very people who allowed this catastrophe to happen? Now on to Health Care: I'm afraid I haven't been able to find enough information to give an even slightly informed opinion on whose plan would work best. That's not to say I've given up, though. I will continue searching. I'm looking for non-partisan examinations of both candidate's plans. I want a comprehensive breakdown of what each will do, how much it will cost, who will pay for it and the overall benefits to America as a whole. I'll get back to you if and when I manage to get a grasp on this. Another issue was Drilling: some of you don't want to see much drilling going on which makes absolutely no sense to me. You'd rather be dependent on foreign oil? I know there are ecological and environmental concerns. I get that. But for those of you who are opposing McCain and supporting Obama because Obama is against drilling, think again. Here's what he said during the last debate:
"I believe in the need for increased oil production. We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68 million acres that they're not using, that either you use them or you lose them."
Basing your vote on who will drill and who won't has become a nonstarter. Both candidates intend to drill. Granted, if Sarah Palin gets her way, there'll actually be drilling taking place in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), too. If the drilling can be done with minimal effects on the environment (and multiple studies indicate that to be the case), then why not do it? What are we saving all that oil for? A time when we'll have developed alternative fuel and won't need oil anymore? It probably won't do us much good then, now will it? I agree that resources should most certainly be allocated for alternative energy research and development, but in the meantime...we need to do everything in our power to get away from this dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Everything. Finally, people seem to be concerned with Abortion Rights: As I've stated before, I believe a woman should have the right to choose. But I think that choice should be whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to abort a baby for personal convenience. I think touting abortion as a "right" is ridiculous and an indication of the ultimate "pandering" to women voters. It's marketed as "I believe a woman should have control over her own body and should be able to exercise her own views over whether or not she wants to have a child". Well, thank-you-very-much, Mr. and Ms. Left-Wing, Kumbaya, "I'll empower you with the right to treat a growing entity in your womb as so much tissue to be discarded" Abortion Activist. Really appreciate your condescending and completely misleading method of trying to convince me that I Am Empowered. Personally, I think that kind of attitude short-changes women and presupposes that only by allowing us to negate a consequence of our actions (actions we partook in of our own freewill) will we be able to "control our own lives". You know I, too, believe a woman should have control over her own body, only I think that control should begin long before any man's sperm makes contact with her egg. I think that control should be granted at the onset of any and all sexual encounters, not merely afterwards. I believe a woman has a responsibility to understand the repercussions of sex, as well as the pleasures. I believe men have that responsibility, too, but seeing as how the woman ends up carrying one of those "repercussions" in her belly for approximately 9 months, I'm going to have to say the majority of the responsibility belongs to her. I think abortion as a matter of convenience is the ultimate in irresponsibility and I will never understand how any woman could stand for that as if advocating for it were some "badge of honor". We are women. We should take more pride in our ability to grasp the concept of responsibility, rather than advocate for a way out of responsibility. I swear, I really don't know when giving up the biggest and best thing that separates us from men became necessary for us to feel equal to men. We lessen ourselves when we abdicate our responsibility and I for one, won't do it. And I don't get the almost militant attitude of those who will. Edited to add: I got so carried away with my abortion stance that I forgot to tie this issue into the whole McCain/Obama choice that we've all been talking about. (Who says I can't be totally self-centered on my own blog, eh? lol) Anywho, I believe the issue of abortion is another nonstarter because I don't see Roe v Wade being overturned now or in the future, regardless of who is elected. The country has heard far too many stories of women going to back-alley butchers in the past. I don't think anyone wants to see that again, nor do I believe it will happen. There are many of us who take a stand against abortion itself, but as for me, I believe that making it legal or illegal is not the issue. Making women understand responsibility for their own bodies, and their futures, is. If we ever manage to accomplish that, then the subject of abortion could very well become moot. But again, I don't see it as a reason to vote for one candidate or another at this point in time because, despite the rhetoric, it's simply not on either party's "front burner".
This next one is a photo of an old homemade toy truck that Randey found at an antique mall several months ago. It currently sits in front of our fireplace and is decorated with mini hay bales, pumpkins and scarecrows.
