Media Continues to Poke Palin

Politics is a tough business. One must be thick-skinned to put up with all of the attacks, but it has been very evident to me and many others that Governor Palin has had to deal with attacks, not questions. Furthermore, the questions are coming from every media source including European media. Just think for a change ... Why hasn't the media been as thorough in their attacks and questions regarding Senator Obama? And why so much scrutiny for a vice-presidential nominee? Why are they comparing the Republican's vice-presidential nominee with the Democrat's presidential nominee?

More than a week ago, I read an article entitled "Scholars Question Palin Credentials" written by David Mark and Fred Barbash. It was carried on all national and international media wire services, which means that everyone all of the world would have access to it. From reading the title, one would assume that very learned people do not think that Governor Palin has what it takes to be a vice-presidential nominee.

Here are some of the comments made by the interviewed scholars:

So unconventional was McCain’s choice that it left students of the presidency literally “stunned,” in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency. “Being governor of a small state for less than two years is not consistent with the normal criteria for determining who’s of presidential caliber,” said Goldstein.

“I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.

“It would be one thing if she had only been governor for a year and a half, but prior to that she had not had major experience in public life,” said Dallek of Palin. “The fact that he would have to go to somebody who is clearly unqualified to be president makes Obama look like an elder statesman.”

“Not to belittle Alaska, but it’s different than the basket of issues you deal with in big, dynamic states.” Dallek said.

Brad Blakeman, who ran the 1988 Republican convention for GOP nominee George H.W. Bush, turned the experience question on its head, suggesting accomplishments in office mean more than time accrued.

“Here’s a governor who may have served two years, but her accomplishments are worth eight,” said Blakeman, citing Palin's work as governor on ethics reform and an Alaska oil pipeline. “She’s got as much experience for being vice president as Barack does to be president.”

Palin, on the other hand, is a total “wild card,” said Stanford historian David Kennedy.

“If she had been around for two terms as governor — or been a senator — it would have been an incredible choice,” said historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “Who else could he have found who appealed to the conservative base … and as someone who was a reformer?”

After reading the article and the quotes by five scholars, I found it rather odd that four of the five persons quoted were heavily against Governor Palin. I found out within 24 hours why scholars seemed so dead set against Governor Palin. Senator McCain's campaign had seen the article and provided some insight. David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor. Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor. Doris Kearns Goodwin is a Demorcrat Party donor. Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt, who was a long-time Democrat in the House of Representatives.

The only scholar with whom we are given some background is Brad Blakeman, who worked for President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Blakeman liked the Palin nomination.

The news story written by David Mark and Fred Barbash was purposely slanted against Governor Palin and purposely did not reveal the political credentials of all of the so-called scholars. This is an excellent example of why one cannot believe everything they read.

Here's some things to think about ... who is being described with these characteristics? Under 45 years old ... loves the outdoors ... hunter ... a Republican reformer ... took on the Republican Party establishment ... a parent of many children ... on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office. It's not only Sarah Palin, but it's Teddy Roosevelt -- one of the most revered, successful and progressive Republican presidents of the 20th century.

Just think for a change ... Why hasn't anyone from Mr. Obama's past stepped up to promote him? No one from Hawaii. No one from his community organizing days. No one from his days at Columbia University or Harvard. No one from the legislature in Illinois. I wonder why?

9-11: Always Remember and Never Forget

On that morning in 2001, I was just as unsuspecting as any other average American. I had no idea that Muslim terrorists would make good on their declared war on the United States and bring so many innocent people to their deaths.

Yes, it's depressing to think about. Just looking through pictures or listening to news clips causes my chest to rise and fall in the hopes that I won't cry again. And you may say, "Why put yourself through that? That's history. Move on."

Well, I don't ever want to forget what happened, and more importantly, I don't ever want to forget how I felt that day and the days that followed. Once a year, I need to relive almost every moment in a fast-forward type of newsreel that will bring all of those emotions back to me to remind me of why we fight.

God bless all those innocents who died in those horrible attacks. God bless all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice in attempting to rescue those innocents. God bless all of those troops who have died and continue to fight to make sure that terrorists do not kill on our shores again. God bless America.

Scaring me again: Part II

Mr. Obama is scaring me again. No, it's not because of what he is saying because he is now beginning to sound like a middle-of-the-road politician, not the liberal, far-left politician that he has been all of his life. He's starting to make sense, but it is coming at the expense of changing his mind on things AGAIN! The man is indecisive and flips and flops, and that's what scares me.

When do his changes of heart occur? In two situations: one-on-one interviews that Mr. Obama always seeks to avoid and after poll numbers come out. Now you may wonder if Mr. Obama seeks to avoid these interviews, how is it that he is giving them? He has to now. People are tiring of the empty message of hope and change without details.

Last week, Mr. Obama granted an interview with Bill O'Reilly with Fox News. The first of four parts aired on Thursday night. After months of claiming that the surge would not work, was not working and Mr. Obama voted against funding it, Mr. Obama finally admitted that violence was down and had worked beyond his or anyone's "wildest dreams," he would still not admit that he was wrong about the surge because political progress in Iraq had not moved as quickly. He's parsing words and insulting the intelligence of Americans. The surge is working, and it was always the proposed plan of his opponent, John McCain. That is why Mr. Obama cannot afford to admit that it is working. However, he finally did concede that violence is down.

Today, Mr. Obama meets one-on-one with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Mr. Obama is asked about his response to a question on abortion from the Saddleback Church Forum where he and Mr. McCain answered questions separately. Pastor Rick Warren asked the two presidential candidates when a baby gets human rights. Obama replied that the question is “above my pay grade,” while John McCain won love from the right by saying quickly, “At the moment of conception.”

Today, Mr. Obama tells us what he intended to say. Intended to say? Come on. You can't expect us to take you seriously if you keep changing your mind about things like this. You don't get do-overs in the high-stakes world of decision-making.

Today, Mr. Obama says, “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. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

Mr. Obama goes on to say, “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child."

So now Mr. Obama is not so forthright in his stand for abortion. He now professes to be in favor of "a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child."

Just think for a change. Do you think Mr. Obama saw the images of Sarah Palin and her downs syndrome baby at the Republican National Convention? Do you think Mr. Obama sees Sarah Palin's poll numbers going through the roof? Do you think Mr. Obama feels he needs to speak more like mainstream Americans think?

I have to ask this question: Who is Barrack Obama and what does he really believe?

Displaced, But Still Observing

Hurricane Gustav roared into the Gulf Coast, and I had to vacate temporarily. First to Alexandria, Louisiana, but that wasn't far enough away. Then to Nashville, Tennessee, where I had a most enjoyable time, and lastly to Greenville, Alabama, which was nothing more than a way to cut the return trip home.

Gustav proved to be a wimp compared to the way the media painted him, and once again the media was wrong. Isn't that the way things have been going for the media?

They were wrong about Gustav, wrong in the way that they have vilified the daughter of Governor Sarah Palin, and wrong about the way that they have protected Barrack Obama and ignored his weaknesses and questionable alliances.

This video of Newt Gingrich being interviewed by Ron Allen of MSNBC sums up this entire presidential election and media love fest with Barrack Obama:

Just think for a change. Can YOU name one thing that Barrack Obama has done? Didn't think so ...

Other Countries and American Politics

The audacity! When election time rolls around in the US every four years, the media often goes out of its way to draw remarks from Europeans and folks at the UN and other global organizations. Why does the media ask these people what they think? Why does the media think Americans even care what others think? The answer is simple: The media works very hard to shape peoples' minds into thinking that we need to elect those who people in other countries want us to elect.

Today, it started again. Mr. Obama selected his running mate: Senator Joe Biden from Deleware. Immediately, the media runs out to see what other countries think about this.

Here are some quotes from the Associated Press:

"Biden owes his selection to (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin," said French political analyst Dominique Moisi.

In Britain, the North America editor for the British Broadcasting Corp., Justin Webb, said Biden was "Vladimir Putin's contribution to American politics — he is a necessary antidote to the Obama lack of worldly wisdom, which before Georgia was a bit academic to most Americans."

In Germany, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats, Eckart von Klaeden, said Biden was "an exceptionally good decision, which shows how Obama is trying to organize all elements of the Democratic party behind him."

The choice of Biden "is a good signal for these talks," said Angela Anderson, director of the Global Warming Campaign for the PEW environmental group. "I'm thrilled."

"The easiest and fastest way to demonstrate a change of foreign policy would be on climate change," said David Doniger, of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

All of these comments tell me to do exactly the opposite of what is intended. If other countries want a particular candidate to lead America, then I want whoever else is running. I want a president who puts America first, not the rest of the world, first.

I don't want to vote for president of the world. I want to vote for President of the United States.

I will vote for John McCain because he is the most experienced, he does not demonize wealth and big business, he will not overtax those who provide jobs, he has a plan for and will solve our energy problems, he is pro-life, he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and he will continue to fight terrorism using a military policy and not one based on the international court system.

Media ... Europeans ... Don't ever tell me for whom to vote. I don't trust either one of you. If you like 'em and want 'em, I want the other guy.

And make a note: Global warming is an unproven theory. In fact, there is more scientific evidence to prove that the earth's temperature has always changed and evolved even before man had cars and planes and boats. I'm not about to turn my whole life upside down because of an unproven theory.

Who Is Your Candidate? What Is He About?

I have always found it both comical and sad that people today -- young and old -- are so misinformed about the people who they plan to vote for in elections. It usually validates my assumption that people buy into what I call 'fluff and sound bytes'.

Let a candidate take the stage and stand behind the podium and speak well and talk about change and hope, and everyone cheers in unison: "Yes! Yes! Yes! That is what we want!" But they sometimes never ask what that change and hope entails. How will all of the grand plans be financed? Who will pay? How does one qualify to even receive the benefit of the grand plans? For some reason, all of those questions are never asked and are never answered.

I very often hear folks say, "I hate Bush." I usually ask why they hate Bush. Many times, the person cannot tell me. If they manage to come up with a reason as to why they hate Bush, they are often unable to give me any example that will reflect their reason. The same thing holds true when the voter says, "I love Clinton." They usually can't tell me why -- other than that they love him.

There are many who throw their loyal and undying support behind a candidate for all the wrong reasons only to find that their beliefs are not the same as the candidate who they are supporting. I find this more with younger people than older people, but that's only because I think older people tend to read more about political issues.

What does a president's view of religion or abortion have to do with being president? Only that it might give an indication as to what type of Supreme Court Justice he will appoint. Presidents have no control over these issues. Those are issues that can only be dealt with within Congress or the Supreme Court.

Abortion, prayer in schools, taxes, gay rights, immigration, terrorism, foreign aid, domestic programs and retirement benefits are all examples of topics that will be determined by elected officials. However, I rarely find that the average voter knows where his or her candidate stands on those issues. People tend to spend too much time on superficial things, empty rhetoric and sound bytes affect their thinking processes more than the things that should count.

There's one thing about presidents that everyone seems to forget: Presidents are only chief administrators in one branch of the government. The president does not have the power to get up in the morning and do whatever he wants to do. There are two other branches of government who are involved with checks and balances. Congress and the Supreme Court are always part of just about every presidential decision.

Just to take a current event, let's look at the Iraq War. First, the president could not have ordered US troops to be involved in this unless Congress approved it. The president could not continue to keep troops there unless Congress authorized it and allowed money to be spent on it. Just think for a change ... doesn't Congress decide how all money is spent? The president has no authority over how money is spent unless Congress appropriates the money. So when I hear all of these Congressmen and Senators complaining about the war, I wonder why they keep voting to give the military the funds to stay there? And when I hear all of these Congressmen and Senators claim the president lied and falsified intelligence to take us into war, I wonder why Congress hasn't begun impeachment proceedings for such a serious offense? Think about it.

Bottom line: keep from being embarrassed. Know what you're talking about. Know what your candidate is about, and figure out if he or she is what YOU are about. You'll feel better about your vote.

Barrack Obama Scares Me

Barrack Obama scares me. Yes, I'm a grown man, and he is only a man; but he scares me -- and he's done it twice. How twice? Actually, it's been many times twice. You see, I was not in agreement with many of his views. That scared me because of his possibility of winning the election. And then he changed his mind on almost all of his views -- and that scared me again because he became inconsistent.

The first and most shocking change was his stance on Iraq. One of the only politicians "to vote against the war" -- that's what he says, but he wasn't in the US Senate when the vote was taken. How could he vote? Anyway, all during the Democrat primaries, he tells voters how he will withdraw troops in 18 months. He is adamant about this. Not long after, Hillary Clinton drops out, and Mr. Obama takes a trip to Iraq. When he returns, he decides that he will defer to his generals and let them decide. Isn't that what President Bush is doing? Isn't that what John McCain said he would do? This was Mr. Obama's big issue. This is what got him to where he is, but he has changed his mind about it.

Early on in President Bush's first term, he convinced Congress to cut income taxes on all wage earners. The Democrats have always claimed that it was a tax cut for the wealthy (we'll discuss this in another lesson), but everyone got the benefit of the tax cut -- even those who don't even pay taxes got a check for $600.00. And even the Democrats voted for it. So why do they claim it was not a good idea? They voted for it, didn't they?

Well, Mr. Obama wants to let those tax cuts expire, and he wants to tax only the top 1% of wage earners at a higher percentage. These were people who made well over $500,000 a year. He also claims that he will give other tax payers a further cut.

Since his first plan to tax only the top 1%, he has now changed to tax higher those who make more than $200,000 per year.

First, I don't believe in overtaxing the wealthy. Mr. Obama demonizes wealth. He talks of the wealthy people and profitable businesses as if they all achieved their wealth through illegal or unethical means, and that is not true. The wealthy are the ones who are capable of creating new businesses and new jobs. The top 50% of wage earners in America pay over 95% of the income taxes. They are already overtaxed. They need an incentive to help us keep our economy strong.

Second, I believe that everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. I am in favor of a flat tax.

Third, I fear that Mr. Obama will lower his tax increase range even further from $200,000 a year in income to $100,000 or less. Or worse, he'll decide that no one can get a tax cut and rates will be raised on everyone. He has changed his mind more than once. He can change it again. But just think for a change ... it's Congress who controls tax rates, not the president. The president cannot raise or lower taxes. He can only suggest it.

Another issue that concerns me about Mr. Obama, but one on which he has not changed his mind, is abortion. Mr. Obama is not only in favor of abortion on demand, but he spoke on the floor of the Illinois legislature in favor of a bill that would allow doctors to kill a baby that survived an abortion.

I am not against abortion if the mother's life is in danger or she has been a victim of rape or incest, but I cannot understand why anyone would want to give permission to any medical personnel to kill a baby that has survived an abortion.

When Mr. Obama began his run for the presidency, he told all Americans that his campaign would not be about race. To the credit of those running against him, they have not made it about race either. However, every time Mr. Obama's poll numbers dip a little bit, he has injected false claims of race into his speeches. He has said that people will attack his funny name -- that he doesn't look like those other guys on the dollar bills -- that he's black. No one ever said that. He said that. Why would he inject race when it has not been brought up? Doesn't he realize that he wouldn't be the Democrat nominee if white people hadn't voted for him? The black population in America is less than 15% of the total population. Mr. Obama would have to be receiving white support to be ahead. So who is injecting race? Just think for a change ... 90% of African Americans are said to be voting for Mr. Obama; but White Americans are split between the two candidates. Who is voting based on race?

Mr. Obama had only been a US Senator for 143 days when he began his run for the presidency. In an effort to better understand Mr. Obama's politial philosophy, many have sought out his voting record in the Illinois legislature to see where he stands on critical issues. Those people have been disappointed. In many of the votes, Mr. Obama voted "present" -- not "for" or "against" -- in the majority of critical votes in Illinois. His votes have been viewed as a way to avoid taking a stand on important issues and to keep him from being criticized either way. This has not helped people to make up their minds about Mr. Obama's candidacy.

In recent weeks, Mr. Obama went on a world tour. I guess it was to look "presidential" for the voters, but I got the impression that he was running for president of the world, not the president of the United States. He even made comments in his speeches that blamed America for problems in the world, and I was not impressed by those statements.

The United States is called upon all the time to defend those who are weak and abused, and yet we are the doormat and whipping boy of the world. The United States is the reason that Europe is free. The United States is the reason that communism in the world has been greatly minimized and almost completely eliminated. The United States government and its private citizens give more money to needy countries than any other country in the world even though we make up only 4% of the world's population. And we are the bad guys? We are the problem? I cannot vote for anyone who even hints at the idea that America is somehow responsible for the problems of the world. Why doesn't some other nation step up? Because they either can't or they won't.

Within the past week, Russia invaded the country of Georgia. Both had been members of the former Soviet Union. During this invasion, Mr. Obama took a break from his vacation in Hawaii to address the situation -- or not address it. While Russians were killing innocent Georgians, Mr. Obama called for all sides to begin dialog and that he would wait for all the facts to come in before making any further statements. What else do you need to know? Russia invaded Georgia, our ally, and is killing innocent people. I wondered if this was the kind of presidential response we could expect from him in foreign policy issues ... I wasn't impressed at all.

It has often been said that people can be judged by the company they keep. I'm not going to belabor this point because there has been enough coverage of this for anyone to read, but I can't ignore the fact that Mr. Obama associates regularly with people with whom I would never ever be friends or from whom I would never ever seek advice.

Additionally, his wife is a loose cannon. She has said some things on the campaign trail that are not complimentary of America or its citizens, and I would be afraid of her making over-zealous remarks as the first lady. I find her outlook on America to be insulting.

Lastly for me, but certainly not the last of his changed ideas and opinions, is his outlook on energy and drilling. Mr. Obama began this campaign not wanting any drilling to take place in either ocean, off the coast of Florida, or in Alaska. With recent polls showing that well over 60% of Americans want oil companies to be given permission to drill, Mr. Obama has once again changed and has agreed to some compromise in this area.

Does the man have any core beliefs that will remain constant, or does he just rely on polls? I am all for politicians being responsive to the voters, but there are some things that they are supposed to know more about than us.

Mr. Obama has reached a point where he cannot convince me to vote for him. He has changed his mind on so many things or used poor judgment in so many issues, that I will never know what to expect from him. His inconsistency and different views have created a situation where I cannot trust him with my future over the next four years.

Separation of Church and State?

I am one of those who believes that there is too much separation of church and state in America. I am one of those who believes that our Supreme Court is not so supreme when it comes to these matters because I feel that they fail to interpret our Constitution correctly.

It is the opinion of many scholars that our forefathers did not want government to sponsor a religion or compel people to join a religion not of their own choosing. Does anyone actually believe that they wanted to ban prayer from schools or public buildings or public gatherings? I don't think so. Had they felt this way, there would probably been a specific mention of it -- or better yet, they would have refrained from any reference to God or religion in all of their writings. Fortunately for us, they wrote often about the positive effects of religion in our lives and seemed to be most concerned in government insuring freedom of religion, not restriction of its use.

I've said all of that to say this: What the heck is this debate this evening between two presidential candidates about religion and faith? What is CNN, the anti-religion and anti-faith network doing promoting it?

If religion isn't supposed to be part of anything pubic or governmental, why is it being made an issue in the presidential election?

Just think for a change ... ask yourself what the motivation is for something that is supposed to be so taboo by the media. Presidential candidates discussing their personal faith. Either it matters or it doesn't matter.