What She Said

A Soldier's Mom... What she says

O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?

with apologies to ms janis:

when she said, "I'd like to do a song of great social and political import" she couldn't possibly have know how prophetic those words would become...

Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends republicans,
So Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?

Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a color tv?
Dialing for dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a color tv?

Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a night on the town?
I'm counting on you, "lord", please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a night on the town?

Everybody!
Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends republicans,
So Oh lord O-bama, won't you buy me a mercedes benz?

That's it.

-- lyrics by Janis Joplin

I know this would be funny if it just weren't so sad...

Not So Much Fun, huh?

h/t From My Position... On the Way

Obama and Gunowners: Not Your Friend

ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION
420 E. Locust, P.O. Box 637, Chatsworth, IL 60921
Phone: (815) 635-3198 or (815) 635-3166 Fax: (815) 635-3723
Website: www.isra.org
Dedicated to education, safety training and support of Illinois firearm owners

October 10, 2008

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama’s attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than Barack Obama.

Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners and forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let’s not forget Obama’s pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN’s international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people’s money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

By now, I’m sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called “American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA)” talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I’d like to remind you that I’m a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation’s outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him.

That’s the Barack Obama I know.

Sincerely,
(original signed)
Richard A. Pearson
Executive Director
Illinois State Rifle Association

Mr. Pearson joins Dave Kopel to discuss Obama's gun record. Obama has been paying lip service to how he supports sportsmen and gun rights, but what does his voting record actually say? Tune in to find out!

Listen to the podcast at iVoices.org.

NOW Do You Get IT??

Well, if you didn't follow the analogy here, then maybe this will help you understand Obama's tax plan:

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Things that make you go hmmm...

Just How Scary is this Stuff??

Really... from Barney Frank -- the chief architect of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco (you know, the guy whose boyfriend was an executive with Fannie May while Frank was overseeing legislation to grant these subprime loans AND testifying that "all was well" with the financial institutions and there was no need for regulation?? 18 times the Bush administration tried to get someone in the Democratic party to pay attention to the looming problem... but Democrats like Maxine Waters and Barney Frank (among others) blocked all attempts. You can't make this stuff up!

Now THIS:

NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

Cut taxes for 95% to be made up by some randomly set "upper income" person to pay for more?? What, the top 10% of wage earners paying more than 60% of the taxes isn't enough?? Just how much should these hard working people be asked to pay... and why shouldn't those people just say F* it and leave?? I would.

And when the "crisis" that Joe Biden suggests is coming, Barney... how will you defend us with your military cut backs? Who will save us then Barney?? Didn't you learn anything from the Clinton cut? Nothing? Only stupid children like Franks puts their hand on a hot burner more than once.

These Democrats are planning to turn the USA into one big friggin' welfare state -- pay for food, shelter, healthcare, and give you money for not working... a friggin' lazy man's dream!!

When Obama says, "This is not the America I know" -- I say DAMN STRAIGHT, BARRY! REAL Americans WORK for what they have... they do not stand in a welfare line with their hand out. GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

McCain for President

I find Charles Krauthammer to be one of the most balanced of the contributors at Fox News and in his columns. He's not afraid to call ANYONE out on anything. And Charles HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD today. My thoughts exactly, Charles.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

READ THE WHOLE THING, PLEASE. It will be worth your while!

And read some of his other analyses:

A Question of Barack Obama's Character

Hail Mary vs. Cool Barry

"Supporting" Obama but VOTING FOR MCCAIN

Obama Says McCain's Stuff is Negative?

Unions Mislead on Health Care: They attack McCain's plan. One ad uses a bogus tax figure; another makes a false claim about coverage.

School Funding Misleads: An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.

An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.

An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

More Social Security Spin: Obama-Biden ad misrepresents the Social Security plan McCain supported. Again.

Obama tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False. (In fact, that call Obama's lie a "whopper"!)

Out of Context on Health Care: Obama ad twists McCain's words on health care "deregulation."

Call of the Wild: wildlife group's ad attacks Palin for supporting the shooting of wolves from airplanes. She does, but there's more to it than that. (They're not endangered in Alaska.)

Obama and 'Infanticide': The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois. (Judge for yourself.)

The Difference Between Democrats & Republicans

This sums it up nicely...

Father/Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard
work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

A reasoned, intelligent and balanced approach. Really. My work has been done for me... I don't agree 100% on all the positions these two young journalists put forth, but I am 95% there and 100% on board with their conclusion: WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.

Go read (and see) for yourself.

Veterans Issues

Interesting take HERE on Veterans issues vis a vis the two candidates. I have two family members that are veterans -- one of whom is a disabled OIF vet, so I follow veterans issues closely. And I mean CLOSELY.

McCain has consistently voted (his entire career) for veterans' legislation that made sense. He has sometimes voted against spending proposals for new programs because he believed that there were other BETTER programs in place that had not been amply funded and that some of the "new" programs being promoted for veterans were just pork projects being promoted for the benefit of legislators rather than for the benefit of Veterans.

And McCain is absolutely correct when he says,

"America has a moral obligation to care for those who have served our nation with honor," McCain said in response to questions to the presidential candidates from the group Disabled American Veterans.

But McCain told the group that, after "dramatic increases" over the past eight years in veterans health-care funding, money isn't always the answer.

"We should expect a matching increase in accountability and efficiency," McCain said. "Increased funding is not proof of supporting our veterans unless it is also accompanied by efforts that ensure our taxpayers' hard earned dollars are being spent wisely and in a manner that best supports and cares for our service members and veterans."

I should note that the "grades" given by IAVA to the Senators have pretty much been debunked as bogus. HERE and HERE and HERE also HERE. Be sure to read the comments and track the follow up posts at each site... an extremely interesting and engaging look at these "report cards" generally. (And in case you don't read those posts, when the top grades are ALL for the Dems and the bottom grades are ALL Republicans... and the founder of the organization is head of one campaign's veterans outreach (one guess which campaign)... yah. You pretty much get the picture.)

Dr. James D. Manning: "God Save America"

I was sent a link of a video of Dr. James David Manning, a minister with Atlah World Ministries. The video was described to me as an "in your face" look at Barack Obama. As I responded to the person who sent the link to me,

this is not so much "in your face" as angry with a lot of name-calling. Dr. Manning makes some very valid points (about O's father, mother, his family, the lack of his resume, etc.) but he's way too racist for me... the name calling seriously offends me. If he could just have left the race thing and name-calling out of it, it w/b a much more powerful indictment of O.

I disagree STRONGLY with this preacher's personal attacks on Senator Obama and his penchant for name-calling... but many people have told me at least once -- in discussing Rev. Wright -- that I don't understand preaching styles in black churches... Dr. Manning makes some VERY VALID POINTS in his strongly enunciated opposition to and denunciation of Sen. Obama, which, among others, include:

• Why doesn't Sen. Obama measurably discuss his mother in either of his books?

• Why DOES he praise the father that abandoned him physically, emotionally and financially and call his book, "Dreams OF MY FATHER".

• If he wasn't listening to Rev. Wright in all his hate-filled, anti-American sermons for 20 years, why was Obama's book "Audacity of Hope" named for one of Rev. Wright's sermons? (And if he wasn't listening, what was the point of attending??)
  

• Why aren't any of the members of Sen. Obama's family (grandmother, aunts, uncles, sister/brother-in-laws, nieces, nephews) at any of his appearances? Do they know something that we don't know?

• Why haven't we been able to see the transcripts and his work from Columbia University and Harvard Law?? After all, we would expect to see a full out resume (and for some jobs, work samples) if he were going to work for us in any other job... AND THIS IS FOR THE THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES! Why haven't we seen his work? What's Obama hiding?

• Do not tell me you are voting for Obama's "policies" if you cannot tell me what those policies entail or tell me what your candidate stands for... because you are voting based on RACE.

Although Dr. Manning makes valid points based on the issues, I actually believe Dr. Manning has a problem with Sen. Obama because Obama is white. Here's the link to the video. Warning: It contains some objectionable (disparaging) name calling (blacks and whites).

Character DOES Matter

Yes, character in the President does matter. I am not only seriously troubled by the pattern of Obama's associations -- Ayers, Wright, Rezko, ACORN -- but his enthusiastic willingness to throw his "former" associates under the bus concerns me even more!! If the associations themselves didn't bother me (which they certainly do), I see Obama's denials and underplaying his less than savory friends and mentors as "inconsequential" as a clear and undeniable indication that he has no qualms or reservations about DOING WHATEVER HE MUST and OWING WHOMEVER HE MUST to be President. Now THAT is scary.

I think Peter Wehner makes this argument well.

A Question of Character
Peter Wehner
10.14.2008
Posted on Commentary magazine’s blog Contentions

At a time when many people are saying Barack Obama’s past associations with radical figures doesn’t matter—and even that it shouldn’t matter—it’s worth considering the opposite argument.

From the ancient Greeks to the founding fathers, many of our best political minds believed character in our leaders matters. It doesn’t matter more than anything else, and character is itself a complicated thing. People can have strong character in some respects and weak character in others. People can demonstrate battlefield valor, for example, yet show cruelty to those over whom they have power. They can speak unpleasant truths when there is a high cost to doing so and betray their spouses. Individuals can demonstrate admirable loyalty to their friends and still lie to the public, or work for peace and yet violate the laws of our land.

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.

Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.

Will it be something that will manifest itself if Obama is elected President? It’s impossible to know for sure, and we can hope it wouldn’t be the case. But it might.

The concern is not that Obama will invite domestic terrorists to the White House for signing ceremonies or private lunches; rather, it is that we know enough about Obama to say that his enormous personal ambition has clouded his judgment over the years. He looks to be a man who will do disquieting things in order to climb the ladder of political success; when he was in Hyde Park, the rungs on that ladder included Mr. Ayers and the Reverend Wright. This kind of trait—soaring ambition trumping sound judgment—can manifest itself in very problematic ways, especially when you occupy the most powerful office in the world.

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

It’s true enough that the McCain campaign has never explained in a sustained, adequate way why these radical associations matter; that McCain, for reasons that are hard to fathom, has declared the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is off limits; and that the MSM is so deeply wed to Obama’s victory that they have done all they can to turn the issue of Obama’s radical associations into a problem for John McCain rather than Barack Obama. And so it’s quite possible that raising Obama’s radical associations in the last 20 days won’t be politically effective and may even be politically counterproductive, given the economic crisis we’re facing and the ham-handed way it’s been handled so far. Many Americans certainly seem to be of the mind that Obama’s associations with Ayers and Wright and all the rest don’t matter.

I get all that. But some of us believe there is a responsibility to make this case in a calm, responsible, factual way. We believe it’s important to explain why Obama’s radical associations bear on the question of his character, and why Obama’s character bears on the question of electing our next President. This issue shouldn’t, by itself, be dispositive. Nor should it be the only, or even the most important, issue in the campaign. Nor is it fair to say that Obama’s character can be understood only through the prism of his associations. But to evoke eye-rolling, dismissive reactions in response to simply raising the issue is an effort to sideline a legitimate topic.

The time-honored truth is that character matters in leaders. Sometimes people forget that lesson—and when they do, it’s appropriate to remind them. And whether the country understands it or not, and whether voters think it’s a big deal or not, integrity and associations matter.

If Barack Obama is elected President, sooner or later people will realize this applies to him as well. It’s only right to ask the relevant questions in advance of this election—and despite the ridicule being dished out by the acolytes and cheerleaders of Senator Obama, it’s not too much to ask Obama to explain his relationship over the years with people who have a disturbing history of violence, hatred for America, and corruption.

URL to article: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/37572

I will vote for John McCain because he is undeniably a man of character and conviction.

Obama Lies About McCain's Medicare Proposals

Obama's False Medicare Claim

Obama accuses McCain of proposing to cut benefits. Not true.

By Brooks Jackson, Newsweek

In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

A TV spot says McCain's plan requires "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both."

Obama said in a speech that McCain plans "cuts" that would force seniors to "pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing.

McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

The Obama campaign began the Medicare assault with a 30-second TV ad released Oct. 17, which it said would run "across the country in key states." The ad quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying McCain would pay for his health care plan with "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid," which the ad says would total $882 billion from Medicare alone, "requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both." But in fact, McCain has never proposed to cut Medicare benefits, or Medicaid benefits either. Obama's claim is based on a false reading of a single Wall Street Journal story, amplified by a one-sided, partisan analysis that piles speculation atop misinterpretation. The Journal story in turn was based on an interview with McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He said flatly in a conference call with reporters after the ad was released, "No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning."

Here's how Democrats cooked up their bogus $882 billion claim.

On Oct. 6, the Journal ran a story saying that McCain planned to pay for his health care plan "in part" through reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending, quoting Holtz-Eakin as its authority. The Journal characterizes these reductions as both "cuts" and "savings." Importantly, Holtz-Eakin did not say that any benefits would be cut, and the one direct quote from him in the article makes clear that he's talking about economies:

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6: Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn't detail where the cuts would come from. "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost," he said. Holtz-Eakin complains that the Journal story was "a terrible characterization" of McCain's intentions, but even so it clearly quoted him as saying McCain planned on "giving [Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries] the benefit package that has been promised."

Nevertheless, a Democratic-leaning group quickly twisted his quotes into a report with a headline stating that the McCain plan "requires deep benefit and eligibility cuts in Medicare and Medicaid" – the opposite of what the Journal quoted Holtz-Eakin as saying. The report was issued by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to Democratic President Bill Clinton. The report's authors are a former Clinton administration official, a former aid to Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey and a former aid to Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski.

The first sentence said – quite incorrectly – that McCain "disclosed this week that he would cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health care plan." McCain said no such thing, and neither did Holtz-Eakin. The Journal reporter cited a $1.3 trillion estimate of the amount McCain would need to produce, over 10 years, to make his health care plan "budget neutral," as he promises to do. The estimate comes not from McCain, but from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. McCain and Holtz-Eakin haven't disputed that figure, but they haven't endorsed it either. Nevertheless, the report assumes McCain would divide $1.3 trillion in "cuts" proportionately between the two programs, and comes up with this: "The McCain plan will cut $882 billion from the Medicare program, roughly 13 percent of Medicare's projected spending over a 10-year period." And with such a cut, the report concludes, Medicare spending "will not keep pace with inflation and enrollment growth—thereby requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."

"Savings" vs. "Cuts"
For the record, Holtz-Eakin said in a telephone conference call with reporters Oct. 17, after the ad was released, that any shortfall in McCain's health care plan could be covered, without cutting benefits, by such measures as reducing "Medicare fraud and abuse," employing "a new generation of treatment models" for expensive chronic diseases, speeding adoption of low-cost generic drugs, and expanding the use of information technology in medicine.

Interestingly, Obama proposes to pay for his own health care plan in part through some of the same measures, particularly expanded use of I.T. and better handling of chronic disease. Whether either candidate can achieve the huge savings they are promising is dubious at best. As regular readers of FactCheck.org are aware, we're skeptical of Obama's claim that he can achieve his promised $2,500 reduction in average health insurance premiums, for example.

But achievable or not, "savings" are what McCain is proposing. It's a rank distortion for Obama's ad to twist that into a plan for "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both," and for Obama to claim in a speech that seniors will "receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

Racism

Obama is being elected because of his skin color. Racism in its most blatant form.

Here are people who say that they are voting for Obama but when asked if it's because of his stand on __________ (which are actually McCain's positions), they all say, "Yes, that's why I'm voting for Obama! Even to the point that they endorse Obama's running mate -- Sarah Palin!

Also, look at this result from the Army Times:

Army Times Poll on Presidential Race

(in percent):

McCain Obama

Overall 68 23

Army 68 23

Navy 69 24

Air Force 67 24

Marines 75 18

Retirees 72 20

White Non-Hispanic 76 17

Hispanic 63 27

Black/African-American 12 79

Enlisted 67 24

Officers 70 22



Somehow I missed seeing this in the New York or the LA Times.

I also have a serious problem with any American (ANY American) who -- absent recent legal immigration to our country -- describes themselves as anything other than AMERICAN. No qualifiers needed. If Obama really does intend to "unite America" (we don't hear much about that any more, do we??) then why does he need to qualify his citizenship with his ethnicity??

Below are a few lines from Obama's books, in his own words!

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

And from Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

I keep asking people, if he's half white, why does he insist on calling himself "black"? Have we returned to the day that one drop of black blood made you all black? Or could it be that in Barack's life it was just more expedient politically and financially for him to declare himself black? Can I do the same? How do you prove whether you are black or nor -- or enough?? Do you have to look black? Or white? Can you just change your name? I don't see John McCain or any other candidates claiming that they are, oh, I don't know, "Norwegian Americans"... ethnicity and the life histories of slaves 140 years ago are not a qualifiication to be President of the United States and should not be the basis of voting for him. Sadly, it is.

I also have a problem with Mrs. Obama who admittedly got Barack to join Rev. Wright's racist church... who wrote a college thesis that concluded that she was shocked and saddened that black alumni did not differentiate themselves from Americans as a whole (I presume she meant whites) rather than seeing themselves as part of the "black community"... a woman who is only proud of America because her husband is running for President? Who thought being oppressed is the reason that Barack might not be elected?? Who plays on the stereotype that her husband AS A BLACK MAN can be shot on his way to the gas station... who cares if ANY AMERICAN could be shot (especially if you live in Chicago... although not in the Obama's neighborhood.)

And Michelle, I think you're full of shit when you say that we are involved in a war in Iraq because we were afraid of other people because of what they looked like. We are in that war because we are afraid of people who want to kill us -- every American -- because of who we are and what we believe... not what we look like.

I am voting for John McCain because of his superior qualifications and his policies and proposals -- and NOT because of the color of his skin..

Experience

Or rather, Obama's complete lack of relevant experience.

You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and then become district manager after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.

You couldn't get a job as a teacher and become the superintendent after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.

You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.

BUT....

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this???

We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?

Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol!

These are serious times and NO TIME FOR AMATEURS!!

Corporate Tax Rates

Obama says he plans to INCREASE corporate tax rates. It is clear from that statement that he -- and those who support him -- do not understand how corporate taxes work.

Corporations are not people... they don't stick money in bank accounts to fund retirement.

Corporations are business entities that have two principle accounting categories: expense and income.

Expenses are the costs of producing goods or services that people (you and me) buy. Expenses include payroll, benefits, rents, wholesale materials needed in the production of the goods/services, debt payments (you know, for the money they borrowed to tool the plant, buy a building... things like that. Oh, and taxes. Corporations also pay back shareholders -- people like you and me -- who INVESTED their money in these companies in the form of dividends. Companies also must re-invest in new equipment, technology, research & development (R&D), expanding manufacturing or into new product lines... they also must have funds available (or be able to borrow) to pay their expenses (see above) when sales are slow.

If you raise expenses but don't dare raise the price of your product in order to remain competitive with other producers, you have less income. For most companies, they have a fixed (known) income requirement (see expenses above). If you need a fixed amount of money you have two ways of raising it: raise prices or cut expenses.: close factories, reduce payroll (and the corresponding benefit and tax costs), cut salaries and reduce benefits... See where that s going??

Raising tax rates on corporations (whether overtly or by closing "loopholes"), will not generate new businesses nor create new jobs and will raise the price of goods and services (a back door tax on the consumer.) And history has shown us (look around) that raising taxes costs American jobs and leads to inflation. Look here for the history of corporation tax rates... coupled with higher interest rates... then go look for the periods of worst inflation... see a pattern??

And yes, I understand that this is a big oversimplification of corporate taxes... I understand debt-financed vs equity-financed segments, etc. But raising taxes in any form is never good for US businesses... and cutting them (by however small an effective percentage) is ALWAYS good for the economy... for businesses and those that work for them (that'd be you and me) and the consumers (that'd also be you and me).

Capitalism is not evil. Businesses -- large or small -- are not evil. Making a profit is not evil, either.

I will vote for John McCain because he will keep tax rates low for small entrepreneurial businesses, cut the corporate tax rate from 35 To 25 percent, allow 1st year deduction for equipment and technology investments, establish a permanent tax credit for wages for Research & Development, ban Internet taxes, and ban new cell phone taxes.

John McCain's policies are GOOD for business and will create jobs... which means that McCain's policies are good for Americans and good for America.

Individual Income Tax Policy

When Obama says he will "tax the wealthy"... and then says it will apply to those making over $250,000 a year, I want to ask him and his supporters, "Since when did it become OK to punish those Americans who make more money than you? When did it become accepted in this country to punish those who studied hard, work hard and have achieved the American Dream? When did it become the norm to take what I have earned and give it to someone who has not?

We are talking doctors, lawyers, businesspeople -- those who work in corporations, small business owners and the self-employed. These people work HARD... they work long hours... Why should they pay more taxes because some people don't have these jobs? They COULD have had these professions... but they don't. So how come so many people cheer and nod their heads when Obama says, "We will tax the rich!" Replace the word "tax" with "punish". Is this the "change" you are all wanting??

This is stealth socialism: income redistribution. Take money from people who earned it and give it to people who did not earn it... such as "stimulus" checks, "tax refunds" for people who paid no taxes, tax credits for expenses like child care, tuition, etc.

What's the incentive to study hard, work hard and earn money if the government is just going to TAKE it from the person who earned it and give it to the "less fortunate".??? This is what he calls "economic justice"?? Would you study as hard in school if every time you got an "A", the school decided that the guy who received an "F" or a "D" should have your grade or a part of your grade because somehow that was more "fair"?? You can all have "Cs" in Obama's America because that is educational justice.

Two good friends are physicians. Each makes more than $250,000 per year.... but contrary to perceptions, they do not make "millions". Each of these friends were more than $300,000 IN DEBT when they finished medical school. They did not get preferred loan rates, either... some of their student loans (in the days of Jimmy Carter's presidency) were at 14%, 17%...) Each of these people spent the first 10 years of their careers paying back these student loans. Each of these doctors -- now in their 50's -- still work close to 60 hours a week. Each of these people (neither of whom have private medical practices) pay exorbitant contributions to their malpractice insurance. Each of these physicians make life and death decisions multiple times per day... and they are appropriately compensated. These two doctors studied hard and they work hard and they should be entitled to every dollar and dime they earn... and they should not be punished based on their earnings... and no one should be rewarded based on someone else's hard work.

I am not rich. I was one of seven children raised on the south side of Chicago by a single mother who worked two jobs. My brothers and sisters and I studied hard in school. We had good grades. Some of us went to college... and those that did paid their own way. All of us worked hard to achieve the American Dream. No one GAVE us grades or money or opportunities. We WORKED for our grades. We WORKED for our money. We WORKED for our opportunities. No one gave us special treatment because we were "poor" or made less money than most everyone else. No one earmarked jobs for us or made exceptions for when we failed.

I am especially livid that the almost 40% of Americans WHO PAY NO TAX AT ALL will actually receive money under Obama's proposal!! It's outrageous!! See HERE... the lowest two income brackets will have a NEGATIVE TAX RATE -- meaning they will get taxes back that someone else paid!

There are poor people in America... there have always been poor people in America. There are those who are incapable of work because of mental or physical impairments... and THOSE are the people that should be offered assistance. But just because you don't make as much money as someone else should not entitle you to a share of the other person's money. While I'm not a particularly religious person, I believe Obama's policy is tantamount to coveting a neighbor's property.

While McCain's policy supposedly "rewards" the "wealthy" -- it simply permits people to keep WHAT THEY EARNED. They are not taking money from someone else's pocket... IT'S THEIR MONEY!! ffs And he's not proposing to reduce any existing tax rates, he's proposing that the current tax rates and brackets (which reflect tax cuts from the outrageous Clinton tax rates!!) be made permanent.

And as for Obama's claim that 95% will get tax cuts... and that McCain's plan will not benefit 101 million... not exactly.

Absent a call by one candidate or the other to switch to a flat tax where every individual pays the same tax percentage -- where every individual is paying their FAIR SHARE, I will vote for John McCain because I refuse to let someone punish me and other people because we studied hard, worked hard and are living the American Dream.