Thursday, November 06, 2008

No Post-Obama Bounce for Stocks

Joe the Plumber is Angry

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Fairness Doctrine

There is already talk about Obama banning Conservative Talk Radio (CRT). Actually, it started before the election, and will probably heat up considerably. Especially since Senator Shumer made his remarks about it.

I don’t think CRT can be banned. Congress may come up with restrictions that make talk radio very difficult to operate. But I think those who are talking about shutting it down are forgetting about one little thing: The Constitution of the United States of America. In it, there is an amendment. In fact, it’s the very first amendment and it refers to something called Freedom of Speech.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You, my dear reader know what abridged means, but my other reader, bless his heart, isn't as edgamacated as you. In fact, he's just a little slow, so I type slowly to accommodate him. Unabridged (v 1.1)

a⋅bridge [uh-brij] –verb (used with object), a⋅bridged, a⋅bridg⋅ing.

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents:to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; to cut off.

So, you see, Congress shall not take away, deprive, cut off, or reduce the freedom of speech. Whatever is in the works to shut down CRT just can’t happen by legislative measure. I'm sure that Liberals would love to shut down CRT, but unless the Constitution is ignored by Congress, CRT is on the air to stay. I have no doubt, that if Congress tries to shut down CRT, there will be a hue and cry as has not been heard in a long time. There are lots of lawyers on the side of CRT and someone will be more than willing to take it to the Supreme Court. And the Court will rule in favor of CRT. There is no ambiguity about Amendment 1.

The only thing they can do is to legislate their way around it. That could work, but I'm not so sure. CRT would be yelling, and any such measures could also hurt their cohorts in the Main Stream Media. Remember those four little words:
or of the press.

Harry, Nancy, Chuckie, and their co-conspirators may try, but that dog won't hunt.
My Computer Was In A Snit

I couldn’t post for the last couple of nights. My computer apparently had a fight with the modem and they weren't speaking. At least, the computer wasn't speaking to the modem.
Whatever the fight was about, it apparently started Sunday evening. I was noodling around on the ‘Net and suddenly wasn’t able to access any sites. As it was fairly late in the evening, and I had to get up early for work on Monday, I just shut down and went to bed. I’ve found that shutting down sometimes fixes whatever the problem is. I don’t know…maybe something gets reset or something.

Shutting down didn't work this time. When I tried again Monday evening, it still wasn’t working. So, I called Bright House. In the past, they’ve been able to resolve the problem over the phone, either by doing a reset or having me do something. I guess his computer couldn’t figure out what the problem was, so I wasn’t told to do anything and we scheduled an appointment for a tech to come and check it out.

The tech couldn’t get here until today, so I played some games and did some things that I could do without the Internet. I actually got some work done around the house that I had been wanting to do and just hadn’t because I could always find something more interesting or more fun than whatever wasn’t on the computer. I guess I’m addicted. Do I need an intervention? A 12-step program maybe?

My name is Kitten and I’m a computer and Internet addict.

The tech was scheduled to come between noon and 2 pm. He got here about 1:45. Bright House promised between noon and 2 and he kept the promise. He waved his wand and got out his crystal ball and gazed into it. He waved his wand again and it was fixed. Okay, there was no wand and no crystal ball but he did fix it. I am of the opinion that computer techies are part wizard and should be revered as demi-gods. It’s like magic to me when they can get these things to do the things they do. It turned out to be a bad Ethernet plug on the router. He just switched to another plug and everything is hunky-dory again.

I hardly had time to go through withdrawal. I didn’t even get the shakes. Maybe I’m not quite as addicted as I feared? I’m beginning to wonder if I have a problem of some sort with machinery. My van is on the fritz. The computer was in a snit. And my dishwasher is making a funny noise.

Do you think Obama can fix all this? People seem to think he can work miracles. I haven’t seen him walk on water, but I usually turn the TV off when he comes on. I guess I won’t be watching much news for at least the next four (possibly eight) years. Not that I’ve watched much network news for about the last…gosh…ten years or more.

It’s amazing to think that someone who spent more time campaigning for the Presidency than he spent on Capitol Hill as a Senator could win the Oval Office. However, it did happen. I’m not happy about it, but I’m not going to start packing my bags and moving. I’m not going to pout and say he’s not my President. The last I knew, I was an American, and he is the President Elect of the United States. I didn’t vote for him, and I may not like him, but that doesn’t mean I won’t give him the respect the office deserves. I just hope that he proves to be worthy of the title of President of the United States of America.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t expect him to be. I just don’t know at this time that he is. How can we know that anyone who is running for POTUS is really worthy of the office? We did elect Jimmy Carter, after all.

I had a feeling that the election would turn out as it did. The Republicans nominated a candidate whose campaign wasn’t what it could have been. McCain himself didn’t really come unto himself until the end of the campaign and then it was just too late. I still believe that Sarah Palin was an inspired choice. I like McCain, but think that there had to have been someone in the Republican Party who could have been better against Obama. Who? I don’t know, I certainly don't know every Republican.

I believe that everything happens for a reason. We may never know or understand why something happens, but there is a reason for it. I have to believe that Obama was elected because there is something he, and only he, must do. It may be something very innocuous that is never recognized as being “the thing”. I have to believe that it’s meant that he be in a certain place to fulfill this “destiny” if you will, and that he could only do this as President, whatever it may be.

In any case, while I have reservations about Obama as President, without a doubt, he is. I will not be a hypocrite and jump on the Obama bandwagon. I will continue to watch him with a wary eye and I will opine on what I feel is necessary and appropriate. I will continue my policy of not posting anything that I know to be false. I will give him credit as it is due and will criticize when I feel it's necessary. I really do try to be fair and balanced. I may not always succeed, but I am human after all.

So, all that being said, Let the games begin!
Stephanie Mohr

With 25 letters of commendation, two awards, and nine years of service to the Prince George's County Police Department in Maryland, Stephanie Mohr does not sound like an officer who should be spending years in jail away from her young son, Adam. Unfortunately, this is already Mohr's fifth year of a prison sentence that she does not deserve. With your help though, we can get this innocent officer out of jail and reunited with her son.

This is the last chance that we have to help Stephanie get an appeal.

In September of 1995, Mohr was on patrol with her police dog Valk. She was patrolling Takoma Park, an area that had been known to have many recent burglaries. When Mohr and her partner, Sergeant Anthony Delozier, got a call for backup from an officer who had spotted two men on the roof of a nearby store, they knew they may have found the criminals.

Ricardo Mendez and Herrera Cruz were the two suspects who were ordered to get down and face the wall. Mendez then made a move that looked as if he were about to flee the scene.

As Mohr had been trained to do in this type of situation, she released her canine. Valk, the police dog, was trained to perform the police department's standard "bite and hold" and that is exactly what he did. The dog bit Mendez on the leg and held him there until the officers could apprehend him.

Mendez and Herrera were convicted of 4th degree burglary and were then deported. The two illegally re-entered the U.S. again and were arrested for selling crack cocaine. They were then deported a second time.

Stephanie was relieved that she had gotten these two criminals off of our streets and back to their country.

She soon gave birth to her son Adam and was a proud mother.

Unfortunately, her joy did not last very long. Five years after this incident and one day before the statue of limitations was set to expire, Mohr was indicted by the U.S Department of Justice.

Looking for cases of "police brutality" the U.S Department of Justice indicted Stephanie and two fellow officers charging them with conspiracy charges and violating Ricardo Mendez's civil rights.

At the trial, Officer Mohr was found not guilty of conspiracy. A hung jury, voting 11 to 1 in favor of Mohr failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the civil right charges.

The prosecutor sought a retrial that was held in 2001. The trial was scheduled even though the jurors from the first trial said that the case lacked merit. At this trial the prosecution convinced the jury that Mohr had released her canine on innocent minority citizens.

In this second trial, the judge allowed prejudicial testimony into evidence that Mohr had used racial epithets in making a prior arrest using her canine. The charges did not start out as racial but the prosecutors needed to do something desperate to save their case. This questionable evidence should not have been allowed into the courtroom.

The jury was stacked with minorities who would be sympathetic with illegal immigrants. The government even flew Mendez back into the U.S. at taxpayer expense. They did this in order to have Mendez testify against Mohr despite the fact that he was a convicted felon.

Because of the racial tactics the prosecution had to use to save their failing case, Stephanie was convicted of a federal criminal rights violation and given a maximum 10-year prison sentence. 

Stephanie is now serving her fifth year of the ten year prison sentence.

This is the fifth year that she has had to spend away from her son Adam. She has missed so many important days in her son's life like birthdays and holidays because of this prison sentence she does not deserve. 

Stephanie has not lost hope though. She has faith in the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. We are doing everything we can to help Mohr. 

We have appealed the trial Courts decision denying Stephanie a new trial to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

Last month we filed our "request for a Commutation of Sentence" to President George W. Bush.

With just four months left in his administration, President Bush is now reviewing Pardon requests. You and I both know that no one in the country deserves her freedom more than Stephanie Mohr.

Stephanie's eight year old son has now spent the last 5 years of his life without his mother by his side.

Five years of her life have been wasted in prison because she followed police procedure when she ordered her police dog Valk to stop a suspect from fleeing the scene. Five years that can NEVER EVER be given back.

The suspect - an illegal alien from San Salvador - was convicted of selling drugs and deported. ---- But outrageously the prosecutor brought him back, at public expense, to testify against Stephanie. 

And Stephanie was convicted of "violating" his civil rights.

Just as unfair as the charges, the Judge, blindly following the recommendation of the Civil Rights Division, imposed a draconian ten-year sentence that both Stephanie and her son Adam are both serving. What can be more outrageous!!!

Now with President Bush only four months away from the end of his term, this may be our last chance to free Stephanie.

If you agree that its time to send this innocent mother home to her son, won't you please help fund our crucial "Request for Commutation of Sentence" to the U.S. Department of Justice by sending your most generous tax deductible contribution to The Law Enforcement Defense Fund by clicking here today.

We strongly believe that Mohr has been wrongly accused and innocent of this crime. Stephanie did not cross any boundaries while trying to apprehend Mendez. Mohr followed all the police procedures as she was trained to do.

In order to protect the public, which was her main concern, she had to release her canine to ensure that Mendez could not escape and pose a further threat to the community.

We here at LELDF (see who we are) hope that you as an American citizen can realize that this sentence is unjust. Mendez is an illegal alien who is receiving more benefits than Mohr, who is a police officer who has been protecting the public for over nine years.

We are asking you to show your support by giving a gift of $25, $50, or any amount that you can afford. This gift of any amount is tax-deductible.

LELDF is assisting Stephanie with all the legal costs for an appeal. This is our last chance for us to help Mohr receive one.

Stephanie's appeal asks the federal judge to review her conviction based on evidence in court documents that a witness against her lied, saying she used a racial slur and that this lie influenced the jury to convict her.

LELDF is trying to help Stephanie Mohr in any way we can. But, we cannot do it alone. We need your support to help Stephanie obtain her rightfully deserved freedom.

Your contribution of any amount will greatly impact our efforts in supporting Stephanie.

By the time Stephanie gets out of prison, her son Adam will almost be a teenager. Mohr has lost some of the most crucial moments in Adams life. This is every mother's worst nightmare. We need to help her get out of prison as soon as possible so she can be reunited with her son.


The email is looking for contributions. If you want to contribute, click on the link above.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Update on Joe the Plumber

In case you missed
Laura Ingraham's eblast below, Joe the Plumber's dream of owning his own business has been crushed. The business has been shut down.

Thank you, Team Obama and the Liberal Media. You did what you set out to do. Mission accomplished.

Voters, is this the change you're looking for?

Read it for yourself. I'm too disgusted to comment right further nowWhen I can post without using invectives, then I'll write.

Update: I'm still disgusted about this. but I think I have my thoughts in better order.

So the business Joe wanted to buy has closed. I don't know how many people were employed, but they are now out of work. The people who were served by the business have one less company to choose from. Did anyone gain from this?

Joe didn't gain. He's out of a job. He may have to wait until the election fervor dies down before he can get another. He might have gotten another job the same day. I don't know. I hope so. I'd hate to think that a good American is without a job over a stupid thing like this. The business owner certainly didn't gain. He apparently was wanting to get out of the business anyway. He may have just done it earlier than expected. The Liberal/Democrat/Left (LDL)didn't win. They now have the reputation of having closed the business and costing the employees their livelihood.  All the dirt diggers gained was the satisfaction that they found the information they were looking for. 

If anyone gained, it would be the Republican/Conservative/Right. They now have the opportunity to point fingers and ask questions about who did this to Joe? This could be nicely spun to show how evil the LDL is and how low they will stoop to remove a perceived problem. 

You know, I don't know that Team Obama planned the crushing of Joe's dream. I can't and won't believe that anyone is that cruel, mean and hatefilled. I'm sure they just wanted to make him and his story go away. I know, I'm a Pollyanna, I have a tendency to think and believe the best of everyone. I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want to live in a world where I am seeing only the worst in life. That's for the Liberal Democrats and I'm proud to say, I'm not one of them. the negativity of the Democratic Party was one of the reasons I left the Party years ago.

But you know, the Internet is a wonderful thing. Once something gets on the Internet, it doesn't go away. It holds the delicious possibility of popping up at any time. You never know when something said or done or written, in all innocence, at any time in history, will come back to bite you in the butt.

But some things need to go on. Joe has become Mr. Average American. The Liberals couldn't stand that he became the representation of the American Right. He had become something they couldn't control and couldn't spin into something they could use. And, he was the representation that Obama, if not a Socialist himself, has at the very least, socialistic tendencies. Every time Joe's name was mentioned, the words "spread the wealth", in Obama's own voice, rang loud and clear. I'll bet it was  Maalox moment for a lot of Obama's team when they heard Obama saying that. I'll bet Obama himselfwould give a lot for a time machine. So Joe had to be taken down for the good of the Party.

The idea of Joe and his dream shouldn't be forgotten. Nor should who is responsible. I don't blame Obama himself. This is the work of many. Particularly the ones who did the grunt work. The ones who ferreted out the facts of Joe's life. Facts that really don't mean anything. So he doesn't have a plumber's license. He probably didn't need one if he was working under the supervision of a licensed plumber. And he is studying to get that license. So he had a tax lien. I'd wager he's not the only one in the public eye who does. Apparently that's the worst the dirt diggers could find. Big frickin' deal. Joe turned out to be pretty much what he represented. 

But because he became a public figure, because he asked a question of Obama, and mostly because Obama screwed up and revealed his true intentions, Joe had to be destroyed. Not Joe himself, just the idea of Joe.  As long as the name "Joe" or "Joe the Plumber" was in the news, it reminded people that Obama has socialistic tendencies.

Oh, that word, socialistic has even come into play. Apparently it has roots in slavery, according to an article I read. It also has roots in the ideals of Marx and Engles. I did a Wikipedia search on Socialism. While I admit I didn't read every word of the entry I did do a word search for "slavery" which doesn't appear in the article. The word "slave" however does. One time, referring to a "slave owner's war" appeared in the 21st footnote. Someone, probably a Liberal, really had to dig deep to find that connection. So let's not even go to the "socialism equals slavery" issue. I think a lesson on socialism is in order, but I won't go into that now. That's another post in itself. 

I don't believe Joe's dream is finished. He may not be able to complete the dream of buying this particular business now, but who knows what the future holds? I have faith in Joe, and I have faith in the Joe's and Jane's of America to fulfill whatever their American Dream happens to be. 
Yesterday on my way to lunch at Doe's, I passed one of the homeless guys in that area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

Once in the Doe's my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.


Joke or not, truth or not, this is a great way to teach what "spreading the wealth" really means.

Monday, November 03, 2008

We will never have real safety and security for wage earners
unless we provide for safety and security for the
wage payers and wage savers.
The Seven National Crimes

The following insightful jewels are what Boetcker called the "Seven National Crimes":

I don’t think.
I don’t know.
I don’t care.
I am too busy.
I leave well enough alone.
I have no time to read and find out.
I am not interested.

Sunday, November 02, 2008


There was an old coal miner who loved to paint. Sadly, he could not afford canvases. But he found a solution. He would paint on the walls of his house. They soon became covered with his paintings. 

One day, a group of wayward youths broke in and defaced the paintings.

The youths were soon apprehended and arrested for corrupting the murals of a miner.

Kim Komando
Dear Florida Voters,

I want to take a few minutes of your time this evening to share why I believe my colleague in the United States Senate, John McCain, will bring the right kind of change as our next President.

This historic election could define our nation for the next generation and beyond. We can all agree that change is what the country needs and that change will come regardless of whom we select November 4th. The question remains: Will we choose the correct type of change at this moment of crisis?

There are fundamental choices we must make: Will we put country first ahead of partisanship? Will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children's and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?

We have the power to offer a resounding "yes!" to those questions if we vote for John McCain. The leadership of our nation cannot be left to the untried and untested, nor can our nation risk our future on a candidate who avoids the tough choices required of the office.

"A president can't vote 'present.' A president can't pick and choose which challenges he or she will face." I agree with those words. I find them especially poignant because they came from Sen. Hillary Clinton. From his stint in the Illinois Senate to his even shorter time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has made it a habit to avoid the politically risky move. Whether it was funding our military fighting for freedom, or avoiding the call for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there have been two guiding principles of Sen. Obama's career: political expediency and blind ambition.

At this moment in our history, we must choose someone who can lead in a bipartisan manner. John McCain's career in the Senate is a testament to this type of leadership. He was willing to put good policy ahead of his presidential campaign by joining with liberal icon Sen. Ted Kennedy on immigration reform. He partnered with Sen. Joe Lieberman to bring the first real climate change bill to a vote in the Senate and he teamed with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis, to usher in campaign finance reform. Ironically, Obama rejected the McCain-Feingold law this election, making him the first person to use unlimited money - a large portion unreported to this day - since the days of Watergate.

John McCain has dedicated his life to serving our country, and he has always put its interests first. That's the kind of man that we deserve and need in the White House, and that's why I urge you to vote for John McCain.

Thank you,

Senator Mel Martinez

What Will the Future Bring?

This time tomorrow evening, it will be about over for the campaigning. I, for one, will be glad that I won't have to hear anyone promising to lower taxes, promote job creation; (s)he's lying, no (s)he's lying, (s)he misspoke, he's too old, (s)he's unqualified; put a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot. Okay, that last is from another, long-ago campaign, but you get what I mean. The promises and the negativity will be over. At least for this campaign.

We're promised everything but the moon, but can either candidate deliver? One will have a better shot that the other. One will be moving into the White House; the other returning to his seat on Capitol Hill.

If you listen to one report, Obama will win in a landslide (didn't we hear that about Kerry four years ago?). Some reports say McCain will squeak by. I have no idea who will win, I suspect it will be Obama, but McCain could pull it out. No matter what the outcome, let's leave the negativity on the curb for the garbage men to collect. 

I can't say what the future holds, my crystal ball is in the shop. It may not change much on the face of things, or it might change significantly. I just don't know. I do know that life will go on. 

I hope that the supporters of the one who returns to Capitol Hill will be supportive of the President. He may not be your choice, but he is the President elect. I think one thing we can agree on is that a lot is at stake and that we must pull together as a nation. 

We have a bad economic situation going on right now. It's affecting some of us more than others, and most of us will feel the pinch sooner or later. We've been through worse. I hope it doesn't get as bad as it could. 

We're in a war that has at least three fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan, and here at home. Thanks to the surge, we're seeing the war in Iraq beginning to wind down. Schools and hospitals have been built. Electricity is in more homes and businesses than before the war started. Will bin Laden be captured? I don't know, that front apparently will come to the front burner as Iraq goes to the back. 

I'm more concerned with the war at home. It's not just because of the Mideast fronts. We're fighting a war here that is economically based. Gas prices skyrocketed, but have come down. Wall street melted, but shows signs of eventually coming back and settling down. Wall Street is what it is. It will eventually come back; it'll just take awhile. 

Same for the housing market. My house isn't worth what it was a year ago, but it's worth more than when I bought it. I didn't buy because it would go up in value, although I hoped it would. I bought to have a roof I could afford over my head.

Taxes are high, and no matter what either candidate says, have a possibility of going higher. I'll wait to see what happens on that front. I don't trust politicians to really do what they promise during an election campaign. When they get into office and find out just what really goes on in the Oval Office, things could be quite different from what they thought they could do.

The question both candidates want us to ask is: am I better off now, than four years ago. When I look my life, I have to say in the ways they are talking about, yes I am. My job is secure, I'm making more money than four years ago, my house is worth more than it was four years ago. It's true many of my expenses are higher (such as gas and food), but my pay is higher. I have more money in the bank than I did four years ago. I have some investments that I didn't have four years ago, but there's no way I could live off them. My pension is secure, and I have a retirement fund that is worth more than it was four years ago, but less than just six months ago.

Where I am worse off is that my money on paper is down, expenses are up, I need to buy a new (to me) car, and something the government had nothing to do with is that my husband died. Luckily, I was raised to be my own person, not an extension of a husband. Although I miss my husband, I will go on. 

I may be better off than a lot of people, but I'm not as well off as others. I'm middle class; the demographic that the candidates talk about, but actually pander to another. 

The bottom line is what I said before. We have to pull together as a nation. As Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." 

We have to stand together or we will certainly fall together as a nation.
Obama and Flag

Now, before anyone starts yelling that I'm perpetuating a hoax, please read on.

I believe that the above picture is photoshopped. My reasoning comes from looking specifically at the women in the photo. Their images are noticeably smaller than the images of the men. They aren't standing so far away that the size difference can be explained by a spacial difference. Three are looking in pretty much the same direction, one is looking in another direction. So, having decided it was photoshopped, I pretty much ignored this photo when it first came out. If it is photoshopped, it's a pretty lousy job, in my opinion; it didn't fool me. If it's real, well, then I guess I'm a pretty lousy judge of photos. 

I'm only using the photo now as an example of the gist of my post. Obama is supposedly not saluting the American flag by putting his hand over his heart. I've heard this is not the only time he's failed to salute the flag. That could be true, it could be false; I haven't researched it (at this point, it doesn't make much difference whether it's true or not). This photo, being as I believe, photoshopped, could be from an entirely different event. I don't care if it was photoshopped or not, or even the reasons (obviously done to make Obama look bad). It could be from the event it's said to be from. I don't question Obama's patriotism. I believe that his plans, if elected president, will be made and carried out with the best interests of the nation at heart. For me, that's patriotism - doing what's best for the country and it's citizens. 

Now, that being said, I come to the point of my post. Obama has been critized for not putting his hand over his heart when it would be appropriate to do so. I just heard his explanation: He didn't know he was on camera. Does he only salute the flag when the camera is rolling?

Now, it's possible that the others were saluting the flag prematurely and Obama just hadn't raised his hand yet. Doesn't sound too plausible simply because the others were saluting the flag already, but it's possible.

And let's not forget what I call the 800 pound gorilla in the corner: perception. Even if the photo is fake, it leaves the perception that Obama does not exhibit patriotism. If a man will not put his hand over his heart to support the flag, does he support what the viewer's concept of being an American is? Perception is everything. Since I do not personally know Obama, I have to judge (yes, judge) him by what he says and does. I have no other way to decide what the man stands for. I can listen to what his supporters say, but that's colored by their opinion.

And before you ask, yes, there are things that I do in the privacy of my own home that I don't do in public; I'm sure that you have a list of similar things you don't do in public either. And, while we're at it, if a ballgame comes on TV, I don't always stand and salute the flag when it appears and the National Anthem plays. It's not expected of anyone and not part of Flag etiquette to do so. While this post is about flag etiquette, that's not the point. For the purposes of this post, I don't really care whether he salutes the flag at all or not. That's an entirely different post. My problem is with the explanation given. 

For me, personal integrity is all important; you must be true to who you are and what you believe. When you aren't, you violate your own code of honor and it diminishes you in your own eyes.You are being hypocritical when you do something that you believe no one knows about, but would do something different if your actions were to be known by others. At the very least, you are lying to yourself about your values.

Some things are ingrained in all of us. We know, when we see the flag in certain circumstances, that we rise to our feet, face and salute the flag (hands over heart, hats removed, standing at attention and right hand to forehead salute). Sometimes we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and sing the National Anthem. We then sit and continue with the event.

Assuming that this was a situation where he did not salute the flag, we must ask, is not saluting the flag part of his personal character? If so, then why? Is this something he only does when he knows the camera is on or he's in the public eye? If he does something only because he's in public and/or in the presence of media, and not something he would do when the media is not around, then I have to question whether this is someone I want in the White House. I would prefer to know that he never salutes the flag, than to know that he only does when the camera is on.

This is not really about whether he salutes the flag or not. It's about his personal core of values, his ethics, his integrity. Is he really what he says he is, or appears to be? Or is he someone else when the cameras are not rolling. 

If you will lie to yourself, will you lie to me, the taxpayer, the American citizen? And what will you lie about?
Mr. Obama's Wealth Redistribution Agenda

Democrats Target Your 401k Retirement Plan with Taxes

The public outcry of real Americans like you and Joe the Plumber is finally getting some light shed on Mr. Obama's wealth redistribution agenda supported by Socialist Democrats in Congress. The corrupt media can't hide it any longer. The plan is to bring an end to the America we know and love; to bring an end to freedom and liberty.

They want total control of what you see, hear, think, and do. They will stop at nothing. NOW, they are aiming at your 401k retirement plan and they are going for the kill.

Yes that's right, Liberals in government want to seize these assets for their own. Just look at what James Pethokoukis, the money and politics blogger for U.S. News & World Report has said,

In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

Straight from the (removed by editor) mouth, the Democratic plan is to SIEZE your 401k and take $80 billion that is currently the property of American citizens. Effectively, this plan will end all of the incentives that the majority of Americans not only enjoy but rely on. I am sure you or someone you know takes advantage of their employer matching their 401k contribution. Under the iron fist of the Democratic empire your employer would no longer receive a tax benefit for matching your contribution, so they won't do it. And you will lose half of your retirement contributions. And don't forget, that you will lose your tax breaks from the 401k plan also, so you'd be paying the government to let you retire. Sounds like fun?

Don't let the tyrannical rule of socialists take hold, put a stop to the unholy trinity of the Democrat controlled Senate and House and potential president Obama. Do not let Barrack Obama bring an end to this great country!

Mr. Obama has always been against an individuals' right to control and spend their own savings. He has a narrow, selfish and myopic view of the world we live in and the idea that he can tax whatever he wants to whenever he wants to.

The Fundamental Truth Is that People Know How to Take Care of their own Money.

John McCain gets it and understands that more taxes just hurt everyone and the government wastes your hard earned dollars.

Stop NOW, Oprah, and the Liberal media from deciding who will be our next president.

You can say we the American people will pick our president.


disclosure: The above is from an email I received. Of course, it's asking for a donation to continue it's efforts. I removed those pleas, but felt the remainder was important enough to post. I did remove a word that, while appropriate could also be somewhat imflamatory (a synonym for a male donkey). lt's my blog, I'll edit as I see fit . 

If there is anything you disagree with, please remember the words are not mine, even though I agree with the sentiment. 
Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger - He's A Charlatan

I nearly dropped my teeth when I heard what Eagleburger had to say. Wow...he did not pull any punches. 

From A Huckabee Special: Your Vote, Your Money, Your Future
Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated"
Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm 

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.

Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.

But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.

"To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter.

In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.

Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.

In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said.

SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)



Is this what we want to give to the terrorists? To the peoples of the world who hate us? There must be a reason they want Obama in the White House and Democrats in Congress. 

Question 1. Why? 

I can only imagine that they think that with this scenario they think we will be pushovers. 

They think they will be able to run roughshod over the Middle East and achieve their goal of destroying the nation of Israel. They don't want Israel to be diminished; they have stated their goal of wiping that country off the face of the Earth. Under a Democratic government, will America allow this to happen? I am not pro-Israel in the sense that it's Israel or nothing. I think that Israel has as much right to exist as any other country does. Back before Israel was established, Palestine had the opportunity to take part of the land that is now Israel for its own. It refused, thinking the land was worthless, and wanting it all just to keep it from becoming a Jewish homeland. I believe this land was offered to Palestine on several occasions, and time, Palestine refused. They finally lost the chance to have any of it and Israel got a piece of land that was not really worth anything and turned it into what it is today. 

Question 2: Why do they want Bush humiliated? 

Bush must have done something right if the terrorists and terroristic-inclined nations want him to be humiliated. Remember, we've not had another terrorist attack in the United States since 2001. I don't know that we can thank Bush for that, it might be that Homeland Security is doing it's job. But if we want to slam Bush for what we think are mistakes he's made, we also have to give him the credit for what has happened. In this case, our country has been safe for the last seven years. 

The American that we knew today will probably change tremendously over the next four years. For the better or worse? That will probably depend on your point of view. I'll have to wait and see. 

We have to remember that whomever is elected president has to have the support of Congress in order to pass bills. McCain, with a Democratic Congress, may not be able to do what he wants to do because it isn't in the "interest" of Congress. It looks like Obama may have the best possible scenario and have a Democratic Congress. I'm always concerned when the White House and Congress are control by the same parties. It could lead to legislation that is not in the best interest of the country, but the best interest of specific demographics. 

I'm square in the middle of the middle class. Can I depend on a Democratic White House and Congress to look out for my best interests? They don't know me and the people I represent. What I have been seeing over my lifetime is that the Democrats favor the demographics that will keep them in office and that's not necessarily my demographic. 

Doesn't Congress work for us, the citizens? They are to represent us, the citizens. They have been interviewing for their jobs for months. And frankly, I really haven't seen many of the interviewees who are worth the energy it takes to make a check mark on a ballot form.

Seems to me that there has been an awful lot of what is in the best interest of the Party over the best interests of the country - and that includes both parties. There's certainly enough blame to go around.

Personally, I don't want to give the terrorists reason to celebrate. I want them worried about what America will do under a new administration. I don't want them to put the president to a test, I want them worried about what the President will do when and if they take an action that is "unfriendly", to say the least, to our allies or to us. I want them to know that the President has a backbone and isn't afraid to show it. 

We've already heard what they've had to say about us and their intent toward us and our allies and through Internet videos. I can understand and, actually am in favor of, talking with leaders of other countries and groups. But, there comes a time when talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. We need an administration who knows when to talk and when to act, and most importantly, what action is appropriate under the circumstances. A fly swatter isn't much good against incoming missiles, but I don't want a president who will use a nuclear bomb when a slap on the wrist is sufficient to catch their attention. 

Those nations and terroristic groups must understand that America will stand behind their allies and what is in our best interest, alone if necessary. They must also understand that we're not afraid to go in and kick butt and take names later.
Tito the Builder Slams Obama and Media

What a different world this would be if people would listen to those who know more and not merely try to get something from those who have more.

That you may retain your self-respect, it is better to
displease the people by doing what you know is right,
than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong.