Jeffrey A. Miron Has It Right

A Harvard economist speaks out against the Bailout, and Jeffrey A. Miron has it right. If things are so catastrophic, why is all of Congress taking two days off? (Yes, I realize today is Rosh Hashanah, but not all members of Congress are Jewish.)

Remember Nancy Pelosi's claims that Bush rushed us into war in Iraq? Well, Nancy's memory cells are slipping. It took Bush untold number of trips to the UN Security Council, and almost one year before Congress committed to the war in Iraq. There was no rush to war, and the stupid pundits who claim it was are intellectually disingenuous. Incidentally, the esteemed Dem VP candidate Joe Biden, along with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all stated that Iraq DID HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

If this was such an economic crisis, why did Nancy Pelosi tell 16 Democrats that since they were at risk of losing their seat in the upcoming election, they should vote NO?

If this was such an economic crisis, why did Nancy Pelosi deliver a vitriolic partisan speech laying down the gauntlet a minute before the vote?

Here's the dirty little secret: Democrats want a picture of an economic crisis so Democrat Barack Hussein Obama will be elected President. That's it...that's the bottom line, and the in-the-tank main stream media has decided that nothing will stop their getting Barack Hussein Obama elected.

Jeffrey A. Miron in an article on cnn.com lays out a pragmatic way to resolve this economic problem: bankruptcy. Yes, maybe in the last year good mortgages were being written, but it was the previous 8 years of greed and corruption in the financial institutions that has caused the problem.

Read Miron's article and draw your own conclusions:
".. the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government.

This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer."

Jeffrey A. Miron hits it square on the head. Unfortunately, too many Americans have drunk the Kool-Aid and can no longer think and reason without the main stream media telling them how.

Failed Bailout

Speaker Pelosi took to the floor of the House of Representatives during the bailout vote and delivered a scathing partisan speech. Someone needs to remind Speaker Pelosi that there must have been some Democrats in the House who also voted against this move to socialize and nationalize the financial system of the United States. After all, the Democrats are the majority party in the House, and that's the reason she's the Speaker.

Did it ever occur to Speaker Pelosi that House members might be questioning the urgency of the House voting today, Monday the 29th, when the Senate was scheduled ot take it up for a vote maybe Wednesday but more likely Thursday or Monday?

If it is so urgent and so imperative, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid in the Senate control the Congress, why not have the Democrats enact this piece of socialism?

Do-Nothing Congress: Time to Send Them Packing

The engines of American economic growth have always been the American worker and the free enterprise system. From Jamestown and Plymouth, that can-do spirit of self-reliance, initiative, innovation, and entrepreneurship made America exceptional.

Throughout our history, the spirit of civic participation and working together to solve our problems made America unique and exceptional. Americans can solve this current economic setback because we want to work, we want to fulfill the American dream of owning our own homes, providing our children with the best educational opportunities, and achieving financial security. What we need is for government to get out of our way.

Americans no longer want a Do-Nothing Congress that has refused to seek energy independence. Instead, we have a Do-Nothing Congress that has chosen to keep us dependent on foreign oil controlled by nations that want to see the United States fail. Instead of keeping the $750+ billion dollars to help American families, the Do-Nothing Congress chooses to give this money to the oil cartel.

Americans no longer want a Do-Nothing Congress that has refused to reform and enforce regulations on government agencies that have become a cesspool of greed and corruption.

Americans no longer want a Do-Nothing Congress that continues to put more restrictions and restraints in the way of American workers and families achieving the American Dream.

The current Do-Nothing Congress has chosen to govern by the policies of Refusal, Restriction, and Restraint. The only way to take back the self-reliant, initiative, and enterprising spirit is to send the Do-Nothing Congress packing. Besides, they demonstrated this summer that five week vacations are preferable than declaring energy independence.

It is time for Americans to declare independence from a Do-Nothing Congress. Vote the bums out!

What Kind of Presidential Candidate Inspires Hate?

Words from Barack Obama’s mouth: "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican.

I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

Would Abraham Lincoln said those words? Would John F. Kennedy have said those words? What kind of President will Obama be if he wants to inspire hatred?

Well, he is taking a page from the playbook of his mentor, which he admits in his memoirs, is the Socialist radical Saul Alinsky. In fact, Saul Alinsky's son stated the other day that his father would have been proud of Obama. For those uninformed, Saul Alinsky dedicated his book on radical politics of change to the world's first true hero, Lucifer.

Obama's direct quote comes form the website Obama Quote Using Hate As A Tactic

Biden: Wealthy Americans Must Pay More Taxes to Show Patriotism

by Associated Press
Thursday, September 18, 2008

"Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Under the Democrats’ economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Who's In Touch With Reality?

While hundreds of millions of Americans struggle to pay high gasoline and rising food prices....

While millions of Americans worry about their life's savings....

While millions of Americans struggle to keep their houses....

While millions of Americans face the prospect of losing jobs....

While millions of Americans along our nation's Gulf Coast have struggled to overcome the devastation of hurricanes Gustav and most recently Ike....

While millions of Americans in the Midwest already devastated with slow economies, spring floods and now the remnants of Ike....

While most Americans worry about the financial and economic crisis due to poor and greedy decisions on Wall Street....

Barack Obama parties in Hollywood.

Despite calling this the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Barack Obama can party and celebrate with the Hollywood establishment celebrity elites at $28,500 a plate event topped with a $2,500 concert in his honor and all the money to benefit him, is he really worried about the average Americans who are struggling day in and day out as they continue to work hard and long hours to provide for their families?

Is Obama really in touch with reality?

Fannie, Freddie, Hud and the Housing Crisis

Decisions made by Secretary of HUD, Andrew Cuomo, from 1997-2001 laid the foundation for the current housing crisis. HUD is the government agency with the authority to set housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprises). In 2000 HUD Secretary Cuomo established quantum leap numbers for low-to-moderate income loans for affordable housing mortgages to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie.

Mortgages are commodities sold in the financial market from mortgage brokers to banks to investment firms. Thus, mortgages can be sold again and again. At the bottom of this mortgage commodity pyramid is the borrower. Meanwhile, the houses can be repackaged and re-sold to a new homeowner as often as necessary.

From 1997-2000, HUD strategies generated a feeding frenzy in the subprime market. By 2006, Fannie and Freddie had purchased over $434 billion in subprime loans. During this period, Fannie and Freddie hired 88 lobbying firms, based on Cuomo’s suggestion, to represent their interests before Congress and in the financial markets. The unrestrained and unchecked investments by Fannie and Freddie are indicative of the greed and corruption that was pervasive in the housing market. The Secretary of HUD from 1997-2001 decided that reporting requirements on Fannie and Freddie were to be suspended and risky loans were to be pursued. Pointing the finger solely at Fannie, Freddie, HUD, and Congress is not completely fair, but individuals who took out these give-a-way loans must be held accountable because they overlooked the basic economic premise that nothing in life is free. Everything has a cost, and unfortunately the cost of this housing crisis falls on the taxpayer. Consequences of personal greed, a reckless housing policy of investing in unsecured risky mortgages, and the failure of Congressional oversight committees to carry out their legislative responsibilities will be felt for a long time.

Fannie and Freddie purchased unsecured mortgages for the specific purpose of providing affordable housing to low-income families to expand housing for minorities. Unfortunately, these loans were extremely risky investments because they required zero percent down payment, no credit background checks, and included YSPs (yield spread premiums=fees to mortgage brokers from lenders for the brokers services, which were included in the borrower’s monthly premiums). Also, the bulk of these risky subprime mortgages were set at flexible rates.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report in 2005 says that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. Franklin Raines, a former Clinton Cabinet member ended up with a $90 million salary, and currently serves as a Senior economic advisor to Barack H. Obama. Freddie Mac’s former chief, Jim Johnson, received a $1.7 million low cost loan from CountryWide. Johnson also serves as a Senior economic advisor to Barack. H. Obama.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
Where was the Federal Reserve Board during this time? Well, the Fed was under the leadership of Alan Greenspan who must be held accountable for keeping interest rates far too low for far too long which pumped too much money into the market and making borrowing money extremely easy. Greenspan should also be held accountable for not seeing the threat of the subprime loan industry to the nation’s economy.

November 12, 1999 William J. Clinton signed a law repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. By lifting this New Deal legislation, Clinton and Congress opened the financial supermarket by allowing banks to own full-service brokerage firm and opened the way for investment banks to engage in underwriting corporate and municipal securities. Glass-Steagall had served as the guard keeping financial powers banks and brokerages separate. This all unraveled with Clinton signing the repeal into law. The repeal had been promoted by Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin, a long time Wall Street CEO. The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act has produced our current investment dilemma of the breakdown of the residential mortgage investment sector and created financialization -- a relatively new term used to discuss the emergence of a new form of capitalism in which financial markets dominate over the traditional industrial economy.

Where was the SEC during this time? The job of the SEC is to rate investments. However, the SEC was spending its time advising investment firms on how to structure their vehicles of investment as opposed to accurately rating investments.

We also have to examine the impact of the Sarbannes-Oxley Law imposed in 2003-2004 calling for transparent accounting practices. What Congress failed to envision when they wrote and passed SOX was how companies would relocate off-shore and in London to avoid the stringent accounting practices. Again, Congressional action resulted in corporations seeking ways to skirt federal law, and Congress either couldn’t or chose not to pursue the application of the law.

Congress had been warned for years that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, GSEs, were on shaky ground. Public documents have long been available for examination showing that Congressional lawmakers, however, had long been coddled by Fannie and Freddie, yet these same lawmakers refused to tighten oversight of Fannie and Freddie. If lawmakers had fulfilled their oversight responsibilities, a tough regulator might have alerted Congress to the inherent risks in the subprime market. Congress could have called for a halt to such a practice or at least required them to take the appropriate actions to increase a cash cushion to counter losses. Congress could also have insisted that HUD reinstitute detailed and transparent reports on risky investments. Lastly, if Congress had taken action, such a move would have sent a signal to Wall Street to take greater care and clean up their act. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to approve all actions and financial transactions of ALL government departments and agencies. Congress’ oversight powers are extensive, and Congress failed in its duties of overseeing HUD, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

Financial Bailouts

Not withstanding the devastation of Ike on Texas and Louisiana, the U.S. financial sytem is in a crisis. There are numerous institutions that share responsibility for this crisis, and it may come as a surprise to the liberal media and the Democrats, this one cannot be blamed on Bush and Cheney.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the largest mortgage holders in the US. They were created with the intention of making housing affordable for Americans who were struggling to participate in the great American dream. Unfortunately, starting with the Carter Administration, great federal efforts were expended to make housing more affordable with low loans and little downpayment. Well, the impact then was stagflation. Carter also initiated deregulation of businesses which opened the way for businesses to become creative in accounting practices and increased salaries and bonuses for greedy CEOs with their ever expanding hubris.

During the Clinton Administration, we now know that the Feds turned their heads when businesses escalated corruption, unethical business practices, and outright greed. Accounting practices mastered by Enron were models for Fannie Mae who was headed by Clinton cabinet member and crony, Franklin Raines. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were loading the pockets of their CEOs such as Franklin Raines whose salary and perks came to $20 million a year and Freddie Mac's Jim Johnson. The Board of Directors for Freddie and Fannie included former Clinton aides and staffers such as Harold Ickes, Jr., Louis Freeh, and the infamous Jamie Gorelick whose memo prevented US intelligence agencies from sharing information with each other that contributed to the intelligence collapse in 2001. Interestingly is the point that two economic advisors for the Obama campaign are none other than Franklin Raines (who left Freddie Mac because of legal problems) and Jim Johnson. Better yet, is the fact that the two Congressional oversight committees overseeing Freddie and Fannie, quasi-government agencies since their inception, are under the auspices of Sen. Chris Dodd (Democrat) and Congressman Barney Frank (Democrat). What is even more interesting is that Chris Dodd received a special low interest home mortgage from CountryWide like his Democratic friend Jim Johnson who received $1.7 million low interest rate loans from CountryWide. Did they get special deals in return for the Congressional committees overlooking some of the corrupt practices that were taking place?

Under the leadership of Alan Greenspan (Mr. Andrea Mitchell of NBC News), the Federal Reserve System kept lowering the interest rates, which in essence pumped more and more money into circulation while at the same time made it easier to borrow money at very low interest rates. Add to this situation, the US Congress passed laws permitting banks to reduce or eliminate financial restrictions on those taking out home mortgages. In essence, the Fed, Congress, and the banks were making it too easy for anybody to buy a home, even if they could not afford it. Factor in the fact that credit card companies were practically enticing people to max out credit cards with easy credit. Add all these dilemmas up and you have a recipe for catastrophe. Mortgages with zero down payments, minimum interest rates, no financial background checks, easy credit, and now we have an economic crisis.

One cannot overlook the incompetency of Andrew Cuomo who as Secretary of HUD did away with reports on how Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae were making investments. HUD is the only Executive Branch agency with the authority to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Cuomo, who had no banking nor real estate experience was in over his head as Secretary of HUD. Freddie and Fannie ran amok making some of the riskiest investments known to man by creating mortgages for people with zero credit ratings and not requiring any downpayments on the mortgages. It was during this period that Freddie and Fannie began intensive lobbying of Congress members such that in 2008 the three top recipients of this intensive lobbying were Sen. Chris Dodd (D), Sen. John Kerry (D), and Sen. Barack Obama (D), the latter to the tune of $105,849 in the four years of being in the Senate.

Yes, the federal government has bailed out Fannie and Freddie, which they may not have had a choice. The fed, however, has bailed out some banking institutions, but at some point this venture into socialism and nationalization must cease. What most Americans are failing to understand is the burden of these bailouts will fall on one group of people: The American Taxpayer.

This fact may come as a shock to many. 40% of Americans PAY NO TAXES. That's right! So when Obama promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, that is a gross exaggeration. If 40% don't pay taxes, they can't get a tax cut. What Obama doesn't want to say is that the 40% will get a government handout.

Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production with an intent to destroy the ownership of private property. Private property is not just real estate, but it includes anything you own. The fact that Obama is promoting the idea of giving the non-taxpayers a handout is nothing more than the redistribution of wealth from one group to another, and that is how he has specifically described it in his campaign speeches. The redistribution of wealth comes straight out of the playbook of none other than Karl Marx in his book, The Communist Manifesto.

Unless we wake up and take definitive action to stop this slippery slope, we will find our nation further entrenched in the clutches of Socialism.

Who Walks the Talk on Equal Pay?

Included in Obama’s stump speeches is a discussion on the gender issue of equal pay. Here’s what he has said recently on this topic: "Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work. I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons."

On his campaign website under the heading "Fighting for Pay Equity,is the following lament, "Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act..."

Surprisingly, however, this bodacious claim and outrage over unequal pay has failed to become a reality in Obama’s Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make. Granted, this figure exceeds the 77-cent threshold Obama touts as the price floor for women’s pay. However, 83-cents does not equal $1! Despite this gap, Obama attacks McCain and Palin over this issue.

Legistorm, a Congressional watchdog group, reports that Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397. Meanwhile, Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average. Is this a disparity?

How do McCain's employees stack up in comparison to Obama’s? The results show that McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878. On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Wait a minute! Can this be? John McCain’s female staffers average $55,878 while Obama’s average $45,152.

McCain’s female staffers average $1.04 to every $1 per male staffer while Obama’s female staffers average 83-cents to ever $1 per male staffer. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who gets Equal Pay, does it? McCain’s payment patterns are the “stuff of feminist dreams!”

All things being equal, “a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.”

Furthermore, for a candidate who is attempting to make Equal Pay such a predominant political issue in 2008, why is it that women are highly under-represented on his highest compensated staff? “Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.” Murdock reports that “women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women -- much more than men -- for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.”

When Governor Sarah Palin was announced as Senator McCain’s running mate, here’s what Obama had to say, “Palin "seems like a very engaging person," Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. "But I've got to say, she's opposed -- like John McCain is -- to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."

Senator Obama, what doesn’t make sense is why the candidate of the Democratic Party is not walking the talk on the issue of equal pay for women which you boast about on the campaign trail? Could it be you are a hypocrite?


(Facts and quotes in this blog are taken from an article written by Deroy Murdock
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdockonline12.html)

Obama Ad Impugns McCain Over Not Using A Computer

Apparently the self-righteousness of conducting a campaign of hope and decency has been thrown under the bus just like Obama's Grandmother in Hawaii whom he described as a 'typical white woman'.

The day after 9/11, the Obama Campaign decided to get tough on policy and issues in the election. Here's an example: Obama's newest ad ridicules McCain for his inability to use a computer.

Okay, Barack Hussein Obama, you have crossed the line again. Don't think so? No, it isn't ageism although some of us your senior may be inclined to think so, but it has to do with disability. Sorry I missed where the physical ability to use a computer was a prerequisite for the Presidency. Where in the Constitution might I find that qualification?

Yes,Barack Hussein Obama, if you and your campaign would actually do some research before you fire off at the mouth, you would have discovered that Senator McCain has a physical disability that was revealed in the 2000 elections.

From the Obama ad,"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Here's what's extraordinary, Barack Hussein Obama, you failed to be thorough before you made a judgment call. The reason Senator McCain doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. Quoting from the Boston Globe of March 4, 2000: "McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball"

New York's Governor can't drive a car. Barack Hussein Obama, is that an outrage? Transportation issues are, afterall, pretty important, especially in a state such as the Empire State."How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it's like to navigate New York's highways."

How ironic,one of the most pro-Obama journalists,Jacob Weisberg wrote in an article for Slate in 2000:"Six months ago, no one would have pegged McCain as the most cybersavvy of this year's crop of candidates. At 63, he is the oldest of the bunch and because of his war injuries, he is limited in his ability to wield a keyboard."

"Bill Clinton sent two emails during his entire presidency and often admitted he didn't know squat about the internet." That's right, and his veep was the one to invent the internet!

Yes,Steven Hawking can use a computer! If he didn't he couldn't do his job or communicate. For those of us with arthritis in both shoulders, we must limit our computer time to no more than 20 minutes at a time. For writers, that makes writing a very prolonged process, but that's our job so we find a way. McCain, like Clinton, didn't have that problem because they can govern without using a keyboard.

"The fact that Senator McCain does not blame his disability hardly sounds like a serious indictment. If he did blame his disability, many of the same folks (you and your campaign) would be yelling, bellyaching, and complaining about McCain's whining."

Instead, McCain has chosen not to be a victim. What is extraordinary is that you don't understand people who choose not to be victims. This is something you don't understamd because you have set limits on what people can say about you. You, Barack Hussein Obama, have chosen to be a victim and a whiner.

Americans want a President who can make sound judgments based on truth and facts, not someone who whines and complains about being a victim. Senator Barack Hussein Obama, you are a whiner and a complainer. Was that part of your job description as a Community Organizer? Oops, I suppose you will whine and complain about that criticism.

Foreign Policy

Our foreign policy is one that has always been based on the American values and principles of freedom, liberty, and the right to independence. We find these values in the Declaration of Independence.

Our foreign policy has never been one of “one policy fits all” meaning the specific way our values and principles are acted out in policy depends on the circumstances. For example, we have always used diplomacy to resolve conflicts. Whether that approach has been with direct diplomacy, regional nations working to resolve conflicts such as the Six Party Talks with North Korea, collective bodies such as NATO, UN, or the EU working to resolve issues with rogue nations that choose not to comply with the world’s viewpoint. We tried repeatedly to go to the UN over Iraq issues, but Iraq defiantly chose not to follow the resolutions of the UN. When diplomacy fails, the US must be prepared to stand for the values and principles that have been our guiding inspiration since 1776.

We completely understand the sovereign rights of a nation, but when a nation, rogue states or rogue terrorists endanger our national security, then the US will follow practices modeled by
• Thomas Jefferson who stood up against the Barbary States
• The Monroe Doctrine
• Theodore Roosevelt who reacted to Germany’s attempts to attack Venezuela
(Roosevelt Corollary)
• Harry Truman who sent troops to Korea, Greece (Truman Doctrine)
• Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops into Lebanon (Eisenhower Doctrine)
• John F. Kennedy who launched the attempted Bay of Pigs invasion and later his blockade of Cuba to stop the Russian missiles in Cuba
• Ronald Reagan who went against Libya for sponsoring terrorists responsible for shooting down Pan AM flight over Lockerbee, Scotland (Reagan Doctrine)

There are times when diplomacy fails, and the United States must be willing to stand and fight for freedom, liberty, and the protection of our nation’s security.

Article IV of the United States Constitution compels the United States government to defend and protect the United States from any national security threat.

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM:

In 1832 Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States to see what made this young republic special. His conclusion was what he called American Exceptionalism. In his seminal work, Democracy in America, Tocqueville stated that the Americans level of civic participation in groups and associations such as religious groups (now known as faith based organizations), businesses, patriotic societies, veterans groups, was the heart and soul of America’s greatness. This civic society took action and worked to help those in need and to make society better. This, in Tocqueville’s opinion, was what made the United States unique because Americans were not sitting around waiting for the government to solve problems. Tocqueville urged Europeans to model themselves after the Americans instead of waiting on the behemoth, bureaucratic monarchies that governed Europe to solve their socioeconomic problems.

American Exceptionalism DOES NOT mean we are better than other nations or people, but it means we are unique in our commitment to civic involvement in solving socioeconomic problems not only in our nation but in helping globally with those in need. Of all the charitable participation in global issues, 62% of all the funds come from America’s private sector—--the faith based organizations, volunteer groups, NGOs (Non-government organizations---that comprise and exempify America’s Exceptionalism.

The role the private sector plays in our foreign policy on a personal basis is an invaluable asset that Tocqueville so aptly described in 1832 as American Exceptionalism. How pathetic is our mainstream media and the liberal left that they don't get this, don't understand it, and even more ridiculous, don't want to get it.

Joe Biden's Message to Sarah Palin

Seems Joe Biden cannot help himself. At a rally, Biden was introducing some local officials, and he welcomed one gentleman named Charlie. Biden said, "Let's hear it for Charlie. Charlie, stand up so folks can see you." Well, Charlie is confined to a wheelchair.

If that wasn't bad enough, Mr Obama’s running-mate, was accused of having “sunk to a new low” after referring to Mrs Palin’s fifth child, born in April with Down’s syndrome, when he asked at a rally: “If you care about [children with special needs], why don’t you support stem cell research?”

He later told a Chicago fundraising event that there was still “a lack of ease about Barack” among white suburban voters, Jews and Catholics. And yesterday he conceded that Hillary Clinton might have been a better vice-presidential pick than him.

Interestingly enough, Obama will be in New York on Thursday and will be having lunch with Bill Clinton at Clinton's office in Harlem. Wonder what's going on that Obama is going to kiss the ring on Clinton's political hand?

Obama: Politics of Hope and Real Change

Desperate men do desperate things in desperate times.

Barack Hussein Obama is an unsullied presidential candidate. In fact, he is an unsullied politician. When you run in elections as the candidate for the Chicago Political Machine, you should win hands down because as a community organizer for the Machine all you have to do is walk around and hand out money to voters. Well, Barack Hussein Obama was soundly defeated eight years ago in his first election after which he always faced candidates who miraculously had a sudden personal scandal that mysteriously arrived shortly before an election.

The 2008 Dem primary was no challenge for Barack Hussein Obama because he laid the ground rules: can't criticize his ears, his middle name, his background, his mother, his father, his half siblings, his grandmother ( scratch that one because he threw Granny under the bus never to be seen or heard from again!), William Ayers (notorious terrorist who attempt to blow up the US Capitol and the US Pentagon, pastor Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and of course, Michelle My Belle.

Well, the unsullied, unexamined, unvetted Dem presidential candidate is now desperate because the Republicans are attacking him on issues, and since he's voted "present" 90%+ times, he has no significant voting record. We do know, however, that he voted TWICE FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE! In the Washington Post, Tuesday, September 9, 2008 in Paul Kane's article,"Stevens: No 'Bridge to Nowhere' Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) spoke up as a defender of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's position on the controversial "Bridge to Nowhere" project. Stevens, who once threatened to resign his Senate seat in 2005 if $223 million for the bridge project was defeated, told reporters today that Palin was never a supporter of the project, which has quickly become a bone of contention in defining the GOP vice-presidential nominee's self proclaimed image as a maverick reformer who took on "the good ol' boys network" of Alaska Republicans. "I don't remember her ever campaigning for it. As a matter of fact, she was very critical of it at the time. And she took the money and did not use it for the bridge, so you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned," Stevens said today.

So how does Barack Hussein Obama counter the Republican attacks?

You play the victim (just what we want in a President, someone who loves a pity-party!). Now Barack Hussein Obama's strategy is to personalize his attacks against Governor Sarah Palin.

Here is his latest comment on Tuesday night, September 9, 2008: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” Barack Hussein Obama said during a town-hall meeting as he delivered what he thought was a funny comment and attack on the McCain-Palin ticket.

How pathetic is this for someone who wants to be the leader of the free world! Will he name call Ahmandinejad? Putin? Chavez? Medvedev? Hu Jintao? Probably not, because Barack Hussein Obama is the victim who has no intestinal fortitude to stand up to any criticism without pitching a hissy fit.

Barack Hussein Obama's Campaign Example of the Politics of Hope and Change

Barack Hussein Obama: His Politics of Hope, The New Change He'll Bring to Washington

Joseph Robinette Biden Asks a Gentleman in a Wheelchair to Stand Up

A Letter to Senator Obama

Only hearing and viewing this video letter can make the case: Dear Mr. Obama,

Reaching Across the Aisle

Senator Obama proudly claims he reaches across the aisle in the U.S. Senate to work with Republicans. In an interview with Chris Wallace on FoxNews Sunday, Obama stated he reached across the aisle on two specific pieces of legislation: ethics reform and nuclear proliferation.

Here's the dilemma Senator Obama. Both of these pieces of legislation passed unanimously. So how did you reach across the aisle that was unique from the other 99 Senators voting on these two pieces of legislation?

From Obama's Own Mouth: "my Muslim faith"

On Sunday September 7, 2008 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News' show 'This Week', Barack Hussein Obama uttered these words, "my Muslim faith".

Obama was trying to criticize what he called a smear campaign suggesting he is a Muslim.

Obama said that Republicans are attempting to scare voters by suggesting he is not Christian. Mr. Stephanopoulos repeatedly interrupted Sen. Obama to challenge Obama on the authenticity of these charges with the following, "The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections." To which Sen. Obama responded,"I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks." Again, the ABC host interrupted the Senator with this statement:"But John McCain said that's wrong."

As the Democratic talking points of the past week have been to attack Governor Palin's personal family, Mr. Obama noted that when Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin "was forced" to talk about her pregnant 17-year-old daughter, he issued a forceful statement to reporters that the line of inquiry was "off limits." But he said the McCain campaign tried to tie him to "liberal blogs that support Obama" and are "attacking Governor Palin."

Obama stated that he finds it "deeply offensive" that there are efforts "coming out of the Republican camp to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith."

"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."

Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted with, "Christian faith."

"My Christian faith," Mr. Obama said quickly. "Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time."

Obama's Lobbying Connections

Obama likes to tout that McCain depends on lobbyists. Well, perhaps Senator Obama needs to be a little more honest with the American public.

His campaign manager is David Axelrod, Democratic consultant, lobbyist, and henchman for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and the Chicago Political Machine.

His Campaign finance manager is Penny Pritzker former banking lobbyist and former chairwoman of the Hyatt Hotel chain; former chairman of Superior Bank FSB that went bankrupt. According to FDCI reports, Pritzker's strategy of high risk investments focusing on significant volumes of sub-prime mortgages was an unsound management strategy, and her ailure to establish a sufficient oversight management resulted in the collapse of Superior Bank costing the FDIC $750 million.

Jim Johnson, Obama supporter and advisor, was the former Chairman of Fannie Mae. Johnson personally received 3 loans in the total sum of $1.7 million from the now infamous CountryWide Financial Corporation.

Tony Rezko and his wife helped Obama and his wife Michelle secure a loan to buy their present home in the Chicago suburbs. If you haven't heard of Tony Rezko, you will hear more about his corrupt slum lord dealings later.

Obama seems to have close political ties to those who were heavily involved in promoting the sub-prime housing markets that have led to the housing and financial crisis in the United States. Many of his campaign staff and underlings are former lobbyists and banking executives who have raised millions of dollars for Obama's campaigns. Obama's background in the Chicago Political Machine where deals and favors are the norm should raise the question of how would Obama really reform the housing industry if he is financially obligated to those who helped create the economic and credit crisis?

Persistent Attacks Continue

We are all entitled to an opinion about political personalities. I can find fault with virtually every politician, especially if they have not supported my perspective on issues. However, I also know that I can write anything and post it on the internet, and it would pass the sniff test. Presently, we know that Democratic operatives and hacks are masquerading on the internet with some of the most vicious personal attacks on Gov. Palin. Some of the Obama staffers are attempting to get McCain to dump Palin like Mcgovern did in 1972 by having the media constantly attack her family and her character. If this letter is true, I find it hard to believe that she would have an 80% popularity rating in Alaska. In 2006, Newsweek Magazine featured her on its cover and proclaimed her an outstanding governor. Only this week, in 2008, has their view changed.

I, for one, will proudly support the McCain-Palin ticket as I see the Obama-Biden ticket moving us towards increased taxation on businesses which will only increase the growing unemployment rate, and more importantly,increasing the inflation rate while also increasing the size and scope of the federal government and its bureaucracy. Both increased taxes on businesses and rising inflation will return us to the Carter years of stagflation.

In my humble opinion as a retired Political Science and Economics instructor, the energy crisis is the most crucial national security risk facing this nation, and watching the Do-Nothing Democractic controlled Congress refuse to take a straight up or down vote on drilling offshore leaves me perplexed. Is their stance on this issue all because they have great disdain for Republicans?

We will always need oil. No manufacturing or industry can operate machinery without oil for lubrication and production of goods and services. The production of goods and services is what grows our economy and creates jobs. Yes, we need a comprehensive energy plan, but until we can develop alternative sources requiring at least 10 years,we will need to drill for our own oil supply. We should have been drilling long ago in order to reduce our foreign dependency and to bridge the gap until the alternative sources were developed. Somehow I just don't see myself driving a car with a windmill on the back of the car hoping the wind will blow so my car will move.

The second most crucial national security risk remains the War on Terrorism, which has replaced the Cold War. Russia, however, seems to have decided that there should be a Cold War over the control of gas and oil lines, and this has the potential to become the new form of terrorism. The Obama-Biden ticket does not strike me as strongly committed to the seriousness of this issue and that of protecting Israel from a nuclear Iran. Senator Biden, in a clandestine meeting with some Israeli officials, told those officials that Israel should get over it and not worry about an Iran with nuclear weapons. Admittedly, I am personally biased when it comes to Israel because my dearest friends in the world are Jewish, and for that I remain a strong and faithful Zionist.

A continuation of policies of big government and complacency on national security and economic issues are not the direction this nation needs. Nor can we endure another Carter style stagflation.

What is a Chicago Community Organizer?

After researching this occupation, we finally found a semblance of a job description for this position that Obama proudly touts as his executive experience. Using references to his own memoirs, it is pretty clear what his job in Chicago was. Barack Hussein Obama was a street, precinct organizer for the Cook County Democractic Political Machine.

Yes, the man who wants to be President has touted his experience and record as a community organizer turns out to be nothing more than a street organizer for the Richard Daley Chicago Political Machine. Definitely no transparency nor accountability in this job!

He worked for John Stroger, who served on the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Stroger ran a politically corrupt Machine that funneled walking around money to the streets in Chicago for the explicit purpose of buying votes. Eventually, even the Daley Political Machine turned against the corrupt Stroger.

As a doorknocker for Stroger, Obama knows the role of cronyism and patronage up close and personal. Patronage is handing out tax dollars to friends who in turn do favors such as buy votes on the street.

The way to get to be a community organizer in the Chicago Cook County Political Machine is to have the right political connections. There are no qualifications for this job. The only requirement is to provide campaign contributions to the Daly Machine.

One of the political hacks of Mayor Daley who oversaw the campaign organizers is none other than David Axelrod, 2008 campaign manager for Barack Obama. Now, since Axelrod is in daily contact and communciation with Mayor Daley, who is running the Obama campaign? The Chicago Political Machine perhaps?

In 2004 Michelle Obama worked in public relations and community development for the University of Chicago Hospital making $121,910 annually. When her husband was elected to the US Senate in 2005, her salary almost tripled to $316,962. Shortly after her pay raise, Senator Obama requested a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital.

So, what kind of political change does Barack Hussein Obama really plan on bringing to Washington?

An Open Letter to Sally Quinn of the Washington Post

It may come as a real shock to you and the rest of the angry, liberal women that there are Christian women who actually know who G-d is, have faith in G-d, and go to G-d in prayer---everyday, every hour, whenever needed. What is even more amazing, contrary to Andrea Mitchell's proclamation, some of us are educated with graduate degrees who are ACTIVELY volunteering not only for Sarah Palin but the GOP. The best thing you and your ilk have done for the Republicans in your audacity of arrogance and ignorance is MOTIVATE us. Oh, and guess what? Some of us even have our own Phi Beta Kappa keys!

I was raised a Southern Baptist. I would still be a Southern Baptist had I not made the decision to join the Presbyterian Church when I married for the sake of raising a family in a unified faith. The protracted argument you make about women of faith not being allowed to serve as pastors in some denominations is the beauty of FREE CHOICE. Each denomination can determine its rules about how it chooses to operate and structure its congregations. If Anne Graham Lotz was angry and bitterly clinging to her notion about not being a pastor, she has the free will, the free choice to join a denomination that gives her that opportunity. My advice to you: "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Perhaps a tactic for you is to read the books of Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus in the New Testament of the Bible. (For those not familiar with the location of the New Testament in the Bible, it is towards the end of the Bible. Of course, there is always the table of contents for assistance in locating these in the Bible.) Instead of protracting only one scripture and drawing conclusions, perhaps reading the scriptures in the entire context of the message would bring you more clarity. In these particular books of the New Testament, you will understand that in a marriage, neither partner should attempt to outshine their spouse as marriage is a mutual relationship of respect, honor, and love.

Your criticism of Sarah Palin's professional and personal decisions about working and family is presumptuously biased. I don't believe you have criticized Soledad O'Brien for working with 4 children under the age of 9, Nancy Pelosi for working with her gang of kids, Campbell Brown for working with such a young toddler, Judy Woodruff for working with a special needs child, and the list goes on and on.

Liberalism in your ideology is exclusionary. No one who deviates from what you have determined to be truth can be tolerated. Ms. Quinn, that is not liberalism; instead, that is a closed-minded biased assumption that all the knowledge of how to live one's life rests with you. True liberalism that emerged from the Enlightenment Philosophy leading to the American Revolution was a broad umbrella of ideology allowing for civil discourse on issues without the castigation of a person for disagreeing. The beauty of the United States is that we allow individuals and families, such as Sarah Palin, the opportunity to choose how she and her husband handle their personal family decisions without you, the left wing kook media, or the central government in Washington telling her and Mr. Palin how to live their lives.

Perhaps the left is miffed because the Republicans strongly stand behind their women and do not play the sexism card. Are the women on the left jealous over the fact that your party chose NOT to put a woman on your ticket for the 2008 Election? I am sorry you and the other liberal women feel left out. That is the Democratic Party's responsibility, not the Republican Party's fault. Perhaps you should discuss this with Howard Dean and Barack Obama as to why women on your side have been excluded and segregated from the political arena in 2008.

SARAH PALIN's SPEECH

Mark it down, September 3, 2008, the Republican Party took a giant step with Sarah Palin: a working mom, a PTA mom, a hockey mom, a wife, a reformer, a fighter, a devoted family person, a small town woman, a governor.

Boy, did she deliver!

Andrea Mitchell and the Angry Left Wing Kooks

The Angry Left Wing Kooks have decided to make character assassination their strategy in the 2008 election. Joining in the fray is the socialist mainstream media.

Chiming in with her two cents worth of ignorance is NBC's Andrea Mitchell who stated that only uneducated, blue collar women would possibly consider voting for someone like Governor Sarah Palin.

Guess what, Andrea. You're dead wrong. I happen to be an educated woman who holds a Master of Arts degree and am a proud member of Phi Beta Kappa. I am actively supporting Governor Sarah Palin as the Vice President of the United States. You and your Democratic cohorts in crime realize now you blew it at your convention. You had two shots at putting a woman on your ticket, and two times you shot it down. The next time you want to discuss something intelligibly, I'll see if I can fit you into my schedule.

While we're on it, Andrea, the next time you and your Meet the Press cronies want to condemn a working mother and wonder how she can work and take care of a special needs child, I strongly recommend you ask your close friend Judy Woodruff at CNN-Washington, how she takes care of her special needs son.

Why I Am A Republican

Senator McCain, August 27, 2008

I am writing to tell you why I became a Republican, and why I think it is important for your campaign and for our party. There is one reason why I became a Republican, and only one reason: my mother. My mother has inspired me to achieve many great things in my life, including learning about and devoutly remaining loyal to the Republican party.

My mother, a lifelong Republican, like Hillary Clinton, was a Goldwater girl in 1964 -- she travelled all over Hale County, Alabama convincing its citizens that a century-long boycott of our great party needed to end in order for their best interests to truly be served. It was a difficult job that did not yield an election victory, but it inspired and furthered a belief in Republican principles in my mother that remains strong and vibrant.

As a political and economic systems teacher, my mother not only influenced me but many others to strongly consider the party that stands for less government and more individual liberties, that believes in protecting our security at home and abroad, and that encourages the American entrepreneurial spirit. My mother taught me about the true greatness of Richard Nixon, of the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt and of the courage of Abraham Lincoln. I was fortunate enough to be old enough to witness Ronald Reagan's magnificence, but my mother was the one explaining why Reaganomics formed a sound economic policy and why Reagan's foreign policies would end the Cold War.

I write to tell you this because I see a tremendous opportunity for you, Senator McCain, as the visionary you are to lead our party to groundbreaking new places that would open people's eyes to the fact that our party is the party which truly represents the party of opportunity and liberty, and would destroy the use of identity politics to undermine the Republican Party's message. By naming a strong female candidate as your vice presidential nominee, whether it be Kay Bailey Hutchison (whom I supported in an earlier email) or Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman or Condoleeza Rice or Sarah Palin, we as Republicans could show women who respects their voice and who lifts them to higher levels.

There are many ways which one chooses their party affiliation, but please do not underestimate the power of primacy. Many, if not most or all, people first learn about party affiliations from their parents, and often from their mothers. My mother inspired me to do many things, including to become an attorney (who will be proudly volunteering for Lawyers for McCain) and of course, to be a proud Republican. By reaching out to female voters by naming a female vice presidential nominee, the Republican Party could potentially gain the trust and loyalty of many women who are or could become mothers who might impact their children the way my mother has impacted me.

One further point: I have an 18-month old daughter whom I will teach about Republican values, but whom I will support no matter what party affiliation she chooses in the future. It would make my heart swell with pride if I would be able to tell her that it was a Republican woman who became our nation's first female vice president and it truly was possible for her to achieve whatever she wants in life. Like her or not, watching Hillary Clinton's campaign this spring gave me pride when I held my daughter because I was able to tell her that anything can be achieved -- I want my party to show women that it is the party where that is truly possible.

Please do not underestimate your ability to do something historic here: Walter Mondale may be remembered as the first presidential candidate to name a female vice presidential nominee, but you would be remembered as the first President who named a female to be their Vice President, and as the man who revolutionized the Republican Party and its relationship with our nation's many strong women. God bless you, and the best of luck in the coming days and weeks.

All the best,

Richard C. Wetzel, III, Esq.

A 17 Year Old Pregnant Girl

We're hearing a lot of criticism by the mainstream media and the Democratic blog hackers these days about a 17 year old pregnant girl. Wonder why these same people didn't criticize a similar situation when Stanley Ann Dunham of Kansas found herself pregnant and unmarried at 17? Oh, that's right. She gave birth to a boy named Barack Hussein Obama so that's okay. After all, he turned out to be a Democrat. Isn't it interesting that apparently his mother was pro-life instead of pro-choice at that particular time?

Joe Biden's Advice to Israel

Well, it seems the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden makes him qualified to advise the Israelis: accept a nuclear Iran. Wonder what the Israelis think of his preposterous position which would lead to the possible destruction of Israel?

Read it for yourself at Joe Biden Advises Israel to Accept a Nuclear Iran.

Dem Criticism

The reaction of the Dems to John McCain's selection of Governone Sarah Palin is without a doubt disgustingly nothing more than sour grapes. The truth is they had two shots at having a woman on their ticket. Twice the Dems rejected a woman. McCain chose a woman as his running mate, and the Dems have decided to belittle her, criticize her lack of experience, which is a laughable criticism.

Sarah Palin has 16 years of executive experience. Now the Dems decided to ridicule her mayoral position of a small town. Is this an attempt to belittle small town USA? Is this an attempt to ridicule middle America? Well, here's a news flash for the Dems and the Obama campaign: The heart and soul the America is small town USA. Not everyone chooses to live in the Big Apple, the City of Brotherly Love, nor the Windy City.

Sarah Palin is the only candidate to have run a government (Barack Obama has run the Chicago Democratic Machine's ground efforts to distribute campaign money to street workers), and Sarah Palin is the only candidate to serve as Commander-in-Chief serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard.

The Obama campaign needs to remember: Judge not, lest ye be judged.