Women Who Think

2008-11-14T11:42:00.004-06:00

Minnesota, like the rest of the states in our glorious union, must begin to look very closely at its economic condition.

As more and more Minnesotans struggle to pay their bills today and to plan for whatever foreseeable impact the nationwide and global financial collapse may have and their individual families, the time has come for government at every level to reevaluate policies and shift direction.

In Minnesota, the income tax rate for many families is just over 7%. Sales tax in Minnesota has become a very complicated issue- the taxes vary greatly. In Minneapolis, for example, the taxes on a meal at a restaurant where there is no live entertainment is 7.15%. The taxes at a bar in Downtown Minneapolis where there is live entertainment may be as high as 15.65%. Click on the link to read the examples of how to compute the tax and you will see that the system is as easily navigable as rapids via pontoon. MN corporate tax rates are 9.8%. This is one of the highest tax rates in the country. (Actually the world...)

MN is probably about to lose one of its large employers- Northwest Airlines. We Minnesotans have bailed this company out repeatedly over the years. In 1992, NWA and the Metropolitan Airports Commission came to an agreement that would require NWA to maintain its headquarters in MN, operate a hub in MN and retain employees at the 1992 level in exchange for the MAC issuance of $275 million in bonds. Now, Delta must decide whether to play ball in MN or pay up to the bondholders. Click here for Strib editorial.

If you were Delta executives, what would be the benefits of staying and what would be the benefits of leaving. The maximum individual tax rate in Georgia is 6%. The maximum sales tax rate in Georgia is 7%. The corporate tax rate in Georgia is 6%. It is a possibility that Delta may decide that lower taxes at every level offer plenty of incentives to pull much of its infrastructure out of MN. MN is not negotiating from a position of strength.

More companies in MN will look to our neighbors, like South Dakota, for similar reasons. South Dakota has a sales tax of 4%. South Dakota is considered to be one of the most pro-business states in the country: SD Income tax and Corporate tax rates remain a steady 0%.

As of the most recent publications of state by state unemployment rates, South Dakota ranked #1 with a rate of 3.2%. Minnesota found itself ranked #31 with a rate of 5.9%. While Georgia ranked worse at #37 with a rate of 6.5%, Georgians may have something to look forward to very soon- more jobs in the airline industry.

When politicians begin to think about financial problems and declining revenue, some of them immediately think- "Raise taxes" as though that will solve the problem. As more and more companies shift jobs away from Minnesota, there will be fewer taxpayers at both a corporate and individual level.

Minnesota must immediately reexamine its tax policies to ensure that our laws not only invite business expansion but encourage business retention. Our tax laws must also encourage compliance. We must examine issues like why there remains a large illegal alien population in Minnesota. Many of the people in this country and our state illegally work under the table so employers and workers avoid taxation. Taxpayer tolerance for tax avoiders will have one of two results: increasing anger towards those who do not pay and/or an increasing willingness of former taxpayers to become tax avoiders. Neither scenario bodes well for state coffers.

Governor Pawlenty has recently launched the "Green Jobs Investment Initiative" and now has toured the state promoting the plan. It is great to offer incentives for green jobs and we should all hope the program is an unquestionable success. While it is possible the program will lead to an increase in jobs in Minnesota, it would be a welcome surprise if the program served to "ignite job growth and investment" over the next several years.

The truth is the state must focus on retaining as many jobs as possible, green or not green. As long as the DFL continues to ignore and even dispute the fact that MN's exceptionally high tax rates are a contributing factor to the state's increasing economic difficulty Pawlenty and Republican leaders must not retreat from demands for tax cuts.

We can not tax ourselves out of this situation and we can not borrow our way to a better economy. The Republican Party nationally, in Minnesota and across the country must reclaim the message and the behavior of past leaders.

Fiscal responsibility and allegiance to our founding principles is the only place the leadership can start if they are to earn the respect they need to succeed.

2008-11-12T09:37:00.004-06:00

Bailouts and more bailouts... Stop the madness!

Back to reality-it is not going to stop.

So- if the government is going to bailout the auto industry, or any other industry, there should be some rules:

First, there should be no bonuses for executives at ANY company that receives a bailout from the federal government. (Remember, please, that the federal government has no money. This money is coming from the pockets of Americans who are increasingly worried about their own jobs, their own children and their own financial future.) Any executive of a failing company who expects a bonus is irresponsible and unethical. These executives should publicly refuse any bonus offered.

Second, executives across industries seeking bailouts should have their salaries chopped. These failing industries do not have the revenue to justify the $1 million dollar, $2 million, $10 million salaries to which their CEOs have become accustomed. Let the market work- as more Harvard MBAs are looking for work, the salaries should come down. If these failed CEOs can get a better deal somewhere else let them go.

Next, to the UAW and to employees of any other troubled industry- wages must be lowered. Union or no union, it is ridiculous that people working for a failing industry do not accept the fact that their wages are now too high. Would a person rather be employed at $40,000 per year or even $30,000 per year or unemployed because the company couldn't afford the $57,000 plus benefits in the union negotiated salary. (See UAW website for figures.) The world is changing quickly. Pouring money into failing industries is only delaying the inevitable.

Again, if these UAWs or others in troubled industries can get a job anywhere else for the money they are making with their skill set then let them go looking. They will find that their wages have been artificially high and have contributed to the financial disaster facing their companies. They will not find any other job at the pay they think they deserve. That should tell them something.

The same can be said for people in the airline industry, the banking industry and every other industry in financial trouble.

These bailouts must stop or they will not end until there is nothing left to give. Now its the auto industry, next it will be the airlines, then the hospitality industry, then the manufacturers and so on.

These bailouts are an expansion of the welfare system. Instead of paying unemployment or welfare to people who lose their jobs in the economic downturn, we will pay them to keep working in jobs the market would otherwise eliminate. And we will pay them far more than they would receive through unemployment or welfare payments.

Click on this link to the Economic Policy Institute to use a calculator to determine approximate unemployment benefit payments. People should be glad they have a job and stop complaining about a lowered wage.

Finally, maybe before the government bails out American Express or Citibank or any other bank or credit card lender it should first put some regulations into effect. How about requiring credit companies seeking government aid to lower interest rates from 29% or even 30% to 10%. (Any bank or credit provider not seeking government aid should be left alone.) These banks can now borrow money for next to nothing- if interest rates get any lower the money will be free. While banks get sweetheart deals they continue to charge consumers exorbitant rates.

Is it at least possible that many people now defaulting on their debt payments are defaulting not because they want to but because they can no longer afford the interest payments? Is it possible that fewer people would default on credit cards if their interest rates were slashed? Maybe some of these people with more cash in their pockets might then have the ability to make their mortgage payments...

Maybe the consumer credit industry has reached a tipping point at which the combination of high interest rates and late payment fees now discourage repayment.

Maybe if the credit industry thought there would be no bailout it would be more interested in working with the debtors to renegotiate terms that would be mutually beneficial.

I do not believe the government should be in the bailout business.

If we are on a train that can't be stopped and it is inevitable that the government bailout has just begun, then maybe the government is fixing the wrong problems first. The trillions of dollars flowing to corporations are not trickling down to consumers, who still have no ability to get out from under their debt. Maybe the government ought to attach strings to any bailout program and those strings should require fiscal responsibility and an effort to work with debtors first.

Again, NO to anymore bailouts. The only way to save the baby is to make sure the cradle falls before it gets any higher. Let the bough break. NOW.

2008-11-05T23:50:00.009-06:00

When I returned home, frustrated by the voting behavior of my fellow Americans, I found my daughter watching the John Adams series created by HBO.

I concede my daughter, a mere 12 years old, may not be representative of the typical child of her age. I must also admit it makes me proud to be able to say she chose to watch John Adams rather than turn on some ridiculous cable program. While not all pre-teenagers would choose to watch a series chronicling centuries-old events, she gives me hope.

If my 12 year old can appreciate the lessons found in the history of John Adams and the other Founding Fathers than so can other 12 year olds. Maybe we, the people of voting age should all spend some time thinking about why our first leaders built a system that so uniquely intertwined natural law, the will of the people and a series of checks and balances that would serve to protect the people from arbitrary rule of the government. The authors of our founding documents clearly understood that any government system with unchecked power was destined to expand its own power and usurp the freedoms of the very people who elected its members.

Perhaps the lessons taught through the retelling of the struggles faced by the men who penned the founding principles should be enough. But it is not enough to learn the lessons. We see now that we must also live the lessons. The people who built this country were a hearty bunch- they understood that freedom is costly and that no sacrifice is too great when the result ensures that future generations will enjoy those blessings of liberty so appreciated and cherished.

Perhaps too many of today's Americans lead lives absent of true struggle. Perhaps too many of us have taken our liberty for granted. Maybe the notion that people appreciate what they work for and neglect what they are given holds more true today than ever before.

The amazing generations of people who helped conceive and then mold our nation into existence survived more difficulty in a week than most of us can imagine over the course of years. As we sit on overstuffed furniture in homes heated and cooled with the turn of a dial, it has become too easy to take our countless gifts for granted. As we complain that we can't find the cable remote or that the battery on our cell phone died, we remain oblivious to the challenges men like John Adams and women like Abigail Adams faced with a steadfast faith and, I am sure, abundant good humor and an optimistic outlook.

The men who penned the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the people who contributed writings that captured the zeitgeist of their age were among the most brilliant of their day. It would not be a stretch to assert those who argued in Independence Hall could stand toe to toe with any of the great thinkers peppered throughout history and with those who spout their rhetoric today. I would also assert it would be very difficult to pull together a cast of modern day politicians capable of engaging the intellect of those men.

If we could bring the Founders here today, they would most likely shake their heads with a keen awareness that this result is the consequence of the people living with the very freedoms for which they yearned and fought so long ago. Our comfort has led us to an unrealistic and short-sighted belief that our lives and our liberty are secure from the tyranny of ignorance.

Maybe more of we, the people of the United States need to experience some measure of the intense struggle required to form our country. Maybe the evolution, or devolution, of our political system is necessary to force the citizenry to examine our fortunes and recognize all that may be lost.

The United States of America is the greatest nation on earth. We cannot be afraid to proclaim this. While we must not shirk from recognizing our missteps and our failings, we must remember that never before has such an incredible experiment succeeded. Any political leader that allows our towering tree of democracy to be severed from its constitutional roots, will be held accountable for the consequences.

As Thomas Jefferson noted in 1820: "The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave."

Now, my fellow Constitution-loving Americans, we must persevere as this current wave crests and then diligently begin rowing in unison to build an even stronger United States of America.

2008-11-05T21:15:00.006-06:00

Interesting news on the first day after the election:

1) NYC Mayor Bloomberg announces both deep spending cuts and large tax increases...

Did he only find out today that this was necessary or did he sit on the news for political reasons?

2) Russia announces it is putting missiles on EU border...

3) Democratic Senator Schumer compared conservative talk radio to porn as a justification for supporting the Fairness Doctrine...

4) The stock market that was supposed to stabilize as soon as the election was decided dropped more than it had ever dropped after an election ...

5) Palestinians (or some other Islamic group) in Gaza fired 40 rockets into Israel which led to Israel launching an airstrike into Gaza...

Just the first day in post-election jubilation. To mimic a Drudge phrase: Developing...

2008-10-23T12:26:00.004-05:00

Don't let liberals do to the rest of the country what they have done to California

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article today ( Student's well-being tracked to improve lives ) that should garner attention around tis country.

A non-profit called Children Now has just published the 2008 California County Scorecard that examined a wide ranging set of issues across every county in California.

Readers should first note that California remains one of, if not the most liberal states in the country. It is accurate to think that the local policies in California reflect the liberal ideas and ideals of the liberal left elite in California. Think of Nancy Pelosi, of San Francisco, as a clear and representative figure for California Democrats.

When one clicks on the link to see information on San Francisco the statistics are telling.

San Francisco is a "high income, urban community" that gets a "C" on the report card. Some examples of the findings:

43% of 5th and 7th graders are not supervised after school
30% of kids ages 12-17 are at risk for depression
33% of children in 5th and 7th grade do not feel safe at school
67% of 9th and 11th graders do not feel safe at school
48% of students in 9th and 11th grade report not having a supportive or caring adult in their school or community
69% of 9th and 11th graders do not feel connected to their schools

Some good news for the children of San Francisco:

88% live near a park, playground or open space

Interesting point about drug use amongst 9th and 11th graders: 40% of White children use drugs, alcohol or tobacco, 39% of Hispanic children use, 28% of African American children use those substances and only 13% of Asian children report substance use. One might wonder about the socioeconomic relationship to chemical abuse in San Francisco. Are the children of liberal elites like Pelosi turning to drugs at higher rates than do their peers?

Children in San Francisco are more likely to "teeter on the brink of depression than other people do." This despite the fact that all of the children in S.F. have access to health care.

Only 3 counties in California received a B range score- 2 of the 3 are Republican strongholds in California. ALL OTHER COUNTIES RECEIVED A "C" OR LOWER GRADE!!

Americans should be asking themselves a couple of questions. Are the results of this study a sign of what is to come if our country moves towards a broader implementation of liberal policies and programs?

I believe the answer is a clear yes.

California's scorecard should be seen as a warning and we all should pay heed. Liberal policies may lead to more parks but they do not lead to utopia- they lead to more children becoming isolated from their parents and family members, less security at home and school and schools that fail to educate our children.

By the way- what good is a park if children are not safe when they play there?

2008-10-05T10:44:00.009-05:00

California wants the rest of the United States to send it $7 BILLION because the state is a bit over extended...

Here are a couple of suggested responses:

1. Send a bill to Mexico and the other Central and South American countries that have sent you a stream of illegal aliens. Estimates on the cost of providing social services to illegal aliens in California:

Dec, 2004- U.S. Govt estimated annual cost of illegal immigration in California over $10 Billion
Fair (Federation for American Immigration Reform) estimates the cost of illegal aliens to be at $10.5 Billion per year with a prediction that amount will swell to $30 Billion by 2020

2. California is one of, if not THE, most liberal states in the country. There is a reason that California is in this mess- and to be sure other liberal states will follow, as will everyone else who wants to jump on the Give Us Money Bandwagon...

Before California turns to the average American taxpayer to bail it out of this mess of its own making, the state should turn to those within the state who support the system. Gov. Arnold should ask the liberals around California to pay in- maybe create a program for the Left to send in donations to pay off this debt. He could even have a telethon where Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg et al could answer phones and gush to those on the other end about how special they are and then give them a designer, diamond studded T-Shirt that says "I Gave More Than My Share"...

Before one federal dollar that has been taken from hard-working people all over this country gets sent to California, California should shake down its own. Here is a list of some of the people to whom Arnold should send the hat first:

Steve Jobs- Liberal with a net worth over $5 billion
Eric Schmidt- Liberal with a net worth over $5 billion
George Lucas- Liberal with net worth over $3 billion
Haim Saban- Liberal with net worth over $3 billion
Steven Spielberg- Liberal with a net worth over $3 billion

Other Far Left Liberal Californians (or entertainers/ media types who make a living off their Hollywood connections) who have accumulated millions of dollars that they could pony up to pay for the programs they so vocally support:

Barbra Streisand
Tom Hanks
Alec Baldwin
Herb Alpert
Ben Affleck
Warren Beatty
Candace Bergen
James Brooks
Les Charles
Chevy Chase
George Clooney
Matt Damon
Ted Danson
Larry David
Laurie David
Michael Douglas
Richard Dreyfuss
Peter Farrelly
Sally Field
Jane Fonda
Harrison Ford
Barry Gordy
Dustin Hoffman
Alan Horn
Ron Howard
Quincy Jones
Steven King
Garry Marshall
Bette Midler
Ed Norton
Rhea Perlman
David Hyde Pierce
Rob Reiner
Denise Rich
Russell Simmons
Kevin Spacey
Jerry Springer
Sharon Stone
Bob Weinstein
Harvey Weinstein
Bradley Whitford
Robin Williams

Anyone interested in learning about how much money celebrities throw at candidates rather than solutions can click here to get the info.

We do live in a Republic that allows and encourages states to experiment with government services and programs. The key here is that there is (or should be) a corresponding responsibility for those states to actually pay for the programs they put in place. California's experiment has failed and now it wants everyone in the country to pay.

Sadly, our government may not say "No" or even "We'll help you this time but..." We have seemingly hit a point at which there seems to be an inevitability of government expansion.

We have become the frog that is swimming in an increasingly hot pot of water with no idea it is time to jump...

2008-09-24T12:33:00.005-05:00

Obama and Biden obviously have some clear differences in position on some critical issues for the United States.

The recent outburst by Biden on coal demonstrates some fissures in their team unity effort.

This outburst is interesting for several reasons.

First, Obama and Biden are either not communicating with each other about critical issues or Biden simply does not care that Obama supports clean coal. Or maybe Biden knows that Obama does not support clean coal development and is simply pretending to be in support of the clean coal technology to win over a segment of moderate and conservative voters.

Democrats around the country had to jump on this issue right away to assure voters that Obama is in support of coal.

Next, Biden was asked the question about coal by a young women who seems to be leftward leaning. When watching the encounter, Biden seems almost hostile to her. He actually grabs her by the shoulders and points his finger at her, gets in her face and does not recognize her body language, which seems to indicate she is a bit taken aback by his aggressive response to her question.

Third, the exchange clearly demonstrates Biden's frustration with the campaign and his position on the ticket. Biden is a guy with a reputation for thinking he is one of the smartest guys in the room. He seems to be increasingly frustrated playing second fiddle. He seems to be seeking and needing credit- the finger pointing and explaining that he is the guy who introduced the world to global warming 22 years ago ( I thought Al Gore discovered Global Warming or Global Climate Change or whatever we are calling it today)...Biden needs people to know that HE is the guy who first introduced solar energy bills 26 years ago...

It has to be hard for Biden to know that half of the Democratic Party wishes he wasn't the person on the ticket. The comment that Hillary might have been a better pick for VP, the misspeak that FDR took to the airwaves to be honest with the people when the stock market crashed in 1929 and his clear derailment about coal all raise red flags.

Biden appears dissatisfied with the way things are going. Either his speech writers are struggling or he is speaking off the cuff. Biden definitly seems to be willing to tell people what they want to hear, even if he knows he is misspeaking.

Biden is not rising to the occasion- he seems to lack control and composure. Biden is becoming a weak link and will need to regain his balance as we head towards the debate. He has had a long career- it is sad for him that he is not living up to the hype.

2008-09-24T11:10:00.004-05:00

Obama received $105,849 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie ( although that is significantly less than Senators C. Dodd, D-CT and John Kerry, D- MA who received $133,900 and $111,000 respectively.)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a disaster in the making and people in DC knew the end would come years ago.

A statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say 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.

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.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

This Reform Act was sponsored by 4 REPUBLICANS (McCain, Hagel, Dole and Sununu) and didn't pass.

While Obama was taking campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, McCain was telling his fellow Senators to wake up and join him in efforts to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the Congress failed to act.

Reports that many people think Obama will be better able to address economic issues than would McCain only serve to point out how far removed from reality many Americans remain. This may be due in large part to the fact that many Americans receive their news from left-leaning journalists who use their power to control what news their viewers and readers see and hear.

2008-09-18T13:41:00.003-05:00

There is Nothing Cute About Michelle Obama's Petty Comments

I have been wondering what happened to Michelle Obama and suddenly there she is...

Thanks to Breitbart for posting an AP article: "People shouldn't make a decision this time based on, 'I like that guy' or 'she's cute,'" M. Obama asserted. The Democratic crowd went wild and then M. Obama suggested she was talking about herself. As she is not a person for whom we may vote, the addendum rings hollow. Perhaps the Obamas are a little hesitant after that pig joke backfired...

Does she think that conservatives are voting for a McCain-Palin ticket because Palin is "cute" as opposed to competent?

M. Obama hasn't been seen lately and perhaps she should go back to her hiding place. Her continual efforts to belittle the intelligence of conservative voters is at best tiresome. Her husband's campaign ought to tell her that she doesn't help their efforts to take the high road with her jealous, junior high comments.

We, the people see through their petty antics and we will vote. The Democratic frenzy will continue as the party of the patronizing elites struggles to figure out that smart voters care about issues and policies not innuendo and pathetic attempts at "cute" humor.

2008-09-17T20:42:00.008-05:00

Allegations of Racism Become Democrats Last Hope

For a party that claims that race should not be a factor in the campaign for the Presidency, the Democrats and their media supporters seem to bring it up with a growing frequency.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius raised the issue on Tuesday. She asked an audience, "Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African American?"

The Democrats are unwilling to think that the same people who voted against John Kerry because he was a far-left liberal will not vote for Obama because he is a far-left liberal. No, it must be racism...

Then we have the very impartial Jack Cafferty asserting that "Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election..."

Cafferty goes on to note in the above linked blog entry that the impartial (my insertion) Time magazine's Michael Grunwald says "race is the elephant in the living room."

The real problem: Democrats cannot admit that Obama's problems with voters are policy-based. They can't acknowledge this fact because acceptance of that fact would force Democrats to acknowledge that their own policy positions are out of the mainstream. That is just not possible in the liberal world in which these people live.

Race is not an elephant in the living room for conservatives. Conservative love elephants. For the conservatives I know, race is a non-factor.

Race will, however, be an increasingly important issue to Democrats. None of their spaghetti has stuck to the wall so now they are going to the big guns. The threat of increasing racial conflict may be the last available weapon in their arsenal.

In their growing desperation, Democrats will try anything to win this election. This includes painting every anti-Obama voter a racist.

2008-09-17T20:42:00.003-05:00

Why Does PBS Receive Taxpayer Support?

Ridiculous interview with Drew Westin, author of the Political Brain, on the PBS website.

Westin was interviewed for the September 12th episode of NOW, a political program, on PBS.

While he does compare Obama's ability to respond to questions in an interview or debate to the ability of Dukakis, he also acknowledges he likes Obama...

His assessment: Many voters vote with their hearts. He actually asserts that Democrats "hide their values in the fine print of their policies. Republicans always start with their value statements. They come out and say "This is what I believe" and then they say some words about what they're going to do about it if they ever get there and then they conclude with something that is emotionally powerful and compelling."

He goes on "Democrats almost always start the other way around."

Drew Westin and I must live in parallel universes. The Democrats offer NOTHING but talking points and 5 second sound bites. Take for example Nancy Pelosi on the financial crisis facing the United States. The Hill reported :

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Westin goes on to describe how he thinks that feelings drive the brain. This may be true for many people. In fact, far too many people, women especially, start their reasoning process with feelings and then never get beyond those "feelings" when deciding how to think about an issue. These feelings are often rooted in a gut level reaction to a situation- like when a child throws a tantrum in the grocery store because the child wants a bag of candy.

Some parents gladly buy the candy to solve the immediate problem- no matter that tomorrow will be filled with more tantrums- maybe even louder more demanding tantrums. And others will bargain- offer a smaller bag of candy or even just a piece of candy. These people also encourage tantrums. In political terms, this would be like feeding the pig. This response to a tantrum is also rooted in emotion. This sort of response feeds a sense of entitlement.

On the other hand some parents have a philosophy that buying the candy will encourage future tantrums. These parents will tell the child "No" and either leave the store immediately or apologize to those around them, pay as quickly as possible and then leave without the candy. These parents don't respond on an emotional level no matter how emotional they are feeling. This is the political equivalent of voting against pork.

I would contend that many people who are actually conservative develop their feelings about an issue based on what they know about an issue. It may even be- and this may shock some- that religious teachings influence a conservative's feelings about an issue.

This may be at least one place where Democrats go wrong: They often seem to think that religious teachings are rooted in emotion and therefore not a valid basis for an opinion. I think that there is often an elitist perception that thinking people can simply not be religious in the way that, say, Evangelicals are religious.

Some other points made by Westin:

While he calls Sarah Palin an excellent marksman in terms of her speech delivery, he notes that the Dems failed to peg her as an "incredibly reckless, cynical choice by John McCain."

He asserts Obama blew it- he should have gone on the attack immediately.

Westin stuns with the conclusion that the debates will be critical. He advises Obama to start with emotion when asked about the economy: "I want to see 'Made in America' again."

He notes the McCain campaign and the right wing has conspired to convince Americans that Obama is not like them. News flash: He is not like most Americans.

Most interestingly, Westin explains that conviction is important. "If you don't put out your principles and speak them with conviction, people look at you and think 'you know- these people are weak and lacking in conviction. I don't think I'll vote for them.' "

He then explains how Obama should hoodwink people: Obama should not start out saying he wants universal healthcare. No that doesn't sell. Instead, he advises Obama to tell the people that he believes in a family doctor for every family.

Westin actually thinks that these two things are equivalent. Does he not understand that universal health care leads to a lack of access to a family doctor- just ask people in Canada how long they can wait to see a family doctor.

Or he suggests Obama lead with "I believe people who work for a living ought to be able to take their kids to the doctor when they are sick and that is the difference between me and John MCain."

Yeah- because John McCain definitely does not think working people should be able to take their sick kids to the doctor. UNBELIEVABLE!!!! Can anyone publish a book?!!?

He then asserts that "Democrats have really mainstream values, they just never talk about them."

It's true- Democrats don't talk about their "values"- they just criticize Republicans for theirs. As Westin observes: "The Republican Convention was a Hatefest."

Obviously the debates will offer each candidate the opportunity to inform voters about their positions. Of course this would require Obama to actually develop a position with which he can live- a seemingly impossible task when he has to speak to a diverse audience.

After watching Westin's interview for PBS, it is now especially clear to me why liberals want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine while continuing to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They will both silence the conservatives and force them to pay for "experts" like Westin to shill for the DFL.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's financial request for Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011: $450 million and $483 million

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!

2008-09-16T12:30:00.005-05:00

Charlie Rangel Holds On Even as Pelosi Tries to, Quietly, Pry His Fingers From The Ledge

The cover of the New York Post says it all- the picture, inflation adjusted, is worth at least 5000 words. Rangel, sleeping on a lawn chair on a white sand beach...

Charlie Rangel, the Democratic Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, should be ashamed of himself, but shame is not a feeling many Democrats recognize.

Yesterday, according to the Crypt, the story from Camp Democrat was Pelosi would not ask Rangel to step aside. The Dems rallied around Charlie even though his failure to file his taxes appropriately and his failure to consistently report the value of his property and his failure to seek a mortgage that required the payment of interest and... all became public fodder. That has gone over like a lead balloon...

Now the Democrats are facing a situation that could escalate quickly into a campaign nightmare- Obama wants to people to believe that he is for change in Washington but he has yet to come out with comments suggesting Rangel should go. Where is the Democratic leadership?

Rangel's problems are symptomatic of the problems on the Hill and his attitude reflects the audacity of those in power.

This is a problem that we, the people can see and understand without the help of a forensic accountant. We, the people are not as ignorant as some in power would like.

Republicans should keep up the pressure until Rangel is ousted.

Women Who Think

2008-09-16T08:03:00.000-05:00

Women Who Think

2008-09-15T14:15:00.006-05:00

Drudge is "must peruse" because it links to things that would be impossible to find otherwise.

My favorite link of the day: Scientists Discover Eating Veggies Shrinks the Brain...

This explains so much about the crazed zealots increasingly present in our nation's colleges and universities. The increasing prevalence of vegans and vegetarians in American high schools and post-secondary ed institutions can be directly correlated with the rise of liberalism.

The real question for the liberal elites who encourage this behavior amongst our nation's developing minds: WHAT DID THEY KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?

While many of us have long suspected that these picky eaters were not all there, we now know it is true: they are literally losing their minds...

2008-09-15T13:00:00.004-05:00

Lehman Brothers, the 4^th largest investment bank in the country, is declaring bankruptcy. While the average person may not be affected by this particular financial crisis, the storm is just beginning for many people.

LB is not a commercial bank insured by the federal government but as it is a giant in the investment industry, the news should be equated with a hurricane watch for all Americans.

The general disaster in the mortgage industry, including the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and now the crisis in the investment banking industry have been brewing for a decade.

How did all of these financial crises take root? Here is the perspective of a fairly typical American woman with a bunch of kids who will be saddled with the consequences of our behavior:

As the economy of the 1990s grew, some advocacy groups began pushing for a relaxation in lending standards to ensure that all potential buyers had a better shot at securing a mortgage. An interesting article about the extension of mortgages to lower income and minority homebuyers can be found at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4126/is_11_85/ai_57894563/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

When researchers in the 1990s found a discrepancy in the mortgage approval rates between whites and people of color, a presumption was made that racism was at the core of the denials.

http://www.consumersunion.org/finance/accessw400.htm is just an example of one article discussing the need for lenders and the government to find a way to expand mortgage opportunities for people of color.

Perhaps if one compared the financial circumstances of those denied mortgages, the general truth would have been clear- the denials were based on a lack of credit-worthiness. While there most-assuredly were individuals behaving in a discriminatory manner, the fact that more people of color were denied credit does not automatically lead to an accurate conclusion that the disparity was rooted in race.

Too often, allegations of discrimination were inserted into the discussions to prevent people from questioning the lowered standards that would come into widespread use in the sub-prime mortgage industry.

Efforts to increase homeownership in minority communities also increased home ownership amongst lower income Whites. While expanding homeownership seems to be a great goal, on a strictly emotional level, the potential problems of extending credit to those people without the necessary income (regardless of race) at the time of the qualification was shortsighted. The availability of sub-prime mortgages drove our economy in a disastrous direction.

It can and must be argued that the increase in mortgage availability to people who should not have been approved drove up the value of homes in a clearly predictable supply and demand analysis: more buyers = more demand = increase in housing value.

The increasing value of homes did two things- encouraged homeowners to refinance their homes to draw out the “equity” that emerged as a result of the increased demand and also allowed people who were not credit-worthy to get mortgages that they did not have the resources to pay.

The equity drawn against home values was not necessarily used to pay down other debt, but instead used for items or activities that had no lasting value on a financial spreadsheet. Because many people actually took out loans that were greater than the value of their homes, they are now deeper in debt than they had imagined possible. These increased loans have left many homeowners upside down on their houses- they owe more than their home is worth so they can not sell, even if they need to move.

The use of both balloon payment mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages emerged as a way for consumers to put off paying today what they probably wouldn’t be able to pay tomorrow. Many of the people who took out balloon mortgages cannot qualify for a refinance because they are in either a no better or diminished financial position today and their home value has dropped.

A USA Today article dated 3/30/2005 clearly recognized the potential risk of ARMs but buyers continued buying from lenders who wanted to lend.

No one cared…

In 1998 the journal, Economic Inquiry, published an article by Theodore E. Day and S. J. Liebowitz that predicted the outcome we are in fact seeing today in the mortgage industry. The article, titled “MORTGAGE LENDING TO MINORITIES: WHERE'S THE BIAS?” noted: “The currently fashionable "flexible" underwriting standards of mortgage lenders may have the unintended consequences of increasing defaults for the "beneficiaries " of these policies. ( JELJ7, G28)”

When we use race or socioeconomic wedges to drive policy based on emotion, we are driving on the wrong side of the road.

Now, we see the failure of the investment banks as a result at least in large part because of the over extension of these questionable mortgages.

There can be no question that the failure of these investment banks that relied heavily on investments in mortgages will send many people running to their computers to figure out whether they are personally affected by this mess.

What people may not be seeing is the bigger storm that is yet to hit. The credit card industry will be next in the line of failing businesses as consumers struggle to pay their debt.

As banks used ratios of payment:income to issue credit, those lower mortgage payments fed into the distribution of credit cards to those with questionable ability to pay the resulting revolving credit balances.

Also, in 2005 Congress passed bankruptcy reform legislation that limited a consumer’s ability to walk away from credit card debt. This encouraged credit card issuers to give credit to people who would not have previously qualified.

I don’t buy most of the charges of predatory lending in the mortgage industry but I do think that predatory lending in the credit card industry is rampant and must be dealt with immediately. The credit card industry must take steps to prevent its collapse immediately.

Some examples of problems created by credit card companies:

People get a card with a low “introductory” interest rate and make purchases. They make payments based on the low rate and then, with 15 days notice, the credit card company unilaterally changes the interest rate. Now a person who budgeted payments at a 5.9% interest rate gets socked with payments at 19.9% or 23.95 or possibly 29.9% or, worse yet, 33%.

These rising interest rates do not have to be linked to the consumer’s behavior in regards to that particular card. Citibank can raise a cardholder’s rate based on an issue with Capitol One. Rising interest rates can also be attributed to random and unpredictable changes in the bank's standard to determine an interest rate. My mother just had a credit card raise her interest rate raised because her credit score is now 1 point below a threshold the card company just established. She has never been late, never been over her limit. Yet her monthly payment has now increased with no warning.

Credit card companies send out bills with payments due before the end of the billing cycle and then charge ridiculous late fees designed to prevent consumers from paying down debt.

Rather than deny a charge, banks allow charges that take a consumer over the limit and then charge fees because the consumer is over the limit.

A quick example of how changing credit card rates is impacting overall financial stability in the United States consider the following:

A person with $10,000 debt at a 5.9% interest rate could reasonably expect to have a payment of approximately $150.00 per month.

At 9% interest the payment jumps to just over $180.00.

At 23% the payment becomes about $290.00.

At 33% the payment moves to over $370.00.

This scenario spells disaster for people living on the edge financially. Double the consumers' trouble with rising gas prices further eating into the pocketbooks of the average American family and now, guess what- people can’t afford to pay their mortgages. Which takes us full circle to the mortgage collapse.

The perfect storm has been building. The bankruptcy reform of 2005 fueled the foreclosure crisis as it encouraged financial policies that undermined more and more Americans who just wouldn’t be able to pay it all. We are now about to see the eye of this storm tighten.

The credit card industry is bailing water but it cannot bail fast enough. Soon, those companies will be knocking on Congress’ door seeking the same bailout those who came before them received.

This has got to stop. Perhaps before we bail anyone out, Congress must tell lenders to reform their policies immediately. One quick strategy: the lenders should try dropping the interest rates to Prime plus 1 or 2 or 3 or even 5.

For the average American, this would drop credit card payments. Then tell consumers that the rate is locked in as long as they make their payments on time. If a consumer is late, meaning 30 days late, then that particular credit card company should freeze their credit line at where it stands. That is fair.

It is not fair for credit card B to punish the cardholder preemptively. This piling on by the credit card companies is leading an increasing number of borrowers to question why they should pay at all.

I believe that most people want to pay their debt. If credit card companies don’t try to meet consumers half way, an increasing number of people will no longer feel obliged to pay their debt.

In conclusion, we need to be prepared for the fact that the worst is yet to come. The truth is that people of color will be affected in greater numbers, as people of color are more likely to be economically disadvantaged. This is not the result of racism. The coming financial crisis is not fueled by racism. It is fueled by an over extension of credit to consumers who have not demonstrated an ability to pay.

The coming crisis is fueled by irresponsible personal behavior by borrowers, predatory credit card lending and a convergence of the problems caused by poorly thought out mortgage industry policy and practice.

Congress will be tempted to step in and take over with more regulation and more oversight. That will be the easy solution, but it will be the wrong solution. Congress should not bailout the investment industry and it should not bail out credit card companies.

Bailouts will lead us closer to a centralized banking system. Bailouts lead to a more powerful and more intrusive federal government. Bailouts encourage irresponsible behavior by all parties because they create a safety net that removes individual risks.

Our country is in a financial mess and almost everyone is to blame. Now is the time for creditors to look at their policies and begin to act, voluntarily, in ways that will slow down the storm. Consumers must also step up to the plate and commit to paying what they can and forgoing what they can’t afford.

The people must work to solve this problem before it is solved for us. I guarantee the solutions that come out of Washington during a crisis will not be in the long term best interests of we, the people.

2008-09-15T09:51:00.006-05:00

Obama's claims about sleazy campaigns defy reason if he is actually asserting that any reference to his actual voting record is off limits.

If Obama thinks that the term "age-appropriate sex education, including information on rejecting advances by sexual predators" does not open up kindergartners to sex education taught by far left teachers whose view of age-appropriate may differ from views of the vast majority of Americans, then his cry "foul" is an even clearer indication of how out of touch he is with Middle America.

If the legislation that came out of Obama's committee in the Illinois Senate would have limited sex ed to teaching children about avoiding all child predators then there would be nothing to discuss. In fact the language was not limited because Obama doesn't think the teaching should be limited.

In a speech to a Planned Parenthood audience he showed his true colors on the issue of whether or not teaching should be limited to predator awareness. After making fun of those who question his position, he affirms that it is right to teach age-appropriate sex ed and he reiterated his cautioned that teaching sex ed should not be limited to "abstinence- only" and needs to be countered by other perspectives.

If Obama thinks that average Americans parents, and specifically the conservative parents he is making fun of in his comments, think Kindergartners should receive even abstinence-only education he is tragically mistaken.

Teaching children about safety from predators is not sex education. Sex education does not belong in kindergarten.

Obama seems to laugh a condescending laugh at we, the people whenever we disagree with his elitist positions. We, the people will be crying if we don't begin to realize just how extreme this man actually is and then spread the word about these beliefs with the goal of derailing his candidacy.

The only sleazy thing happening in this campaign are the efforts of Obama, his handlers and his supporters to hide his real positions while besmirching the reputation of John McCain.

After years of training by the Chicago machine, maybe telling the truth is beyond Obama's pay grade.

2008-09-13T17:13:00.004-05:00

An AP headline blares:

"Whites lift McCain to slim lead over Obama in poll"

The byline credits Alan Fram with the brilliant deduction, made after noting that "lopsided support from working-class and suburban whites have lifted Republican John McCain to a slender lead over Barack Obama..."

The poll results showed that McCain holds a 13 point lead with men and seniors and a 23 point lead among rural voters.

I wondered if the AP poll identified the gap between Obama and McCain among black voters so I sought out the poll. While the headline indicates that White voters tipped the scale, the poll itself doesn't seem to extrapolate percentages based on race.

I decided to try to do some deductive calculations using voter ratios from the last election. It seems fair to conclude that for many election cycles, Black voters have voted in lock-step with Democrats. (This in spite of the Democratic party's continued effort to push policy positions that undermine all people who seek to improve their station in life, regardless of color.)

CNN election results from 2004 summarize voter ratios based on race. In 2004, for example, 11% of voters were Black and approximately 88% of Black voters voted for the Democratic candidate. If 88% of the black voters in the AP poll vote for Obama than Obama will secure just over 9% of the overall vote.

If Black voters were to vote in a bi-partisan manner, similar to White voters, the shift would be dramatic, even if one allows that the majority of Black voters would vote Democratic.

In 2004, 58% of White voters voted Republican. Assume, therefore that 58% of Black voters would vote Democratic. This would shift Obama's secure vote from 9% to 6%.

In this very tight election season, a shift in the very lopsided Black vote would shift the poll results from McCain 48 - Obama 44 to McCain 51 - Obama 41. This would no longer be a close election.

As the polls tighten, the inevitable undercurrents suggesting White voters are racist and won't vote for a Black nominee have begun.

All of the conservatives I know would welcome with open arms a conservative Black candidate. One might consider a challenge facing conservatives who hope that more people of color will open their minds to conservative ideology: The absolute ostracism of people of color, by people of color, who profess support of conservative positions. I believe there are many brilliant conservative people of color who choose to remain outside the political fray because the cost of involvement is simply too high in their community.

I digress...

The refusal of conservative White voters to consider Obama as a reasonable alternative to McCain has NOTHING to do with his race and everything to do with the fact that he is the most liberal Senator in office right now. His policies will move the U.S. towards bigger government and more reliance on UN policies to drive our foreign policy. His support of the Global Poverty Act should be enough to convince anyone that Obama is the wrong man at the wrong time.

So, perhaps the title of Mr. Fram's article should have been:

"Blacks ensure Obama stays competitive with McCain in poll"

2008-09-12T13:59:00.003-05:00

“In 1982, John McCain goes to Washington…”

Obama’s new TV ad would have we, the people believe that John McCain has learned nothing in the last 26 years.

Does Obama really think that John McCain doesn’t know how to send an email? Perhaps McCain prefers to talk to people directly- to hear the tone of voice, to look into people’s eyes? Perhaps McCain knows that people communicate best when the communication is direct.

Does Obama’s ad, which credits a post by a liberal blogger -Sasha Issenberg- as though it is a news piece, really mean to give the impression that McCain doesn’t understand the American economy? The more people read and hear about the differences between McCain and Obama the clearer the choice will become.

Obama has big plans for the American taxpayer- a massive redistribution of wealth. That sounds great if you are the person on the receiving end… People would do well to remember, as Jefferson noted: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

McCain is unwavering in his support of small business owners. He favors an overhaul of the tax system but his goal is not to increase taxes on any one group. McCain’s goal is to minimize everyone’s tax burden. The trick for all politicians is clearly to reign in entitlement spending while continuing to provide those limited services and programs that are necessary at the federal level. We have yet to see many politicians willing to tackle this problem.

As Obama’s never-ending list of potential programs grows by the speech, no one should think he will even attempt to control spending. He cannot control spending and grow the programs he openly endorses. It is not possible.

Perhaps a McCain ad could start:

“In 1982, Barack Obama attended Columbia University- the University that invited the extremist Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to campus, but bans the ROTC.

A lot of things have changed in the last 26 years, but Obama hasn’t.

Obama, like a lot of students who attend liberal universities, still thinks that punishing small business owners by imposing higher taxes will grow the economy.

Obama can use a computer to write speeches. Obama knows how to send emails to big donors and far-left college professors. He even knows how to send emails to community organizers.

But does Obama understand the economics that face working people? Does he know that socialized medicine has failed around the world? Does he understand that the dictators at the UN seek to undermine the United States because the U.S. offers hope to people around the world?

Obama isn’t a college student anymore, but his policy positions are still laced with sophomoric rhetoric.

John McCain- a leader with 26 years of experience standing up for average Americans. A leader ready to start changing Washington on Day 1: January 20, 2009.

2008-09-11T00:10:00.003-05:00

What is more insulting to Americans- the comments that Democrats make or the comments the Democrats make when trying to explain the comments they made that they shouldn't have made?

As some in the DFL clearly begin clucking like Chicken Little- either with lipstick or without- it seems there is a growing fear that the man who would be King might actually be just a guy who isn't up to the job. Panic leads to chaos and we are seeing it.

Example 1:

Lots of politicians have talked about the pig with lipstick still being a pig. The only problem: the context in which previous statements have been made was completely different. Clearly, everyone in the country with a TV or radio heard Governor Palin's joke about pit bulls and lipstick. As Obama gave a speech talking about putting lipstick on pig, he actually paused to let the line reverberate with the crowd. As this partisan crowd laughed, he continued- clearly pleased with himself for hitting the right note with this audience. Those in attendance obviously caught the joke. As news of the comment leaked out to the real world- it was clear to all what he meant. Those outside the far-left saw the comment for what it was- a cheap shot one might expect from a junior high bully. As Obama tried to convince we, the people that the media and Republicans over reacted- he simply looked more ridiculous than he had the day before. If he really didn't know how his comment would be taken one must wonder about his ability to assess the political landscape. A man with this sort of judgement may be vulnerable to making such mistakes in other circumstances. I wonder if his appearance on Letterman, in which he continued his audacious effort to explain away his lipstick comment, will help him with non-lefty voters or further cement him as the candidate of hype and celebrity...

Example 2:

South Carolina Democratic party Chairwoman Carol Fowler noted that Palin's primary qualification for being the VP nominee was that she hadn't had an abortion. IS SHE KIDDING?

This woman should be canned immediately. Once it became apparent that the comment was in outrageously bad taste, Ms. Fowler apologized and tried to dig herself out of the abyss by noting that she was talking about single issue voters. Her admission that her statement was clumsy may be one of the season's biggest understatements...

Example 3:

The new talking point: Democrats like Steve Cohen D-Tenn, and Donna Brazile have now reminded voters that Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor. Unbelievable...

The liberal left wouldn't exist without the community organizers. It is not bad to be a community organizer. There are millions of community organizers. I myself like to think at times I help to organize a community of conservatives to counter the community organizers of the left. The point of the criticism of this aspect of Obama's resume is that community organizing is not a job that qualifies a person to be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. As Obama's resume jumps from the job of community organizing to the position of state senator to his current job as a U.S. Senator, there are no bullet points on his resume demonstrating a skill set that might lead to the position of the Chief Executive of the United States.

The frenzied speeches and silly comments indicate the Democratic Party is struggling with the possibility that the election will no longer be a coronation. The more the Democrats talk, the worse things become. Based on the three examples noted above, Obama's camp would be better off asking all of their talking heads to take a vacation. Obama did well when he was vacationing in Hawaii...

Which brings us to the sad reality that Obama can give a great speech and that is actually the one skill he has that a President should have. The problem that many in his own camp are beginning to recognize: Speech giving, with a teleprompter, is his only actual skill.

I would suggest that if we, the people want a President who can merely give a great speech, we should consider Bill Pullman. Everyone who has seen Independence Day would acknowledge that Pullman's speech to the pilots getting ready to go fight alien invaders was incredible. He didn't even need a teleprompter...

The next eight weeks will be filled with challenges for both parties. Republicans must try to keep the conversation focused on issues because it is clear that the Democrats have nothing to say about issues. Democrats need to find a way to keep Obama's foot out of his mouth as he seems to have become his party's greatest challenge.

What is next? The lawyers are now invading Alaska, looking for any Palin problem the media has yet to uncover. They will look for the tiniest shred of a possible problem. The American people are not this stupid- they will see through the efforts of the few. The efforts to bring down Palin skirt a very fine line. Barring an obvious and clear transgression by Palin, the Democrats will continue to look petty and small in their quest.

Democrats will, most likely, continue to insult the average American by trying to spin their wobbling talking points even as those plates are falling to the floor.. A few points Democrats may want to note:

Conservatives will stop referring to Obama as a former community organizer when liberals stop referring to Palin as the former Mayor of a small town.

A smart politician stops digging the hole as soon as s/he realizes s/he is in it.

Apologies must be sincere to be believed.

Americans don't like to be insulted.

2008-09-09T11:06:00.007-05:00

As a woman who is fairly politically aware I continue to be stunned by the "feminist" reaction to Sarah Palin.

How do the "feminists" claim that Palin not represent real women? Palin is a more typical woman than any leader of the NOW crowd could ever claim to be.

Feminist leader Gloria Steinem has an issue with Palin because she is a member of the NRA. Apparently women in the United States should be opposed to the Second Amendment if they want to curry favor with "feminists".

Steinem is opposed to Palin's belief that the U.S. must take a "use it all" approach to energy as we develop long term clean solutions to our energy disaster. Apparently "feminist" theory requires we all try to find a way to bicycle our kids to soccer practice and hockey games.

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin believes the "theory of evolution" should be taught alongside creationism. Apparently all those bitter, Bible-totin' Christians should ignore the public school efforts to undermine religion while the children of the "feminists" get to remain blissfully ignorant of one of the most read and written about books in the world.

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin questions the validity of global warming. Has Steinem failed to note that even the most die-hard global warming zealots now use the term global climate change because the truth is the earth's temperature has stabilized and may be entering a cooling pattern? Also if the new findings and fears about sunspots hold true- we may need all of the warming we can get as our world and agricultural strategies adjust to the climate change that results from the "dead face" of the sun. (click here for chart of sun spot frequency)

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin is pro-Life. Steinem misrepresents Palin's views by asserting Palin "supports government control of women's wombs" rather than framing the issue as Palin wants women to control their own behavior and then take responsibility for the consequences of their conduct. Palin also understands that women who are fully informed about prenatal development may make a different choice than Steinem and her "feminist" followers think best. It is Steinem who wants to keep women ignorant.

Steinem is opposed to Palin because Palin doesn't support "stem cell" research. Steinem and her fellow "feminists" continually use incorrect terminology to attempt to undermine their political foes. Their efforts to convince ignorant people that all stem cell research is the same cuts to the core difference between liberals and conservatives today.

Liberals like to speak in broad terms that pull an emotional punch and conservatives want to have legitimate, detailed discussions about policy. Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research because in her view an embryo is a human being with the potential for life. Steinem's misrepresentation of Palin's opposition to a specific type of stem cell research- embryonic- to suggest a total opposition to ALL stem cell research is at best disingenuous.

Steinem's pro-abortion position colors her ability to talk truthfully about stem cells: There is no study to date that offers hope that embryonic stem cell research will yield any solution to any medical problem. On the other hand, ADULT stem cells have led to very important treatments for leukemia and other cancers. Additionally, there is a growing belief in the vast potential for stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood to lead to treatments for disease. One might think it logical to spend limited resources to expand upon success. Maybe "feminists" like Steinem prefer to pour money down drains that perpetuate their pro-abortion positions rather than into coffers that may actually lead to success in treating those with disabilities.

Steinem opposes Palin because Palin supports "abstinence- only" programs in school. Some "feminists" have even suggested that Palin's view is the cause of her daughter's pregnancy. Actually, perhaps the problem facing teenagers and their parents is that the schools clearly undermine parental efforts to encourage abstinence only behavior by presenting non-abstinence as a more normal and natural occurrence. Additionally, as society has become more tolerant of sexually explicit content on TV and in the media in general, any study purporting to draw a conclusion about the success or failure of "abstinence-only" programs must carefully attempt to sort out the influence of these external factors on children and teenagers.

The far-left positions of Steinem and her "feminist" followers are not in the mainstream and undermine the stability of the United States by undermining the stability of the American family.

I consider myself "pro-woman" and I know that women with children can make choices to secure both their families and their careers. Strong women seek life partners who will support them in their quest to build a family and often a career. While Steinem may find this shocking, there are men out there who actually believe their wives can and should work, who will do laundry and cook dinner, who will do car pool and supervise play dates. Some of these men actually volunteer to be the primary caretaker.

I want my daughters to believe they can choose the life they lead but also to know that every choice they make will have a consequence. I hope my daughters are strong enough to accept those consequences with grace and humility and integrity.

Steinem clings to her 1970s rhetoric and I have a message for her: Women have moved on, Gloria. The main issue for intelligent women is not whether women can have sexual relationships with whomever they want, whenever they want or even whether or not women can secure an abortion for any reason.

Some of us choose to read. Some of us choose to think beyond your talking points. A growing number of us recognize this election is about more than party politics- it is about the future of this country and its ability to stand strong in a world of empowered dictators. This election is about whether or not our country will develop a comprehensive strategy to achieve energy independence. It is about whether our government will use tax policy to encourage the development of small business or undermine small business. It is about whether the government will begin to cut programs that encourage irresponsible behavior. It is about whether our government becomes becomes more involved in our daily lives or less involved. It is fundamentally about whether the people of the United States want a larger federal government or an empowered populace.

Gloria et al- This election is about so much more than to your pro-choice, pro-sexual revolution policies that I could go on and on...

Instead I will simply conclude that after reading Steinem's position on Palin, I can honestly assert that women need Steinem's brand of feminism like a fish needs a bicycle...

2008-06-19T22:14:00.005-05:00

In their efforts to transform Michelle Obama into a more likable personality, her team is trying to spin her misspeak from February. Was she "proud" or "really proud" and does it really matter?

Yesterday on the View, MO and the giddy women of the View, tried to offer the real explanation for her lack of pride, or real pride, in the United States in her adult life.

For the first time, after months of scrutiny, they apparently figured out a way to try to justify her ridiculous statement: There was confusion about what she meant- she wasn't referring to her lack of pride in the U.S. No- she meant she had not been proud of the political process...

Thanks to a post on Youtube, we learned that there were actually two speeches on the same day- one in which she made the statement without the word "really" and the second with the word "really" inserted.

Click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4

The sham, or shame, is that she did make the first statement and no amount of replays changes that fact.

They are now trying to pretend that she was misquoted. There was no misquote- there was a redo with a wording change.

Some brilliant reporter ought to ask her "Why did you add the "really" in the second speech?" Was she advised to do it to make it play better? Did she realize she had added the word and if yes, why has it taken so long for her camp to try to explain the quote?

In the end- the Obamas are politicians like most of the others who have gone before them- they aren't about change- they are simply more of the same.

While no one should expect Joy Behar or Barbara Walters to ask a liberal a tough question, perhaps Elisabeth Hasselbeck could have done the women who watch the View a favor and asked MO about the two speeches-even if it might have made the guest host (MO) a little uncomfortable. If she is going to claim the conservative spot on the couch, she should make a better effort to be that voice. The View, and Hasselbeck, owes the viewers more...

The next few months will be critical to our country and women (and men) need to pay better attention to facts. The main stream media can not be expected to do its job- the bias is real and clear and political.

If there is no bias why has there been almost no discussion of this attempt to spin?

2008-06-18T23:45:00.004-05:00

We Will Drill- The only question left to answer is "When will we begin?"

If the Chinese can drill for oil off of the coast of Cuba, why would Congress stand in the way of American companies drilling in the same area?

Do those standing in the way of drilling think that China will be more concerned with the environment than will our American companies?

Will the Chinese drillers be accountable to our Congress? Will they follow the regulations created by the EPA? Will the oil be more likely to end up in the U.S or other countries around the world? No, No and of course the oil will be shipped around the world. Maybe the UN will help to decide which countries get how much oil for how much money...

Oil Shale fields are available in the U.S. and there are companies ready to develop refineries..

ANWR is available- the equivalent area of a postage stamp on a football field would yield billions of barrels of oil...

If Republicans don't refine their positions on the issues related to oil and energy in response to the growing challenges faced by all Americans they are fools...

If Republicans fail to speak in a clear and unified voice that demands an immediate change in energy policy- they will have ignored what seems to be a clear and necessary path to a more stable economy.

Obama wants "Change" but the change he looks towards in terms of energy is to limit the ability of Americans to live the lives we have been leading. His Change is in fact a regression towards a mean we surpassed long ago.

All Americans should understand that the whimsy of light rail and two-seater cars and bicycle trails are leading our country down a dangerous path. Our society can not and should not turn on a dime to appease global climate alarmists.

There is no question that oil is not the solution to our energy problems but it will be necessary for many, many more years as we develop other alternatives.

The solution to the energy crisis is not for Americans to revert to lifestyles of the mid 20th century because much of the world has never achieved, and may never achieve, our quality of life.

The solution to this problem is not to shame Americans for living a lifestyle that others around the world dream of experiencing.

The solution to the oil problem is to unleash the American spirit and energy by allowing Americans and American companies the freedom to explore, develop and cultivate new technologies as we utilize the vast resources available to us in this hemisphere.

2008-05-21T00:23:00.006-05:00

Are average Americans more like the voters in Kentucky or like the voters in Oregon?

As the pundits try to unwrap what happened yesterday, one thing should be clear: Hillary won the night on Tuesday.

No matter how hard Obama tries to close the door on her, he cannot.

His effort to use Iowa to remind voters of the hope they ignited is pitiful. (How would the vote turn out today if Iowa voters could vote again? Are there any bitter voters who might change their vote?)

Is the most important result that Obama won Oregon? No.

With 88% of the Oregon vote counted, Obama leads Clinton by approximately 95,000 votes. If the trend continues, he will have beaten her by less than 120,000 votes. It seems like a big margin until you compare the numbers to Kentucky.

What matters is that at the end of the day, Clinton trounced Obama by 250,000 votes in Kentucky.

What matters is that HRod beat Obama 65% to 30% in Kentucky.

When the night's votes are counted, Clinton will have received at least 100,000 votes more than Obama.

How is this information not relevant to the primary run? To the Super Delegates?

Again, are average Americans more like the voters in Kentucky or the voters in Oregon?

The trajectory for Clinton is on the upswing, even as she faces a far left mainstream media that seeks to destroy her candidacy. (Does she now see the bias that conservatives have recognized for decades? It must be difficult for her to be on the receiving end of their ire...)

Clinton's speech writers should be fired up today- instead they seem to be asleep. Is their malaise purposeful? How badly does she want the nomination this year? Perhaps she does not.

As McCain and Obama continue their campaigns against each other, the Democratic movement will drift to the left. Obama will continue chastising Americans for wanting to live comfortable lives when others around the world struggle without air conditioning and McDonald's. Obama will slip in his speeches because he is young and inexperienced and arrogant.

Michelle Obama will continue to pout about her struggle to survive with a $300,000 per year job in a country as mean as America. (Thankfully, she no longer has to struggle under the burden of their student loans that they finally paid off - maybe someone should ask her what their student loan payments were every month and also what their interest rate happened to be...)

This is good news for Republicans. The country is not as extreme as Obama and his followers believe. Average Americans will begin to pay attention in September and they will see the naked Emperor and they will turn away from his disdain for the average American and the principles that have helped guide this country for well over 200 years. They will reject HIS efforts to use race to divide us. They will not be hoodwinked by a modern day shyster.

Unlike the Obamas, I have faith in the American people and the American Dream. Both are alive and well and both will win in November.

2008-05-19T21:30:00.001-05:00

I would rather have a third Bush term than a second Carter term...

2008-05-19T10:07:00.005-05:00

I will set my thermostat at 72 degrees. On some days I might even be really selfish and set the thermostat at 70. I will eat what I want. I will drive my many children around in my conversion van. (click here for Obama comments)

I will not ask people in other countries whether or not this is OK or if they are happy about it.

I will continue to urge my legislators to pursue nuclear power.

I will also support those legislators who encourage our country to cease supporting the Ethanol boondoggle before our food supply is diminished, food prices soar and we fall further behind in our pursuit of longer term energy solutions.

I will support those who understand that opening up a minuscule portion of ANWR to oil drilling will help us bridge the chasm to cleaner fuel. Drilling would occur in the area of ANWR that is flat, has no light for nearly 2 months of the year, temperatures reach 100 below zero and the tallest plant barely reaches one foot tall. (click here for info on ANWR)

The same for the development of shale use. (click here for info on shale)

The same for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. (click here for recent news release)

I will also support legislators who understand that it is not their business what I choose to eat or if I eat more than my neighbor.

Obama-like liberals who think they need to protect us from ourselves in every aspect of our lives must be stopped. There is no end to their pursuit of control over us.

Obama's willingness to make such a sweeping comment in an open campaign rally should wake up Americans who value freedom. He no longer thinks he needs to be careful about what he says- he just openly states what he sees to be obvious: Americans need to change our lifestyles, we need to lower our standard of living and diminish our quality of life to appease other counties.

This is ridiculous.

I hope to spend my summer well-fed and happy and in my air-conditioned house when I am not riding around in my air-conditioned car...