Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘Race for the White House 2008’

The Father of the Bride: My view of the Inauguration of Barack Obama

I was listening to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt discuss the swearing in ceremony of President Barack Obama when a caller likened the experience to being the father of the bride at a wedding where he never approved of the groom. And I honestly have to say that I could not think of a more appropriate analogy than the one this man had so cleverly offered.

I am a black Republican, who also happens to be the father of a beautiful daughter. I know that one day (in the distant future) she will chose a man to be her husband; and like it or not, it is her choice, not mine. While I pray that she would choose a man whose morals and values are consistent with those we have tried to instill in both of our children, this choice is not mine to make. So what would happen if she chose to go a different direction?

Would I be angry and refuse to attend the wedding? Would I go out of my way to undermine the engagement and actually try to stop the nuptials from taking place? Would I curse her, her husband and their impending marriage? Of course not!

I love my daughter and want only the best for her. Although I may have well founded doubts about the partner she has chosen, I will pray that I am wrong. I will cling to the hope that my assessments are incorrect and that their future together will be blessed with joy and prosperity. This is because my desire to be right pales in comparison to the love I have for this most precious gift that is my only daughter.

I did not choose Barack Obama to be my President. But the choice was not mine alone. And like my daughter, I love this country, because of the many blessings it has given me. I will not wish ill to my President because the fate of those I love are intertwined with his. The leadership he provides will have a profound affect on all of us. His success is our success. His failures are our failures. This is what marriage (matrimonial or political) are all about.

While I reserve the right to maintain my skepticism and will stand at the ready to defend the ones I care about from this man whom I did not chose; I cannot ignore the significance of this day and the message that the election of the First black President sends about how far we have come as a nation. I must join in the celebration this historic day and root on my new President. I will support him as he does good and provide constructive criticism when he does wrong. But I will none-the-less give him this day and honor what it means to so many of my fellow Americans.

We are an American family. And like it or not… Barack Obama is part of our family. So, I wish him all the best!

Change we can believe in?

After running the most effective campaign $ 1 billion can buy, Barak Obama has won the presidency of the United States of America.

If I sound bitter, I’m not. The American public has spoken. This election was about change; and clearly Barak Obama offered the kind of change that voters were looking for. My only question is, what kind of change exactly is that?

Throughout the election, I came across Obama supporters who had no idea what his record was or what he planned to do once elected. But , they did know that we needed change. My response was always the same, “Out of the frying pan, into the fire- That’s change!”

My brother David seems to think that Barak Obama will learn from the mistakes of the past. He believes that unlike Clinton, who also had the benefit of a working majority in both houses of congress, Obama will not adopt a far left agenda. For the nation’s sake I hope he is right.

However, I just don’t think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will be able to help themselves. When left unrestrained by conservative roadblocks, liberals seem to develop a policy turrets syndrome. “RAISE TAXES!” “UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!” “END GLOBAL WARMING!”

You name it, they will propose it. It doesn’t matter whether or not it will work; or what the negative consequences may be. As long as it sounds good they will run it up the flagpole. But this time they have enough people to salute and actually pass their liberal agenda. The only question that remains is whether or not a man who was the most liberal member of the Senate will sign on the dotted line.

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical.

This Brotha has escaped the plantation!

Thank God! Someone else gets it!

John McCain roasts Dems & MSM (Funny Video)

DeLuz Brothers Discuss Race And The Presidential Election

This week the Sacramento County Republican Party was in the news for having items on their website that some called racially motivated, others called stupid,sophomoric jokes. In any case, the issue has ignited a firestorm that leaves many asking “Who is really playing the race card in this year’s historic presidential election?”

David believes that the Republicans are up to their old tricks, including fear-mongering. Meanwhile Craig thinks that while some of the complaints are legitimate, the Democrats are also doing whatever they can to deflect legitimate criticism away from their candidate by declaring it all to be racist.

To tune in simply go to http://www.deluzbrothers.com/ and click on the Listen Live Button at the top of the page.

You can even join the conversation by calling in at (347) 237-5073. We will be breaking down the upcoming election and much more. You don’t want to miss the fireworks!

Details Below:

When: Friday, October 10th

Station: Blogtalk Radio

Live Audio Steaming at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/The-DeLuz-Brothers

TIME: 9:30-10 am (PST)

Call in Number: (347) 237-5073

Democrats fought McCain’s efforts to address pending finaincial crisis

The following was sent out by the California Republican Party. I figured that I woud pass it on to my readers, unfiltered.

Democrats Attack McCain Even Though They Blocked Reform Efforts He Sought To Help Fix The Financial Markets

Obama’s Congressional Allies Have Been Attacking Sen. John McCain For Engaging In Negotiations On Legislation To Stabilize Financial Markets:

“In Interviews After The Meeting, Obama Pointed A Finger At His Rival For The Faltering Talks…” (Michael D. Shear and Jonathan Weisman, “Debate Still In Limbo As Democrats Blame McCain For Interrupting Process,” The Washington Post, 9/26/08)

Obama Suggested The Negotiations Were Damaged By Presidential Politics. “Obama suggested the talks were damaged by politics. ‘When you start injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations you can actually create more problems rather than less,’ Obama said on CNN.” (Alison Vekshin and James Rowley, “House Republicans Undercut Bush On Rescue, Slow Talks,” Bloomberg News, 9/26/08)

But McCain Has Led Efforts To Reform Financial Markets:

The Washington Post: “[W]hen It Comes To Regulating Financial Institutions And Corporate Misconduct, Mr. McCain’s Record Is More In Keeping With His Current Rhetoric.” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)

John McCain Urged Action More Than Two Years Ago, Co-Sponsoring Legislation To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Warning: “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.” McCain: “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.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Statement On Co-Sponsorship Of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005,” Press Release, 5/26/06)

In 2002, McCain Called For Greater Oversight Of Financial Markets Following Accounting Scandals. “In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. ‘I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation,’ he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. ‘But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor — and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years — can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work.'” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)

McCain Led The Charge To Remove Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt. “Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he ‘seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government’s demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well.'” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)

And Obama Ally Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Blocked Multiple Attempts At Reforming Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Spanning Back To 1992:

“[Frank’s] Record Is Close To Perfect As A Stalwart Opponent Of Reforming The Two Companies, Going Back More Than A Decade. The First Concerted Push To Rein In Fan And Fred In Congress Came As Far Back As 1992, And Mr. Frank Was Right There, Standing Athwart. But Things Really Picked Up This Decade, And Barney Was There At Every Turn.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“Two Years Later, Mr. Frank Was At It Again. ‘I Do Not Regard Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac As Problems,’ He Said In Response To Another Reform Push. And Then: ‘I Regard Them As Great Assets.'” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“A Month Later, Freddie Mac’s Multibillion-Dollar Accounting Scandal Broke Into The Open. But Mr. Frank Was Sanguine. ‘I Do Not Think We Are Facing Any Kind Of A Crisis,’ He Said At The Time.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“Three Months Later He Repeated The Claim That Fannie And Freddie Posed No ‘Threat To The Treasury.’ Even Suggesting That Heresy, He Added, Could Become ‘A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.'” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“In April 2004, Fannie Announced A Multibillion-Dollar Financial ‘Misstatement’ Of Its Own. Mr. Frank Was Back For The Defense. Fannie And Freddie Posed No Risk To Taxpayers, He Said, Adding That ‘I Think Wall Street Will Get Over It’ If The Two Collapsed.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

Obama Ally Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, After Receiving A Sweetheart Deal On Loans For His Own Houses:

Obama Joined Sen. Dodd – Both Top Recipients Of Fannie And Freddie Contributions – In Opposing Reform Measures And Weakening Existing Regulations. “During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.” (Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner, Op-Ed, “Where Was Sen. Dodd?” The Washington Post, 9/12/08)

Dodd Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07)

In 2003, Dodd, Chairman Of The Senate Banking Committee, Received Preferential Loans From Countrywide Financial On His Two Homes Which Saved Him $75,000. “Senators Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s ‘V.I.P.’ program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents and emails and a former employee familiar with the loans. … Senator Dodd received two loans in 2003 through Countrywide’s V.I.P. program. He borrowed $506,000 to refinance his Washington townhouse, and $275,042 to refinance a home in East Haddam, Connecticut. Countrywide wai ved three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan, and one-fourth of a point, about $700, on the second, according to internal documents. Both loans were for 30 years, with the first five years at a fixed rate. The interest rate on the loans, originally pegged at 4.875%, was reduced to 4.25% on the Washington home and 4.5% on the Connecticut property by the time the loans were funded. The lower rates save the senator about $58,000 on his Washington residence over the life of the loan, and $17,000 on the Connecticut home.” (Daniel Golden, “Countrywide’s Many ‘Friends,'” Portfolio, 6/12/08)

Obama Ally Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Has Been A “Leading Voice For [Financial] Deregulation,” Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, And Was Instrumental In The Collapse Of Bank IndyMac:

Until The Current Financial Crisis, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) “Had Been A Leading Voice For Deregulation,” Supporting Repeal Of Great-Depression Era Regulations, Re-Examining Corporate Oversight Laws, And Opposing Reducing Taxpayer Risks Associated With Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. “Until the current credit crisis, Mr. Schumer had been a leading voice for deregulation: He ha s championed the repeal of a Great Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from underwriting securities; he has written an opinion piece calling for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be ‘re-examined,’ and he has opposed a bill that sought to reduce taxpayer risk in the event of a housing market slowdown by requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to sell their entire investment portfolios of about $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage assets.” (Joseph Goldstein, “Pro-Deregulation Schumer Scores Bush For Lack of Regulation,” The New York Sun, 9/22/08)

Schumer Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07)

Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans (Funny Video)


Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans

On Barak’s Speech: Don’t Believe the Hype!

When evaluating Barak Obama’s acceptance speach last night one has to wonder who exactly he was talking about, because he sure didn’t sound like he was describing himself.

I think Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, put it best when he said:

“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”

Now before my liberal friends start accusing me of drinking the conservative Kool-Aide, let me share with you the following information on Barak and just a few of his misleading claims (Hat-tip to the CRP)

BARACK OBAMA’S TOP MISLEADING CLAIMS

MISLEADING CLAIM #1: Barack Obama Can Bring Democrats And Republicans Together. OBAMA: “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

NPR’s Juan Williams: Barack Obama “Doesn’t Have The Record” Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has.” NPR’S JUAN WILLIAMS: “You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there’s John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn’t have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn’t have the record.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 5/7/08)

To Watch: (Click Here)

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen: “There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically.” “Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.” (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, “McCain’s Core Advantage,” The Washington Post, 6/24/08)

Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “He’s pretty much a conventional liberal on the issues and has few examples of breaking with his own party, so how does Obama try to pull off being ‘post-partisan?'” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama’s Third Way: It’s All In The Tone,” Politico, 6/30/08)

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion.” “Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, ‘unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.'” (Tim Talley, “Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse,” The Associated Press, 6/10/08)

“The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat …” (Editorial, “Obama’s Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?” USA Today, 1/28/08)

In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=12, Accessed 3/3/08)

In 2006, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 96 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPp2usgY6Y&reason=0, Accessed 1/27/08)

In 2005, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=12, Accessed 1/27/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #2: Barack Obama Will Ensure That Our Troops On The Ground Have “The Equipment They Need In Battle.” OBAMA: “As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

MISLEADING CLAIM #3: Barack Obama Has Not Supported The President. OBAMA: “These challenges are not all of government’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. … But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush “For The Most Part.” REPORTER: “For a couple of days, they’ve been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that’s going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?” OBAMA: “I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I’ve been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there.” (KMOV [St. Louis, MO], 6/10/08)

To Watch Barack Obama’s KMOV Interview (Click Here)

· The New York Times’ David Brooks: Democrats Saying McCain Represents The Third Bush Term Are “Just Factually Inaccurate.” “Finally, the Obama people are too convinced that they can define McCain as Bush III. The case is just factually inaccurate. McCain will be able to pull out dozens of instances, from torture to global warming to spending, in which he broke with his party, as Rush Limbaugh will tell you.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “Calling Dr. Doom,” The New York Times, 6/3/08)

Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh: “As We Now Know Nearly Four Years Later, McCain Was Dead On In His Analysis Of What Went Wrong In Iraq.” “In early November 2003, at a time when Fred Dalton Thompson was playing a tough D.A. on ‘Law and Order,’ John McCain was cross-examining Donald Rumsfeld for real on Capitol Hill. It was still very early into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the as-yet-unacknowledged (by Rummy, that is) insurgency was already out of control. Alone among his fellow GOP senators, McCain blasted Rumsfeld for not putting enough U.S. troops on the ground, and for resorting too soon to ‘Iraqification’ — that is, transferring security to ill-prepared Iraqi forces. In an extraordinarily blunt speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that grim autumn, McCain warned that ultimately Iraq could become another Vietnam ‘if we lose popular support in the United States.’ The next day, the secretary of Defense asked McCain to breakfast. ‘I read y our speech,’ harrumphed Rumsfeld (that ‘must have been an enjoyable experience for him,’ McCain later joked to me). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he and his top civilian brass (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the usual crowd of incompetents) would continue to do things the same way. They ‘believed there was no need for additional troops,’ McCain later related. McCain had already realized that Rumsfeld was a lost cause. The real question, the senator suggested to me back then, was whether George W. Bush himself would push Rummy to make changes. ‘I’d like to see the president fully engaged,’ McCain said. Bush needed to be on top of ‘more details of what’s going on.’ As we now know nearly four years later, McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq. Right down to the need for Bush to get engaged and fire Rumsfeld. McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about Bush’s current ‘surg e’ is that if it had occurred back then — when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years — it might well have succeeded.” (Michael Hirsh, “Why McCain’s Collapse Matters,” Newsweek, 7/26/07)

· John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)

· John McCain Is “Widely Acknowledged To Have Charted A Course Independent Of Bush” On Climate Change. “On global warming, McCain is widely acknowledged to have charted a course independent of Bush. Immediately after the 2004 election, in which he stumped for Bush’s re-election, he sharply distanced himself from Bush on climate change, calling the administration’s stance ‘terribly disappointing.’ McCain had co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman to curb greenhouse gases in 2003. Bush had opposed any such move, citing possible harm to the economy and doubts over global warming.” (William March, “McCain Bucks Ties To Bush,” The Tampa Tribune, 6/11/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #4: John McCain Believes We’ve Made “Great Progress” And Families Aren’t Hurting. OBAMA: “He said that our economy has made ‘great progress’ under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the e conomy are strong.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· FactCheck.org: Obama Use Of Quote Is “Misleading” And “Distorts” John McCain’s Words. “The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: ‘[T]here’s been great progress economically.’ The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. … McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during Bush’s time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldn’t be enough to comfort families ‘facing these tremendous economic challenges.’ His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites ‘challenging times’ and ‘enormous difficulties.’ The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks.” (D’Angelo Gore, “Distorting McCain’s Remarks,” FactCheck.org, 8/19/08)

In The Full Question And Answer Cited By Barack Obama, John McCain Clearly Said That We Are In “Tough Times” And Families Are Facing “Tremendous Economic Challenges.” Bloomberg’s Peter Cook: “I’m going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?” McCain: “Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re– why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties. “I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, yo u could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong. We’re the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They haven’t lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still– keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.” (John McCain, Interview With Bloomberg TV, 4/17/08)

To Watch Video Of Obama Economic Attack Compared To John McCain’s Full Response: (Click Here)

ABC News: Barack Obama Proved “He Knows How To Twist With The Best Of Them” When He Cited The McCain Quote. “Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. Speaking in Erie, Pa., Obama charged: ‘John McCain went on television and said that there has “been great progress economically” over the last seven and a half years.’ Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain’s Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is ‘no comfort’ to struggling families.” (Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib, “Obama Twists McCain On Economy,” ABC News, 4/18/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #5: Barack Obama Will Pay For His Massive Spending Increase. OBAMA: “Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime — by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less — because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama: “I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013.” “‘I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,’ Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has “No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending.” “Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending.” (Editorial, “Failure Of Nerve,” Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)

The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

The National Journal’s John Maggs: “[Obama] Has Rhetorically Committed To A ‘Pay-As-You-Go’ Approach By Offsetting New Spending And Tax Cuts With New Taxes Or Spending Cuts, But His Proposals Do Not Come Close To Meeting This Standard.” (John Maggs, “Obama On The Economy,” The National Journal, 5/31/08)

Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of” His Proposals. “The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do.” (Peter Nicholas, “Adding Up The Cost Of Obama’s Agenda,” Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)

The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #6: Under Barack Obama, We Will Achieve Energy Independence. OBAMA: “And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

The Detroit News: Barack Obama’s Energy Plan Will “Do Nothing To Answer The Nation’s Long-Term Needs.” “The latest additions to Sen. Barack Obama’s energy plan, outlined during an appearance in Lansing Monday, may win the Democratic presidential candidate some votes from disgruntled consumers in November, but they’ll do nothing to answer the nation’s long-term needs.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Energy Plan Is Fueled By Populism,” The Detroit News, 8/5/08)

The Washington Post Editorial: Barack Obama Offering Gimmicks On Energy. “When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. ‘It’s an idea to get them through an election,’ Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)

Barack Obama Opposes Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore To Increase American Energy Independence. Obama: “The politics may have changed, but the facts haven’t. The accuracy of Sen. McCain’s original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/08)

Barack Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell, PA, 4/21/08)

Barack Obama Called John McCain’s $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A “Gimmick.” Obama: “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

Barack Obama Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: “That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn’t make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

Barack Obama Is Proposing A Tax On Oil That Will Only Lead To Higher Prices At The Pump. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Washington Post: Barack Obama’s Tax On Oil Will Only Lead To “Higher Prices At The Pump.” “But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump– thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #7: Barack Obama Will Cut Taxes. OBAMA: “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95% of all working families.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple…. But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standar d deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (“The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, https://mail.cagop.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.factcheck.org/, 7/8/08)

FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (“The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html, 7/8/08)

Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)

The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)

Biden on Obama: This ad wrote itself!

It is going to be fun watching as Democrats try to spin these very public statements that Barak is not ready to lead by very popular figures like Biden & Clinton.

Barack Obama: The Child – The Messiah – The Obamessiah

This video pretty much says it all…

HYPE: The Obama Effect

I saw this adv for “HYPE: The Obama Effect” while watching Fox News this morning.

The trailer is even more compelling. I really hope that this movie will help unmask the left’s newest messiah and reveal the fact that once you get past all they rhetoric of “Hope and Change” Barak Obama is nothing more than a Jimmy Carter liberal in a shiny new package.

Obama changes mind on the surge: It ain’t so bad!

Let the flip-floping continue! Below is an article fromt he New York Daily News noting that the Obama Campaign unceremoniously removed all criticizm of the the surge from their website.

I don’t know that this represents a change of opinion. But more a change of tactics. You know… If you don’t have anything nice to say about the surge, don’t say anything at all. (Hat Tip to the CRP)

“Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq”
New York Daily News

“Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence.”
— Daily News’ James Gordon Meek

By James Gordon Meek
July 14, 2008

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. “The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” said McCain, adding that Obama “refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.”

Obama says politics blocks economic solutions. Forgot to include the word “Liberal”

Barak Obama once again proves that he is a not quite ready for primetime player. He declared that we could solve our economic problems if only we could get politics out of the way.

Obama wrapped up his tour of battleground states with a summit focused on economic issues.

AP reported:

Barack Obama told top business leaders Thursday that politics often gets in the way of solving problems that threaten America’s ability to stay competitive in the global economy.

“There is surprising consensus in this country about what needs to be done — somehow our politics prevent us from acting on that consensus,” Obama said at an economic summit meeting. “We spend an enormous amount of time talking about what separates us, along party lines, along racial lines, along economic lines, but when it comes to how we need to retool America to continue its greatness, we’ve got a lot of stuff that we can agree on.”

According to his website, here are some of the policies he advocates that we could find agreement on:

• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans
• Support Job Creation
• Invest in Rural Areas
• Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
• Expand Flexible Work Arrangements

But here is the problem… He and his fellow Democrats have failed to support any of these measures.

They won’t support tax cuts for ALL working families. They refuse to support a flat tax, which would simplify the tax code overnight. They only want to support R&D tax credits for industries they approve of, not the ones that actually create jobs. And the union bosses that run the Democrat Party will not allow business to offer their employees the same flexible work schedules that their members often enjoy.

No… The “solutions we agree on” that Obama is talking about are the ones that he and his fellow liberals have cooked up. If he has his way we will be mandating “green technologies” that don’t yet exist, compelling employers to unionize against their will, raising the minimum wage and mandating that employees get more paid leave.

How exactly will these policies improve the economy?

Democrats need to realize that the government cannot do anything to improve the economy except getting out it’s way by freeing business from overregulation and getting out of the pockets of American families.

In Case You Missed It: Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

This article is from Politico.com:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the “diversity” of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”

In Detroit on Monday, the two different Obama volunteers — in separate incidents — made it clear that headscarves wouldn’t be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.

In Aref’s case, there was no ambiguity.

That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref’s friend Ali Koussan and two other friends, Aref’s brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would, but mentioned they were with friends.

The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.

The volunteer “explained to me that because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,” said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University.

Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the “political climate” in telling them they couldn’t sit behind Obama.

“I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Are you serious?'” Koussan recalled.

Shimaa Abdelfadeel’s story was different. She’d waited on line outside the Joe Louis Arena for three hours in the sun and was walking through the giant hall when a volunteer approached two of her non-Muslim friends, a few steps ahead of her, and asked if they’d like to sit in “special seating” behind the stage, said one friend, Brittany Marino, who, like Abdelfadeel, is a recent University of Michigan graduate who works for the university.

In Case You Missed It: Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

This press release just arrived in my inbox:

OBAMA GIVES THUMBS UP TO THE PELOSI PREMIUM
Meanwhile CA Gas Prices Up $1.82 Per Gallon Under Democrat-Controlled Congress

In 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) made this bold election-year statement: “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.” Nearly two years later, what exactly has that “commonsense plan” gotten California families and businesses?

JANUARY 16, 2007: $2.61 (Source: AAA of Northern CA)

JUNE, 2008: $4.43 (Source: CA Energy Commission)

This week we learned that the Barack Obama is just fine with higher gas prices. In fact, congressional Democrats blocked efforts to lower them and instead proposed higher gas taxes that will further burden California’s working class.

Is this what the Democrat leadership mean by “commonsense”?

The Democratic Majority has given consumers the Pelosi/Obama Premium, which this week clocks in at $1.82 per gallon. That’s right, from the time the new Democratic Majority took control of congress, gas prices in California have skyrocketed almost two dollars from an average of $2.61 per gallon in January to $4.43 per gallon now.

As predicted before the summer driving season, the Pelosi/Obama Premium has only gotten worse, yet Barack Obama and other Democrats have done nothing to help Californians’ Pain at the Pump.

Ding! Dong! The Witch is…. Oops… Not so fast!

The Associated Press is already calling the Presidential nominations for Barak Obama:

Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

So, one would think that the natural thing for Hillary Clinton to do would be to offer her concession speech tonight as well. But this may not be the case.

According to another AP story she may be willing to admitt she is down, but not out:

Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the
delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said,
effectively ending her bid to be the nation’s first female president.

The former first lady was not ready to formally suspend or end her race
in a speech Tuesday night in New York City. But if Obama get to the magic number
of delegates, 2,118, she was prepared to acknowledge that milestone, according
to aides who declined to be identified.

Now this doesn’t mean that she will still be running for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination. But you can bet she will be positioning herself to be the next presidential candidate from her party. And she will do this by either negotiating for the VP spot or undermining Obama’s candidacy by injecting umnpopular issues into the campaign.

Will Hillary hold the Democratic party hostage?

Everyone, including those who support Hillary Clinton are wondering just how far she will go to before she realizes that she cannot win the Democratic Presidential nomination. Many thought that tomorrow’s final two primaries would signal the end of her 2008 campaign.

Well according to politico.com this may not be the case. This afternoon they are reporting:

We can’t get her to sit down and talk,” the Hillary Clinton person was telling me. “We have been having a hard time getting her to stop campaigning long enough to talk about how she actually ends this thing.”

It is understandable. She has been campaigning for so long. She has fought so hard. And, let’s be fair, in recent months she has done so well.

So why talk about losing? You know who talks about losing? Losers. And that is not how she sees herself.

As much as Obama would like to have the delegates won in these final two primaries put him over the top. Unfortunately for him, he will still need to capture about 30-40 more super delegates making him the first Democratic Presidential Nominee since George McGovern in 1972 to win the nomination without winning the popular vote. This very relevant fact is the final thread upon which the Clinton machine will hang their far-reaching hopes of victory.

The only question left to ask is whether or not the fight will go to the DNC convention in August. If Hillary has anything to say about it, I would look forward to a spirited convention battle.