democrat

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan praised the President-elect yesterday saying he “has energized all segments of the depressed, downtrodden, rejected and despised.”

but…

Farrakhan goes on to say, the country still remains “divided and polarized” because most of McCain’s support came from “older Americans [most of whom] reside below the Mason-Dixon line where racial attitudes and traditions die hard.”

So, according to Farrakhan, everyone who voted for McCain was a racist. It appears the change Obama brings is just more of the same. After all, without racism, the likes of Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP would find themselves out of business.

President-elect Obama is expected to appoint democratic lawyer Henry Rivera, to lead his FCC transition team. Rivera served on the FCC from 1981 to 1985, and is a proponent of the “Fairness Doctrine” that was repealed in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land for 40 years and was the federal government’s attempt to regulate fairness into the broadcasting industry and

“… imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.”

Throughout the years, the Fairness Doctrine has been used by various administrations to harass political opponents on the radio. Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that

“Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

And that’s why the Democrats want to bring the Fairness Doctrine back now. With 100 million listeners in 50 million households, news and talk radio plays an important role in the American society. Conservative talk radio dominates the commercial radio airwaves with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannnity and Bill O’Reilly, while Liberal radio, like the failed Air America can’t generate enough capital to stay in business. The Left-wingers in Congress can’t stand this and would like nothing more than to hide behind their regulation cloak to force conservative talk radio out-of-business. Why are they afraid? Look at the amount of money Obama was throwing into his election campaign, compared to the public financing cap held by McCain. Yet McCain ran a neck-and-neck race practically throughout the race, and had it not been for the Wall Street meltdown, he may have actually won! This is due in large part to conservative talk radio because the majority of television media overwhelmingly favored Obama.

It is believed that Rivera will lead the push to revive the Fairness Doctrine to prevent Obama critics from having a voice during his tenure as President. The President limiting free speech? It certainly fits a pattern of behavior he displayed during his election campaign. ATI-News President Brad O’Leary, who examined Obama’s legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race concluded,

“Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign. His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree.”

Make no mistake, the Fairness Doctrine is a tool used by politicians to silence opposing views, particularly conservative views. It was repealed by the FCC because it “had the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.” In 2007, Senator John McCain introduced legislation to protect talk radio and warned,

“The Fairness Doctrine had a chilling effect on free speech, and it is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered.”

Remember, there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine! Don’t be fooled by this sham no matter what form it takes. The Democrats in Congress, and our new President, will likely veil the doctrine’s new iteration in fresh language, using a different terminology and justification, like tying it to pornography, but don’t be fooled. Our country was founded on political dissent, so don’t sacrifice the First Amendment to political expediency!

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a “Joe the Plumber”) said his encounter with Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama made him “scared for America”, indicating that he doesn’t trust the Illinois senator on taxes. Joe said,

“What worries me is that he is deciding that $250k is rich right now, but what’s to stop him from changing his mind?” … “As we all know, politicians change their minds at the drop of a poll. Personally, I think it will have to go lower. How else will he pay for all he wants big government to do?”

A very astute observation, and not unreasonable given all the information that’s being batted around these days. So, what tax plan does the good plumber favor?

“I like the principles of [the fair tax], and especially the idea of doing away with the IRS. That being said, I’m a big proponent of the flat tax, which I believe would have the same effect and is just as fair. We all have to pay taxes for the defense of our country and certain basic government protections for the people. I would be interested in supporting and presenting either tax reforms to Middle America.”

So, now we know how Joe feels about Obama’s tax plan, but what impression did the candidate leave with him?

“When I was face to face with him, my honest first impression was that I expected something more. I had heard so much about ‘his presence’ in the media that I was surprised to find that he seemed very average.” … “My gut feeling as he answered my questions? I was scared for America.”

(Me, too!)

MORE: Hot Air

And the Obamadrama continues as the Nevada office of ACORN was raided by the Secretary of State and Attorney General for hiring felons as canvassers and submitting almost 300 fraudulent voter registration cards. The voter cards included non-existent names and addresses, as well as members of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

Incredible!

Considering Obama was an ACORN trainer and later became their lawyer, will he now renounce their despicable acts?

(of course not)

MORE: Hot Air

Well, Congress passed and President Bush signed the new and improved $700 billion Wall Street bailout rescue package. The package also contains $152 billion in “unrelated tax breaks and broader tools for federal regulators to deal with the growing economic crisis” according to the WSJ. How did the market respond to the passing of the biggest government intervention since the Great Depression? The DJIA, Nasdaq and the S&P 500 are all down. Of course, the President warns that “that it will take some time for this legislation to have its full impact on our economy.” So, what should we expect of these programs and policies designed to promote economic recovery?

Look back to the 1930s and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” that included included legislation on banking and finance reform, various relief programs for the unemployed, agriculture recovery legislation, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, and much, much more. The Great Depression was caused by the government’s easy-money policies leading to an inordinate expansion of credit and installment buying and fantastic speculation in the stock market (sound familiar?). The depression was then exacerbated by the New Deal, a massive government interference that prolonged the crisis for years.

Are we traveling along the same path? The parallels are incredible.

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Hot Air; Webloggin

Although the bailout plan in its current state does not eliminate taxpayer risk, it certainly provides more protection than the Paulson plan the Democrats were originally trying to force down the throats of the American taxpayer. I asked in a previous post, “What did McCain do?” As it turns out, he did a helluvalot! In fact, his presence in Washington last week was vital to the judicial oversight and other taxpayer protections incorporated into the current bill, not to mention the elimination of an awful lot of pork.

In a press conference last night, Republicans John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Roy Blunt, and Adam Putnam, explain that in the beginning, the Dems weren’t too interested in working with the Republicans on the bailout package. So, what changed? Boehner makes it very clear that “if it were not for John McCain supporting me at the White House when I said whoa, whoa, time-out, they would have run over me like a freight train.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports,

Before McCain arrived in Washington, the Senate and the House Democrats figured they could force the Paulson plan down the throats of House Republicans. Afterwards, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had no choice but to deal with Boehner and the conservatives, and making changes to the package to get their support. Also, Boehner announced that McCain has begun making calls to get Republican votes for this bill, which shouldn’t surprise too many who had listened to McCain over the weekend.

Note to Obama: That’s leadership!

In the wee-hours of Sunday morning, Congress came together on a plan to bailout Wall Street. We’re still giving them the money they’re asking for, but there seem to be a lot of strings attached:

• The money would be parceled out in segments, with Paulson receiving $250 billion upon ratification of the plan, $100 billion upon White House certification of its necessity and the final $350 billion only after Congress has been given 15 days to object.
• Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, so taxpayers can benefit if the companies return to profitability.
• Firms taking advantage of the bailout would be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on “golden parachutes” at failing firms. The compensation limits will be enacted primarily, but not solely, through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay executives more than $400,000 a year.
• Provisions for Congressional oversight of the on the Treasury program, including a bipartisan oversight board appointed by members of both parties in Congress, an inspector general to monitor Treasury decisions, and regular audits from the Government Accountability Office.
• Treasury will be subject to judicial review and required to make transactions made through the troubled asset program available publicly online.
• The president will be required to propose a fee on the industry if the government has not recovered its money through sales of the assets within five years. This is due to the belief that the financial services industry should help pay for the bailout.
• The Treasury Department will be required to create a federal insurance program that would guarantee banks and other firms against loss from any troubled asset.

I still disagree with any bailout, but am glad to see the plan is going to be more difficult for Wall Street than originally conceived. I’m also glad to see the process is going to be a great deal more transparent, with what appears to be greater accountability for the Treasury Department and the CEOs on Wall Street. I’m looking forward to seeing the language of the final plan.

So what did the Presidential candidates have to say? During interviews on Sunday morning talk shows, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama gave their tentative support for the deal. McCain said “This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with” and although he is distressed about the amount of pork it contains, added that the principles he had laid out for such a deal had been met, including taxpayer protection, an oversight body, and provisions that prevented excessive compensation for corporate chief executives. Obama said he was inclined to support the package because it contains things that were not “in the president’s provisions” like increased oversight, foreclosure relief for homeowners, and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help, and “They are identical to the things [he] called for the day that Paulson released his package”.

No surprises there. However, I’m now wondering what was the point of John McCain’s campaign suspension last week? He rushed back to Washington, but I don’t see his fingerprints on any of this…yet. What did he and Obama do after the debate?

MORE: Hot Air highlights pork that was removed from final deal.

The Dow has dropped 800 points in the last three days and what are McCain and Obama doing? Blaming the other party, of course. Listen to McCain and he’ll tell you the current crisis is all the Democrats fault, and listen to Obama and the blame lies with the Republicans. I say, quit playing the blame game and gives us a plan! Although the current crisis began 13 months ago, its been brewing for a decade with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing commercial banks to participate in investment banking activities. This deregulation has resulted in the collapse of the housing market and the government bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and now, AIG. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was introduced by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President (Clinton), so both parties are to blame. So, Senator McCain and Senator Obama, what are your plans? After all, we’re talking about the potential collapse of the American financial industry here!

It’s going to take the U.S. banking industry through loans and credit to rebuild the parts of Texas devastated by hurricane Ike, to move troops into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to build and maintain our nation’s highways. The finger-pointing going on in Washington and on the election trail is getting us nowhere! Unless you plan on continuing to fund our government with foreign loans, put your heads together and work this out!

Okay, by now everyone has heard the Senator Obama “Lipstick on a pig” gaffe, and although I don’t think he was intentionally trying to insult Governor Palin, everyone in the audience behind him did!

What should we make of that?

Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:

“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”

This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.

Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has quit Chicago’s United Trinity Church of Christ where he was a faithful member for 20 years. Why and why now? In a letter to the church’s new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Obama wrote,

“We make this decision with sadness. Trinity was where I found Christ, where we were married and where our children were baptized.”

He told Rev. Moss that he was concerned about the increased scrutiny the church has received in the past few months. Furthermore, he told reporters,

“Rev. Moss and the Church have been suffering from all the tension my campaign has visited on them. We’ve had news organizations harassing members in their home at their work places… That is just not how people should have to operate in their church. It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.”

So, Obama leaves the church not because he disagrees with its divisive message, but because he doesn’t want to hurt the poor parishioners with his presidential campaign. Obama is a martyr? Gimmieabreak!

I can’t see how this is going to help Obama. After all, he didn’t renounce the church’s doctrine, did he? His only regret is that the United Trinity Church has become a political anchor in his campaign. He’s leaving the church for one reason and one reason only: political expediency! This move proves that he is nothing more than a typical Washington politician who promises no change from the status quo.

MORE: Hot Air; Michelle Malkin; Little Green Footballs; The American Pundit; Webloggin; Power Line; Rightwing Nuthouse; Flopping Aces

So the Iowa results are in and Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama are the big winners. This will surely shake things up a bit considering the enormous amount of money Mitt Romney dolled-out on his campaign (the ratio of money spent by Romney compared to Huckabee is roughly 17:1) and Hillary Clinton’s once commanding lead in the polls.

What happened?

Simple, the Republican caucus-goers voted for Huckabee’s “values.” Christians accounted for more than half of the Republican voters, citing Huckabee as someone who shares their values. Meanwhile, bringing about change was at the forefront of the Obama campaign, and was touted by Democratic voters as the most important attribute in a presidential
candidate.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming primaries. Clinton and Obama are virtually neck-and-neck in New Hampshire and another poor showing will likely put a pretty big dent in her campaign. I expect she’ll change gears a little and peddle more “change” to the voters. For the Republicans, Romney and McCain are about even, and Huckabee will face a greater challenge. Social and religious issues will probably take a backseat to national security and taxes.

What about the other candidates?

Republicans: Rudy Giuliani devoted little time to Iowa, choosing instead to focus on the larger electoral states like Florida. I believe his popularity will increase significantly in the weeks to come. Fred Thompson, who surged at the last minute in Iowa, will more than likely concede the nomination within the next month or so and endorse McCain.

Democrat John Edwards although taking second place in Iowa, essentially tied Clinton. He’ll continue to take votes from Hillary with his own change message. I believe he’ll ultimately concede and back Clinton.

The coming weeks will be very interesting indeed!

Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, touted his qualifications for office. Evidently, among those qualifications is a southern accent:

“The last two Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, both talk like me.”

Have you ever heard anything more asinine?