We Will See

Yes, I'm disappointed.
I was hoping the first black president would be a man or woman with American history in his/her bones -- up from slavery to the highest office. Someone who had a record of empathy for ALL americans, not just a few.
But life just doesn't work that way.

I'm horrified that there are statistics that say Americans don't support a society in which its productive citizens are taxed so that those who aren't as successful get free handouts and yet they voted for those very programs.

I am deeply disappointed in journalists who forgot how to be journalists and refused to "vet" the candidate. They have, in effect, but an office boy behind the CEO's desk.

I am amazed at the ignorance of those who say that Obama's election destroyed racism in America. It has, in fact, proved that America is very much a racist society -- that black people will vote for someone because he's black and white people will vote for him because he's black. And the fact that there are those who will read this paragraph and call me racist also proves my point.

But when Obama is President then I will support him for that reason alone -- that he is President of the United States. I won't call him names or insult him or say he's dumb like people have done to President Bush, not because I don't think those things -- and when he does dumb things I'll call him out on them -- but because it's disrespectful. He gets my respect for the office he holds.

I do think the nation has made a serious mistake and it has made them for all the wrong reasons. We will see.

REMEMBER

REMEMBER TO VOTE

Musings on the Palin Effect

We voted today.

There is nothing on this earth that would convince me that Barack Obama should be President of the United States. Certainly not now, before he has accumulated a professional reputation and accomplished something -- anything -- of value. Probably never because he is a liar. I have no respect for him -- none at all.

I don't like his stand on abortion.

I do like Sarah Palin's values. She has a set of personal ethics and values and she lives by them. Because she does, she is learning what a blessing a "disabled" child is. I was shocked to learn recently that 90% of Downs babies are aborted. I have a grandson who has Downs Syndrome. We would not have chosen that for him, but we are blessed to have him. He is the dearest, most trusting and loving child I have ever seen. Now that we know him, we couldn't live without him!

Palin is good for John McCain. She's tough and she gets things done. He needed her to help him when he fought Congress on a number of issues. She makes him stronger (and he's no weakling in his own right).

One thing I've noticed in this election cycle: Sarah Palin has proved to be the catalyst that showed McCain exactly who his friends are and she showed the rest of us who the wolves in sheep's clothing are. Because of the prejudice and racism of the mainstream media (and it's as racist to support someone because they're black as it is to oppose them for that reason) she has had the opportunity to show what she's made of. That turns out to be pretty strong stuff.

Take Charlie Gibson's interview, for example. That one backfired on him -- it showed him to be a smug elitist snob. The question on the Bush "doctrine" was as artificial as the man himself. I was shocked and hurt by that because I've been a fan of his for years. I quit watching ABC news after that and wrote each of his sponsors that I would no longer buy their products (no great loss, that).

Then perky little Katy Couric stepped up to the plate and showed her mettle. I thought Palin was quite the lady for not saying that she read GQ and Mad Comics, which is what I would have said to such an insulting question. I took the question about magazines as saying, in effect, "What magazines do you ignorant imbeciles read in those long, cold winters? Surely nothing I would want to read," Obviously Couric's mother never taught her even the most rudimentary manners -- however, that seems to be true of most Democrat women. Lady Rothschild excepted.

Then this sick little guy from NBC last week who (wrongly) told Palin in an interview that a writer from the National Review called her some pretty ugly names. That was a lie -- the writer of the article he quoted said that about the media for the unfair way they have portrayed Palin. Always respectful and kind, Palin punted -- beautifully.

I find all of this amazing. I would have lost my temper long ago and I'm certain I would have, at some point, stormed at someone (hopefully in the style of Dixie Carter playing Julia Sugarbaker, that is with a vicious vocabulary devoid of cuss words). Palin is cool and collected under pressure and personal insults. A lady clear through in spite of her lower middle-class background. Her behavior elevates her far above her female critics.

I don't believe that Palin will be vice president. There are too many voters who follow the sheep and don't bother to do the necessary research to make informed decisions and there are too many people who vote only on what they think is best for them rather than what is best for the country. And there are too many racists who will vote for Obama just because he's black.

But I believe Sarah will be back. She'll be stronger (if that's possible) and certainly more experienced. I will be ready to do everything I can to help her become the first woman President of the United States.

The Man Behind the Curtain

Remember the Wizard of Oz? That little old guy behind a curtain operating a fierce illusion? Something like that seems to be going on in this election.

The current Democrat's campaign has always promised an October surprise. We've thought that referred to the AK investigation into the firing of an incompetent official in the governor of AK's administration but the timing of this sudden implosion in the financial markets has me wondering if that's what they meant.

Let's look first at the history of this campaign. It's all about illusion. For example, professional politicians who want to graduate to the national stage would eagerly throw their mothers under the bus to get to speak at a nation convention. Guess who did that -- and a primo spot in the lineup, as well -- BEFORE he was elected to a national position! That took some kind of money to get him there at that time.

When you look at all the money that's behind this campaign (Soros, Buffett, Raines's Freddie Mac contributions in the millions and more) ALL of them have huge assets. In the billions, no less. And the financial markets are far less than transparent. The fat cats aren't being hurt by this. It just looks to me, when you consider how the candidate has won elections in the past, if he -- and his campaign supporters -- may not be the man behind the curtain.

Palin and the Truth

From Fact Check: "We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

• Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

• She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a 'What if?' question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
  

• She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
  
  
• Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a 'courtesy' when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
  
  
• Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to 'debate both sides' of the evolution question, but she also said creationism 'doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'"

Detailed analysis of these points are found at: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Pelosi, Catholicism and the Beginning of Life

This morning on Meet the Press Nancy Pelosi, defending Obama's waffling statement on abortion, said she's a born and bred Catholic and that the Catholic church in all its history has not been able to determine when life began. She seems to have missed something in her breeding:

The Roman Catholic Church says that deliberately causing an abortion is a grave moral wrong. It bases this doctrine on natural law and on the written word of God.

The Church says that human life begins when the woman's egg is fertilized by a male sperm.

From that moment a unique life begins, independent of the life of the mother and father. The features that distinguish us from our parents - the colour of our eyes, the shape of our face - are all laid down in the genetic code that comes into existence then.

Each new life that begins at this point is not a potential human being but a human being with potential.

Since the sixteenth century, causing or having an abortion led to automatic excommunication.

This is stated in the Code of Canon Law (1983): "A person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic excommunication" (Canon 1398).

The Church condemned abortion as early as the 2nd century CE: the Didache, written in the 2nd century (some time after 100 CE), states: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish."

Early Christian doctrine is clear on the matter.

An Obamanation

Or, "What's going on here?"

I thought Barack Obama hadn't done much in the Senate but it seems he has -- done something, at least. Something that would cause a huge change in US economics.

That something is a bill, S. 2433, that would require (not suggest or call attention to, but require) the President of the United States "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." Please notice that the concern here is not for the USA but for the entire world.

All very well and good, I'd say, EXCEPT that something like this has to come with a price to the US taxpayer. That price could be pretty steep. Like, $845 BILLION. And since the US President is the one charged with implementing it, that should come to around $8,000 per US taxed household. I don't know about you, but that kind of addition to our tax bill would come painfully close to putting me in the category of having to live on less that $1 per day.

And, since we're not talking just the US here, or SE Asia or Africa but the entire world, who's going to administer all this money. The UN? They certainly haven't proved responsible -- they still haven't totally cleared up their Food for Oil scandal.

If you think this sounds outlandish and preposterous, check it out. According to Thomas.com on 4/24/2008 the bill was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 718. This means it can come up for a vote at any time. If Congress passes this, it's gonna cost us.