Shame on Congress; Shame on the Media

I'm one of those people who got one of those infamous loans for low income people.

Our youngest son is severely retarded/autistic -- his temporal lobes didn't form properly at birth so he is terribly handicapped. For quite a few years he was in an institution because we couldn't handle him at home but the ACLU brought a lawsuit that closed the institution and put him out into the community. He can't look after himself so he has five staff members who look after him 24-7. It is crucial to his well-being that he be in a highly structured environment.

For many years we tried roommates -- trying to cut costs -- but that didn't work out. During those years he rented homes but every other year or so he wound up having to move: Owners wanted more rent, or wanted to sell the house, . . . lots of reasons. So we decided to buy a small house for him so he wouldn't have to move again.

Thanks to a program through the US Dept. of Agriculture we found a small house on a large lot in the country. He moved in and has lived there -- happily ever after -- for the past three years. He has never missed a payment on his loan. He never will because we planned this carefully in his budget.

The reason I'm writing this is that this is an example of the good that kind of lending has done. Not ALL mortgage holders default on loans to low-income individuals. Those loans have done a lot of good for a lot of people who otherwise would not have had their own home.

One statistic says that only 1% of the nation's homeowners are in default. That's not a huge amount -- if they were irresponsible and tried to have homes that were too expensive they should lose them.

Of course I also believe that the loan officers AND the real estate agents who promoted those loans should be held responsible as well.

But frankly, I suspect that the Great and Powerful Media (and Stupid Congress) have misled us again. They've been crying wolf and hollering that the sky is falling because it sells TV time and newspapers.

The sad thing about it is that other low-income folks who would be responsible home owners probably won't have a chance, thanks to all this hysteria. That's a terrible shame.

ABC, CNN, NBC and the First Amendment

We wouldn't want to claim that CNN, ABC and/or NBC are closed-minded, now would we? Or that they don't allow fair and open discussion on their sites? Of course not.

Then why is it that if you vote in a poll that you believe Sarah Palin won the debate, your vote doesn't register?

And why is it that if you blog the reasons you believe Sarah beat Ol' Joe, the blog doesn't post BUT if you try blogging in favor of Obama (so, I lied), it does?

It's one thing to be "in the tank" for Obama -- it's quite another to refuse discussion. But it's obvious that to the networks free speech is for everyone who agrees with them and everyone else can sit down and shut up.

Obama Tries to Delay Troop PullOut from Iraq

Barack Obama claims to be a new kind of politician, yet he proves himself again and again to be the worst of the old kind.

Now we learn that when he was in Iraq last month he tried to get the Iraqi government to halt negotiations on troop withdrawals until after the election, putting his own political objectives ahead of the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq. This all happened during that trip where he decided not to meet with American military personnel in the hospital in Germany because they wouldn't let news camera crews come with him.

And remember...this is while he was telling the American people that the surge had not worked and that Sen. McCain was irresponsible in not calling for immediate draw down of American troops.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

So it is obvious that Obama sincerely believes that he has bought the Presidency of the United States with the help of the Chicago machine, George Soros and the likes of Arianna Huffington.

Are we going to let that happen?

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

Palin's Banned Books List

I LOVE this attack on Sarah Palin:

According to the Boston Globe, for instance: "Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go.

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job." Notice that the Globe doesn't cite a source, just reports this as fact. The news media has not been truthful lately -- we need more than this to give the report credibility.

Any mother who doesn't like the idea of her children having easy access to books that promote lesbianism, fornication, homosexuality, irresponsibility and vocabularies limited to "age appropriate" language and cuss words can certainly sympathize with her feelings IF, indeed, she did wish to remove some books. Even much of the "literature" taught in schools today is third-rate, with contrived plots, questionable history, and unseemly characters.

However, the reason Palin might have wanted Emmons fired had nothing to do with banning books. What it had to do with was the fact that Emmons was not a political supporter of Palin. Many a city, state, or Federal employee has lost a job when the other party came into power. That's simply standard procedure.

But the fascinating thing in this case is the shallowness of the smear against Palin. The list of books she supposedly wanted banned (and there is no valid list because she only asked if it was possible to remove some books from shelves) is the "Books Banned at One Time or Another" list. Never mind that some of them (like the Harry Potter books) hadn't even been published at the time.

Come on, Libs. Can't you do better than that?

An Alaskan on Palin

The following is a letter written by an Alaskan to a friend of hers (and mine) here in Paducah. She thought it worthy of forwarding...

Sarah Palin is the US’s answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments … well, they haven’t met our Sarah .

As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK, where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor … I can speak with confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isn’t an issue here as far as I’m concerned) as anyone could ask for at the head of government.

Sarah is no naïve “small town mayor” – she just *started out* there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this “small town” through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her term having grown to the 4^th largest CITY in Alaska – a lot of growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.

She has EXECTUTIVE experience *running a government* (something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast, even John McCain ) as Governor of Alaska and got there by defeating the *incumbent* Republican Governor, who was definitely part of the “old school” and who WAS very much in the pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change – and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95% and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80 percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.

Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting spending in spite of the increased income the state is currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into savings for the future rather than spending, spending, spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to their chagrin.

She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we all face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless "laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently) temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now . She isn’t doing these things to be popular – she is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially and she can help.

She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself - and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way. She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her - she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.

Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR State ... we understand she is needed for a bigger purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill her shoes here and continue the job.

As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die or step down or whatever ... Theta, up here in AK we've only been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.

Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President ... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW her – will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of A . She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong wind.

Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ... Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the opportunity.

Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested (and spam those who aren’t!).

-Deb Frost in Alaska

McCain - Palin

What a great choice.

Just shows McCain's independence streak and his wisdom.

I was hoping he'd choose Sen. Elizabeth Dole but I have to admit this is a wilder, braver choice.

It doesn't mean the election will be easy, though. This forces Obama to play the race card. It hasn't occurred to him that every person who votes for him because he's black is playing that card -- and there certainly are plenty of those!

The counter argument to that, of course, is that every woman voting for Palin is playing the feminist card EXCEPT for what she stands for and what she's done. Why, she's done more in two years as Governor than Obama has done in six years in a state senate and three years in Congress. That is one impressive lady.

And John McCain is one impressive gentleman to make such a great choice.

Hooray .... and, for good measure....HALLELUJAH.

Dissing Olympic Dissenters

Today I am a HUGE Kobi Bryant/LeBron James fan. Not because they and The Team won the gold, although I think that's grand.

But because of what they said and did. In interviews and on the floor both stated and demonstrated their love and appreciation for their country and for their sport. They demonstrated superb sportsmanship and when they stood on the podium, they put their hands over their hearts while the national anthem was played. In doing so they won my heart, my loyalty and my fanship (if that's not a word it should be) for life. Thank you, Kobi and LeBron!

As for the athletes who went to Beijing to represent the USA and refused to place their hands over their hearts when the national anthem was played (you know who you are), I'll be watching for your endorsements. When I find them I will boycott those companies and write to their CEOs to tell them what I did and why.

It's one thing to express political dissent in America and it's quite acceptable -- but NOT while you are representing the country.

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.

What They Said Then

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. Source:http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. Source: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb 18, 1998. Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/albright_2-18-1998.pdf

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/senate_letter_10-09-98.pdf

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. Source: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. Source: http://www.columbiachronicle.com/back/1999_fall/99nov22/vp2.html

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/ford_letter_to_bush_12-5-2001.pdf

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. Source: http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=211370

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/ted-kennedy_9-27-2002.pdf

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/john-kerry-10-9-2002.pdf

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. (Rockefeller has removed this from the web)

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. Source: http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. Source: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/ftn/main532270.shtml

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/john-kerry-1-23-2003.pdf

They all saw the same intelligence. Over a decade they all came to the same conclusions.