Trash pickup for St. Charles residents will go to once a week next year but the price will drop under a new contract with Allied Waste. The cost per household will drop to $14.48 a month from the current $18.03 charge.
Items to be recycled will continue to be picked up once a week. The three-year contract allows increases of 5 percent a year in 2010 and 2011. A city committee chose Allied over the only other bidder, FWCD, a partnership of Fred Weber Inc. and Christian Environmental Services. Allied, formerly known as Midwest Waste, has collected St. Charles' trash since 1995.
Plans call for Allied to provide new carts for recyclables of either 65 gallons or 35 gallons, depending on the resident's choice. Those will replace smaller recycling bins distributed in the past. The city also will require multi-family buildings to begin using Allied under the new contract after their current arrangements with other haulers expire. No freedom of choice here.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Obama Abandons St. Charles County and Missouri
The Obama "Campaign for Change" St. Charles County headquarters has a top quality sign. What kind of message are they attempting to send to the residence of the area? I have heard of recycling but this takes it to extremes. Let's examine the picture to the right. A hand written reused Tom Fann Sign? I guess it is good to see that Tom Fann can use those signs for something!!!
The message this sign sends to me is that Mr. Obama does not think he can win Missouri and has given up on trying to win it. That is OK if your strategy is conserve dollars for your key battleground states but like Tom Fann was thrown under the bus against Terry Hollander is this Barack Obama throwing St. Charles County candidates under the bus by not authorizing leaders in the St. Charles County area to spend a couple of hundred dollars for a few quality signs? It makes all St. Charles County Democrat Candidates look bad when you have your headquarters with a sign like pictured here.
Furthermore to add insult to injury I understand that the Democrat Headquarters is charging for Obama signs. (someone feel free to comment if this is incorrect). Is the Democrat Party advertising they are "out of funds" to support their candidates? One is left to wonder why such an unprofessional approach would be taken and if they win their elections would they run our Federal, State and Local offices in the same unprofessional manner?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Obama Democrats & Chicago:
I have received some e-mails asking why on a local St. Charles County political watchdog site would we be speaking about the presidential race. The presidential race affects all of us as citizens of St. Charles county. It is important we realize that policies of the past and a candidate choices will be enacted at our highest executive branch. Those policies will affect each and every one of us in St. Charles County.
When looking at the Democrat parties leadership in Illinois it is clear that they have destroyed everything they have touched. Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley are all leadership in Illinois and all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago and of course they're all blaming each other. They can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
When looking at the Democrat parties leadership in Illinois it is clear that they have destroyed everything they have touched. Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley are all leadership in Illinois and all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago and of course they're all blaming each other. They can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
- The State pension fund $44 Billion in debt and the worst in country.
- Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look'em up if you want).
- Chicago school system one of the worst in country.
- In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago compared to 221(Iraqis) killed in Iraq.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Pagano A Republican - REALLY?
I find it interesting that Mayor Len Pagano is supporting Jay Nixon concerning the Missouri State Governor's race. Mayor Pagano has put it in writing that he would never take a stand in a partisan race.
In a letter dated January 14th, 2008 from Len Pagano to the Editors of the St. Charles Post-Dispatch, St. Peters Journal, Mid Rivers News Magazine and the Labor Tribune stated:
"The position of the Mayor of St. Peters is a non partisan office and I believe it is essential and in the best interest of the 58,000 residents of St. Peters to maintain an effective working relationship with elected officials across party lines, locally, regionally, statewide and federally."
The letter was generated after Tom Fann released a literature piece that stated:
"Tom Fann, his wife, and his three children have been a vital part of St. Charles County for decades. Fann is right on the issues. It is a shame that families do not have health insurance, and I know that he will do a great job" - Len Pagano, Mayor of St. Peters
The question remains did Tom Fann just make it up or did he believe that Mayor Pagano was actually supporting his campaign? In an April Aldermans race the St. Charles County Democrat chairman Tommy Roberts ran against an area unknown candidate to win the Alderman seat in St. Peters. In that race Tommy Robert's material stated that he was mentored by Mayor Pagano.
I think this calls into serious question Len Pagano's Republican standing. According to the article released today:
''Hulshof campaign manager John Hancock also asserted that Pagano "never -- ever'' contacted state officials, in either the governor's office or the state Department of Economic Development, about his concerns.
Furthermore Republican John Hancock had this to say about Len being a Republican:
"It's not credible to call him a Republican"
Repulican status aside if I were a resident of St. Peters I would have to ask, what's changed? I may agree that it is Len Pagano's right to have an opinion but is it in the interest of St. Peters residence for him to express it openly and use the power of his position to express it.
What happens if the Republican Party wins in a significant number of the area elections? Will St. Peters get a fair shake considering all the law suits that the city has had to over come in the last few years? The city took away the tax free weekend due to these very lawsuits. How much more presure will now come down on the city of St. Peters economically, financially and just through plain lack of co-operation with other county and state elected officials if he endorses the wrong candidate?
Mayor Pagano knows full well that he won't have to personally pay for this mistake but "the people" will get saddled with any financial drain that occurs due to retribution that may occur from the Republican elected officals that remain in office after November 4th which may include preventing St. Peters from further economic growth.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Great Day for Republicans In St. Charles County
Democrats seem to have a problem with judgment. We see it in our presidential election with the gaffs of Obama all the way down to our local elections.
Debbie Cook for example. She is not continuing her campaign because in her words “I can’t parent the way I want to and be in Jefferson City.” I believe it is admirable that she is thinking of her family and how much time she will be away but seriously she is just now coming to that realization? It would have been more prudent to think about these things before you put your name in for election in the first place. Did she not think her personal life our with the job responsibilities of the office you are attempting to seek out until it is to late to withdraw? Like many Democrat candidates this year just one more sign of "poor judgement"
Tim Swope is just another example of poor judgment. Here is what the article below calls the "brightest hopes for picking up a House seat" and didn't think that because he had been out of work since January and having to pay his bills might be a problem while running for office? I call this poor judgment to start a campaign with no way of sustaining your expenses.
Tim Swope and Debbie Cook have done more to hurt the Democrat Party than any republican candidate ever could. But then again, judgement and comittment have always been a problem with the Democrat Party in St. Charles County.
See full article below for context.
Debbie Cook for example. She is not continuing her campaign because in her words “I can’t parent the way I want to and be in Jefferson City.” I believe it is admirable that she is thinking of her family and how much time she will be away but seriously she is just now coming to that realization? It would have been more prudent to think about these things before you put your name in for election in the first place. Did she not think her personal life our with the job responsibilities of the office you are attempting to seek out until it is to late to withdraw? Like many Democrat candidates this year just one more sign of "poor judgement"
Tim Swope is just another example of poor judgment. Here is what the article below calls the "brightest hopes for picking up a House seat" and didn't think that because he had been out of work since January and having to pay his bills might be a problem while running for office? I call this poor judgment to start a campaign with no way of sustaining your expenses.
Tim Swope and Debbie Cook have done more to hurt the Democrat Party than any republican candidate ever could. But then again, judgement and comittment have always been a problem with the Democrat Party in St. Charles County.
See full article below for context.
Democrats in bind over reluctant House candidates
By Mark Schlinkmann
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Tim Swope and Debbie Cook, the Democratic nominees for two Missouri House seats in St. Charles County, no longer want to run in the Nov. 4 election.
But it’s too late to easily withdraw their names from the ballot and both say they can’t afford the cost involved if they were able to get a court order to do so. That could be $6,000 to $10,000 or more, says the County Election Authority.
So unless the Democratic Party or some other benefactor agrees to pay for reprinting and reprogramming the ballots, the two remain on the ballot - putting the party in an odd situation.Swope and Cook each say they will do no campaigning. Swope goes as far as saying he’ll turn down the seat if he’s elected because of the time commitment he’d made to his new employer, a computer software company. “I made a pledge to this company I would not go to Jeff City,” he said. Cook says she probably wouldn't serve if elected.
Swope, who is widely known from his former stints as county sheriff and St. Charles police chief, was among the county Democrats’ brightest hopes for picking up a House seat.
He is the nominee to fill St. Charles' vacant 18th District seat formerly held by Republican Tom Dempsey, who gave it up last fall after being elected to the state Senate in a special election. The GOP nominee is Anne Zerr, a former aide to ex-County Executive Joe Ortwerth.
Swope said he got his new job after the standard Aug. 19 withdrawal deadline. He said he had been out of work since January and “I had to pay my bills.”
Cook is the Democratic nominee against Republican incumbent Cynthia Davis in O’Fallon’s 19th District.Cook, who has five children and works as an X-ray technician, said she decided to drop her candidacy after realizing “I can’t parent the way I want to and be in Jefferson City.” She got into the House race after running unsuccessfully last April for the O'Fallon City Council.
She said she intended to withdraw before the deadline but didn’t get the paperwork in to the secretary of state’s office on time because that office initially sent her the
wrong form.
Cook then filed for a court order but withdrew it after finding out what the bill could be for preparing new ballots.
The secretary of state’s office says local Democratic county committee members from the two districts could pick new candidates if Swope and Cook did get their
names removed by court order.
The county Democratic chairman, St. Peters Alderman Tommy Roberts, said Monday he wanted to talk with the two now-reluctant candidates before commenting in detail.
County Elections Director Rich Chrismer said the cost of preparing new ballots depends on at what point the printing process is stopped in its tracks. The later in the process the court order is issued, he said, the more expensive it becomes. He said the deadline for getting on the ballot via court order is Sept. 23.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Easy Comparison Chart For President
It takes less than 5 minutes to review this list of issues and come to a sane conclusion to vote for John McCain.
This charts different points of the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES from examinationof their TALKING POINTS.
- Favors new drilling offshore US shores McCain Yes Obama No
- Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it McCain Yes OBAMA No
- Served in the US Armed Forces McCain Yes Obama No
- Amount of time served in the US Senate McCain 22 YEARS Obama 173 DAYS
- Will institute a socialized national health care plan McCain No Obama Yes
- Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy McCain No Obama Yes
- Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately McCain No Obama Yes
- Supports gun ownership rights McCain Yes Obama No
- Supports homosexual marriage McCain No Obama Yes
- Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase McCain No Obama Yes
- Voted *against* making English the official language McCain No Obama Yes
- Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals McCain No Obama Yes
If you are not in favor of a socialist dictatorship then vote for John McCain.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Protect Your 2nd Amendment Rights - Vote McCain
As we pass into the home stretch of this year's critically important election, two things are certain: First, the winner of the election will have a profound effect on your Second Amendment rights, and second, you need to make your voice heard and protect your freedom by making sure that you and your friends, family members, neighbors, and coworkers VOTE!
It's time for gun owners to take a closer look at just where Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. To that end, NRA-PVF has designed a new, comprehensive, and very informative Web site - GunBanObama.com - to serve as a resource for the facts on Barack Obama's Second Amendment stance.
Barack Obama has a 10 point plan of "change" that will dismantle our right to bear arms. See Graphic.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Obama's Radical Followers
Everyone needs to know it's not just socialism it's is radical Marxism. We all have heard the slanted story of Troopergate. Yes, Troopergate. Have you ever read this statement about Troopergate? In Troopergate the guy that Palin apparently fired said, quote: "Let's be clear. Governor Palin has done nothing wrong and is an open book in this process." That's the guy she fired. Quote: "The governor was rightly expressing concern about Trooper Wooten.", okay?
After he was fired, that's what he said. In the last few days since Sarah Palin has been announced as the Vice Presidential Candidate let us discuss what we know about her in the media bias world she has to deal with. You know about her daughter. You know about the hockey player that impregnated her. You know all of this stuff. Where was the press concerning the guy that Palin wanted fired? Where is the press on this even today?
Talk about a vetting process by the press, the reason why we don't care about your vetting process by the press is because you don't take your job seriously. This from Investors Business Daily: Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. You go to the website, Public Allies, and you are going to see that it's just a community organizer. That's all this is, just community organization. Barack Obama, founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. His wife became the executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Got it? Obama plans to use the nonprofit group which he features on his campaign website as the model for a national service corps. We've heard about this national service corps, haven't we? Universal voluntary public service. When Michelle Obama said he'll never allow you to sit idly by again, he will never allow you to be unengaged. What does that mean?
Universal voluntary public service, a national service corps. Quoting from the story: Our alumni from Public Allies are more than twice as likely as 18 34 year olds to engage in protest activities. Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "Justice and equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. Cincinnati recruit Amy Vinson said, "I get to practice being an activist and I get paid for it."
The Obamas' plan is to herd American youth into government funded reeducation camps where they will be brainwashed into thinking that America is a racist, oppressive place in need of social change. The pitch Public Allies makes on its website doesn't seem that radical. It promises to place young adults 18 30 in a paid one year community leadership position with nonprofit or government agencies. They will also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats. In exchange they will get a monthly stipend of $1800 pus healthcare and child care.
They also get a public service education award of almost $5,000 that can be used to pay off student loans and fund future education. Got it? Public Allies promotes diversity and inclusion.
That's what you'll find on their website. More than 70% of its recruits are people of color. When they are not protesting, they are staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare. Haven't gotten to the good stuff yet. Public Allies brags that they are more than 80% of their graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. So the people who are trained by these people, 80% of them go to nonprofit or government jobs. It's training, "the next generation of nonprofit leaders, future social entrepreneurs".
Does any of this sound familiar? Is any of this starting to connect with the speech that you have heard Obama and Michelle give all the time? "Don't go into corporate America, work for the community, be social workers, shun the money culture." Individual salvation depends on collective salvation. If you commit to serving your community, we will make sure you can afford a college education, said Barack Obama. How was he going to do that? Well, here it is. Public Allies.
They do some good stuff, don't get me wrong. Not everybody in Public Allies is a radical. Don't get me wrong. But not all of the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles class, Nelly Nieblas, says it's just a lot of talk about race. It's a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias. One of those isms is heterosexism, which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago remember, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama, in Chicago. That's their chapter. A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct "of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege".
By the way, your tax dollars now fund about half of Public Allies' expenses, through Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it to a national program some say will cost $500 billion. Obama said, "We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the military. Public Allies, Chicago chapter." Founding, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama.
Listen to the words in their speeches. It is all code language. It is all the language of the 1960s radicals. They have their they have their tentacles into an organization that does good things but also teaches that heterosexism is a byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege. Heterosexism! Let me tell you something, gang. When you can name the children of a woman that lives in Alaska that you just met seven days ago, you know half of the story. You know all the bad things about this woman and some of the bad things that aren't even true about this woman, but you've never heard of Public Allies. You've got to ask yourself why. When you see somebody take down Sarah Palin, you've got to ask yourself why. When you see the media, who has always been in bed with John McCain, now say John McCain, no, you've got to ask yourself why.
It is the liberal elite? It is the march of socialism that has been happening in our universities forever. It is the Marxism that has been festering in our large cities and nobody is willing to call it by name. It is the reason why Barack Obama, who should have a 20 point lead. This is the best thing about America. America, you don't know this stuff. Why doesn't Barack Obama have a 20 point lead with everything he has? Because something in your gut says something's not right. He can't close the deal because enough people say something's not right here. This is it, and it's been kept from you, somewhat. Every piece of this puzzle has been outed. Every piece of this puzzle is out there. But nobody will put the pieces together. All they want to say is look at the nice Greek columns, look at the nice stage show. Isn't it cool that he's African American?
I wonder when we'll get the journalists who have such a responsibility to the fourth branch of government to actually fulfill their civic duty.
After he was fired, that's what he said. In the last few days since Sarah Palin has been announced as the Vice Presidential Candidate let us discuss what we know about her in the media bias world she has to deal with. You know about her daughter. You know about the hockey player that impregnated her. You know all of this stuff. Where was the press concerning the guy that Palin wanted fired? Where is the press on this even today?
Talk about a vetting process by the press, the reason why we don't care about your vetting process by the press is because you don't take your job seriously. This from Investors Business Daily: Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. You go to the website, Public Allies, and you are going to see that it's just a community organizer. That's all this is, just community organization. Barack Obama, founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. His wife became the executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Got it? Obama plans to use the nonprofit group which he features on his campaign website as the model for a national service corps. We've heard about this national service corps, haven't we? Universal voluntary public service. When Michelle Obama said he'll never allow you to sit idly by again, he will never allow you to be unengaged. What does that mean?
Universal voluntary public service, a national service corps. Quoting from the story: Our alumni from Public Allies are more than twice as likely as 18 34 year olds to engage in protest activities. Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "Justice and equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. Cincinnati recruit Amy Vinson said, "I get to practice being an activist and I get paid for it."
The Obamas' plan is to herd American youth into government funded reeducation camps where they will be brainwashed into thinking that America is a racist, oppressive place in need of social change. The pitch Public Allies makes on its website doesn't seem that radical. It promises to place young adults 18 30 in a paid one year community leadership position with nonprofit or government agencies. They will also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats. In exchange they will get a monthly stipend of $1800 pus healthcare and child care.
They also get a public service education award of almost $5,000 that can be used to pay off student loans and fund future education. Got it? Public Allies promotes diversity and inclusion.
That's what you'll find on their website. More than 70% of its recruits are people of color. When they are not protesting, they are staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare. Haven't gotten to the good stuff yet. Public Allies brags that they are more than 80% of their graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. So the people who are trained by these people, 80% of them go to nonprofit or government jobs. It's training, "the next generation of nonprofit leaders, future social entrepreneurs".
Does any of this sound familiar? Is any of this starting to connect with the speech that you have heard Obama and Michelle give all the time? "Don't go into corporate America, work for the community, be social workers, shun the money culture." Individual salvation depends on collective salvation. If you commit to serving your community, we will make sure you can afford a college education, said Barack Obama. How was he going to do that? Well, here it is. Public Allies.
They do some good stuff, don't get me wrong. Not everybody in Public Allies is a radical. Don't get me wrong. But not all of the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles class, Nelly Nieblas, says it's just a lot of talk about race. It's a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias. One of those isms is heterosexism, which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago remember, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama, in Chicago. That's their chapter. A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct "of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege".
By the way, your tax dollars now fund about half of Public Allies' expenses, through Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it to a national program some say will cost $500 billion. Obama said, "We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the military. Public Allies, Chicago chapter." Founding, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama.
Listen to the words in their speeches. It is all code language. It is all the language of the 1960s radicals. They have their they have their tentacles into an organization that does good things but also teaches that heterosexism is a byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege. Heterosexism! Let me tell you something, gang. When you can name the children of a woman that lives in Alaska that you just met seven days ago, you know half of the story. You know all the bad things about this woman and some of the bad things that aren't even true about this woman, but you've never heard of Public Allies. You've got to ask yourself why. When you see somebody take down Sarah Palin, you've got to ask yourself why. When you see the media, who has always been in bed with John McCain, now say John McCain, no, you've got to ask yourself why.
It is the liberal elite? It is the march of socialism that has been happening in our universities forever. It is the Marxism that has been festering in our large cities and nobody is willing to call it by name. It is the reason why Barack Obama, who should have a 20 point lead. This is the best thing about America. America, you don't know this stuff. Why doesn't Barack Obama have a 20 point lead with everything he has? Because something in your gut says something's not right. He can't close the deal because enough people say something's not right here. This is it, and it's been kept from you, somewhat. Every piece of this puzzle has been outed. Every piece of this puzzle is out there. But nobody will put the pieces together. All they want to say is look at the nice Greek columns, look at the nice stage show. Isn't it cool that he's African American?
I wonder when we'll get the journalists who have such a responsibility to the fourth branch of government to actually fulfill their civic duty.
Arguments Against Idiots - Media Bias
The issue:
'Mainstream Media Bias' What the liberal whiners say:
'Mainstream Media Bias' What the liberal whiners say:
'I am so sick of conservatives constantly whining about mainstream media bias, stop with this fairy tale already!' 'That's ONE tiny example from a magazine nobody even reads' 'What about talk radio! And, Fox News! How about the constant LIES Fox News tells, why don't you ever talk about that?'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. Fairy tale? How about the two recent covers of Us Magazine? One, a smiling Sarah Palin holding her precious newborn, with the headline: "Babies, Lies & Scandal. The other one, the loving "chosen one" and his "blessed wife Michelle" in a tender embrace, with the headline: "Why Barack Loves Her".
On one side the evil, lying conniving, scandal riddled, Sarah Palin. On the other, the sweet, caring, wondrous, innocent love between a couple fighting to effect change in America. That's not bias? I suppose it's also just an amazing coincidence that Us publisher, Jann Wenner happens to be a prominent Obama supporter and donor?
2. How about the New York Times then? In 3 days they carried 67 articles attacking Sarah Palin. Everything from "she's no Hillary"; to her hair looks "20 years out of date"; to "her Fargo accent"; mentioning her husband DUI charge from TWENTY-TWO YEARS ago; attacking her 17 year old pregnant daughter; bringing up "trooper gate" without key details, and on and on. Maybe a little over the top? Barack Obama has been on the cover of Time Magazine SEVEN times this year alone...McCain, twice. Obama stories have outnumbered McCain news stories by almost 4-1 in the media.
3. First of all, talk radio ISN'T just NEWS, and has never pretended to be. It's all about opinion and you know that up front. Talk radio isn't trying to deceive the American people the way that the NY Times and other are, by portraying themselves as objective news sources. As for Fox, they only seem biased compared to the one-sided reporting of NBC, ABC, CBS and especially MSNBC. The fact is, I don't know of ANY lies Fox News has told. Fox gives BOTH sides of the argument of virtually every issue. Hannity and Colmes is a great example. Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and many other democrats have a huge presence on the channel. Contrast that with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, who had a "thrill going up his leg" after an Obama speech, and declared that the speech should be required reading for school children for generations to come. Does that sound objective to you? I can't quite envision Edward R. Murrow talking about "wetting his pants" over a Harry Truman speech, but maybe that's just me.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Obama - Lies About McCain In Acceptance Speech
The accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination was checked , and noted the following:
Obama said he could "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That's wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain's, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, "When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources." Actually, McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.
Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."
Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.
Analysis Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination Aug. 28, speaking before more than 84,000 people in Denver's Mile High football stadium. Some of his comments were worthy of a ref's yellow flag.
Not Quite Every Dime Obama reassured voters that he can pay for all his spending proposals: 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.
This is misleading. Even by his own campaign's estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won't pay for all of Obama's new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.
But Obama's claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama's plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama's new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.
Afghan Muddle Obama twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.Obama: When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.
Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. "may" muddle through, not that we could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was "guardedly optimistic" that the government could handle it.
McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that – in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.
So I'm guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.
Recently, however, both candidates have called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. In July, Obama proposed sending two more combat brigades, drawn down from Iraq. McCain immediately followed this with a call for three more brigades, but later clarified that some of those troops would be NATO forces. A McCain spokeswoman said that the U.S. would "contribute" troops to the increase under McCain's plan.
Tax Spin Obama said: "I will cut taxes ... for 95 percent of all working families." And he said McCain proposes "not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans," a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.
Obama is right about his plan's effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain's tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.
The TPC's calculations factor in what's in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of "loophole closings." Individuals wouldn't experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.
Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain's plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck's request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.
For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won't be as large as TPC says. "We dispute TPC's methodology here," says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the "loophole closers" that Obama is proposing won't affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.
We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.
Rich Humor Obama used a clumsy attempt at humor by McCain as evidence of his supposed insensitivity to middle-class economic realities:
Obama: Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?
What McCain actually said at the Saddleback Church forum on Aug. 16 was that he favors low taxes for all income levels. He drew a laugh, then said, "but seriously" as he struggled to make his point:
Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16: [G]ive me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?McCain: I don't want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?(LAUGHTER)
But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously – and I'm sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
Health Care Half TruthsObama gave only half the story when he described a feature of McCain's health care plan: Obama: How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits... McCain proposes to grant families up to a $5,000 tax credit to use for health benefits. The flip side of that proposal, which McCain seldom if ever mentions, is that the value of employer-sponsored benefits would also become taxable. Both candidates are trading in half-truths here; McCain talks only about the pleasurable side of his plan, while Obama's speech mentioned only the painful aspect. Neither gives a complete picture.
Party Hearties
Obama painted McCain as a Republican partisan who's supported the unpopular President Bush consistently:Obama: And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.
It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly's vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure.
He Didn't Mean It Obama also pulled some sleight of hand when he stated that "the average American family" saw its income "go down $2,000" under George Bush. That's not correct. Census figures show average family income went down $348.
As it turns out, when Obama said "average family income," he didn't mean "average," and he didn't mean "family," either. An Obama aide says he was really referring to median income – which is the midpoint – and not to the average. And Obama was talking only about "working families," not retired couples. For all families, median family income actually inched up under Bush by $272.Reprinted with permission from Factcheck.org.
Sources:
Burman, Len, et. al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates'
Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008." Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.Table T08-0182, Senator McCain's Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008Nicholas, Peter. "Adding Up the Cost of Obama's agenda." 8 July 2008. The Los Angeles Times. 29 August 2008CQ member Profiles: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). 1 Apr. 2007. Congressional Quarterly, 9 June 2008.CQ member Profiles: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). February 2008. Congressional Quarterly, 12 June 2008.Transcript, "Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum" CNN.com 16 Aug. 2008.Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.
with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore
Obama said he could "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That's wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain's, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, "When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources." Actually, McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.
Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."
Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.
Analysis Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination Aug. 28, speaking before more than 84,000 people in Denver's Mile High football stadium. Some of his comments were worthy of a ref's yellow flag.
Not Quite Every Dime Obama reassured voters that he can pay for all his spending proposals: 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.
This is misleading. Even by his own campaign's estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won't pay for all of Obama's new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.
But Obama's claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama's plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama's new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.
Afghan Muddle Obama twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.Obama: When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.
Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. "may" muddle through, not that we could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was "guardedly optimistic" that the government could handle it.
McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that – in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.
So I'm guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.
Recently, however, both candidates have called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. In July, Obama proposed sending two more combat brigades, drawn down from Iraq. McCain immediately followed this with a call for three more brigades, but later clarified that some of those troops would be NATO forces. A McCain spokeswoman said that the U.S. would "contribute" troops to the increase under McCain's plan.
Tax Spin Obama said: "I will cut taxes ... for 95 percent of all working families." And he said McCain proposes "not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans," a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.
Obama is right about his plan's effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain's tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.
The TPC's calculations factor in what's in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of "loophole closings." Individuals wouldn't experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.
Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain's plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck's request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.
For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won't be as large as TPC says. "We dispute TPC's methodology here," says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the "loophole closers" that Obama is proposing won't affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.
We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.
Rich Humor Obama used a clumsy attempt at humor by McCain as evidence of his supposed insensitivity to middle-class economic realities:
Obama: Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?
What McCain actually said at the Saddleback Church forum on Aug. 16 was that he favors low taxes for all income levels. He drew a laugh, then said, "but seriously" as he struggled to make his point:
Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16: [G]ive me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?McCain: I don't want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?(LAUGHTER)
But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously – and I'm sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
Health Care Half TruthsObama gave only half the story when he described a feature of McCain's health care plan: Obama: How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits... McCain proposes to grant families up to a $5,000 tax credit to use for health benefits. The flip side of that proposal, which McCain seldom if ever mentions, is that the value of employer-sponsored benefits would also become taxable. Both candidates are trading in half-truths here; McCain talks only about the pleasurable side of his plan, while Obama's speech mentioned only the painful aspect. Neither gives a complete picture.
Party Hearties
Obama painted McCain as a Republican partisan who's supported the unpopular President Bush consistently:Obama: And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.
It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly's vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure.
He Didn't Mean It Obama also pulled some sleight of hand when he stated that "the average American family" saw its income "go down $2,000" under George Bush. That's not correct. Census figures show average family income went down $348.
As it turns out, when Obama said "average family income," he didn't mean "average," and he didn't mean "family," either. An Obama aide says he was really referring to median income – which is the midpoint – and not to the average. And Obama was talking only about "working families," not retired couples. For all families, median family income actually inched up under Bush by $272.Reprinted with permission from Factcheck.org.
Sources:
Burman, Len, et. al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates'
Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008." Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.Table T08-0182, Senator McCain's Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008Nicholas, Peter. "Adding Up the Cost of Obama's agenda." 8 July 2008. The Los Angeles Times. 29 August 2008CQ member Profiles: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). 1 Apr. 2007. Congressional Quarterly, 9 June 2008.CQ member Profiles: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). February 2008. Congressional Quarterly, 12 June 2008.Transcript, "Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum" CNN.com 16 Aug. 2008.Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.
with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Argument Against Idiots: Sarah Palin
How to win the argument with logic and facts
The issue:
"Sarah Palin" What the liberal whiners say: 'John McCain just gave us the election! Sarah Palin is NOT ready to be commander in chief, and she's just one heartbeat away from the Presidency!' 'Her experience can't compare to Joe Biden, who has been in the United States Senate for 35 years!' 'And, I see that she's just another gun-toting, war-mongering nutbag, like all the rest of you conservatives!' 'She has a down-syndrome baby...how can she possibly manage her responsibilities as a mother AND vice president?' 'Well, what do you think about her 17 year old daughter getting PREGNANT, not exactly a conservatives dream, is it?
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. As the chief executive of her state, she is better prepared, and has more experience to bring to the presidency than the man who heads the democratic ticket, who had only a year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president.
2. I thought Washington was broken and we were looking for change? It seems to me that you can't get much further from Washington than Anchorage, Alaska.
3. Well, this "war-monger" has a son enlisted in the Army who is being deployed to Iraq on September 11th. Now, BOTH members of the Republican ticket now have, or did have sons in this war. I'd say they're pretty heavily invested in it, wouldn't you? Who does Obama have in it? What's HIS military record? I'm sorry, maybe "community organizer" on the South Side of Chicago qualifies?
4. Excuse me? Aren't you the "women can have-it-all" and "do-it-all", people? Now all of a sudden, you're saying she needs to be barefoot and pregnant at home with the kids?
5. I'm sure that's not anyone's dream for their children. But unlike Obama's stance, that if it happens to his daughters, their way out would be abortion because, he "doesn't want them punished with a baby". She is doing the responsible thing...marrying the father, and having the baby. Besides, I'm not sure with Obama's family tree and upbringing the way it is, you really want to get into this discussion.
The issue:
"Sarah Palin" What the liberal whiners say: 'John McCain just gave us the election! Sarah Palin is NOT ready to be commander in chief, and she's just one heartbeat away from the Presidency!' 'Her experience can't compare to Joe Biden, who has been in the United States Senate for 35 years!' 'And, I see that she's just another gun-toting, war-mongering nutbag, like all the rest of you conservatives!' 'She has a down-syndrome baby...how can she possibly manage her responsibilities as a mother AND vice president?' 'Well, what do you think about her 17 year old daughter getting PREGNANT, not exactly a conservatives dream, is it?
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. As the chief executive of her state, she is better prepared, and has more experience to bring to the presidency than the man who heads the democratic ticket, who had only a year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president.
2. I thought Washington was broken and we were looking for change? It seems to me that you can't get much further from Washington than Anchorage, Alaska.
3. Well, this "war-monger" has a son enlisted in the Army who is being deployed to Iraq on September 11th. Now, BOTH members of the Republican ticket now have, or did have sons in this war. I'd say they're pretty heavily invested in it, wouldn't you? Who does Obama have in it? What's HIS military record? I'm sorry, maybe "community organizer" on the South Side of Chicago qualifies?
4. Excuse me? Aren't you the "women can have-it-all" and "do-it-all", people? Now all of a sudden, you're saying she needs to be barefoot and pregnant at home with the kids?
5. I'm sure that's not anyone's dream for their children. But unlike Obama's stance, that if it happens to his daughters, their way out would be abortion because, he "doesn't want them punished with a baby". She is doing the responsible thing...marrying the father, and having the baby. Besides, I'm not sure with Obama's family tree and upbringing the way it is, you really want to get into this discussion.
Fred Thompson Blasts Obama & Gives McCain's BIO of Character
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Fred Thompson, the actor turned politician, recounted the harrowing story of John McCain's captivity as a Vietnam prisoner of war to tout the presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention and criticized Democrat Barack Obama's support for abortion rights.
"Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president," Thompson said Tuesday as images of McCain flashed behind him on a giant screen. "But it does reveal character."
Thompson went into detail describing McCain's 5 1/2 years in captivity in a Hanoi prison, describing how the Arizona senator's captors cracked his ribs and broke his teeth off at the gums. He also described how McCain refused to go home when his captors offered to release him for propaganda purposes.
"We hear a lot of talk about hope these days," Thompson said, a clear reference to one of Obama's campaign themes. "John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had."
Raps Obama on Abortion Issue:
Thompson also used his speech to denounce Obama for declining to say when human life begins, although Thompson's own record on abortion is mixed.
"We need a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade," Thompson said.
The comment was a clear reference to an answer that Obama gave at a forum at California's Saddleback Church sponsored by the popular evangelical pastor Rick Warren. On a question referring to the number of abortions in the country, Warren asked Obama at what point he believed babies had human rights.
"Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," the Illinois senator replied.
Obama supports abortion rights, while GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain is opposed. Thompson also is opposed, though he faced criticism during his presidential campaign because he lobbied in 1991 for an abortion rights group. He also answered a 1994 newspaper survey by saying, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."
After Monday's opening session of the convention was abbreviated and toned down in deference to Hurricane Gustav, Thompson signaled that political rhetoric was back.
He called Obama the "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."
Best known recently as the gruff district attorney on NBC's "Law & Order," Thompson once was a rival of McCain. But the Tennessean dropped out of the presidential race in January after his much-anticipated campaign failed to gain strong support among conservatives.
Thompson's address included a defense of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose announcement as McCain's running mate has been overshadowed by disclosures that an attorney has been hired to represent Palin in an investigation into an Alaska controversy and that her unmarried daughter is pregnant.
"Give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the Union — and won — over the Beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week," Thompson said.
Shake up the Bureaucracy:
Thompson said he believes McCain and Palin will "take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking."
He also said that McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, has traveled to Iraq eight times since 2003 "seeking truth, not publicity.
"This man, John McCain, is not intimidated by what the polls say or what is politically safe or popular," Thompson said.
Thompson managed to slip in some of the more colorful aspects of McCain's biography — the high number of demerits he received at the Naval Academy and the fact he dated an exotic dancer nicknamed the Flame of Florida when he was in flight school.
"Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president," Thompson said Tuesday as images of McCain flashed behind him on a giant screen. "But it does reveal character."
Thompson went into detail describing McCain's 5 1/2 years in captivity in a Hanoi prison, describing how the Arizona senator's captors cracked his ribs and broke his teeth off at the gums. He also described how McCain refused to go home when his captors offered to release him for propaganda purposes.
"We hear a lot of talk about hope these days," Thompson said, a clear reference to one of Obama's campaign themes. "John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had."
Raps Obama on Abortion Issue:
Thompson also used his speech to denounce Obama for declining to say when human life begins, although Thompson's own record on abortion is mixed.
"We need a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade," Thompson said.
The comment was a clear reference to an answer that Obama gave at a forum at California's Saddleback Church sponsored by the popular evangelical pastor Rick Warren. On a question referring to the number of abortions in the country, Warren asked Obama at what point he believed babies had human rights.
"Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," the Illinois senator replied.
Obama supports abortion rights, while GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain is opposed. Thompson also is opposed, though he faced criticism during his presidential campaign because he lobbied in 1991 for an abortion rights group. He also answered a 1994 newspaper survey by saying, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."
After Monday's opening session of the convention was abbreviated and toned down in deference to Hurricane Gustav, Thompson signaled that political rhetoric was back.
He called Obama the "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."
Best known recently as the gruff district attorney on NBC's "Law & Order," Thompson once was a rival of McCain. But the Tennessean dropped out of the presidential race in January after his much-anticipated campaign failed to gain strong support among conservatives.
Thompson's address included a defense of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose announcement as McCain's running mate has been overshadowed by disclosures that an attorney has been hired to represent Palin in an investigation into an Alaska controversy and that her unmarried daughter is pregnant.
"Give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the Union — and won — over the Beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week," Thompson said.
Shake up the Bureaucracy:
Thompson said he believes McCain and Palin will "take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking."
He also said that McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, has traveled to Iraq eight times since 2003 "seeking truth, not publicity.
"This man, John McCain, is not intimidated by what the polls say or what is politically safe or popular," Thompson said.
Thompson managed to slip in some of the more colorful aspects of McCain's biography — the high number of demerits he received at the Naval Academy and the fact he dated an exotic dancer nicknamed the Flame of Florida when he was in flight school.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Barack Obama's Socialist Speech - A World That Stands As One.
I'm going to give you a couple of things that this is the meat of the Obama speech that nobody in the media cares to focus on. In Barack Obama's overseas trip when moving to Paris and then to London we heard in his speech "partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the only way, the one way. Okay? Cooperation and partnership among nations is not a choice. Okay."
Why is nobody asking where do these new bridges go? Where do they go? He's talking about building new bridges. He's recognizing that we already have a bridge that is strong, that binds us together, America and Europe, so where do the new bridges go? One that would require us to listen to each other, learn from each other, and trust each other? Do they go to the Middle East? Do they go to Iran? Do they go to Russia? Do they go to China? Where are these bridges? Why is no one asking this question?
Obama in context: "True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy, of peace and progress. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other, and most of all, trust each other. True partnership requires true progress with constant work and sustained sacrifice. That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe." Now (Crowd cheering.) Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as the one that binds us across the Atlantic."
Why is nobody asking where do these new bridges go? Where do they go? He's talking about building new bridges. He's recognizing that we already have a bridge that is strong, that binds us together, America and Europe, so where do the new bridges go? One that would require us to listen to each other, learn from each other, and trust each other? Do they go to the Middle East? Do they go to Iran? Do they go to Russia? Do they go to China? Where are these bridges? Why is no one asking this question?
Obama Continues: "Now is the time to join together through constant cooperation and strong institutions and shared sacrifice and a global commitment to progress to meet the challenges of the 21st century."
So let me get this straight. Now is the time to join together through constant cooperation, through strong institutions, and shared sacrifice and a global commitment to progress to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Remember, one line is about Islamic extremism, followed immediately by those driving cars, melting the polar ice caps. Join together through constant cooperation, strong institutions, and shared sacrifice and a global commitment to progress. What are those global institutions, those strong institutions? What does it mean, shared sacrifice?
Obama States: "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Crowd cheering.) The two super powers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love."
Excuse me but the two super powers that faced each other across this wall came too close to often to destroying all that we have built and all that we have loved? The two super powers, Really? Just so you're informed, it was in the end the super power and the leader that was strong enough to stand up and say, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls. It was one leader that stood up in the face of adversity to do the right thing.
The last time Ronald Reagan gave a speech in Berlin, he had to have 10,000 riot police because what he was saying was we will not back down from freedom. We will not coexist with evil. Some want to enslave and some want to free. We are on the side of freedom and we will not share the sacrifice with everyone. We are willing to sacrifice ourselves in defense of liberty and freedom. It was a man who was the most unpopular on the planet because he had the nerve to stand up and say, you know what, they're building nuclear weapons. We're going to build a weapon that will shoot those weapons out of the sky and everyone said he's escalating. He's going to get us all killed, as Barack Obama says the two super powers that faced each other across the wall of the city, came too close too often to destroying all that we built and all that we love. One of those super powers saved everything that you love.
Obama: "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that opened markets have created"
Just so we are clear this is not the script but he spoke it or misspoke it. He bungled this line. It's important that you understand the script. The script is this is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open marks have created, not the wealth that opened markets, but we must build on the wealth that open markets have created.
Obama Attempts Correction: "This is the moment when we must build on wealth that opens markets have created and share its benefits more
equitably."
We just build on the wealth that open markets have created and share its benefits more equitably? Should anyone have to share his creativity or ability or profitability with me? Should I force my neighbor to share their money or wealth with me to be more equitable? That's his earning. He chooses to use it how he sees fit.
I have met people with varying levels of prosperity and means to earn that prosperity some of which do not use their talents toward financial freedom. It's their loss. Shared prosperity, sharing the benefits more equitably goes against everything that America stands. What we share is an idea and we want that idea to spread and, that is, man is free, man is free to create, man is free to do as he sees fit. That is the only thing that we should be sharing more equitably. We should be sharing it to every corner of the globe. We should be sharing it with everyone who will listen and if you don't listen, that's fine. You don't want freedom and that's fine.
If your people want freedom, we stand with your people. If your people decide they don't want freedom, they're happy living under totalitarianism state, they're happy handing their power back over to a totalitarian guilt of the like they do in Russia, that's fine, but not here and we'll continue to share that wealth of that idea that you can be successful, you can be happy, you can be rich, you can be poor, you can have all of the benefits because there is no end to wealth, there is no end to happiness. It is an infinite idea. It's a never ending idea. It is as vast as the oceans and far beyond.
Why should I share the oceans more equitably? There's enough water in there for all of us. Stop diminishing the size. Stop telling me that the ocean is a pond. It's not. Get into the water. It's fine. You might need directions to the beach, but I ain't putting a fence around that beach just for you. I'm not telling people who have been on that beach and use that beach and get into that water and swim and boat and water‑ski and turn it into energy, I'm not telling those people, no, no, no you can't because someday these people may need that water brought to them because they can't go to the beach, they don't believe in the beach, they just want all the benefits of the beach. The only thing we share is an idea and a love of freedom.
Barack Obama does not seem to see the same America I see. He has according to his own words fought to the top but his programs he wants to implement want to say to American you cannot do this without me. I personally do not believe he will be happy until we are an Islamic socialist state and has beaten the freedom from hard working Americans.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Gun Control, Who Does it Help?
Barack Obama supports taking your guns away from you. Not only is this a bad idea since only the criminals will have the guns but look what history has to say when citizens do not have the ability to defend themselves. I for one will support what Thomas Jefferson has said.
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control.From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1935, China established gun control.From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1938, Germany established gun control.From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1970, Uganda established gun control.From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: approximately 56 million.The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects. Thomas Jefferson stated: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Our founding fathers got it right. They thought this issue was important enough to protect the right to bear arms by putting it in our constitution. We need to protect our Constitutional rights.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Arguments against Idiots: Taxes
Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.
_________________________
_________________________
August 1, 2008 - 12:33 ET
The issue:
Taxes
What the liberal whiners say:
1.'The rich don't pay their fair share'
2.'The working class carries the full load in this country, while the rich just keep getting richer, and paying LESS'
3.'How about those 50 hedge fund managers Barack Obama talks about all the time who made $29 billion, but actually paid less in taxes than their $60,000 a year SECRETARIES!'
4.'I'm sick and tired of all the corporate welfare in this country'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1.Really? According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of wage-earners in this country pays nearly 40% of the burden (an 11% INCREASE over 1999, when WHO was President? Oh that's right...Bill Clinton). Not fair? Well, you may be saying, 'that's because they have ALL the wealth!' Wrong again. The top 1% of earners account for just 21% of the total adjusted gross income. Hmm. Come to think of it...you're RIGHT! That really isn't fair. They're paying DOUBLE what they should be. By the way, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the load. When you get all the way down to the top 50% of earners, they account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden. The next 10% pays 3.6%. And the bottom 40% of wage earners...pay NOTHING. That's right, nothing. In fact, they pay nothing, and then often get a "refund" (handout) at years end.
2. Now this argument, to me, is null and void, since it comes straight from the "Communist Manifesto" by our friend, Karl Marx (no, not Richard Marx, the singer with the hair...this is the OTHER Marx brother) Simply substitute the words "working class" for proletariat and "rich" for bourgeousie, and voila! Class warfare, Marxist style. Besides, do you know ANY rich people who don't work hard? Only 2% of this country's rich inherited their money, like the Kennedy's...the rest, earned it.
3. The "50 Hedge Fund mangers' who made a combined $29 billion is one of my favorite Barack Obama campaign stories. It's true of course. At least the part about how much money they made. Legally, by the way. But for a billionaire to pay less in taxes than his secretary, is preposterous at best. It's impossible. I need to see their 1040 form for proof. If they pay a smaller percentage than their secretary did, their accountant needs to be made President of the United States of America, immediately. No campaign, no election. The first ever APPOINTMENT to President in American history...just based on amazing skills.
It's also interesting to note that one of those Hedge Fund managers, of whom Obam speaks, but never names, is....George Soros. $2.9 Billion last year. Keep those Moveon.org ads coming Georgie! being the big-hearted, big government guy he is, it's surprising he hasn't voluntarily written out huge extra checks to the Federal Government to make up the discrepancy.
4. For this, I refer you to yesterday's article on the evil oil companies...who, from 1977-2004 made over $643 billion in profits! But, during that time span, their disgusting "corporate welfare" situation allowed them to pay a paltry $1.343 TRILLION in state and federal taxes. What a free ride.
The Argument Against Idiots: Global Warming Part I
Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.
_________________________
August 6, 2008 - 14:09 ET
The issue:
Global Warming Part I: The altruistic planet savers
What the liberal whiners say:
1. 'What do you have against Al Gore? That man is simply trying to save this planet!'
2. 'And that wonderful, handsome, Richard Branson has promised to unselfishly give almost $4 billion in proceeds from his aviation business to fight global warming!'
3. 'It really shows just how bad this problem is when a lifelong oil man like T. Boone Pickens says it's time to change to wind!!!!!!'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. What I have against Al Gore is simply this: he's a fat, stinking hypocrite. We'll cover his energy gorging next time. For now, let's focus on his motives. There's a famous quote by Al that I've always loved; "I live a carbon-neutral life, and both of my businesses are carbon neutral." The fact is, he's not even on the same planet as carbon-neutral, but here's the real story. He tells us his conscience is clear because he buys "carbon offsets". What Gore doesn't say is that the "offsets" he buys are from his own company, GIM (Generation Investment Management). He's saving the planet by investing in his own company?
2. It's true that big-hearted billionaire Richard Branson pledged all the profits from his Virgin Aviation business for the next 10 years to go toward combating the most critical problem the world has ever faced, global warming. But instead of Branson sending $4 billion to send polar bears life preservers, refrigerating Greenland or saving endangered Pygmy tribes in New Guinea, he's simply investing the money in his new business venture, Virgin Fuel. Like Gore, it seems he's just found another way to enhance his own bank account.
3. Yeah, good ole Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has a plan for alternative energy too. He's spending a TON of money to let us know that the country needs to break it's addiction to oil and switch to wind. Surely that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's invested $2 billion to build wind turbines, and is working on hooking up a power grid from the wind farms in West Texas all the way to Dallas. The great thing about wind as opposed to oil is, wind is subsidized by the taxpayer dollars to the tune of $25 per kilowatt hour. In other words, we pay his expenses, HE reaps the profit. There's more. At Pickens behest, the Texas Legislature changed a law allowing him, through his wife and ranch manager, eminent domain rights over 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts, Texas that could bolster his budget another $1 billion. But it's all about the planet, right?
The Argument Against Idiots: Creeping Communism-Demonizing Big Oil
Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.
August 5, 2008 - 12:37 ET
How to win the argument de jour with logic and facts
The issue:'Creeping Communism-Demonizing Big Oil'
(This differs from last weeks "drilling in ANWR" thesis...and is just a quickie to SHUT LIBERAL PIE HOLES about oil companies!)
What the liberal whiners say:
1. 'None of these greedy oil companies are spending nearly enough money on alternative energy sources'
2. 'It's great that Barack Obama has promised to take their profits and give them to the states and working families'
3. 'But $11 BILLION in ONE quarter, that's just evil'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. Let's see. They're called OIL COMPANIES for a reason. They find, drill for, and deliver OIL. Some, like British Petroleum HAVE made the business decision to branch out and develop new sources of energy, but in the United States of America, should the government be dictating to private businesses what they spend their money on?
2. Is it, comrade? Glad you think so. If Obama is elected, and follows through with taking oil profits, do you think it will STOP with oil profits? Their profit margin is only 7-11%. Why take a chunk of Microsofts much larger profit margin? Or the cell phone industry or hoteliers? The markup on diamonds is up to 1000%...isn't that obscene? As for whether or not states and/or "working families" have the right to the profits oil companies have made, I guess that depends on whether you adhere to the U.S. Constitution or the Communist Manifesto.
3. If these money making oil companies are so bad because they make money, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be positively angelic for running their businesses into the ground and having to be bailed out by the government? IndyMac and Bear Stearns, truly saintly. Miserable failures, who required bailouts with taxpayer dollars seem to completely escape the ire of the democrat/liberal whining machine. Those who succeed at what they're doing and prosper, are vilified. Well, СЧАСТЛИВЫЙ СЛУЧАЙ, comrade.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Hollander Receives Union Support
Isn't it interesting that Tom Fann did not secure the Carpenters Union considering all his other support seems to be from Unions and Union workers.
Hollander Receives Endorsement from Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity
ST. CHARLES-- The Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity has embraced Terry's vision for the St. Charles area and officially endorsed his candidacy for County Council.
"Carpenters have played a vital part in the rapid expansion of St. Charles County. They have literally built and shaped our community and will continue to do so in the years to come," said Hollander. "My campaign has embraced the carpenters' union and other labor organizations as vital to our area, and I am proud to have received their endorsement. "
Thursday, July 31, 2008
'Fann'ing the Flames of the Democrat Party
Was Tom Fann having two previous losses really the best the democrat party had to put up against first time runner Terry Hollander or is there something more happening behind the scenes? Tommy Roberts and Kristy Manning both sit on the Democrat Central Committee and voted to put Tom Fann in the St. Charles County District 5 race. I have heard it quoted by "other sources" that it appears that Tommy Roberts and Kristy Manning threw Tom Fann under the bus. Could this have been a ploy to ease the pressure off of Kristy Manning? One has to wonder what the motivation was to put an extreme liberal against Mark Parkinson instead of a Democrat candidate that appears to be more moderate.
Letting someone else pick what race you run does not show the leadership that is expected in St. Charles County. No offense intended to Mr. Fann but running against Terry Hollander with his name recognition and apparently the dollars in contributions is not the best idea.
Tommy Roberts and Kristy Manning pulling Tom Fann from the State Rep District 16 race shows to the St. Charles County residence that even the Democrat Party has no confidence in Tom Fann's ability to win an election. The Democrat Party according to deafening silence apparently did not contribute to Tom Fann's campaign. One could only guess how the liberal minded Kristy Manning talked Tommy Roberts into throwing Tom Fann under the bus. The Democrat Party has demonstrated their typical self serving attitude that will burn them in the general elections.
Vote for Terry Hollander on August 5th!
____________________________________________________________
Two compete for vacant St. Charles County Council seat
Fann, Hollander square off in District 5
After Democrat Tom Fann lost his bid for the 16th District Missouri House seat to Republican Mark Parkinson in February, he was planning a rematch in November.
But in early April, the District 5 seat on the St. Charles County Council opened up with the resignation of Democrat Joe McCulloch. Fann decided to focus his political goals closer to home.
Fann will face Republican Terry Hollander, the varsity basketball coach for St. Charles West High School, in the Aug. 5 special election for the District 5 seat, which includes parts of St. Charles and St. Peters between Highway 94, Interstate 70 and Spencer Road. Fann and Hollander were chosen by their respective parties' central committees to run in the special election. The winner would serve the remaining 17 months of McCulloch's term.
Both candidates are counting on name recognition to help them in the race. Earlier this year, Fann spent many hours going door to door before the election won by Parkinson. Hollander is well-known in the community for his success with the St. Charles West basketball program.
Hollander, 55, was in his first year of retirement when the District 5 council seat opened up.
"There was no long-range plan," Hollander said. "It just happened to be that Joe McCulloch stepped down and there happened to be an opening, and the timing seemed right.".
Hollander taught American history for 31 years at St. Charles West before he retired as a teacher. He has continued to coach varsity basketball. Though he taught civics, the campaign is his first step into politics.
With the encouragement of a friend, County Executive Steve Ehlmann, Hollander decided to run for the seat.
After going door to door to talk with voters, Hollander said many voters are concerned about keeping their property values from falling.
"I'd like to see the quality of life out here continue," he said.
He also said that if elected, he would support funding the continuation of the Page Avenue extension, a plan that Fann said he agrees with.
Both Hollander and Fann say competitive pay for sheriff's deputies should be a priority as the county faces decreased sales tax revenues this year.
"I think that there certainly needs to be a hard look at how things need to be done and get our employees to the point that needs to be competitive," Hollander said.
Fann said he is opposed to the county's continued participation in a lawsuit against the use of tax increment financing for the Premier 370 development in St. Peters.
"We don't need to be suing each other," Fann said. "We don't need one city trying to annex another. Personal interest is being put above public interest."
Fann said he wants to generate more money from light-industrial plants to cover any losses that could come from rolling back taxes.
"We need to position ourselves as a region that's centrally located," he said.
Fann said the county could attract more businesses to the area by marketing the good reputation of the cities. St. Peters, O'Fallon and St. Charles were recently ranked nos. 60, 68 and 82, respectively, on Money Magazine's list of the 100 Best Places to Live in America.
"My thing is, if we are going to preach tax rollbacks we need to find a way to grow our communities' property tax base," he said.
As of the July 15 campaign finance reports, Fann had raised considerably less money than Hollander. About $1,000 of the $2,990 Fann had raised for his campaign came from firefighter and paramedics associations.
In contrast, Hollander has raised $20,415 in campaign contributions, with more than $5,000 coming from Republican committees or other candidates.
Name: Terry Hollander
Age: 56
Family: Wife, Brenda; children, Blake, Kirk and Leigh Ann
Political experience: first-time candidate
Job: retired teacher at St. Charles West High School
Education: bachelor's degree in social studies and master's degree in secondary school administration from Northeast Missouri State, now Truman State University
Name: Tom Fann
Age: 49
Family: Wife, Jennifer; children, Joshua, Paige and Leah
Political experience: ran unsuccessfully for St. Peters Board of Aldermen in 2004; ran unsuccessfully for Missouri House of Representatives in 2008
Job: insurance broker
Education: attended Ranken Technical College, University of Missouri-St. Louis and St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
U.S. Circuit Court Finds in Favor of St. Peters' Appeal in Hodak Case
St. Peters is on a winning streak concerning lawsuits against it. See Article Below
U.S. Circuit Court Finds in Favor of St. Peters' Appeal in Hodak Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit this morning reversed outright an earlier District Court decision in a case filed by Brian Hodak, Karla Hodak, and H & N Planning and Control, Inc., against the City of St. Peters, former Mayor Tom Brown and three City police officers. The City of St. Peters had appealed the earlier decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Today's court decision threw out the entire judgment, entered against the City and Tom Brown, including the actual and punitive damage awards, attorney's fees, and court costs that had been awarded to plaintiffs by the District Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals found that Brian Hodak "did not suffer an actionable constitutional violation," and declined to "extend third-party standing to H/N to assert Brian's non-existent legal claim."
Today's ruling is a decisive victory for the City. The judgment in favor of plaintiffs has been reversed and the United States Court of Appeals has ordered the trial court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint.
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has made its decision after a thorough review of all the evidence in this case after years of litigation," said St. Peters Mayor Len Pagano. "We are obviously pleased with the outcome of the appeal. This has been a long, difficult process for the City, its police officers and former mayor. As with all issues, the City, its elected officials and employees try always to do what is appropriate and in the best interest of the residents of St. Peters. We are proud of the City's reputation in this regard, and we will continue to enforce the laws and work to serve and to protect our community as we are sworn to do."
Party Headquarters Can Determine Quality of Leaderhip
It is interesting that the Democrat party considers themselves as the a party for the working people. The Democrat party often does attract tradesmen and union workers to volunteer. This begs the question how much do the Democrats really care about "getting the job done?" Pictured to the above and to the right is the Democrat Headquarters in St. Charles County. Its grand opening held at the end of June with this picture taken almost 30 days after the grand opening event. As you can see it is a mess and incomplete. Quoting Democrat Ted House at the grand opening "this is going to become a home in more ways than one over the next several months and even years". REALLY? In 30 days I can clean my home to look better than what is displayed here? Who holds a "grand opening" when the facilities are far from being completed? Is this how the Democrats plan to run the state and local offices? Maybe they are hoping it will "change"?
By comparison the Republican Party held its grand opening for their headquarters. Can anyone tell the difference in the care and upkeep? Not to mention location, location, location? There was a lot of forethought to secure a building that is easy to maintain can fly the United States Flag and has a floor plan to be used for many purposes.Ted House said that the Democrat Headquarters is to become a home. I think that sentiment is felt to the Republican Headquarters as well. You would think that if you consider it a home you would take care of it like one. If you cannot take care of your home how can you take care of legislation for others?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Liberal Democrat Strikes Against Free Speech !!!
I have seen some dirty tricks in my years in politics but it takes a Liberal Democrat to strike at free speech. Like a true socialist they only want you to hear one side of the story, theirs!!! Placing signs directly in front of your competitor is low even for a Democrat. Could this be because they cannot compete in the realm of real life ideas? St. Charles County is known as its Conservative Family Values and Mark Parkinson is the only candidate that holds to these values.
A quick comparison of the candidates shows the Mark Parkinson is the area's candidate of choice.
Mark Parkinson is sponsored by Missouri's Right to Life verses Ms. Manning's kill the babies pro choice approach. Ms. Manning's time as a legislative assistant riding the coat tails of whoever or Mark Parkinson's time doing the job as a legislator and receiving Freshman Legislator of the year for 2008 for his co-sponsorship of tough illegal immigration legislation.
We obviously know where Ms. Manning stands on freedom of speech attempting to block out Mark Parkinson's sign to the public.
The choice is clear. Mark Parkinson for State Rep District 16. Elect a real conservative legislator not a six year liberal assistant who will ultimately attempt to work to socialize our society.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
What Does Obama Want To Change? - Recieved In My E-Mail
Dear Friends: My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm
46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small
business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't considerable myself
to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not
Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas' - but
that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want
to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can
they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those
who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of
America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of
this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest,
hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for
too long.
Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in
politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising
their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote
and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at
the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear
is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how
elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork
barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the
government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government
programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders.
It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election
with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even
agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into
that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my
vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired
a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election
is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working
for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply
don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and
calling it 'change'.
Change what?, I ask.
Well, we're going to change America, they say.
In what way?, I query.
We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.
So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.
Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for
Obama, they state.
So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has
enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education,
raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his
party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?
No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.' Quite frankly, I don't
believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In
recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how
they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting
for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's
going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to
find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why
this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most
powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going
to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his
Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a
moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to
be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who
are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as
evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken
to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can
explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible.
Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who
wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from
Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next
First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping
about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
?Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago? Around
Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son
has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a
half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of
sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North
Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to
be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held
longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was
offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and
torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a
foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your
fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found,
and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military
service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to
denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of
Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze
Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now
serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We
honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and
offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice
for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more
about change.'
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly
convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him
to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of
our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants
to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is
simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable
background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle
to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation,
retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new.
Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of
character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe
'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a
prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the
United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly
DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking
Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop
following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep
America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a
dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting
for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to
all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a
man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want
a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
AMEN ! ! !
46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small
business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't considerable myself
to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not
Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas' - but
that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want
to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can
they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those
who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of
America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of
this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest,
hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for
too long.
Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in
politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising
their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote
and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at
the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear
is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how
elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork
barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the
government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government
programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders.
It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election
with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even
agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into
that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my
vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired
a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election
is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working
for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply
don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and
calling it 'change'.
Change what?, I ask.
Well, we're going to change America, they say.
In what way?, I query.
We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.
So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.
Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for
Obama, they state.
So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has
enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education,
raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his
party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?
No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.' Quite frankly, I don't
believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In
recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how
they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting
for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's
going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to
find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why
this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most
powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going
to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his
Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a
moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to
be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who
are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as
evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken
to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can
explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible.
Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who
wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from
Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next
First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping
about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
?Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago? Around
Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son
has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a
half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of
sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North
Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to
be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held
longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was
offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and
torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a
foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your
fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found,
and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military
service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to
denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of
Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze
Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now
serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We
honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and
offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice
for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more
about change.'
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly
convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him
to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of
our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants
to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is
simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable
background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle
to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation,
retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new.
Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of
character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe
'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a
prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the
United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly
DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking
Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop
following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep
America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a
dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting
for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to
all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a
man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want
a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
AMEN ! ! !
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
