Is Now Really The Time To Increase FDIC Limits? Increase Could Cause Huge Bailout Of FDIC!

It's great that the government is now considering the first increase in FDIC limits in more than a quarter of a century, but my question is simple: Is Now Really The Best Time?

Both Presidential Candidates have come out today in support of raising deposit limits to $250,000. John McCain talked to the President early this morning urging the President to push for an increase to help shore up support from House Republicans and Democrats who voted down the Bailout Bill.

Today, Chris Dodd, the first member of Congress who should be removed from office, discussed an increase with FDIC's Chairwoman who concurred and released a statement calling for a temporary increase.

Now...Although an increase is needed, the question becomes: Is this mere political maneuvering from a do-nothing congress and lame-duck president or would the American public be better served by waiting to raise limits until after this current credit and financial failure crisis?

Just one week ago, FDIC Chairwoman, Sheila Bair, during questioning stated that FDIC planned to raise premiums in early October, "not shockingly, but significantly". The move by FDIC is made in direct response to increasing fears that more bank collapses, such as those of IndyMac, WAMU and Wachovia could put a significant strain on the system if future buyers could not be found.

When questioned as to the health of FDIC's Insurance Fund, Bair reported that FDIC felt as if the current available funds were sufficient enough to meet demands if failures were to occur. However, as of the end of June, FDIC reported that the Insurance Fund had a balance of only $45 Billion.

Forty-Five Billion Dollars is a significant amount of funds; however, the amount pales in comparison to the $700 Billion we are told by Congressional Leadership, the President, the Treasury Secretary and head of the Federal Reserve that we need bailout Wall Street financials.

So is it really smart to raise the current insurance limits to $250,000 at this time?

First, consider the current limits; individuals are protected up to $100,000 per financial institution or $250,000 for bank-held IRA's or other retirement plans. That would mean for married couples if they were to have assets held in each name, plus bank-held IRA's they could currently protect $200,000-$300,000 per institution (assets held under different names and/or different registrations are each protected to $100,000). Now by raising the FDIC limits, this same couple could now protect up too $500,000 - $750,000 per institution. Now, who will this increase benefit the most? How much of an impact will these increases have on the insurance fund if a mega national bank or several large regional banks would fail?

Second, the rationale used by both candidates for this increase is to extend protections upon small business owners. Although there are many small business owners who these increases might apply to. Most businesses rely upon accountants and financial advisers who should be taking steps to help them protect their monetary assets and operating funds. The small businesses who are most vulnerable typically operate under a system whereas funds are flowing out of the company accounts as quickly as they are received. Reserves are typically swept into short term securities or higher-interest money market accounts. As company size increases the more diversity within their monetary portfolio.

Third, FDIC does not provide short-term protection? FDIC is not designed to release funds on day one. FDIC is designed as an insurance program that is to protect account holders only after an institutions reserves and assets are depleted. Therefore, small business owners operating on tight budgets may not recuperate funds from FDIC for month following a collapse. This would mean that those small business would have have to rely upon funds held in other financial institutions in order to pay employees until they recuperate their insured funds. As such, a increase in insurance protection would come to late to prevent a crisis for these small businesses.

Fourth, the massive consolidation of financials could mean that just one large failure could bankrupt FDIC. Last week, JP Morgan stepped in to purchase WaMu's $309 billion of assets to become the largest Commercial bank in the United States. One factor in the current crisis is the largely uncontrolled consolidation of companies and destruction of locally owned and regional financials over the past 15 years. These companies have become so large, with so little competition that the collapse of just one company can have enormous effects on the entire financial system. This shrinking and lack of competition has created "mega-financials" such as IndyMac, Wamu, Wachovia, Merrill Lynch. As these financials and others have failed, their assets are being purchased by the newly formed "Super-Mega Financials" such as Bank of America, CitiGroup, and JP Morgan. Now...Imagine if one of these "Super-Mega Financials" failed or suffered a massive run on assets...How many accounts might be depleted, what would be the psychological effect on causing a collapse of other financial or runs on other financials?

$45 billion dollars is not much money, when you consider that one day of losses in the market amounted to more than $1.1 trillion dollars. At current insurance fund levels that money would protect around 450,000 non-retirement accounts, if limits were increased this number would drop to 180,000. Now consider the fact that wealthy Americans may have maxed out accounts, multiple registrations within a single bank and maxed out retirement assets within these institutions. Just 30,000-60,000 families would have the ability to deplete the insurance funds.

FDIC was designed to operate under two premises:

A) Banks would be required to hold 2%-5% of their assets in reserves to meet any short-term run. Even for our largest banks that have $600 Billion in deposits, that would only have $12-$30 billion in reserves.

B) The system was designed at time in which the banking industry was comprised of primarily small and local institutions. It wasn't until 1998 that Bank of America became the first truly Coast-to-Coast national bank.

FDIC was designed to provide insurance and primarily as a consumer confidence weapon not to protect against failure but rather prevent the spread of panic. The premise was that if one small, local or regional institution were to fail and suffer a run on assets, FDIC could take control; pay out account holders; and the successful payout would re-assure the public who had accounts with other financial institutions and prevent the run on assets from spreading to other banks. Today, we no longer have this high level of competition within the banking sector, if a run were to occur on a Citigroup, Bank of America or JP Morgan the system could easily fail, and this failure could actually spread the panic and cause a run on larger institutions. If a small, local bank fails it is relatively insignificant at a national level, but if a "Super-Mega" national bank suffers the same fate the panic would undoubtedly spill over to the smaller institutions.

Our government has already called for a massive expansion of FDIC to cover millions of Investment Company Money Market accounts, and although these accounts will now be covered, premiums have yet to flow in and the government has taken no steps to provide immediate funding to the insurance fund. If FDIC limits are increased the insurance fund will be at even greater risk and I would contend that an increase will cause little change in consumer confidence in our financial system.

An increase in FDIC limits is needed, but any increase should be slowly phased in to allow time for financials to recover and premium increases to build up FDIC's insurance fund. I personally do not believe that there will be a massive run on banks that could bankrupt FDIC; but, I don't believe that anything is out of the realm of possibility considering the complete failure of leadership in both the financial sector and within our government. If FDIC were to become insolvent, the government would be forced to pick up the slack, and considering their massive bailout of the financial industry, could our nation or the global economy really afford this risk.

J Brown
October 1st, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Pelosi Advises 30 Democrats To Vote No To Bailout Package!

The under reported story of the morning is the story of how Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have turned the $700 Billion bailout plan into a partisan attempt to lay blame at the footstep of Republicans and President Bush.

Yesterday's attempted passing of a bailout package demonstrates the complete lack of leadership and failure of current congressional leadership. As former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich stated, Pelosi should have never brought this legislation to a vote if unless she was sure it would pass. Yet, knowing that just last week we know that less than 10 House Republicans supported the bill. Over the course of the weekend, Republican leadership was able to bring an additional 55-60 Republicans onboard. Prior to the vote, rumours surfaced around the hill that leadership still did not have the votes, yet Pelosi forged ahead, forcing an uncertain vote in the house.

Following the failure of the bill, Democratic Leadership trudged forward to arrogantly place the failure of the bill upon the minority party. If this were true, it would represent the first time in the history of the House of Representatives that a minority party was in control of congress. According to Representative Blunt, yesterday morning, he expected 75 Republicans to vote for the bill. At the end of the day his count was 10 short; but even if Blunt's count was accurate, the bill still would have failed by 2 votes. In reality, the media has largely ignored the story behind the 95 Democrats who voted against the bailout; a story that starts with failed majority leadership that was unable to obtain over 60% support for a modified bill that they largely crafted.

The story behind their votes, including 12 Democrats who serve under Barney Frank on his Finance Committee, is rooted in Pelosi putting the good of her political party ahead of that of our nation. Overnight, Democrats opposed to the bailout began surfacing and presenting some interesting statements regarding their "no" votes. For the most part the media has ignored the story, but Fox News and even NBC to a much lesser extent, reported the reality.

Pelosi told Secretary Paulsen that Democrats had "delivered on their side of the bargain", yet, Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA.) told ABC's Jake Tapper that he felt absolutely no pressure from Pelosi or other Democratic Leadership to vote for the bill. This lack of pressure by Democratic Leadership was evident when Democratic Whip, Jim Clyburn told reporters yesterday morning that he had not even begun "whipping" the Democratic Caucus to support the leaderships position.



Pelosi and current leadership planned on utilizing this bill to both protect the party against accusations that they were doing nothing, while requiring enough Republican support to target Republicans who went against their constituency and voted for the bill. As Fox News and NBC both reported early this morning, Pelosi approached the freshman members of the Democratic Caucus and some 16 Democrats involved in contentious races and specifically told them that there would be no repercussion if they were to vote against party leadership and vote no to the bailout package. Although Pelosi did not specifically tell them to vote no to protect their re-election bids, the fact that she purposely told them there were no political repercussions to voting against the party could be considered nothing less than a clear message to protect their own asses. Ironically, nearly every Freshman Democrat and Democratic Representative involved in close congressional races voted against the bill. In addition, Pelosi failed to apply any pressure or threaten Democratic Committee Chairs who were opposing the bill. Committe Chairs Conyers, Filner, Thompson, Green and Peterson all voted against the rest of Democratic Leadership.

Democrats have claimed that many of these 95 saw the wave of Republicans voting no and fearful of their own re-election chances, followed suit. Yet, couldn't the same argument be made in reverse. If Republicans saw that over 40% of Democrats were casting "No" votes, the writing on the wall that Democrats would utilize this vote for political fire would be clear. There are only 2 excuses that Democratic leadership can provide for the failure of this bill. Either they must admit that as leaders, "the buck stops here", and they rushed this vote and failed within their own MAJORITY party; or they must admit that they irresponsibly politicized and purposely failed to pressure their own party members to further the parties political power.

In either case, Pelosi should resign from her leadership position for a clear failure to lead during a period of crisis and failure to deliver on a single campaign promise from her parties platform 2 years ago. In addition, new Democratic Leadership working with Republican Leadership should immediately remove every single member of the Senate Banking Committee and House Finance Committee and install new committee leadership.

J Brown
September 30th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Senate Democrats Want Another $56 Billion For Economic Stimulus! $700b + $56b

What is wrong with these people?

In a congress that has shown no fiscal restraint, they have now proposed the most ridiculous piece of legislation yet. As I write, congress is working overtime to compromise on a $700 BILLION bailout of the financial industry. The only thing standing in the way of passage of this enormous bailout are House Republicans joined by a few House Democrats who have received tens-of-thousands of call from constituents demanding no such bailout. But even as Democratic leadership is poised to side with the president they are introducing a new $56 Billion Economic Stimulus Package.

Now I'm not opposed to a stimulus package, after all if they are handing out money freely, I'm not going to turn it down. But that's not the point...

If the government passes this bailout package at the level that it is currently at, that will mean we have spent over $1 Trillion in economic bailouts in less than one month. An additional $56 BILLION may not seem like much, but the more our nation spends, the more it will drive down the dollar. The lower the dollar, the more US property ownership will flow overseas and the higher the cost of a barrel of oil. The last rebate did not work, and a rebate passed at this time is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes.

If the Congress is hell-bent on pushing an economic stimulus package then why in the world would they not consider lowering their bailout demands versus adding more spending? Realistically, what the hell is the difference between a $644 Billion Bailout and a $700 Billion Bailout?

But that would apparently be too simple. Now I personally believe that their has to be some form of a economic protection against this toxic debt on Wall Street. However, how did they arrive at $700 Billion? If the money is not all needed at once, then why must we pass the entire package?

Earlier in the week Senate Democrats jumped the bailout plan citing that as a nation they have a responsibility to study the issue. Yet, 5 days later these same Democratic leaders are attacking the house members who are saying: Stop, Slow Down, And Let's Rethink This. Prior to yesterday, the Senate Banking Committee and leadership fully expected House members to just fall in line without actually discussing the issue with them. Every news agency reported yesterday morning that House Members phones had been lit up by tens of thousands of calls opposed to the bailout. CNN, reporting from Montana announced that one representatives office had received over 2,000 phone calls without a single call for support of the bailout. At this point, no member of the house, who is up for re-election is willing to sign off on this bailout considering that they will have to answer to their constituency within 40 days.

Moreover, what frightens me is the fact that the very leadership that ignored this problem as warning signs arose, is now telling us how to fix it. I agree, some form of a bailout package must be passed, but the current notion that we must pass such a large bailout package and then add more to our budgetary deficit by passing an additional stimulus package is ridiculous. If current leadership had any common sense left they would include any stimulus package as part of a smaller, more controlled and monitored bailout package.

For his part, Senator Obama supports the proposed stimulus package as is, stating that adding it to the bailout package would slow down the bill. In reality, that is ridiculous. If anything, the inclusion of specific taxpayer incentives into the bailout bill would help the bill move forward and probably garner more that the 4% public support the bill currently has.

The only thing standing in the way of this fleecing appears to be House Republicans and a handful of House Democrats who are standing up for and listening to their constituents. These members of Congress need our support and those congressional leaders ready to sign off on this bailout as it stands, should be promptly escorted to the exit.

J Brown
September 26th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

By Obama's Definition, British Prime Minister Brown Unable To Multitask!

Personally, I always thought the mark of governmental leadership was the ability to prioritize, not to multi-task. However, it appears that to Senator Obama a Foreign Policy Debate holds the same level of prioritization as the meltdown of US financial system. Senator Obama has repeatedly stated that this is the largest financial crisis that this nation has faced since the Great Depression, yet it also appears that he is not willingly to be on the front-lines, let alone cast a vote on what could be the most important piece of financial legislation since the Great Depression.

Senator Obama stated that a President needed to have the ability to multi-task and thus the debates should go on. Of course, to buy into that belief you would also have to accept that the two are somehow related or equally important. For 4 months Senator Obama has refused to participate in unscripted town hall meetings with Senator McCain. Town Hall meetings in which average citizens, not a paid moderator, would be allowed to form and ask questions. Yet, today his surrogates want to portray McCain as trying to avoid debate. It's not quite a legitimate argument when even President Clinton, who know first hand how to behave Presidentially, stated that McCain's choice was sound.

But if we are to accept Senator Obama's view of multi-tasking, then we should also apply those standards to every political leader. For instance, British Prime-Minister, Gordon Brown, had a full day of high level diplomatic meetings scheduled at the United Nations today. Yet, Prime Minister Brown altered his schedule, cancelling some meetings in order to pay a visit to the New York Federal Reserve to discuss the turmoil in the global markets. At the same time Prime Minister Brown's office announced that he cancelling his scheduled return to London on Friday in order to hold an emergency economic meeting with President Bush.

Why?

Shouldn't Prime Minister Brown be able to handle multiple events at one time. Why alter his schedule, cancel meetings and postpone a trip home, when he could easily have talked to the President via phone, or video conferencing, or telegram for that fact???

If we applied the same standards to Prime Minister Brown that the media and Obama surrogates apply to him, the Prime Minister Brown is doing the wrong thing and apparently isn't capable of handling multiple "tasks".

Or...

Perhaps it's that Prime Minister Brown, like all good leaders, understands that Governing is not about multi-tasking, it is about prioritizing. It is about suspending a campaign as a hurricane makes landfall, rather than singing Motown and waving to the crowd at a labor day parade even as that hurricane makes landfall. It is about not abrogating your sworn duties as a United States Senator because you have a 50% of rising to the presidency.

Prime Minister Brown clearly gets it, President Clinton clearly gets it, Senator McCain clearly gets it, so who is left?

J Brown
September 25th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Congressman Hastings: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews & Blacks!'

At a rally aimed at attracting Jewish support for Senator Obama yesterday, Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to a picture of Sarah Palin and stated, "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

In an interview with ABC news, Hastings defended his comment by stating that the comment was aimed at pointing out that Palin was a radical conservative who was out of touch with mainstream America.

Hmm...

Really?...

Yeah, I'm sorry, I still don't quite see the correlation. To me, this sounds more like race-baiting and the very politics that Senator Obama has stated that he despises. Of course, that hasn't prevented his campaign and surrogates from playing the race-card time and time again.

Hastings wasn't done though as he defended his injection of race. ""Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state. And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose."

Hmm...

If only blacks and Jews care about affordable health care, energy independence and seperation of church and state, then I suppose you could call me Sammy Davis Jr.

Are you kidding me? If Congressman Hastings wants to inject race into this campaign and infer that Governor Palin is somehow anti-Semitic, then he better be prepared to actually offer evidence of that fact. If he somehow believes that Governor Palin, who I might remind everyone is the closest thing to Middle Class that we have seen in this election, does not care about affordable health care, energy independence and the separation of Church and State then I would like to his evidence to support it.

This attack on Palin is just another example of this Democratic leadership continuing to use any method necessary to achieve total control of our Government.

J Brown
September 25th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

House Passes No-Strings Attached $25 Billion Auto Industry Bailout, Reid Calls It "Small Change"!

Following up on an article we published yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the secretly written Stop-Gap bill yesterday. Not included in the bill were any provisions restricting offshore drilling which is a victory, but perhaps only a short-lived victory for drilling expansion advocates. However, included in the bill was a $25 billion 'no-strings-attached' auto industry bailout along with more than $6.5 billion in earmarks.

In a week in which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have excoriated the Bush Administration for putting forth a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry with no built-in accountability or taxpayer protection measures, these same lawmakers have chosen to hand out $25 billion with literally no-strings-attached.

In 1979 and 1980 Chrysler, on the verge of bankruptcy, lobbied congress for a $1.2 billion bailout. Chrysler was subjected to months of hearings, scrutiny and congressional debate. In the end, facing a potential 1% jump in already high unemployment rates, congress passed the bailout measure with a caveat that Chrysler produce a strict repayment schedule, a new business plan, accounting oversight to monitor the use of funds, strict limitations on executive pay and even Union concessions. In fact, under congressional scrutiny, Lee Ioccoca agreed to accept just $1 in annual salary until the loan was repaid.

In 2001, Congress bailed out the airline industry on the verge of bankruptcy following 9/11. But once again, the bailout was only granted after the industry companies produced restructuring plans, agreed to oversight and accepted strict limits on executive pay.

The $25 billion granted to the automotive industry yesterday was passed with no such provisions, no set oversight and no demand for limitations on executive compensation. The funds which were appropriated to help the industry upgrade infrastructure and develop hybrid technologies came with no oversight to assure that funds were used for that purpose. In fact, it is unlikely that the industry that is suffering massive operating losses will use the money for any of those activities.

Moreover, with no repayment plan put forth, it is likely that taxpayers could be on the hook for these loans permanently. Last year General Motors reported a record setting loss of $38.7 billion dollars. On August 2nd of this year, GM reached a new milestone when they reported the largest quarterly loss of any business in history, $15.5 Billion. GM's losses second quarter losses were accompanied by second quarter losses of $8.7 billion by Ford. In all the big 2 lost nearly as much last quarter as the entire bailout. In addition, the automakers credit status was lowered to "junk" status this past summer meaning that the 5% loan rate on the bailout funds is much lower that the double digit loan rates that the companies would qualify for in the private market.

Under current legislation the Bush administration could impose rules before releasing the funds; however, knowing this administrations past and Democrat's failure to request oversight, it is unlikely that any tough restrictions will be put into place. The hand-out of these funds to the automotive industry is shameful, considering that no hearings or debate ever took place on the bailout. Additionally, handing out billions to an industry, without acting on the fundamental reasons causing the failure of the industry is an exercise in futility. As I pointed out yesterday, this $25 billion is akin to putting applying a band-aid to an industry that has had it's legs cut off and is hemorrhaging cash. Ultimately, most wall street analysts fully expect the at least one of the big 2 to collapse unless there is a major turn-around in the economy and in fuel prices. If this occurs, taxpayers will be on the hook for the uncollateralized loans.

For their part, Democratic leadership in congress is refusing to call the bailout a "bailout". Instead sticking to the party line that this is just a loan. Yet, by their reasoning, the $85 billion that was handed to AIG was technically a loan that must be repaid. The fact is that unlike AIG and the earlier bailout of Chrysler and the Airline industry in 2001, these "loans" to the auto industry are uncollateralized and being allocated to companies that have no reasonable assurance of survival. AIG's collapse was brought on by devalued mortgage assets, despite the fact that the long-term value of these assets were in tact along with the security of the companies enormous insurance-based assets and income. In 1980, Chrysler's financial problems stemmed from its own financial problems, not those of an industry combating economic and energy challenges beyond it's control. Chrysler put forth a re-structuring plan and congress along with investors were confident in the companies recovery. The 2001 bailout of the Airline industry was in large part to a global failure of the airline industry following 9/11. The airline industry was essential to our economy and their recovery was imminent considering that there was no viable competition available to replace domestic carriers. The bailout of the auto industry is unfortunate, not because a bailout is not necessary, but because Congressional Democrats, along with Republican support, have failed to demand anything in return.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said the loans were "critical to saving jobs" in an industry that has already shed jobs and struggled with weak sales, credit problems and a rapid shift to fuel-efficient cars. However, Stabenow in no way demanded oversight or guarantees as to how this money would be spent. Michigan Democrat, John Dingell stated that this was an auto industry loan package, not a bailout, stating that loans would be repaid to the federal government at a profit. Yet, Dingell could not tell reporters when or how these loans would be repaid and cannot explain how this "loan" is different than the AIG "loan". I can tell you: The AIG Loan came with the caveat that the government take non-voting ownership of nearly 80% of the company. Whereas, the Auto Industry "Loans" come with "hope" that auto makers that have shed a record $24 Billion dollars last quarter will miraculously recover and pay back the loans, when the government has done nothing to address the fundamental energy challenges that are destroying these companies.

When asked about the $25 billion dollar bailout on Wednesday, Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid told reporters that this $25 billion was, "SMALL CHANGE".

"Small Change", just like the 2,322 "pork-barrel" earmarks amounting to more than $6.6 Billion that was attached to the stop-gap bill. It is unfortunate that while our nation's attention is turned to major bill's such as the financial bailout, our congressional leaders continue to bankrupt our nation a little at a time. After all, all of Senator Reid's "Small Change" adds up quick.

J Brown
September 25th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Democrats Set To Approve $25 Billion Bailout Of Auto Industry WIthout Debate, Oversight or Hearings!

Amid the onslaught of criticism over the proposed $700 bailout of financial firms this week, Democratic Leaders have been working behind closed doors to pass a $25 billion bailout of the auto industry. This week, both Democrats and Republicans have attacked the Treasury and Federal Reserves proposal for a financial bailout on the basis that the proposal offers no oversight and no taxpayer protections. This criticism follows similar attacks over the bailout of Lehman, AIG and Fannie and Freddie.

Yet, despite criticism over the financial bailout, Democrats are pushing forward with their own $25 billion auto industry bailout that offers taxpayers no protection, no oversight, no hearings, no debate and no guarantee that the plan will work.

The proposed bailout will commit $7 billion to offer $25 billion in bailout loans to automakers. Yet, with no plan put forth by automakers on how they will turn around sagging sales and no accountability mechanism in place, there is a large chance that taxpayers will eventually end up writing-off the debt.

On September 10th, Nancy Pelosi, when asked about the bailout stated, ""This is very, very important. It’s an important industry in our country.It’s about jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs." But without hearings, debate, any demand of an industry recovery plan and no oversight, this bill is more likely about: Votes, Votes and more votes in Michigan.

Greg Martin, Washington's General Motors Spokesman told reporters in early September, "The best bill to include this in is the bill that has the best chance of getting passed." Unfortunately, Democratic Leadership has followed Mr. Martin's advice. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday that the Stop-Gap Bill that must be passed prior to the end of September to protect the government against a shut-down, now contains the $25 billion auto industry bailout. Democratic Leaders who have been shaping the bill in secret are waiting until the last possible minute to introduce the bill.

The Stop-Gap bill is the result of Congressional Leadership that has failed to pass a budget this year. As a result, the government will begin a shut-down on October 1st, unless a temporary appropriations bill, the Stop-Gap, is passed. In addition, with the late introduction of the bill and use of parliamentary procedure to fast-track the bill, there will be no time for debate. As a result, on October 1st, the Auto Industry will receive a $25 billion bailout without hearings; without executive pay scrutiny; without hearings; without assurances that the money will help; without any plan for recovery by the auto industry; without oversight; without taxpayer protection; and without any media coverage.

By comparison, when the Government agreed to the $1 billion dollar bailout of Chrysler in 1979, the bailout only occurred after deep scrutiny and assurances by Chrysler executives. Lee Iaccoca was forced to commit to a $1 salary as other executives were forced to take deep pay cuts. Chrysler was required to produce a business plan outlining repayment of the loan and recovery of the business. Numerous hearings, extended debate and taxpayer protections were demanded. Yet the Democratic proposal, will face no debate, no taxpayer protection and no demands on executive accountability.

What is even more disconcerting is the fact that this bailout is akin to applying a band-aid to an industry that has had its legs cut-off. General Motors in July posted the largest loss in US corporate history, in a large part to sales that have dried up due to high fuel prices. Congress after coming to power 2 years ago under a promise of lower oil prices, has utterly failed as the cost of oil has double under their watch. Without legislation aimed at increasing oil supplies and bringing down retail costs no amount of money thrown at the auto industry will solve their corporate crisis and any money thrown at the industry will be a losing proposition for the taxpayer footing the bill.

$25 Billion for the auto industry pales in comparison to the proposed $700 billion plan under debate. But regardless of the size differential, the auto industry bailout is an exercise in Congresses dereliction of duty and hypocrisy. I am by no means saying that a bailout is not needed, but to hand out money to any industry without accountability, without hearings, and without disclosure is wrong. Moreover, to sneak this bailout into last minute legislation that must be passed is disgusting and only proves that our current Congressional Leadership is only interested in votes and their own political power.

We are told that we should calmly approach the Financial bailout; examine and scrutinize the provisions; provide for taxpayer assurances and protection and demand executive compensation reform. Yet, why is it that Democratic Leadership has formed a $25 billion Auto Industry bailout in secret; attached it to a bill that is nearly guaranteed to pass; expedited the bill to pass within a week without debate; without accountability, assurances or taxpayer protection; without a demand for executive compensation reform?

Why? Because this bailout must occur before election day, so that Democrats, primarily Senator Obama, can tell the voters of Michigan that they want to protect their jobs. In reality, however, Congress has done nothing to demand a recovery plan by the auto industry and has passed no legislation aimed at addressing the underlying energy causes of the industry's failure. This is legislation aimed at buying votes and misleading the voters of Michigan. For 2 decades, Democrats have flocked to Michigan, promised them economic renewal and have failed to deliver. If the voters of Michigan want change, then perhaps they should place their faith in others hands. If the voters of this nation want change, then perhaps they should start with every member of congress, from both parties, that have failed to even pass a budget; and who will politicize Financial bailout legislation while secretly funneling $25 billion in undebated and unaccountanted bailouts to obtain votes.

J Brown
September 24th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Victory? Democrat Leader: Dems Abandon Opposition To Offshore Drilling!

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wi) told reporters yesterday that the stop-gap bill that is being pushed through by congress to keep the government running will not contain any provisions limiting the sale of leases to be used for offshore drilling. Representative Obey's statements would mean that for at least the remainder of the year, the long-standing moratorium on offshore drilling would be lifted, allowing the Department of Interior to move ahead with the sale of leases.

House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH), responded by stating, "If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices".

The moratorium which has been achieved through restricting the funding for the sale of these leases by the Department of Interior was set to "expire" at the end of Summer as the fiscal year ends. Democratic Leaders had hoped to pass legislation further restricting leases prior to September 30th, but when their 'no-energy' energy bill failed, they had hoped to maintain the moratorium through a stop-gap bill that must be passed prior to the end of the month.

This year, congress has FAILED to pass a budget. As a result, a stop-gap bill must be passed to temporarily fund the government to avoid a shutdown. Democratic leaders had intended to include language that would continue to restrict funding on drilling leases in the stop-gap; assuming that the President would be forced to sign off on the $600 billion bill to avoid a government shutdown. However, under pressure from Republican Congressional Leaders, President Bush has threatened to veto the stop-gap if it contained the limiting language. For now, if Representative Obey's comments hold true, it appears as though Republican Congressional leaders have achieved at least a short-lived victory.

It's important to recognize that this victory may be short-lived as the next president and congress will have pass a budget that could once again contain "moratorium" language. It is also important to recognize that individual states must approve energy development off of their coasts, which is unlikely unless they are pressured by their constituents and/or are allowed to share in the royalties the federal government collects from production.

John McCain has pledged to make offshore drilling a priority of his administration as part of his "ALL OF THE ABOVE" energy plan. Barack Obama supports "limited" offshore drilling, primarily in the Hurricane riddled South Atlantic Basin where a vast majority of our drilling and refinement operations currently exist; and only so much as this drilling is passed as part of his energy proposals.

This summer should be a wake up call for Americans. Russian Aggression and Iranian threats in the Middle East threaten global oil supplies and distribution channels. Moreover, Hurricane Gustav and Ike have demonstrated what can occur when our nation carelessly bottlenecks a majority of it's oil production, ports or entry, and refineries within a small geographic region. As of today, a majority of our offshore platforms in the Gulf have not returned online. Additionally, nine major refineries in Ike's path are still without electricity or not functioning, causing higher nationwide fuel costs and widespread shortages throughout Southern States.

If Representative Obey's remarks hold true, then this represents a victory for the 60%-70% of Americans who want renewed American oil production, but the war is far from over. Personally, I am hopeful that these statements are true; but until the final bill is passed, reviewed and it is confirmed that no "moratorium" text exists we should all be cautious. After all, would any of us put it past Reid or Pelosi to attempt to sneak the text in somewhere.

J Brown
September 24th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama Promises Transparency...To Put Bills On Line For Public...We Already Do!!!

"They Must Think You're Stupid!"

That is the line Senator Obama has used time and time again when talking about Senator McCain. Yet, Senator Obama is proving that he is the one who must think Americans are stupid. Yesterday, Senator Obama with the help of the mainstream media attempted to claim the mantle of being a fiscal conservative. Obama's qualifications for the title are based upon a new promise to eliminate 10% of the government's contractor payments, or approximately $40 billion dollars. Of course, I hardly consider anyone proposing nearly $1 trillion in new spending and the largest expansion of the federal government in our history as a fiscal conservative. After all when does $40 billion in spending cuts make up for $1 trillion in new spending.

Additionally, Senator Obama yesterday called for the creation of a new presidential commission that would carry out the same duties as the GAO currently does. Once again, Obama is playing to the crowd and pretending that the GAO does not already exist. But even more laughable is Obama's promise yesterday when he promised new transparency in Washington. Obama's new promise is to post approved legislation on the Internet for five days prior to him signing a bill. Great idea, right??

Apparently the Clinton Administration thought it was as well, as during the Clinton Administration all proposed legislation was placed online for the public to view. The legislation, from it's inception to its movement through committees, amendments, voting status and other actions are all viewable on the Internet. So essentially Senator Obama's promise is to bring new transparency to government by doing what we already do.

As Senator Obama himself stated, "They Must Think You're Stupid".

J Brown
September 23rd, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama Forgets The GAO, Proposes New Accountability Commission!

The rhetoric is heating up on the campaign trail and Senator Obama is rolling out new ideas on how to bring accountability back into government spending. On Monday, Obama trying to claim the mantle of fiscal conservative (of course nearly $1 trillion in proposed new spending contradicts that claim), by pledging the creation of a Presidential commission headed by a 'Chief Performance Officer' to monitor government spending and combat wasteful spending. Telling a crowd on the campaign trail, Obama stated, "I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there. We will fire government managers who aren't getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money and we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government."

Although I will, as a fiscal conservative, agree with the fact that it would be a fresh and welcome event to see a President actually reign in government waste, the reality is that you cannot claim the crown of being fiscally conservative when you are proposing over $850 billion of new federal spending. Senator Obama's proposals, if enacted would be the largest expansion of the federal government and federal power in our countries history and without any suggestion of how to increase government revenues would cause the federal deficit to balloon.

Moreover, Senator Obama's proposal demonstrates his belief that Americans have an inherent governmental ignorance by assuming that Americans are unaware that our nation currently has an agency that is charged with monitoring performance and spending oversight within other agencies. That agency is called the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that is charged with "Accountability". Senator Obama has once again shown that he will say anything, or do anything in order to further his own political power; perhaps Senator Obama could next propose a new commission to be charged with the collection of taxes (oops, that called the IRS).

Americans need to call for a return to 'fiscal conservatism' in both their personal budgets and governmental budgets; but trust me, neither of these candidates is a fiscal conservative as both have proposed billions in new spending. But moreover, with Senator Obama's call for the creation of a commission to do the job of an existing government agency only shows his underlying belief that more bureaucracy will somehow solve the problem. In reality, most Americans fail to understand that the President has little control over Government spending; Congress is the ultimate arbiter of spending; Congress passes legislation and appropriates funds; and congress is charged with oversight. During it's existence the GAO has and continues to uncover massive abuses and billions in wasteful spending, but without Congressional action the GAO is powerless.

During the past 8 years, despite political condemnations of Bush's tax cuts, government revenues have grown by over 20%. Our deficit is not the result of any tax cuts, they are the results of unmanaged and uncontrolled spending. Spending spurred by both parties. Our government has failed to prioritize its spending and more the idea that we can solve a budget deficit and our national debt through proposing more bureaucracy and billions in new spending is ridiculous. The idea that Senator McCain or Obama is fiscally conservative is laughable, but at the same time there is a tremendous difference between a candidate proposing $300 billion in new spending versus nearly $1 trillion in new spending. Senator Obama wants to create a new accountability commission to monitor spending, but here is an idea: Why doesn't he just listen to the GAO that has already uncovered billions in wasteful spending.

J Brown
September 22nd, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

O'Reilly's New Book To Hit Bookstands Tuesday, Sarah Palin Biography Jumps To #3 As NY Times Best Seller

Last week Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble once again reported they were sold out of "Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" written by Kaylene Johnson and first released months ago. But with the rights picked up by a second publisher and a new edition with a print run of 300,000, book stocks were replenished on September 20th and once again ready to be shipped.

Today, "Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" continued its climb up the New York Times Best Seller list, reaching the #3 spot on the Nonfiction Paperback list. Due to demand the Hard Cover new edition is not yet available.
As stocks become replenished, shortages continue in Barnes and Noble outlets across the nation.

With rumors, mis-truths and outright lies being spread across the Internet and media outlets, this book written well-before Palin was considered as the Vice-Presidential choice offers readers the opportunity to see a true reformer in action. The book was written, not by herself and was written well before her rise to a national position. The book highlights the life of Palin, her middle class roots and her rise as an advocate for the people of Alaska. The books written to clearly push the campaigns of already powerful candidates, this book highlights the real Palin, her upbringing, the rise of a middle class mother who was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth or the benefit of an ivy league education. The book highlights her dedication to family and community and events that led her to obtaining the highest approval and favorable ratings of any current Governor.

Click Here To Read The First Chapter Of Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

Click Here To Visit Epicenter Press - The Publisher

An then visit Amazon and pick up your copy today.

In other Book News, Bill O'Reilly's newest book, A Bold Fresh Piece Of Humanity, hit the book stands on Tuesday. O'Reilly's newest books offers a greater insight into the events and people who helped to shape O'Reilly's life.

Editorial Review:

One day in 1957, in the third-grade classroom of St. Brigid’s parochial school, an exasperated Sister Mary Lurana bent over a restless young William O’Reilly and said, “William, you are a bold, fresh piece of humanity.” Little did she know that she was, early in his career as a troublemaker, defining the essence of Bill O’Reilly and providing him with the title of his brash and entertaining issues-based memoir. And this time it’s personal.

In his most intimate book yet, O’Reilly goes back in time to examine the people, places, and experiences that launched him on his journey from working-class kid to immensely influential television personality and bestselling author. Readers will learn how his traditional outlook was formed in the crucible of his family, his neighborhood, his church, and his schools, and how his views on America’s proper role in the world emerged from covering four wars on five continents over three-plus decades as a news correspondent. What will delight his numerous fans and surprise many others is the humor and self-deprecation with which he handles one of his core subjects: himself, and just how O’Reilly became O’Reilly.

A second Palin Biography, by Zondervan Publishing, the publisher of Rick Warren's best selling book,The Purpose Driven Life will be release in October. The new biography on Sarah Palin is entitled, "Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader" by Joe Hilley (Zondervan 2008) and is now available for pre-order above.

J Brown
September 21, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Bloggers & Web Developers: Google Referrals Gone, A Review Of Two Referral Based Replacements

At the end of August Google retired their referral ad network in lieu of the commission based Google Affiliate Network. The move by Google upset many Web Developers who saw site revenues drop as Google towards a more sales based system.

With the retirement of Google Referral Ads, some bloggers are searching for an alternative. Today, We have a review of two alternative networks, Rocket Profit and RevResponse.

Rocket Profit is a Referral Fee Driven network with predefined payouts for conversions. The network is not as large as Google Referral Ads, but with names such as Blockbuster, Publisher's Clearinghouse, FreeCreditReport.com, and others.

The downside is that the network is not as extensive as Google Referral Ads and they do not automatically generate code for ad placement on your site. They provide the code format to place the add, but you must insert the product links they provide. Rocket Profit is an alternative, but in reality your referral revenue will probable be much smaller than that of the former Google Referral Ads.

CLICK HERE TO VISIT ROCKET PROFIT

RevResponse

The Second Referral Network is RevResponse - A Netline Company. To be honest, I really like this referral network and would add it to the must have for all websites. The network is a niche referral network that does not offer a multitude of advertisers as Google Referral Ads did. Instead, the network specializes in offering your readers career and professional publications. The network offers your readers an opportunity to subscribe for free to over 600 trade publications, podcasts, magazine and white papers. The network offers publications for nearly every profession from contractors to web developers, CFO's to Educators, etc...

Best of all there is no cost to your readers, they simply sign up for any publications they are interested in (so long as they are employed in the relevant industry). There is no payment ever required by your readers and payouts to you are guaranteed to be at least $1.50 per subscription. The network offers test links, email marketing opportunities, banners and even widgets for your site.

As I previously state, RevResponse is a must have for all website administrators.

Click Here To Visit RevResponse

As we review our revenue generated through other referral networks, I will be offering more reviews.

NOTE: If you decide to sign up for either of the above referral networks, please do so through my link, since I earn a referral fee for your participation.

J Brown
September 21st, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Change We Can Believe In: Dodd Still In Power, Rangel Not So 'Neighborly' With His Own Taxes

Is this the Change You Can Believe In, whereas Senator Obama is quick to blame Republicans for every challenge this nation faces, but is eerily silent about the acts of those in his own party?

Take for instance Senator Dodd (D-CT), the chairman of the Banking Committee who has done nothing over the past 18 months to address the 'credit crunch'. In February of 2007, Merrill Lynch, then under the of Obama supporter, Stanley Price, announced the write-off of billions of dollars due to bad mortgages. The markets took a hit, but rebounded when companies such as Lehman Brothers and Goldman-Sachs announced their companies were stable. Dodd would take no action then and would continue this pattern for the next 18 months. Today we know that Senator Dodd has received more than $10 million from Financial Firms and Industry Lobbyists since the beginning of 2007, an amount only surpassed by the Presidential candidates. Yet, despite his utter dereliction of duty he has not resigned position and Democratic leadership, including the party leader Senator Obama, has not called for his removal. In the coming days and weeks, Dodd's role as Chairman of the Banking Committee will become more important than ever; yet despite 'sweetheart' personal deals and accepting millions in campaign donations from this sector, Democratic leadership expects us to continue to trust his judgment.

Both parties are responsible for our countries budgetary, credit and economic challenges. While President Bush was pushing for expanded home ownership, Democrats were at his side touting the increase in home ownership in low income areas; and now that those areas at hard hit by foreclosures they want to accept no responsibility. When regulations separating the insurance, mortgage and investment industries were loosened to allow consolidated services, Democrats, including President Clinton overwhelmingly supported the move. As merger after merger creating mega-financial institutions and shrinking competition occurred throughout the 90's and 00's, Democrats and Republicans both supported those mergers. Today is an example of what occurs when regulatory policy limits competition instead of promoting competition. In the 1980's when the S&L bailout occurred (Summer 1989), there was minimal economic impact on our nation (recession was not caused by S&L, recession occurred July 1990-March 1991) because our banking system was diverse and largely regionalized. Today, our banking system has shrunk as we are paying the price of mega-financials who control large swaths of our wealth.

Senator Dodd has neglected his duties under his chairmanship and it is time that Democratic Leadership accepts responsibility and removes his chairmanship.

Meanwhile, Representative Rangel (D-NY) who has come under investigation for ethics abuses finally stepped up to the plate yesterday and paid $10,800 in back taxes, not including penalties, that he owed the federal government. First, let me state that there is something extremely disturbing that we would allow a Representative to remain in Federal Office when he has clearly worked to avoid paying taxes. The taxes were the results of unclaimed rental income on a beach house in the Dominican Republic extending back to 2004. In addition, Rangel has come under fire for use of three rent-controlled apartments in Harlem (one was used as a campaign office) and more importantly his use of Congressional stationary to raise private funds.

Rangel is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, but in three months, Democratic Leadership has done little to progress with the investigation. In addition, Rangel is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which is charged with writing tax law. That’s right; a man, who has purposely avoided paying taxes, is in charge of the primary committee for writing tax law. Democratic leadership, including the party leader Senator Obama, needs to remove Rangel's chairmanship. It is disgusting that once again political power has trumped common sense.

Rangel, in a letter emailed by his campaign this week addressed his tax and ethics troubles by writing, “Last July, the Republican Party declared guerrilla war against Democrats and since then has made every effort to smear me and members of my party…My record in the Ways and Means Committee and 38 years in Congress is unassailable, so they've pried into my private life and used insinuation and half-truths to write stories that sell papers.” Yes, that’s right; the Republicans are to blame for Rangel’s attempts to avoid paying taxes, misuse of rent-controlled properties and violation of congressional ethics laws concerning private fundraising. So much for personal responsibility.

Dodd and Rangel do not deserve the positions in which they have been entrusted. If current Democratic Leadership is unwilling to police their own party members, then how are we to trust them with continuing to lead this country forward? Senator Obama is quick to talk about change, but perhaps he should first work to change the power-hungry leadership of his own political party. Perhaps he should stop placing blame at the feet of the George Bush and begin placing blame on 20 years of leadership that has deregulated certain aspects of the financial sector while over-regulating operational sides of the sector; over-regulation that forced smaller companies out of the industry and helped to create the mega-financials of today. Perhaps Obama should take responsibility for his own lack of leadership by subverting his duties as a Senator by doing nothing more than campaigning during the past 18 months.

J Brown
September 20th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

President Kennedy's 'Tax Fairness' vs. Obama & Biden's Neighborly Tax Patriotism

Before we start, let me ask you, who do you think of when I ask you to name the greatest Democratic leader of the past 50 years?

Yep, me too. John F. Kennedy...A Democrat that Americans have idolized and whom the media has compared to Barack Obama. But just how similar were these two men on policy positions. After all during his inaugural address Kennedy stated, "...To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required..."

But, foreign policy is not the issue today, tax policy is. John F. Kennedy made clear, time and time again, that he wanted to cut taxes. Senator Obama has also said that he would cut taxes for most Americans; therefore, there policies must be similar, correct?

Not exactly. President Kennedy was a staunch believer in tax fairness; and tax fairness was at the heart of his economic policy. Senator Obama on the other hand, has a very different view of tax fairness; a view that is driven by 'neighborliness' and now apparently driven by some distorted view of 'patriotism'.

When pressed on his proposed tax increases in recent interviews, Senator Obama replied, "Well, but the problem is, if I am sitting pretty, and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it if she can't, what's the big deal for me to say I'm going to pay a little bit more? That is neighborliness."

Neighborliness; not quite the term I would use, but Obama's 'neighborliness' carries a powerful populist message. That message is bottom-up economics and plans that would cut the taxes and award entitlements to most while heavily taxing the wealthy of this nation. But does Obama's tax 'neighborliness' in any way reflect the 'tax fairness' policies of the President whose name he so often invokes?

No!

Obama and Kennedy shared very different views of tax policy, Kennedy believed that tax cuts should be fair, working from the 'top down' to benefit all Americans and spurn economic growth. The 1964 'Kennedy Tax Cut', which was lower than Kennedy proposed, was a top to bottom tax-cut which laid the basis for the Reagan Tax Cuts and yes, even the Bush Tax Cuts. Economically, government revenues fell during the first year, but economic growth quickly followed and spurned an increase in government revenues. Reagan's tax cut would follow the same pattern, and nearly 40 years later the Bush tax cuts would bring the same revenue growth. Since 2000, Government revenues have grown by more than 20%, more than during the Clinton years. Our budgetary problems today have nothing to do with government revenues, they have everything to do with government spending that is out of control.

In his speech to congress on April 20th, 1961, President Kennedy laid out the case for his proposed tax cut. In the speech Kennedy stated:

"The tax system must be adequate to meet our public needs. It must meet them fairly, calling on each of us to contribute his proper share to the cost of government.

...This emphasis on income taxation has been a sound development. But so many taxpayers have become so preoccupied with so many tax-saving devices that business decisions are interfered with, and the efficient functioning of the price system is distorted.

...Whenever one taxpayer is permitted to pay less, someone else must be asked to pay more. The uniform distribution of the tax burden is thereby disturbed and higher rates are made necessary by the narrowing of the tax base. Of course, some departures from uniformity are needed to promote desirable social or economic objectives of overriding importance which can be achieved most effectively through the tax mechanism. But many of the preferences which have developed do not meet such a test and need to be reevaluated in our tax reform program.

It will be a major aim of our tax reform program to reverse this process, by broadening the tax base and reconsidering the rate structure. The result should be a tax system that is more equitable, more efficient and more conducive to economic growth."

Did you catch that? If not, read it again.

Senator Obama's tax plan is to cut taxes for a majority of us, including my family, while increasing taxation on the wealthiest of our nation. The result is even fewer tax payors than today, a shrinking tax base. Obama's plan would dramatically shrink the tax base in this nation and widen the massive tax disparity that exists within our system. Now go back to your earliest social studies classes and tell me what form of economics is based upon a shrinking tax base.

In a speech to the Economic Club of New York, December 14th, 1962:

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures...

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service.

These various exclusions and concessions have been justified [in the past] as a means of overcoming oppressively high rates in the upper brackets, and a sharp reduction in those rates — accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures — would properly make the new rates not only lower, but also more widely applicable. Surely this is more equitable on both counts."

So what came of Kennedy's call for tax reform? The 1964 Kennedy Tax Act, smaller than his original proposal, but among the three largest tax reductions in our nations history. The act cut corporate taxes and reduced personal tax rates across the board, starting with a 21 point reduction in the top rate.

Should we have a progressive tax rate system?

Probably so, but in a much simpler form allowing less abuse and less bureaucracy. Our government's budgetary problems have little to do with the Bush Tax cuts, after all, government revenue (the amount the government takes in) has grown over the past 8 years. Even Senator Obama could not deny that when confronted by Bill O'Reilly. Our government's budgetary problems have everything to do with no control over government spending. Prior to 2007, President Bush never vetoed a bill and literally gave in to every spending appropriation put forth by both Republicans and Democrats. Democrats cannot claim that Republicans are responsible for the overspending, after all, Senator Obama as a Democrat had every opportunity to filibuster those bills. Democrats used the filibuster as a means of making sure that the President gave in to their spending requests. Over the past 2 years of Democratic control, the spending has continued, unchecked and at the same wasteful levels with no regard to prioritization of services. Both parties are responsible for the abusive spending in the past years; spending that has outpaced the increase in government revenues.

Tax hikes, for any bracket, are not the answer; a return to budgetary responsibility is the answer. I have seen this game before, 6 years ago in Illinois, the governor ran on a platform of fixing the states budgetary problems and initiating sweeping social reforms and expansion. 6 years later, the budget deficit has ballooned, increased fees on businesses have driven businesses and professionals out of the state, the teachers pension system was bonded (put into debt) for billions of dollars, the state has now privatized it's lottery system and government layoffs and closures hit the paper every day.

Senator Obama's tax proposals are nothing more than a blatant move toward the tax systems in place across much of Europe. Tax systems based upon socialism and the unfair redistribution of wealth. European tax systems were based upon the same populist rhetoric as Senator Obama proposes. If you believe that a move toward European tax systems is a right move, then why is it that their economies have always lagged behind ours?

President Kennedy understood that our nation needed a broader tax base, a tax base that would not suffer dramatic down-ticks and up-ticks as the exonomy fluctuated. Kennedy pushed for top down tax cuts, as he understood that this would spurn investment. Now I personally don't believe that this nation needs further tax cuts for anyone at this point; what we first need is a return to fiscal prioritization and fiscal responsibility.

Senator Obama, you are no Jack Kennedy!

J Brown
September 19th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

ARG: Obama's Lead Drops To 6 Points In Illinois!

On Wednesday, the American Research Group released polling data on the State of Illinois showing Senator Obama's lead dropping to just 6 points - 51%-45%. The poll conducted by ARG polled 600 likely voters in Illinois with a 4% margin of error.

Although, I believe it is unlikely that Obama could ever lose Illinois, simply because of the "North of I-80 vote", the poll is significant because it's highlights Obama's failure to attract the wider populous of Illinois as the candidate has not enjoyed a margin greater than that of Kerry or Gore since this past February.

In 2000, Gore won Illinois by 12 points; in 2004, Kerry won by 10 points. In both cases, George Bush overwhelmingly won throughout the state but was unable to overcome the nearly 40% of the votes flowing from Cook County. In February, Obama enjoyed as much as a 29 point lead only to see those numbers decrease to 15 points by August.

Obama will win Illinois, but if he is unable to attract a wide margin in his home state, then Obama may be in trouble nationally. The Obama campaign has taken notice of this poll, as Obama made a personal phone call to his political mentor, Emil Jones, on Wednesday to ask the Illinois Senate Leader to allow a vote on stalled ethics reforms.

Illinois is representative of the future of an Obama representative. After 6 years of Chicago Political control, the state has failed to pass a balanced budget and this year has chosen to privatize the states lottery system, layoff state employees and close state parks and historical sites, including reduced operations of President Lincolns' Tomb. Illinois revenue has grown during the past six years only to be offset by more than $10 billion in additional state programs that threaten to bankrupt the state. Illinois has consistently at the bottom of all states in job growth and economic growth, while raising operating fees on businesses throughout the state.

J Brown
September 18th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Member Of DNC Platform Committee Endorses John McCain!

At a news conference scheduled on Capital Hill today, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent member of the DNC Platform Committee, will announce her endorsement of....John McCain for the Presidency. The press conference that will take place just steps from the DNC headquarters is one that the Obama campaign would like the media to ignore.

The DNC Platform Committee is responsible for establishing the Democratic Parties national campaign platform and Rothschild's endorsement of McCain is an utter political embarrassment for Howard Dean and the Obama Campaign. Rothschild announcement also highlights the ongoing rift between Hillary Clinton supporters and Obama as Rothschild was a prominent supporter of the New York Senator; raising over $100,000 on Clinton's behalf during the primaries.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Rothschild expressed her difficulty in backing Obama by stating, "I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

Rothschild's endorsement of McCain, although not a first for Hillary Clinton supporters, is certainly significant due to her prominence within the Democratic Party. Rothschild's announcement also represents a proverbial 'slap in the face' to the mainstream media who continues to deny the reality that millions of Clinton Supporters have either abandoned the Democratic Party or still remain undecided on supporting Obama.

J Brown
September 17th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Hollywood Elite Donate Nearly $10 Million To Obama At Fundraiser!

For nearly a year the press has reported Senator Obama's presidential fundraising as a grass-roots movement consisting of small donations. Yet, those who follow the money trail soon find out that less than 8% of Obama's donors are responsible for nearly 60% of his fundraising totals. Obama's 552 campaign bundlers made up of corporate attorneys and wall street executives are responsible for nearly 1/3 of his total fundraising, or around $130 million. Despite the facts, the MSM has done everything in their power to suppress the reality that Obama's fundraising is reliant upon big donors.

Senator Obama has a fundraising problem today as reality has set in that he might have made a mistake when he flipped on his pledge to take public financing. At the end of August, John McCain and the RNC had a nearly $20 million dollar advantage of cash on hand over that of Obama and the DNC. Obama's payroll is bloated, the largest paid campaign staff in political history that is sucking millions out of the coffers every month. By the end of the Republican Convention, McCain and the RNC had over $200 million of cash on hand with donations pouring in. The Obama campaign and the DNC is privately concerned that if the RNC would raise no more than their traditional $50 million per month in September and October, then the Obama campaign would have to raise over $100 million each month just to keep pace.

Following a week in which Senator Obama discussed his demand for a new 'neighborliness' in our tax code and regarding service, Obama hit the campaign trail over the past two days to attempt to blame Senator McCain and his 'rich lobbyist friends' for our countries financial woes. Obama painted McCain as out of touch and catering to the wealthiest of Americans. Yet, just hours after excoriating McCain, Obama turned to his friends to show some love and 'neighborliness' in helping his bid for the presidency.

Last night in Beverly Hills, Senator Obama hosted 300 guests at a Hollywood fundraiser, in which those 300 guests paid $28,500 each to attend the event. In layman's terms, that single event added $8.55 million dollars to Obama's coffers. In addition, more than 800 people attended the 'hotel' event last night, at a cost of $2,500 per person; adding an additional $1.25-$2 million dollars to Obama's campaign coffers. In the ultimate display of 'neighborliness', 800-1100 people donated a combined $10 million to the Obama campaign.

So while those in Iowa sit patiently by waiting for the passage of a Flood-Relief bill that was promised to them three months ago, and hundred-of-thousands sit in the dark and wait in 2-mile long lines for a ice and food, the Hollywood elite enjoyed a $28,500 per person evening of fun, food and entertainment with their favorite candidate.

J Brown
September 17th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Obama's Sub-Prime Buddies! Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, & More

Updated September 15th - This Article is compiled from previous articles and new content. Bundler amounts have been updated, but individual contributions have not been updated since June. As a result, it is safe to assume that individual contributions have likely been doubled since the start of the General Election cycle.

As Senator Obama and his Democratic colleagues attempt to tie this weeks financial meltdown to John McCain, perhaps we need to re-examine the candidate who has benefited the most from the very Wall Street Executives who have brought us this financial crisis. Obama’s campaign has undergone little scrutiny on his long-standing ties to the financial and banking community. In Obama’s speeches across the country he has repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for allowing “evil” subprime mortgage lenders and investment banks to lead this county into our current mortgage meltdown. Obama’s rhetoric on the mortgage crisis has been pointed and blunt, as stated on his own campaign website, “Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders…Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices”.

Throughout the campaign season Obama has attacked Wall Street’s financial sector and run a campaign based largely upon his “good judgment”. The problem with Obama’s rhetoric rests in the fact that tucked away in his database of 2.5 million donors is the approximately 180,000 power brokers that have funded nearly 60% of his campaign. Included in this list are the more than 594 campaign bundlers including 15 lobbyist bundlers who have accounted for over $140 million in contributions. Included in this list are just 36 bundlers accounting for over $18 million dollars, with two bundlers raising over $1 million, and one over $2 million. These amounts are impressive considering that just 552 individuals have accounted for nearly 1/3 of his total campaign contributions. Of course determining the occupation can be tricky considering the Obama campaign lists nearly 100 bundlers as having unknown occupations, nearly 100 who are listed as "self-employed", and dozens of "homemakers" and "retired" individuals.

Among Obama's campaign contributors are many Lehman Brothers Executives, such as CEO Richard Fuld ($2,300), President Joseph Gregory ($4,600) and dozens of other top Lehman Executives. On June 19th, Lehman shareholders filed suit against Fuld and Gregory for the company’s exposure in the subprime market. In addition to dozens of Lehman executives are Obama's bundlers from Lehman Borthers who have raised top dollar for the campaign. Direct contributions from Lehman Brothers have exceeded $395,000 for Senator Obama.

John Rhea - (over $500,000) Co-Head of Lehman Bros. Global Investment Banking
Mark Gilbert - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Christine Forester - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $100,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mortgages
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman Brothers

In San Antonia this past February Obama stated in a campaign speech, “To give you a sense of what that kind of lobbying gets you… the CEO of the largest subprime lender was promised a hundred-million-dollar severance package at a time when more than 2 million Americans were facing foreclosure, including nearly 14,000 right here in San Antonio..." Obama was most likely referring to an Angelo R. Mozillo, one of three CEO’s that were scheduled to appear to testify in front of a senate committee concerning their compensation and firms roles in the ongoing mortgage crisis. Stanley O’Neal, who received more than $161 million when he was ousted as the Chairman of Merrill Lynch, was one of the three CEO’s coming under scrutiny. In 2003, O’Neil donated to Senator Obama’s Senatorial campaign, followed up by a maximum $4,600 campaign contribution by he and his wife, Nancy Garvey, to the Obama Campaign. Ironically, the O’Neals tried to originally contribute $6,900 to the campaign only to have $2,300 returned. For those attuned to the financial sector, Stanley O'Neil will forever be remembered as the man at the helm while Merrill Lynch exposed themselves to tens of billions in subprime exposure.

The real problem for Obama extends well beyond his campaign bundlers that include several prominent lobby–representing attorney’s and executives such as Frank Clark, the CEO of Commonwealth Edison. Executives across the financial and investment industry have accounted for millions in campaign contributions.

Contributing to Obama’s cause is the more controversial Brad Morrice, the former CEO and President of the imploded subprime lender, New Century Financial. Morrice and his wife contributed the maximum $4,600 to Obama’s campaign last August.

Among other subprime contributors to Obama’s campaign are Steve Boland, a managing director at Countrywide, who donated the maximum last June. Andrew Beer the president of Wachovia’s troubled subprime lender Evergreen Investment Partners also maxed out his contribution to the Obama campaign; and Joseph Azrack, the president of Citigroup Property Investments along with dozens of Citi Executives have heavily contributed.

In 2007 Eric Schwartz, the co-head of Goldman-Sachs Global Asset Management abruptly stepped down from is position, fueling rumors that his resignation was tied to a crumbling Global Alpha Hedge Fund. The Fund’s mounting losses led to a -39% performance last year as the fund assets shrunk by 60%. Shwartz, an Obama bundler and contributor, has helped to raise over $100,000 for the Senator’s Campaign.

In 2007 Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, helped the Obama campaign raise more than $500,000. That amount was equaled by Louis Susman, the Chairman of a Citibank Subsidiary.

Additional High Profile Financial Executives Include:

John W. Roberts - (over $500,000) Ariel Capital Management
Richard Leweke – Vice Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services
Seth Waugh – CEO of Deutsche Bank
Charles Lewis – Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch

Francisco Borges – Over $50,000 Chairman of Landmark Partners a private equity real estate firm.

Michael Froman – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Citigroup
David Heller – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Goldman Sachs
Bruce Heyman - Over $200,000 - Managing Director Goldman Sachs

J. Michael Schell – Over $200,000 Managing Director at Citigroup
Jim Torrey – Over $500,000 Founder of the Torrey Funds – Hedge Funds
Todd Williams – Over $50,000 Managing Director Goldman Sachs & The Real Estate Council
Louis Susman - Over $200,000 Citi Investment Banking

The listing of contributions flowing in from Financial Institutions through Senator Obama’s career is short of amazing. There are currently dozens upon dozens of Senior Vice Presidents, Managing Directors, and other top level executives from firms such as Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and other high profile Wall Street banks and funds mired in the mortgage meltdown.

Too many to list you can view all at White House For Sale

The ties between Obama and the industry are too expansive and raise the question, “Is Obama just another politician, saying what is politically expedient while sending an opposite message to his donors?”

The Center For Responsive Politics continues to call upon both campaigns to provide updated and full disclosure of the campaign bundlers; yet the Obama campaign in practicing its “change” politics, has failed to provide full disclosure of its donors.

What we do know is that the FEC requires full disclosure (Names, Employers, etc…) of individual contributions of more than $250. From aggregating information contained within FEC disclosures you can begin to form a picture of where the large contributions are coming from. According to The Center For Responsive Politics, of the 20 largest sources of campaign contributions to the Obama Campaign, 11 were Investment Banks or International Law firms directly tied to the financial industry.

During the primary cycle Obama attacked lobbyists and PAC’s going so far as to attempt to force the entire Democratic Party to refuse money from lobbyists and PAC’s in the general election. Obama has criticized PAC and Lobbyist money as having undue influence within Washington. But are any contributions from these organizations or individuals any less influential than the more the $350,000 (not including millions in bundled contributions) he has received (thru May 1st) from Sidley Austin LLP employees. Those who are familiar with Sidley Austin LLP understand that the firm is a large, international law firm with a large presence within the financial services and insurance industry. For instance, the firm was just recognized by Alpha Magazine as the top firm for Hedge Funds for the second year along with consistently ranking as a top corporate law firm. Obama has also accepted more than $340,000 from Skadden, Arp, et al... employees, a firm that was recently recognized as the “Best Corporate Law Firm In The United States” for the eighth consecutive year by Corporate Board Member. Skadden is another large Law firm specializing in practices related to investment banking and representing clients such as Merrill Lynch. In addition to the aforementioned law firms, Jones Day, Latham & Watkins, & Wilmerhale LLP are all large law firms and top 20 contributors to the Obama campaign. All three of these law firms also specialize in corporate law and ranking among the top ten “corporate law firms” by the Corporate Board Member.

Understand that I am not demonizing any of the companies or firms in this article, after all they are businesses and their employees have the right to contribute to campaigns. The issue is not with the companies whose executives have flocked to the open arms of the Obama campaign; rather the issue is the open arms of the Obama campaign. He has publicly demonized the investment banking and mortgage industry in front of crowds across the nation, yet has his campaign advisors accepting huge amounts of cash from the executives who run these companies and the attorney’s who represent them. The Obama campaign has demonized lobbyists, many of whom represent non-profit organizations and even State governments, all the while accepting millions in contributions from law firms who specialize in corporate representation. It’s lunacy.

Meanwhile back on Wall street the executives of Goldman Sachs have contributed more than $691,000 to the Obama campaign, not including any ancillary contributions collected by bundlers who are employed by Goldman Sachs. The Obama campaign will counter these numbers by citing that these are large companies that these are large companies and due to their 2.5 million donors you would expect large amounts of contributions from the employees of these companies. Yet, this argument is nothing more than manipulative political spin. As I stated earlier, the campaigns are only required to collect and report employment information for donors contributing more than $250 during the primary or general election cycles. These numbers disclosed by the campaign are how we are able to determine that less than 10% of his donors account for 60% of his campaign’s contributions. Thus, the aggregate totals for these companies represent the highly paid and executive level contributions made to the Obama campaign, not donations flowing from employee who contributed $10 or $20 dollars. Goldman Sachs employees are the largest aggregated contributors to the Obama campaign.

UBS and Citigroup, companies writing off billions of dollars in “subprime” related losses in the over the summer, are also among top ten contributors to the Obama campaign. Executives at these companies, such as Obama bundler and UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, have contributed over $850,000 to the Obama campaign.

Lehman Brothers executives have also flocked to the Obama camp, directly contributing over $395,000 to the Senator. Of course, the amount of direct contributions by these executives is overshadowed by the bundled contributions they have collected on his behalf. We know based upon disclosure from the Obama campaign that just 6 Lehman executives alone are responsible for more than $2,200,000 in bundled contributions. Unfortunately, the extent of bundled contributions are unknown since the Obama campaign has refused full disclosure (all we know is that certain bundlers raise over $500,000, the amount could have been far more).

These contributions were matched by Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase executives who rounded out the Obama campaigns top twenty with over $750,000 in combined contributions. In all the Obama campaign has accepted more than $25 million in contributions from the “disclosed” employees of financial services, insurance, and real estate firms, the largest sector to contribute to the Obama campaign. Additionally, Obama’s second largest source of campaign funds has come from the nearly $24 million he has accepted from attorneys, many of which work at large corporate law firms like those listed above. Oh...by the way, make sure you look for their names on the bundler lists, you will be amazed. These numbers are more than twice the amount contributed by these sectors to the McCain campaign; increasing even more when you factor in the large contributions made by spouses and direct family members of these executives.

Again, I’m not demonizing any of these contributors or companies that have made these contributions; Senator Obama has done more than enough of “demonizing” on the campaign trail. The executives at these companies have earned their positions and have the right to pursue whatever political path they choose. The issues rests within the candidate who has run on a platform that has criticized the influence of corporate money in Washington politics, demonized financial services firms and their executives, demanded a halt to the undue influence of lobbyist and PAC money in Washington (only a position he recently embraced), and claimed that he will end the political greed that exists in Washington. Yet while proclaiming that he is the candidate with “good judgment” and that his campaign is a “movement”, Obama has had his hands deep in the pockets of the financial institutions and their legal representation that have contributed to the “mortgage meltdown” we are entrenched in today. I highly doubt that any of these executives who overwhelmingly favor Obama, are attempting to donate to a candidate that would damage their positions.

Obama can attempt to proclaim that he is not swayed by these contributions, yet if that were true then he would also not be swayed by lobbyist and PAC contributions.

Every story that surfaces concerning Senator Obama reeks with the stench of the long-corrupt Chicago political machine. Obama is part of this machine; his rise to power was due to this machine, and like the Chicago power brokers he is nothing more than a say anything, do anything candidate who once elected will break all campaign promises, act only to increase his own political power and then expect the long-term memory loss that the public has to kick-in by election day.

What is happening on Wall Street is not the fault of a single President nor a single congress. They all share responsibility for 2 decades of bipartisan ineptitude in which both parties overlooked sound fiscal policy and failed to recognize the true purpose of regulation. For two decades, both parties have turned away from genuine regulation based upon competition and consumer protection, instead passing regulations that have diminished competition and failed to protect the consumer. Many of the regulations passed in the past twenty years were pushed by the larger investment companies, insurance companies and banks looking to make it harder for competition to survive. As a result, we have seen the death of competition in the financial markets and the growth of the mega-financials. Today, our country is suffering because both parties supported failed regulatory policy which squeezed out competition while allowing behemoth companies to run amuck. The problems with our financial sector existed long before George Bush took office and the Federal Reserve and Congress should have acted in February of 2007 when the credit crunch first appeared. What we need is Teddy Roosevelt, what we will get is unknown.

J Brown
September 16th, 2008
Click Here To Access Over 600 Free Career and Professional Trade Publications.
No Credit Card, No Payments, No Surveys, No Strings - Special Offer For Our Readers. Publications include Inc., CFO Magazine, Google White Pages, The Economist and hundreds more.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

McCain May Force Obama To Resume His 50 State Strategy

Throughout the week following Senator McCain and Governor Palin's acceptance speeches, pundits throughout the media continued to dismiss a McCain bounce of much as 17 points as irrelevant. Time and time again, political analysts and Obama surrogates continued to point to the electoral map and statewide polls that showed Obama winning. Yet, what they should have been pointing out is that state polling numbers typically lag 4-10 days behind national polls.

Obama, following the end of the Democratic primaries, tauted his 50 State strategy in which he intended to use his vast fundraising resources to force John McCain to spend millions to defend traditionally "red" states. By mid-august, however, it was becoming increasingly clear that Obama would not have a significant fundraising advantage over McCain and the RNC. As a result, the Obama campaign began pulling advertising and closing offices in many states in which they hoped to compete.

On August 22nd, the Obama campaign announced that they were pulling ads and reducing staff in 7 states. Among the seven were Alaska, Montana and North Dakota, with Montana being a state that Obama had almost seemed determined to maintain a competitive position in. Also included in the scale-backs were North Carolina and Georgia. Political analysts were doubtful that Obama could ever carry these states, but the Obama campaign had poured millions into the states in hopes that a high African-American turnout accompanied by Bob Barr's third-party presence could make the states competitive. Last week, the Obama campaign announced that they were essentially abandoning their efforts in Georgia.

Most surprising in the announced cutbacks were two states, Florida and Virginia, both long considered essential battleground states. Although Obama is still spending money in both of these states, the campaign has admitted that their expenditures in these states are now about a quarter of what they spent during previous months.

In addition, during August, the Obama campaign pulled ads and closed offices in Washington, Mississippi, Alabama and Indiana. During August the Obama campaign was hopeful that they pull out a victory in Indiana, pumping millions into advertising in the weeks prior to the convention. But just days prior to the convention, they pulled ads and have yet to resume any ads at any level similar to that in early August.

Last week, Obama made his campaign's strategy clear by stating that national polls did not matter, only 18 states did. However, the McCain campaign may have a different idea up their sleeve. By the end of the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign admitted that their campaign and the RNC had well over $200 million in the bank, compared to the $93 million that the Obama campaign and DNC had at the end of August. Although, this $200 million includes $84 million in public money, it is also clear that campaign contributions have been rolling into the RNC at an astounding rate. Additionally, although McCain can no longer accept private funds (he must turn them over to the RNC), he can raise money for the RNC and raise private funds to pay for certain legal and accounting fees for his campaign. At the end of August, the McCain/RNC advantage was around $20 million and has ballooned to over $100 million. The McCain campaign and the RNC expect to raise an additional $100 million during September and October, which means that Obama and the DNC will have to double that figure to keep pace.

With the influx of cash and a relatively small, efficient and payroll-lean staff, the McCain campaign has shifted their strategy to targeting more than the traditional battleground states. At the beginning of the month, the McCain campaign shocked pundits when they opened offices in California, New Jersey and Washington. Although the move was questioned by many political analysts, individual state polling numbers may reflect the potential of forcing Obama to defend traditionally blue states.

Michigan - A traditionally blue state, shows a statistical dead heat with the most recent poll giving McCain a 1 point advantage.

Nevada - The home state of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and one that the Obama campaign has long targeted and actually gained an advantage, now shows McCain up by 3 points in the past 2 polls.

New Mexico - A true-battleground state in which Obama hoped to utilize Governor Richardson's support to win has shifted from a 13 point Obama advantage to a 2-point McCain lead.

Missouri - A state leaning blue and considered to be an Obama state back in June has consistently shown a minimum 5 point McCain lead since early August.

Pennsylvania - A blue state that Republicans have long been unable to make headway has given away to just a 2 point Obama lead.

Wisconsin - The Obama lead has dropped to just 3 points down from a 14 point lead last month.

Minnesota - A Long Time Blue-State in which Obama held up to an 13 point lead now shows a lead that has dwindled to 2 points in one poll and a tie in another. With the popularity of Governor Pawlenty and a fringe-left radical in Al Franken on the ticket, expect a high Republican, and Republican-leaning independent turnout.

New Jersey - A blue state that Obama has long been expected to hold, has shown extremely volatile shifts in polling numbers with McCain polling as well as -3 in recent weeks. The McCain campaign has contended since March that they felt New Jersey could be a swing state.

Washington - A strong blue-state in which a consistent 10-16 point Obama lead in July has given away to just a 2-6 point lead in September.

New York - Polls have consistently shown an Obama lead over 20 points during the summer. A surprise New York Poll released today, showed his lead had dwindled to just 8 points.

The list goes on...and even in solid blue states such as California, Maine and Massachusetts recent polling shows that Obama has lost double digit support from his polling positions during the summer. As of today, the GOP has more than double the funds in the bank as the Obama campaign and it is now becoming clear that McCain, not Obama, is in a position to begin targeting blue states. Obama has pumped enormous amounts of money into Ohio, Michigan and Colorado; and if he is now forced to back off from spending in these states to defend traditional blue states he will be in trouble. The Obama campaign knows it is in electoral trouble. They have abandoned their 50 state strategy in lieu of heavy spending in just a handful of states, but now they may have to scale back and defend states they never imagined as potential swing-states.

J Brown
September 15th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Developing: Obama Raises $66 Million In August, But Spends $54 Million

The Obama Campaign, making sure that the release came after the Sunday Talk Shows, announced that they had hauled in a record $66 million in August. Although this amount is a private fundraising record, the amount fell far short of the more than $100 million the campaign expected. The Obama campaign's largest haul came on the day after John McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential nominee. Publicly and privately party officials have shown concern in recent weeks when the campaign failed to raise the $40-$50 million that they hoped would stem from his Invesco acceptance speech.

With today's announcement, the Obama campaign released that they had $77 million of cash-on-hand, up from the $65 million that they reported in July. As a result, that means that the Obama campaign spent $54 million in the month of August, nearly matching the $56 million that they spent in July. This is a major concern to officials within the Obama campaign considering that with McCain's $47 million haul in august and $84 million infusion, Obama must raise a minimum of $60 million just to match John McCain. Although it is likely that Obama will raise the $60 million, he may continue to play catch-up as record-breaking contributions are flowing into the RNC, who reported $115 million of cash on hand on the day following the convention. At a minimum, the financing race will be even by the end of October, leaving many to question Obama's decision to flip on campaign financing. If the fundraising race does end up even, McCain will hold an advantage as his campaign is not bloated with paid campaign advisers and staffers; thus leaving more money for get out the vote efforts.

More to come Monday!

J Brown
September 14th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Lehman Brothers' Favorite Candidate

As of this morning, the fate of Lehman Brothers remains up in the air. On Saturday, government officials and financial institutions such as Bank of America scrambled to put together a package to prevent the total collapse of the subprime embattled investment bank. However, one thing is for certain, after today, Lehman Brothers will no longer exist. Even if another financial institution were to step in and bail out the Lehman, it will eventually be absorbed by the other company and another bank will fade away as a result of the banking systems own mismanagement and a federal government who has created an environment in which competition is dwindling in the financial markets.

I personally have to laugh when I listen to politicians excoriate Wall Street Financial executives for their mismanagement in recent years and policies which have endangered their institutions. After all, a federal government whose very policies have demoted competition and created fewer and more powerful financial institutions should share the blame. Moreover, the hypocrisy of these politicians is beyond belief as most Americans fail to recognize that even as their elected officials demonize these executives, they are accepting millions of dollars from them in the form of campaign contributions.

For instance, it is no secret that Senator Dodd who chairs the the powerful Senate Banking Committee has accepted millions in the past years from financial institutions. In his Presidential campaign more than a 1/3 (over $5.5 million) of the contributions Dodd received came from Finance and Banking related industries. Since 2003, Dodd has received more than $9.5 million in contributions from this sector, with an overwhelming majority of those contributions flowing in since the end of 2006.

But in the presidential campaign there is no candidate who shown a greater level of hypocrisy than Senator Obama. Obama has received over $395,000 in contributions from Lehman Brothers executives, not including the additional funds that Lehman Brothers employed bundlers have raised on his behalf.

From: Obama Subprime-Tied Contributors - Part I & Part II

Obama has also accepted campaign contributions from dozens of Lehman Brothers Executives, such as CEO Richard Fuld ($2,300), President Joseph Gregory ($4,600) and dozens of other top Lehman Executives. On June 19th, Lehman shareholders filed suit against Fuld and Gregory for the company’s exposure in the subprime market...

Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $50,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mortgages
Francisco Borges – Bundler (over $50,000) and Chairman of Landmark Partners a private equity real estate firm.
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman brothers
John Rhea – Bundler & Co-head of Lehman Brothers Global Investment Banking

The listing of contributions flowing in from Financial Institutions through Senator Obama’s career is short of amazing. There are currently dozens upon dozens of Senior Vice Presidents, Managing Directors, and other top level executives from firms such as Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and other high profile Wall Street banks and funds mired in the mortgage meltdown.

Obama has been relentless in his attacks upon the “evil” Wall Street executives that he has blamed for the ongoing fallout from the mortgage crisis, positioning himself on a “moral high ground”. The reality is that while Obama has been slapping the mortgage companies and investment banks with one hand, he has had his other hand in their wallet.

To read more about Obama Subprime buddies click here.

Obama has received over $20 million during his presidential campaign directly from executive of Financial Services companies. Now Obama supporters will defend this stating that most of those contributions came from small donors, but in reality the campaign only reports employment info on contributions over $250. You can visit opensecrets.org and search Lehman Brothers, you will be amazed by the number of maxed out contributions.

In addition, Obama has received tens of millions of dollars from Law firms and attorneys specializing in Corporate representation:

Those who are familiar with Sidley Austin LLP understand that the firm is a large, international law firm with a large presence within the financial services and insurance industry. For instance, the firm was just recognized by Alpha Magazine as the top firm for Hedge Funds for the second year along with consistently ranking as a top corporate law firm. Obama has also accepted more than $280,000 from Skadden, Arp, et al... employees, a firm that was recently recognized as the “Best Corporate Law Firm In The United States” for the eighth consecutive year by Corporate Board Member. Skadden is another large Law firm specializing in practices related to investment banking and representing clients such as Merrill Lynch. In addition to the aforementioned law firms, Jones Day, Latham & Watkins, & Wilmerhale LLP are all large law firms and top 20 contributors to the Obama campaign. All three of these law firms also specialize in corporate law and ranking among the top ten “corporate law firms” by the Corporate Board Member.

J Brown
September 14th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Why The Fringe Left & Obama Attacks Will Never Overcome Sarah Palin!

I say: Bring on the attacks, the manipulation of her policies and records and the ridiculous outright lies being portrayed by the fringe left. Why? Because I know that all roads lead to Palin's Biography.

For months, the Fringe Left and Obama campaign have tried to tie John McCain to George Bush. From their catchy little phrases to outright distortions of his record, they have tried it all and they are failing. Why? Because eventually all roads lead to McCain's biography and record. The fringe left cannot overcome the undeniable fact that John McCain has consistently reached across the aisle and bucked his own party on many issues. Why the Obama campaign continues this tactic is beyond me, because is not working and will continue to fail. Poll after Poll point to the fact that Americans no longer believe that Barack Obama represents moderation in his policies. According to Rasmussen just 51% of Americans believe Obama would reach across the aisle. As a comparison, despite their attacks and distortions of McCain, 63% of Americans believe John McCain would reach across the aisle.

Likewise, the Fringe Left and Obama campaign, thrown off guard have now begun the same strategy with Sarah Palin; with the exception that the attacks have moved beyond the political arena and have been launched upon her person and family. The problem with these attacks is that they cannot win, their attacks only appeal to like-minded individuals and a vast majority of Americans no longer trust the information they provide. But I welcome the lies and the attacks, because every attack demonstrates the fact that they are willing to do and say anything to win an election; and every attack will backfire, because, ultimately, all roads lead to Sarah Palin's story.

From an article I wrote the morning after her announcement and today it still holds true:

For those few of us who follow politics closely, there was surprise, but certainly no shock in the choice of Palin. In June, I wrote an article about Palin being vetted and continually stated that choosing Palin would be a stroke of genius. Bill Kristol, nearly every night for four months, on Fox News, sent a message that McCain should choose Palin, often times to chuckles from the other Pundits. McCain's choice in Palin, was a surprise, but not a shock and moreover will prove to put the Obama Campaign in the proverbial corner.

Obama did not choose Hillary Clinton for the VP slot, simply because he genuinely feels, as he has continually stated on the campaign trail, that John McCain is a closet sexist; opposed to equal pay and equal rights for women. Obama, the DNC, and their surrogates simply do not understand McCain and fully expected this election to be one of four men, one of which carried certain historical implications. The panic and quick negative attacks on Palin coming from the Obama campaign were the result of a campaign that believes their own hate-filled rhetoric and is genuinely angry that once again they were out-maneuvered by the McCain camp.

So why will Palin's VP selection become a problem for the Obama Campaign??

Why is Obama now backed into a corner??

First: The announcement, and genius behind the announcement, of McCain's selection dominated the headlines, media and Internet chatter yesterday. On a morning, in which Obama's nomination was expected to reach epic media proportions, McCain successfully stole the show. We will see what the implications are by the middle of the week, but if McCain's move halted or limited Obama's bump, then he is in trouble. Historically, Democratic Conventions have yielded a 15-16 point bump in the days after the nomination, yet if Obama's bump is limited and he never breaks the 50% barrier, then he is in deep trouble. This convention represented Obama's last best opportunity for a large bump, one that he never received following the primaries, Hillary's endorsement, his European vacation or announcement of his VP choice. If he cannot meet high expectations for a bump now, he has lost his best opportunity.

Second: The Heartland's Vision Of The American Dream. Sarah Palin brings to the table something that none of the other 3 candidates have: she truly represents what the silent majority of this nation views as the American Dream. Once you leave Urban areas of the East and West coast and you enter into the Rust Belt and Heartland of this nation, views change drastically. It is in the heartland of this nation where elections are decided, their views of the American Dream are significantly different than in the beltway or east or left coast; the views of the American Dream are much more traditional and Palin represents that tradition. The problem for Obama is that in order to overcome Palin, they must paint her as inexperienced. As a result, her biography will come to the forefront of every families table. Palin is a strong, attractive, middle class female, a mother of 5, and has risen from her Union-based middle-class roots to become the vice-Presidential nominee.

As America comes to know her they will learn about the Daughter of a dedicated teacher and the schools secretary. As a high-school basketball standout and Miss Congeniality in the Miss Alaska pageant she laid the groundwork for her popularity and success. She worked as a journalist, gave up her career to manage a fishery, became a devoted wife and devoted mother. Putting her family first, she coached sports teams, was an active manager in the schools PTA and eventually became a city council member, before moving on to become a mayor. When she ran for the Governor, she overcame her rival, a former Governor whose experience far outweighed her own. Yet, she won, carried out her message of reform; took on the Oil companies, corruption that existed within her own party and even the Federal Government and Senator Ted Stevens. She has raised 5 children, the youngest of which has Down's Syndrome, and after 2 years as Governor has an unheard of 80% approval rating. This is the biography that the heartland will connect with and the problem with Obama's attacks on her background.

Middle class Americans, regardless of how hard Obama worked, cannot and will not relate to someone who attended Harvard and Columbia, worked as a community organizer and has since pursued ever-increasing political power. To the heartland and middle class America, Palin represents someone who shares their devotion to family, has repeatedly succeeded in every pursuit she has undertaken, is the only candidate to actually managed within the private-sector and a small business, is a reformer, a sports enthusiast, and everything that their vision of the American Dream contains. Trust me, the more America learns of Sarah Palin, the more the so called "Soccer Mom", "Blue Collar", "Union Working", "Friday Night Football", "Apple Pie", "Middle Class" silent majority will come to look up to her. Obama, Biden, and their surrogates will never be able to overcome this perception and it will cost them when they attack her.

Third: Experience. It has already started, the attacks that she is "just a heartbeat away" and has no experience. But these attacks by the Obama campaign will ultimately not work. Why??

Simply put, every time that the Obama campaign questions her experience, it will inevitably lead to the questioning of his. For 17 months, and rightfully so, Obama has tried to overcome and avoid the experience issue. He has a ran on a campaign of change, downplaying the value of experience; but as they discuss Palin's "experience" they will only hurt themselves. After all, Palin is not a Presidential Candidate and Obama is. This is a huge benefit for McCain, he has painted the Obama campaign in a corner, because they cannot exploit Palin's inexperience without comparing it to his own; and if they try, they will have to make the argument that her private sector and family oriented successes do not matter, which ultimately leads to her biography and life story.

Fourth: Painting Her As A Radical. This has already started as well, and again it will not work. They will try to paint Palin as a right-wing radical and it has already started. But Palin has a record of genuine bi-partisanship and reform, something Obama does not have. She and the McCain campaign can point to 2 things: An 80% Approval Rating and her crackdown on corruption with Alaska's Republican Party. When the left attacks Palin, their appeals will only be heard by the people who have already drawn that conclusion; for the rest of America, who see a strong, well-spoken, and attractive Female, they won't buy it because her Rhetoric and Actions speak differently. Inevitably, painting her as a neo-con will lead back to her biography and life story.

Fifth: To Many Attacks. This will be the biggest problem for the Obama campaign and his supporters. If they attack Palin they will drive a wedge between themselves and both the Silent Majority of America and Clinton Supporters who faced relentless attacks and want reform within their own party.

For Clinton supporters, there are two issues in this election. First, they have seen corruption and manipulation of untold proportions within their own party and they want reform, this the Obama campaign will never understand. Secondly, they have seen a double standard by which they have been continuously painted as bitter, racist women, who in reality saw a level of misogyny in the primaries that was unheard of. The Obama campaign has decided that the best way to win back these votes was by attacking McCain as a sexist who did not support equal pay for Women. Yet, the selection of Palin, absolutely undermines that ridiculous attack; and despite policy differences, if the Obama campaign continues to attack Palin, it will stir up the memories of the Obama campaign's misogynistic attacks upon Hillary and drive Clinton voters away. This is the simple truth and there is no one who can deny it.

For the Silent Majority, the Palin family represents their own. These are the families in the heartland which work hard all week, put their family first and who see in the Palin family, traditional values and the traditional view of the American dream. The more the Obama campaign attacks Palin, the more the families of the rust belt and heartland will see this as an attack on their own family and it will drive them away. This is the simple truth and there is no one who can genuinely deny it.

These are the reasons why McCain's selection is phenomenal and will paint the Obama campaign into the proverbial corner. Americans, like it or not, vote for presidential candidates and their running mates based in a large part on likability, and when compared to Palin, no other candidate can compete. In this election, they see three candidates in Biden, Obama and even McCain who are all wealthy Senators, who all came from humble beginnings but who they cannot quite relate with. Sarah Palin and her family, represent the traditional view of the "American Dream", with humble beginnings, a uniquely middle-class lifestyle, a union based family, the PTA members next door, the girl next door, the outdoor enthusiasts, and every other cliche that you can use. The Obama campaign will attack Palin, and these attacks will prove to be the campaign's greatest strategic failure.

J Brown
September 13th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Despite Low Book Stocks, Sarah Palin Biography Premiers #6 On NY Times Best Seller! Read First Chapter Here!

Despite low stocks that were quickly depleted off bookstore shelves and from online sellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble, "Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" written by Kaylene Johnson and first released months ago premiers tomorrow on the New York Times Best Seller List. Initial stocks of the Hardcover version were limited, but still managed to secure a #13 premier on the Hardcover Nonfiction List. Meanwhile, the paperback version premiered at #6 on the Nonfiction List, a position that is likely to increase as Epicenter Publishing continues to churn out additional copies of the book. Barnes and Noble along with Borders have reported ongoing challenges with keeping the book stocked on store shelves as incoming supplies have barely met online order demands.

I purchased the book back in June and was struck by the uniquely 'middle class' lifestyle and struggles of Palin. The book offers an insight into Palin that is unlike any of the current Presidential Candidates. The book was written, not by herself and was written well before her rise to a national position. The book highlights the life of Palin, her middle class roots and her rise as an advocate for the people of Alaska. The books written to clearly push the campaigns of already powerful candidates, this book highlights the real Palin, her upbringing, the rise of a middle class mother who was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth or the benefit of an ivy league education. The book highlights her dedication to family and community and events that led her to obtaining the highest approval and favorable ratings of any current Governor.

Click Here To Read The First Chapter Of Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

Click Here To Visit Epicenter Press - The Publisher

An then visit Amazon and pick up your copy today.


A second Palin Biography, by Zondervan Publishing, the publisher of Rick Warren's best selling book,The Purpose Driven Life will be release in October. The new biography on Sarah Palin is entitled, "Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader" by Joe Hilley (Zondervan 2008) and is now available for pre-order above.
"

J Brown
September 13th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Far Fewer Americans Viewing Obama's 'Change' As Reaching Across The Aisle

Although daily polls taken two months prior to an election have little weight in the final results, inside the polling data is some troubling news for the Obama campaign. Obama has attempted to create a perception within the electorate that he is a reformer, a change candidate who can reach across the aisle and change 'politics as usual'. But according to poll after poll that have been released more Americans are beginning to question whether Obama's "change" is defined by reaching out to Republicans and conservatives.

For months the Obama campaign and media created the perception that Obama transcended partisan politics and was able to attract moderate Republicans and Independents. But the reality of the hypocrisy in Obama's message is becoming more defined to the American people. Beginning with Saddleback, Obama who was naively confident that he could attract the evangelical vote, failed miserably and demonstrated that his "change" was in no way moderate. Since Saddleback, more Americans are beginning to realize that real change is not achieved by abandoning every policy of our past in lieu of a new direction, but rather by taking the most successful achievements of our past and building upon them.

A majority of John McCain's support prior to September was indeed generated by moderate Republicans; and with the selection of Sara Palin, Independents and Conservatives have begun galvanizing behind McCain. But what is more disconcerting to Obama is that, just as in the primaries, undecided voters are beginning to walk away.

The media will not discuss the historic nature of undecided voters, but a convention dedicated to unity and re-introducing Obama demonstrates that his campaign is fully aware of the problem. Undecided voters are undecided for a reason, they typically are leaning towards one candidate but haven't yet seen anything to justify their vote. Polling since the end of the Primaries has consistently shown nearly 25% of the Democratic voters, in addition to 30% of the general electorate as undecided. The problem for Obama is that undecided voters, especially those undecided in the days prior to casting a ballot, typically vote with "familiar experience". In the 2000 election, undecided voters broke favorably for Al Gore in the week prior to election day, closing the gap in polling numbers. In the 2004 election, undecided voters broke overwhelmingly for George Bush in the week prior to election day. Additionally, in the 2008 primaries, the undecideds once again broke for Hillary Clinton in primary after primary from March to June. This is the reason why the Obama campaign has time and time again attempted to "introduce" him to the American people; and now that Obama is showing that he is a 'typical' politician, this is the reason why his campaign is concerned.

Most disturbing for the Obama campaign is the fact that Obama has lost his enormous advantage in the number of Americans who believe that he can reach across the aisle. Yesterday, Rasmussen released a poll that has had little discussion in the media. Americans, when asked whether the candidates would reach across the aisle as President, overwhelmingly favored John McCain. This poll echoes the internals of other polling data collected over the past weeks. According to Rasmussen, 51% of Americans feel that Barack Obama would reach across the aisle as President, this number is down 20 points from polling conducted in June. As a comparison, 63% of voters stated that John McCain would effectively reach across the aisle. McCain's numbers have steadily increased since June. These numbers should be disconcerting, more than any other, to the Obama campaign. Most Americans are tired of the polarization that has only gotten worse and in an election that revolves around change, the candidate who is viewed as being able to cross the aisle, will be the the candidate who moves in to the house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

J Brown
September 12th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Hurricane Ike, Gustav, Katrina and Rita Should Be A Lesson In Our Need For Expanded Drilling!

Although oil prices have dropped by nearly 30% since mid-July, those prices are not always reflected in the price of gasoline at the pump. Retail gas prices are driven by refinement costs and production and thus disruptions to refinement, switchover to seasonal fuel blends and routine refinery inspections can influence prices dramatically. This week wholesale gas prices have risen dramatically throughout the Midwest, and that rise is expected to ripple throughout the nation. In Texas, wholesale prices are nearly $5 per gallon, meaning of course retail prices are much higher. As far north as Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin the prices of refined oil have risen 25-40 cents with prices at the pump closing back in on $4 per gallon. Why?? Simply because a large portion of our nations production and refinement facilities are under attack by forces that we cannot control.

A majority of our nations domestic oil production comes from a relatively small region along and off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas. As a result, a large majority of our nations imported oil points-of-entry and refining facilities also rest along these coasts. Our nation's restrictions of oil and natural gas drilling have led to a massive bottleneck of energy resources in the northwest corner of the gulf of Mexico. For the fourth time in as many years, those resources are threatened by a large hurricane, shutting down production and driving up retail costs. As a nation we must pursue alternative fuels, but at the same time we must increase our domestic production and protect that production from both human and environmental threats. Imagine if oil prices had not fallen by nearly a third in the past 2 months, how high would retail prices be today?

You can argue that hurricanes only present a temporary disruption in US refinement and production; but then again if a category 5 storm were to hit the region, it could take months or years to recover. Long-term oil supplies would be threatened but more importantly refining would grind to a halt. As a nation, we can import as much oil as other nations will supply, but without refining capacity the oil is useless. We must expand US oil production and build new refineries in those regions, as a result this would also create new ports of entry for imported oil and protect against supply disruptions caused by natural or man-made disasters.

9/11 and Hurricane Katrina provided a valuable lesson to corporate America as to the importance of offsite and multiple location backup of their information technologies and operations. Corporate America has worked dilligently to protect their client services against natural and man-made disasters; and it only makes sense that we would do the same with the life-blood of our nation. Oil provides for much more than our transportation needs, as nearly 40% of our consumption is used for non-transportation manufacturing. A major disruption of supply and refining capacity would ripple through our entire economy with effects that could last for years.

I have long said that it is unlikely that increased US production of oil & natural gas would have an overwhelming impact on prices. After all, when much of the world's oil is controlled by an organization that arbitrarily raises and lowers production based upon their pocketbook, there is only so much we can do. However, increased US production and refining capacity would help bring price stability to the markets and more importantly STABILITY TO DOMESTIC WHOLESALE & RETAIL PRICES. Additionally, increased US production would help control speculation, thus providing more stability, by creating the anticipation of increased global production which would be immediately reflected in oil futures.

For me, the need for expanded oil and natural gas drilling is not as much an issue of prices and consumption, but rather an issue of national security, economic security, and domestic environmental regulation. Our nation should and will pursue alternative energies, but the reality is that it has taken 100 years of investment and labor to create an infrastructure built upon oil. Even if viable alternatives were developed in the next few years, how many years would it take to replace our current infrastructure? Additionally, alternative energy's cannot replace the manufacturing usage of oil in this nation and thus our reliance upon foreign oil would continue. Regardless of who the next President is, the reality is that there are undeniable facts on energy and energy consumption that neither candidate is discussing.

According to the United Nation's the 2 most polluted waterways in the world are the Lake Maracaibo Basin (Venezuela) and the waterways surrounding the Middle East. Yet, these are the regions from which we derive a large portion of our oil production. By importing oil we are relying upon nations with at-best lackadaisical and unenforced environmental regulation. According to the watchdog groups, the United Nations and the Department of Energy, in 1998 more oil was released into Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela than has been spilled by the entirety of land-based and offshore oil drilling, refinement, and transportaion in the US over the past 12 years. Although the Venezuelan government is tight-lipped, global environmental groups accompanied by satellite imagery have confirmed that their environmental record has not improved.

If war were to break out with Iran it would cause major oil exportation disruptions throughout the middle east, causing major supply disruptions throughout the US and the rest of the world. Russia is intent upon domination of European energy supplies and Europe is now under increasing pressure and fear of further disruptions caused by Russian aggression. It only makes sense that our nation protect our oil supplies and production to protect against the effects of an increasing global crisis.

Increased US production would lead to job creation, increased Government revenue and billions of dollars being pumped back into OUR economy; dollars that could be used to help create more jobs and increase efforts to move away from an oil-driven society. As we speak, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are investing billions of dollars into alternative energy sources; billions of dollars that they received from the pocketbooks of our citizens. These nations understand that oil is not an infinite cash cow; thus, they are using our money to develop the energies of the future, maintain our dependence upon their energy resources and dominate the global economies.

Ike, Gustav, Rita and Katrina should send a clear message to our government that we must protect our nations energy supplies by expanding our nations energy production, refinement locations and ports-of-entry. We cannot afford to continue to rely upon foreign oil while endangering what little domestic energy production we have.

J Brown
September 12th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

6.1% Unemployment & The Democratic Bill To Add 550,000 Guest Workers.

Politicians talk a good game, blaming each other for the economy, using unemployment figures for political gain and discussing the creation of new jobs. But in reality, a major strain on unemployment in this nation is our broken borders. Expanded guest worker programs accompanied by illegal immigration is a problem that this nation has faced for the past one hundred years. But unlike previous leadership, it now appears that our government is unwilling to take a stand.

In the late 1800's immigrants flowing into the United States from China created a strain on the US Economy. Our government tried to curb the flow and requested that the Chinese government take action. When nothing occurred, congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which quickly curbed Chinese immigration, but also heavily damaged trade and our relationship with China. Trade would slowly recover and our relationship would recover.

At the turn of the century, our Western states once again would struggle with illegal immigration. Japanese migrants were flooding the west coast, lowering wages, placing strains on local and state governments and taking the jobs of American citizens. Immigration became so problematic that violence against Japanese and other Asian workers was increasing exponentially. Congress once again mulled an Exclusion Act. Theodore Roosevelt, who personally opposed a Japanese exclusion act but admitted that he would have signed it if given no improvement, turned to the Japanese Government. The message was clear, the Japanese Government would have to take steps to curb the exodus from their nation, or else Roosevelt would sign an exclusion act. The Japanese Government fearing the economic implications of the exclusion act would take action to control the exodus of Japanese workers. Roosevelt's forceful request worked.

Today we face similar problems from an immigration enforcement system that is not working. However, unlike the turn of the century, congress and this administration have no regard for the economic and social pressures placed upon the American people by the out of control importation of people across the border. With US unemployment rates now at 6.1%, the do-nothing congress wants to take action. Unfortunately, it is not the action that they should take.

In 1996, congress created the E-Verify system; a system that allows employers to verify the identity and legal status of workers they hire. This importance compliance tool is currently used by more than 75,000 employers with an estimated 1,000 new employers signing up every week. However, authorization and funding for the E-verify system expires in November. As a result, the House voted 407-2 to extend the program for five year (ironically, 26 members of the house did not vote). But in the Senate, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) used parliamentary procedure rules to place a hold on the bill. Why?? Menendez wants the passage of HR 5882 to be tied to the bill.

So what is HR 5882? It is a bill put forth by California Representative Zoe Lofgren(D), supported by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and co sponsored by 24 Democrats and 7 Republicans that would create an additional 550,000 guest worker Visas. That's right, even while our government announces 592,000 Americans added to the unemployment rolls in August, these congressional member want to allow the importation of 550,000 new guest workers.

So will this new guest worker program do anything to protect our borders or stop the flow of illegal immigration? No!

Lofgren, accompanied by support from Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Leadership, has stated that this expansion is necessary and an important first step in immigration reform. However, the entire 'Guest Worker' lingo used by both Republican and Democratic is misleading and ridiculous. According to CNN, our nation currently has 26 Guest Worker Programs in place, and have those 26 Guest Worker Programs helped to solve our immigration problems? No!

More disturbing are statements made by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that she would like passage of the bill prior to the end of the current congressional session. Speaker Pelosi has failed in 3 months to pass a Flood Relief Bill that was promised to Iowa and Midwestern states at the end of May after the 500 year floods that occurred in those states. Pelosi has openly stated that the delays in passage of the Flood Relief Bill were because congress did not have the time prior to their August vacation to take up the bills. In addition, Pelosi has actively worked to use arcane parliamentary procedure to block drilling legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. But despite her excuse of not having enough time to address these issues, it is now clear that Pelosi has found the time to address this damaging legislation.

The Democratic led congress is playing a game with our economy. Complaining about rising unemployment rates and complaining that illegal immigration is the result of businesses hiring illegal immigrants. Yet, this congress appears intent upon passing legislation that would flood our economy with half a million more foreign workers competing for American jobs, while blocking legislation that is designed to allow private industry to verify the citizenship of employees. It doesn't make sense and a direct result of what happens when political power trumps their sworn duty to represent the citizens of this nation.

Unfortunately, if Lofgren's legislation makes it to the house floor, it will pass. Even more unfortunate is the fact that Republican Leadership opposed to the bill in the Senate most likely does not have enough support to block the legislation. It is also likely that President Bush, who has voice vocal support for additional guest worker programs would sign off on the legislation.

This is an attack on the workers of this nation and it is despicable that congressional members would be quick to point blame for our nation's economic challenges while supporting legislation aimed at importing foreign workers into our economy. This Congress abetted by the administration has utterly failed, time and time again to enforce our immigration laws and secure our broken borders. Stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and stopping the further importation of foreign workers goes far beyond just an economic issue; it is a matter of our national security. Guest worker programs are important, but when we have 26 programs on the books, there is no need for yet another.

It is time that our congressional leaders are removed from their positions and it is time that both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are held accountable for their positions on immigration. It is time for a change, but this is not the change that our nation needs.

J Brown
September 11th, 2008
Since 9/11 the United States military has killed tens of thousands of Al-Quaeda Fighters; it only took 19 to launch that infamous attack. Our work is not done and today take the time to remember.



Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

The Return Of Obama's Chicago-Style Destruction-Based Politics

The sudden polling surge, representing as much as a 17 point bump, for John McCain has exposed the shady underbelly of the Obama Campaign. Senator Obama did not rise to power as a change candidate; he has never won an election in which his opponent has not suffered being personally destroyed and forced from the race; and it seems in the past two weeks that Obama is returning to his Chicago Political Machine roots.

Let me take you back to Senator Obama's first campaign, for the State Senate in Illinois. Obama was approached by then State Senator, Alice Palmer, a popular incumbent who had decided to run for Congress. Palmer approached Obama and encouraged him to run in her stead if she were to win. But Palmer didn't win her Federal Election bid and asked Obama to withdraw to allow her to retain her State Senate Position. According to Ricky Hendon, an Illinois State Senator, in an interview with CNN, "There's no way Barack could have beat Alice Palmer in that seat. It just wasn't going to happen. Alice was extremely popular." Obama, knowing that he could not win a battle against the Palmer turned to his friends and fellow attorneys for help. Obama and his attorneys noticed that the required petitions that Palmers campaign were sloppily completed. He challenged the petitions, won the challenge and Palmer was removed from the ballot. According to Hendon, "the people who she had depended on to do her petitions really did not do a good job." As Suzanne Malveaux would report, successfully challenging her signatures, Obama knocked Alice Palmer, a revered political figure, off the ballot, as well as all three other candidates. While Obama's campaign today promotes him as a different kind of politician, back then he was an avid student of Chicago-style politics." Four Politicians eliminated not by debate, not by the issues, but by political assassination.

Obama soon found out that the Illinois State Senate brought neither fame nor glory, and after an unsuccessful attempt at taking on a senior party member for his US House Seat, he turned back to his self-admitted mentor Emil Jones. Jones, upon hearing that Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald would not run for re-election, bragged to colleagues that he "was going to make himself a Senator" in Barack Obama. But Obama had a problem; he was unknown around the state and south of I-80 Illinois voted Republican. Jones, as President of the Senate used his political power to pressure fellow legislators to add Obama's name to hundreds of bills. According to Hendon, "He owes it all. He owes everything to President Jones." Malveaux would add during her Obama revealed special, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through." Obama now had name recognition.

In his Senatorial run, Obama faced an extremely popular Democrat and Billionaire, Blair Hall, who led Obama nearly 2 to 1 in poll after poll. But something happened just prior to the primaries, SEALED Divorce Documents suddenly showed up at the footsteps of Chicago News Agencies. The divorce documents detailed allegations against Hall that he had physically abused his wife. Hall withdrew from the race and Obama, facing 7 other unknown and unfunded candidates walked away with the primary. Obama would now face off against a popular downstate Republican, Jack Ryan, in the November election.

Obama's ability to push Hall out of the race was bittersweet and the joy of his un-Democratic primary victory was short-lived. Obama would now find himself down by up to 18 points against his Republican rival. But once again, in the summer heat, reporters around Chicago would wake up to find previously SEALED Divorce Documents on the doorsteps. This time, the divorce documents of Ryan would uncover testimony that he and his ex-wife had frequently visited strip-clubs prior their divorce. Ryan, shocked and humiliated, would withdraw from the race. As of the announcement on July 15, 2004 that Obama would be the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention, he had no opponent for the November Election.

Obama would eventually face competition in November. The Republican Party, reeling from a corrupt governor and embarrassed could not find any viable candidate willing to run for office. By August they had written off the election until an out-of-state Republican, Alan Keyes, offered to move to Illinois and run. Keyes campaign was a joke, primarily because he didn't even live in Illinois at the time. As a result, Obama trounced Keyes, hell, even I voted for him, but I felt bad leaving the ballot blank (by the way, I've regretted that vote every day since).

The moral of the story is simple; Obama has never faced a real candidate; or at least one who he couldn't push off the ballot. The Republican Party inadvertently nominated the best potential candidate to take on Obama. Despite their best efforts, the Obama campaign is finding out how hard it is too take on a candidate whose dirty laundry, even the little bit that McCain has, is already on the table. They have found it impossible to push McCain out and the best attempt at scandal they have uncovered is the nearly 25 year old Keating Five. To be honest, prior to this election, I didn't even know what the Keating Five was; I was too young, and most people I have talked too who are old enough to remember, have no clue either. It's almost embarrassing that Obama, the product of the Chicago Political Machine, can only uncover a 25 year old scandal that involved more Democrats than it did Republicans. The Keating 5 was a scandal, in which McCain was overwhelmingly exonerated and considered to have provided the key testimony in the case.

Palin was a blessing because the boost that her nomination has given McCain has forced Obama to show his true colors. He is no longer the candidate that transcends the politics of division and distraction; he is no longer the candidate who rises above partisanship; he is no longer the candidate who decried Hillary Clinton as too polarizing a figure. Obama says that we need to focus on issues, but on the campaign trail he can't overcome the 5 2 year old "Bridge to Nowhere' debate. Obama says we should focus on issues all the while sending a team of 30 investigators to Anchorage to sift through every detail of Sarah Palin's life; desperately hoping to uncover some sort of scandal. Obama has returned to his true self, a Power-Hungry product of the Chicago Political Machine, who will seek victory at any expense and will seek to politically and personally destroy his competition.

He will tell the press that there is no room for personal attacks on any candidate, but will do nothing to silence his supporters spreading hate and false rumors on his own websites blog. He will attack John McCain for "distorting his record", while premeditatedly injecting "pig in lipstick" remarks into stump speeches just days after Palin's infamous Hockey Mom remark.

The attacks on Palin are not over, and as pressure mounts the attacks will become more vicious, more pointed and will target her and her family. These are the politics Obama knows; just ask Alice Palmer, Bill Hall or Jack Ryan. So I will say it again: Obama has returned to his true self, a Power-Hungry product of the Chicago Political Machine, who will seek victory at any expense and will seek to politically and personally destroy his competition.

J Brown
September 10th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

New Sarah Palin Biography To Be Released October 10th, Plus Sarah: How A Hockey Mom... Read The First Chapter

Zondervan Publishing, the publisher of Rick Warren's best selling book,The Purpose Driven Life has announced the release of a new biography on Sarah Palin entitled, "Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader" by Joe Hilley (Zondervan 2008).

In a press release over the weekend, Zondervan announce the book...

will explore themes from her career in politics, her life as a hockey mom, and her strongly held Christian faith, explaining how they influence her new style of leadership and align with our changing economy in the information age. The book is scheduled for release nationwide on October 10, 2008.

“Regardless of your political persuasion, it is clear that Sarah Palin has quickly electrified the 2008 election and sparked a nationwide dialogue and debate,” said Moe Girkins, president and CEO of Zondervan. “We are honored to publish this book that will provide readers with a comprehensive look into the life and rising political career of Sarah Palin.”

In Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader, Hilley explores traits from Palin’s background and experience, including her maverick integrity, electrifying communication style, career agility, and perpetual education, to establish his argument for Palin as an exemplary leader in our rapidly changing cultural landscape. By exploring the leadership principles that have catapulted Palin into the national spotlight, Hilley explains how she models a fresh paradigm of leadership that will guide the United States through the 21st century.

“We live in an age that values relationship over authority and instant information over accuracy, so breadth of knowledge and depth of conviction are the most prized commodities for our leaders,” said Hilley. “Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin brings both of these qualities and more to her new role as John McCain’s running mate and I’m eager for readers to have the opportunity to know her and her brand of leadership more thoroughly.”

Meanwhile, the book "Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" written by Kaylene Johnson and first released months ago is now back in stock at Amazon and rapidly being re-stocked at bookstores throughout the nation. But as rapidly as the books are appearing, they are being snatched up by readers eager to learn more about Palin. Barnes & Noble reports that the book is among there top 5 sellers and Amazon reports a sterengthening and consistent top 10 position. This Sunday, the book will likely reach the NY Times bestseller list.

I purchased the book back in June and was struck by the uniquely 'middle class' lifestyle and struggles of Palin. The book offers an insight into Palin that is unlike any of the current Presidential Candidates. The book was written, not by herself and was written well before her rise to a national position. The book highlights the life of Palin, her middle class roots and her rise as an advocate for the people of Alaska. The books written to clearly push the campaigns of already powerful candidates, this book highlights the real Palin, her upbringing, the rise of a middle class mother who was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth or the benefit of an ivy league education. The book highlights her dedication to family and community and events that led her to obtaining the highest approval and favorable ratings of any current Governor.

Palin represents the Silent Majority, unlike any Presidential Candidate in recent history she is not the product of political power-brokers, she did not benefit from years of relationships with the privileged ivy-league class and her story is one of the rise of the middle class and restoration of the government for and of the people.

Her story and her life is the reason why I jumped on the Palin bandwagon in June; and after reading her story, written well before she became a household name, you will understand the real Sarah Palin, not the images portrayed by the media or the Politicos.

Click Here To Read The First Chapter Of Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

Click Here To Visit Epicenter Press - The Publisher

An then visit Amazon and pick up your copy today.


J Brown
September 9th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

"They Must Think You're Stupid!" Understanding Mayor & Governors (Palin) vs. Senators (Obama) on Earmarks

In recent days Senators Obama & Biden have gone on the attack against Vice Presidential Nominee, Sarah Palin for her accepting federal earmarks as a Mayor and Governor.

Did she?
Yes.

Should She Have?
You Bet


Why?
Because it was her job.

Sara Palin's job as a Mayor of Wasilla was to represent the citizens of her City, to reform local government, provide public services, and maintain budgetary health within that city. Her responsibility was to her town, not to the Federal Government; and as such she was 100% correct in lobbying for earmarks made available and accepting those earmarks. A mayor's duty is to his/her town and if the opportunity is presented to bring tax dollars back into that town, then they should accept them.

As a Governor, Sarah Palin's responsibility was to the citizens of her State. Once again, as a Governor, her job was to bring budgetary health to Alaska, provide essential public services, and reform State government. I am not aware of any governor that has ever laid claim to responsibility for the federal budget and as a governor, Palin was 100% correct in accepting any Federal Earmarks that flowed back into her State. Obama and his surrogates want to complain that she turned away the Bridge To Nowhere only to keep the earmarks for her State. Yet, if the governor of a state felt that those funds would better serve his/her constituents by providing essential services or other statewide investment then they would be acting on the behalf of their constituents.

In order to accept Senator Obama's attacks against Palin on earmarks, then you would have to believe that Governors and Mayors are somehow responsible for the Federal Budget. Last time I checked the United States Congressional Members we elect are responsible for the Federal Budget.

In order to accept Senator Obama's attacks against Palin on earmarks, then you would have believe that it is abnormal for Governors or Mayors to accept Federal funds or even lobby for them. If this were the case, then by Senator Obama's reasoning it is not proper for the City of Cedar Rapids to hire a lobbying firm to lobby congress to pass a Federal Flood Relief Bill that was promised to them in May. Of course, Senator Obama and his surrogates would never say that; because by the standards Obama is portraying, no Mayor or Governor would ever be able to run for the Presidency.

The bottom line is that whether you are a Governor or a Mayor of a town by the name of Wasilla, your duty as an elected official is to the community in which you live. If Governor Palin or Mayor Palin had taken taxpayer dollars paid by her constituents and wasted that money by attaching them to important bills, then Obama would have an argument. But Governor Palin and Mayor Palin acted on the behalf of her constituents and if the Federal Government was dishing out money on a silver platter, then her job as a Mayor or Governor was get as much as she could for her state. No Mayor or Governor has the ability to control wasteful FEDERAL government spending and if you show me a another Governor or Mayor that has turned down Federal Money then I'll show you the monkey the just flew out of my butt.

Now a Senator on the other hand shares responsibility for the health of the federal budget. Senators provide oversight to that budget and are responsible for appropriating funds. Senators do represent their individual constituencies but there responsibility is to our federal budgetary health. No President can spend a dime unless Congress appropriates the money and no earmark is ever released without Congressional appropriation. During his time in office, Senator Obama sent money back to local governments in Illinois, those earmarks are fine. But when federal earmarks start flowing back to private organizations where friends or family works, then there is a problem. Senator Obama spent nearly $1 Billion of taxpayer money on personal earmarks, without oversight as part of the Senatorial Good old boy system. Senator McCain during that time spent $0 and was the sole voice of opposition to earmark spending in the Senate. In fact, Senator McCain's pledge not to support Earmarked spending has cost him political capital. At time McCain voted against bills that he supported. Why? Because they were also loaded down with massive earmarks.

But back to the issue at hand. The government has a system by which spend money as quickly as it arrives in Washington. Senators looking for votes and campaign support hand out billions every year, with no oversight, and most often slid into a bill just hours before a vote. Senator Obama is part of that system and only last fall changed his position. Senators are in charge of earmarks and share full responsibility for them. When the federal government hands out money, do you turn it down?

When your tax rebate check arrived, did you turn it down? No, and you shouldn't have.

Palin brought fiscal responsibility back to her town and state. She did her job and when, like every other Mayor and Governor, when she saw Federal Money being handed out by Senators like Obama, she reached out her hand for her town and state.

Mayors and Governors will always accept whatever the Federal Government hands to them, it is their job. The are not 'Earmark Spenders' they are 'Earmark Receivers'. Senators, on the other hand, are 'Earmark Spenders', wasting billions of dollars every year on projects that are sometimes good, but most of the time rooted in political expediency. Governor Palin cut billions from her States' budget while in office. Senator Obama did nothing to cut Federal Spending and eliminate wasteful government spending; nothing that is except, doling out nearly $1 billion in earmarks.

Senator Obama is not the change agent on earmarks, he is part of the problem. To this day, Obama will not lay claim to his role in failing to bring fiscal responsibility back to the Federal Government and now he appears hell bent on blaming Mayors and Governors for the the Federal Governments lack of fiscal responsibility. For the past 2 years, while his own party been in control of the federal budget, he has been on the campaign trail while doing nothing to reign a President and his own party's leadership that have ballooned the federal deficit to record levels. If he were a leader, then why unlike Senator McCain, was he unwilling to take on Reid and Pelosi? Why did he oppose repeated calls by Senator McCain to pass legislation to ban earmarks? Why did he wait until just last fall to change his position?

J Brown
September 9th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

Did Palin Re-Ignite The Culture Wars? Perhaps The Media Should Look No Further Than Obama

CNN started it, the rest of the media is following suit as report after report discuss the charges that the GOP and McCain/Palin ticket have reignited the culture wars. The Huffington Post and Daily Kos have gone so far as to blame McCain and Palin for starting class and racial warfare. But behind the headlines, is their any truth to the charges? Who's really to blame for the culture wars? Who's responsible for "reigniting" them?

First, understand that to some extent culture wars have always been present within our nation and will always exist. When our nation was formed it was comprised of a heavily populated north with massive urban centers of New York, Philadelphia and Boston alongside the agricultural and much less populated southern states. Our founding fathers feared this clashing of populations and feared that the 'Union' would never survive a direct democracy in which the heavily populated areas were responsible for electing Presidents. The 'Culture Wars' of our 'Union' were the very reason we are a 'Representative Republic' and have an 'Electoral System'. With the exception of the Civil War Era, this system worked well in producing candidates and parties that worked to appeal to the massive diversity in populations, campaigning equally and appealing to both urban and rural areas.

The first signs of the modern "Culture War" were born in 1968, when President Nixon ran a successful campaign built upon what he coined as the "Silent Majority", but Nixon would not be the individual who defined our modern views of cultural warfare. George McGovern is responsible for the escalation of the culture wars. McGovern's 1972 coalition of support was predicated upon 2 groups of people, minorities and today's "latte liberals". These 2 groups of voters spurned his nomination and he in turn campaigned rigorously in the heavily populated urban centers of our nation. McGovern ignored small town America, he ignored the Silent Majority of middle class Americans and it cost him dearly in the general election. McGovern established the basis for today's electoral map.

Since McGovern's Presidential campaign 3 Presidents were able to break free from the constraints of McGovern's "culture war". Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton were all able to appeal to the more widespread and diverse population of this nation. The electoral map shifted under their Presidential campaigns and all three understood the importance of appealing to those living in both heavily populated and non-urban regions of the nation.

In 2000 and 2004 the old maps of McGovern's culture war began to re-appear. Al Gore and John Kerry both relied upon heavily populated urban-areas in their campaigns, but during the primaries and general elections both attempted to connect, although somewhat unsuccessfully, with the wider swath of America. Neither candidate, despite their attempts, were ever able to appeal to the broader base of America in the way that Bill Clinton did. Although Bush, Gore and Kerry re-established the map, they did not re-establish the old "Nixon-McGovern" Culture Wars.

The DNC and Senator Obama, not McCain, Palin or the GOP, are 100% responsible for re-establishing the 1972 Culture War coalitions. The DNC is responsible because under their leadership they manipulated the delegate allocation of their primaries to favor the candidate who campaigned successfully in heavily populated urban centers. Refer to "Democratic Disenfranchisement: The Final Report". For instance in Pennsylvania, congressional districts around Philadelphia were allocated up to 9 delegates, while other congressional districts, with equal populations, were allocated as few as 3 delegates. Barack Obama built a coalition, identical to that of George McGovern, made up of minorities along with the 'latte liberals'. Hillary Clinton followed in the footsteps of President Clinton's presidential run, gathering support from the broader, more widespread base of the party. But with manipulated delegate allocations stacked against her, she never had a chance. In primary state after primary state, such as Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Missouri, Clinton won the popular vote in over county after county, congressional district after congressional district, only to see that widespread appeal offset by disproportionate delegate allocations in the urban centers. Just look at the voting maps. Senator Obama, took advantage of these disproportional allocations, pandering to urban center while ignoring the broader base of the party, and it paid off. The re-emergence of the culture wars started in this years primaries and like in 1972, the Democratic Party is now suffering due to their nomination of a candidate who has does not appeal to the broader base and Silent Majority of Americans.

Senator Obama has run a campaign based upon support of heavily populated "big cities" and 'college campuses'. John McCain and now Sarah Palin, continue to run a campaign centered upon the mid-sized and smaller communities of our nation. Obama has pinned his hopes of winning Missouri upon the cities of Kansas City and St. Louis, giving little attention to massive state that exists between the two. In Ohio, he has spent a vast majority of his time in Cleveland, Cincinnati and other heavily populated center; in Michigan his broadest support and campaigning has come from Detroit. Now that his campaign has realized that he can't win by catering to the 'big city' he has turned his focus on smaller communities; but like George McGovern before him, those voters remember the primaries and the fact that he has long ignored them.

Sarah Palins selection as John McCain's running mate brings a new set of problems to Obama's new attempts to move beyond his 'big city' base. Palin represents the middle class families that overwhelmingly comprise the 'Silent Majority' of Americans. She is the "Middle Class", the Governor that still shopped for her families groceries, still cooked her children's meals, never grew up with a silver spoon in her mouth, was never fortunate enough to attend Columbia or Harvard. Obama & Biden will never overcome Palin's appeal and if they were smart they would not even attempt to damage her. Palin, whether you like it or not, to the broader base of America, is the girl next door and whose family and career accomplishments represent what nearly every American family would hope for their own daughter. Every attack upon Palin will lead America back to her biography, a biography which is uniquely 'Middle Class'. Obama, utilizing the DNC's manipulation of the primary system, established the basis for what the media calls a "culture war". Obama chose for 14 months to ignore the broader base of the Democratic Party and rely upon the 'big cities' and 'college campuses' to spurn his nomination. Obama, not Palin, re-ignited the culture wars and now, barring a major screw-up by McCain, he is probably relegated to the same fate a McGovern.

J Brown
September 8th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

Sarah Palin Biography Catching Fire, Book Sales Soaring, Read The First Chapter

On the day of John McCain's announcement that he had chosen Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate, Epicenter Press the publisher of the book "Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" immediately fired back up the presses. The biography of Palin written by Kaylene Johnson and first released months ago had sold around 8,000 copies, yet on the day of her announcement Epicenter was overwhelmed by more than 40,000 orders of the book with more orders received every day since. With presses running full force, the book is now back in stock at Amazon and rapidly being re-stocked at bookstores throughout the nation. But as rapidly as the books are appearing, they are being snatched up by readers eager to learn more about Palin. Amazon reports that the book is among there top 5 sellers and Amazon reports a top 15 and strengthening position. Next week, the book will likely reach the NY Times bestseller list and sales will continue to grow as the election nears.

Fortunately, I was one of the 8,000 who purchased this book early on. When her name first appeared in June as one of the individuals being vetted by the McCain campaign, I purchased the book and was struck by the uniquely 'middle class' lifestyle and struggles of Palin. The book offers an insight into Palin that is unlike any of the current Presidential Candidates, the book was written, not by herself and was written well before her rise to a national position. The book highlights the life of Palin, her middle class roots and her rise as an advocate for the people of Alaska. The books written to clearly push the campaigns of already powerful candidates, this book highlights the real Palin, her upbringing, the rise of a middle class mother who was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth or the benefit of an ivy league education. The book highlights her dedication to family and community and events that led her to obtaining the highest approval and favorable ratings of any current Governor.

Palin represents the Silent Majority, unlike any Presidential Candidate in recent history she is not the product of political power-brokers, she did not benefit from years of relationships with the privileged ivy-league class and her story is one of the rise of the middle class and restoration of the government for and of the people.

Her story and her life is the reason why I jumped on the Palin bandwagon in June; and after reading her story, written well before she became a household name, you will understand the real Sarah Palin, not the images portrayed by the media or the Politicos.

Click Here To Read The First Chapter Of Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

Click Here To Visit Epicenter Press - The Publisher

An then visit Amazon and pick up your copy today.


J Brown
September 7th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

Parental Advisory: Obama Supporters Aim To Indoctinate Our Children

If you are reading this post, then I imagine there is something about the title that caught your eye. As a parent perusing new children's books I was surprised when I noticed a book I never expected. So I read the book sat down perused the NY Times Best Seller list last night and was shocked by what I saw. Making it's debut at #5 on the Children's' Picture Books Bestseller List was a book written by Nikki Grimes and illustrated by Brian Collier. The title of the picture book: Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope.

Parents Beware because this is no biography of Obama, this book looks and reads like a campaign pamphlet.

They are targeting the most impressionable among our society with a book that provides a unproven and false sense of history and motivated by a political campaign rather than history. Now don't get me wrong, we have an obligation to educate our children as to the history of this nation and the actions of our greatest leaders. But a politicians accomplishments and accolade are measured in the later years of his/her career. Politicians, political writers and publishers have no place in authoring children's books unless they present a clear picture of the historical achievements of genuine leaders. I'm sure that Obama supporters will proclaim that although Obama has yet to achieve status as one of our nations' greatest leaders, his nomination itself is historic. That argument would carry some weight, if the book wasn't written well before Barack Obama was the nominee of his party and if it did not read as a campaign pamphlet.

Publishers Description: Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From the beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn't quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.
This is the moving story of an exceptional man, as told by Nikki Grimes and illustrated by Bryan Collier, both winners of the Coretta Scott King Award. Barack Obama has motivated Americans to believe with him, to believe that every one of us has the power to change ourselves and change our world.

Now compare this description with two children's books written about John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

From Dreams Taking Flight by Kathy Krull: Product Description - When Hillary was young, she wanted to be an astronaut, to soar as high as the stars above. She kept reaching up and up as she grew. There were people who told her no. But she didn't listen to them. There were people who didn't think she could do it. But she believed in herself. And Hillary has been making history ever since. This is the inspiring story of a girl with dreams as big as the open sky.

From My Dad, John McCain by Meghan McCain: Born the son and grandson of military men, Senator John McCain from Arizona was destined for a life serving his country in the armed forces. Like many great men, he occasionally struggled with authority, but once he found his true calling -- flying naval aircraft -- his ideals and commitment to his country took him far.
From the low point of five years as a prisoner of war to the high points of raising a large, happy family and being chosen as the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain has lived an incredible life driven by a love of his country and a desire to serve it to the best of his ability.
This picture book biography, written with great love and insight by his oldest daughter, writer Meghan McCain, shows us the public John McCain and the personal John McCain in a way we've never seen before -- making this American hero come to life before young eyes.

I disagree with the idea of idolizing any currently serving political figure to our children when those individuals future accomplishments and failures are yet to be determined, but at least the Clinton and McCain books simplify the life story of these great Americans. The books focus on their accomplishments and tells the inspiring story of their lives. If Obama's book took the same stance, then I would would not condemn it. But the basis of the book is taken from unproven hope and change with a narrative that leads to children to believe that Obama has already achieved status as a profound President before he has even won an election. From its title to its cover, from its description to the words on its pages, this books reads more like a campaign pamphlet than a simplified biography of the candidate. It is wrong, it is despicable and moreover it scary to know that such clear propaganda has debuted as #5 on the Bestsellers list.

So parents beware, monitor you child's classroom and make it clear that political activism is not historic education, and should have place in our children's lives.

J Brown
September 7th, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

Getting To Know Sarah Palin, Biography Book Sales Soar, Documentary To Premier Saturday Night!

Despite repeated attempts to destroy her and her family's reputation since her selection as John McCain's Vice-Presidential running mate, Americans appear to be embracing Sarah Palin's nomination. This weekend will give voters yet another opportunity to meet Sarah Palin as Greta Van Susteren will host a 2 night documentary on the life and career of Palin. The documentary will be an accurate portrayal of Palin relying upon interviews and footage taken well before Palin was selected as the vice presidential nominee. The documentary will air Saturday and Sunday Night at 8pm eastern on Fox New.

The announcement of Palin has also spurned a surge in demand for a biography of Palin that was released last Winter. Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down by author Kaylene Johnson was quickly stripped from shelves and both Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble ran out of copies. The publisher quickly released another edition on September 1st and the book is slowly being restocked as book stores receive copies. Amazon now has the book stocked.

Amazon Editorial Review: In 2006 an angel-faced but tough 42-year-old former small-town mayor named Sarah Palin became a long-shot candidate for Alaska governor demanding a higher ethical standard in state government. The timing of her reform message and a widening scandal produced a tornado that reshaped the political landscape. Surprising everyone, Palin thumped by wide margins both a sitting governor in the Republican primary election and a former governor in the general election to become Alaska's first female chief executive and its youngest ever.

Purchase this outstanding book that was authored before she was even considered for the Vice Presidency.


J Brown
September 6th, 2008


Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

8 Points In 3 Days & Record Breaking Ratings Cap A Bad Week For Obama!

It was inevitable that Barack Obama would receive a bounce from the Democratic National Convention, just as it was inevitable that John McCain would see a bounce from this weeks Republican Convention. Yet, what started out as a hopeful week for Obama, and perhaps the most challenging week of the year for John McCain, turned out unlike any pundit or reporter ever imagined.

On Sunday night, the McCain campaign saw the Republican National Convention turning sour as Hurricane Gustav threatened NOLA and the gulf coast ravaged by Katrina. DNC leadership appeared unable to contain the ecstatic emotions as former DNC Chair, Don Fowler exclaimed, "that just demonstrates God on our side". But the Hurricane did more than stir up memories of Katrina, it also threatened to grind the Republican National Convention to a stand-still. But McCain endured, packed up his bags and headed to Mississippi, and left his campaign to retool the first night of the convention into a fundraising effort for the Gulf Coast States.

On Sunday night and Monday, McCain's choice for the Vice-presidency was under attack from the "Obama Love' media and left-wing smear sites such as Huffpo and Kos. In the days following Palin's announcement, Obama supporters launched an all-out barrage against Palin, questioning her experience and her education; questioning her fidelity; demanding a DNA test to prove that her youngest son was actually hers; claiming that poor prenatal care caused her sons DS (by the way it is a genetic disorder), and dozens of other outrageous half-truths, conspiracy theories and outright lies. Their strategy was simple, to destroy her before America could get to know her. When she attempted to confront the conspiracy theories that she her son was actually her daughters (a theory clearly developed by a lunatic) by disclosing that her 17 year old daughter was engaged and pregnant; they immediately blamed her belief in abstinence as the cause of the pregnancy and turned their attacks upon her daughter.

The attacks would only get worse as well-known feminists would abandon their own their own philosophies that Women can have it all, by telling Palin that it was not possible to handle a pregnant daughter, a DS infant, three other children and the Vice Presidency. I guess that equality and the empowerment of Women only applies to those on the left. Of course that would also mean that men such as Bobby Kennedy and his 12 children would not be qualified for the Presidency.

The press for their part was more than gleeful in conveying the attacks on Palin and questioning her credentials without even first conveying them to the public. By Wednesday morning, Palin was under siege and the entire nation watched to see if she would crack. With Palin under attack, Gustav looming and the proclamation from the Barackopolis, McCain saw Obama's advantage open to a 6-9 point lead.

But Gustav fizzled, the Local, State and Federal preparations and responses were far beyond expectations and the first night of the convention wrapped up with several million raised in Disaster relief and news that the convention could now resume with few alterations. On Wednesday a corner was turned as Sarah Palin stepped to the podium...and delivered a speech with such passion, strength and convictions that the mainstream pundits and correspondents were literally speechless. She did not crack...She did sway...She stood her ground...Put her detractors in their place...Took on the media...Attacked Obama when they said she politically could not...Revitalized a convention...Revitalized a party...Renewed genuine hope to a generations of women...Revitalized Genuine Hope To The Middle Class of which she is part of...and ironically revitalized a long-lost 80's hit, Barracuda by Heart. Palins announcement caused a flood of donations, but her acceptance speech caused a deluge of funds never before seen.

Palin's acceptance speech led to record-breaking ratings on Thursday night as over 42 million viewers tuned in to see a non-eventful, but politically courageous acceptance speech by John McCain. In the speech he brought up issues both dear and not-so-dear to the "Conservative" base as he highlighted his view of American exceptionalism in a speech designed not to play upon the fears of the American public but rather to call for a strengthening of America.

By yesterday afternoon, it was obvious, Senator McCain and Governor Palin had a very good week. As for Senator Obama he watched a 8 point lead in a CBS poll released on Monday evaporate to a tie in the same poll on Thursday. Poll after poll that showed a moderate bump leading into Monday had shrunk to statistical ties by Friday afternoon. Despite the most hyped convention and speech of all time, 80,000 attendees to his $5 million acceptance speech and a stage designed by Britney Spears' former stage director; Obama was disappointed when ratings were released showing the the 4 night Republican convention was the highest rated convention of all time. The Democratic Convention drew in an average of over 30.2 million viewers per night only to be eclipsed by more than 34.4 million viewers per night for the Republican Convention. Including PBS both McCain and Obama drew in 42.4 million viewers during the acceptance speech while Governor Palin shocked the world as over 40 million viewers watched her acceptance speech.

On Friday, the RNC announced that with Senator McCain's $84.5 million influx of public campaign funds, the convention brought in over $200 million for the November elections. This announcement has many in the Obama campaign now wondering if the Senator's decision to break his campaign pledge was a mistake; as it is now apparent that even if Obama reached his fundraising goals, both campaigns will have equal funds.

On Sunday night the Obama campaign was hopeful and energized by what would likely be a good week. On Monday morning, Obama rose to sunshine in Michigan, watched a labor-day parade even as a hurricane made landfall and travelled back to Chicago. On Sunday, John McCain was demoralized as he most likely struggled with both his anxiety and attacks associated with his campaign and the real-world concerns being conveyed to him by Mississippi's governor. On Monday morning, John McCain awoke to both a political and not-so-political hurricane, put on his shoes and prepared for what was expected to be a challenging week at best. Oh, how a week can change things.

J Brown
September 6th, 2008


Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

McCain Finally...Put's Obama In His Place On The 'War-Monger' Charges!

John McCain's acceptance speech may not have been the most eloquently spoken or powerfully delivered, but it was a lesson in political courage and more importantly, he finally dispelled once and for all to the nation, the left's attempts to brand him as a "war monger". McCain showed true political courage by calling for his own party to reach out to the other side and admitting that his administration would include Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Could you image Barack Obama stating the same in his acceptance speech; but then again, he would never do that. Political courage is bringing up issues such as Immigration and Campaign Finance, both issues where the conservative faction of the party directly disagrees with McCain's positions. But he brought them up which is much more than Senator Obama has done during any of his campaign speeches. After all, imagine if Obama brought up FISA during his speech, imagine the reaction; yet, imagining is all you can do because Senator Obama only wishes to tell the crowds he addresses exactly what they wish to hear.

For months Obama, his campaign, surrogates and supporters have tagged John McCain as a 'war-monger', and angry old soldier that would react with war to every crisis that is presented to him and who would continue a war in Iraq for '100 years'. Of course, they overlooked his record, took his words out of context and showed the highest level of ignorance in understanding John McCain. For months I have stated that McCain would be the least likely of any of the Presidential contenders to rush to war and last night John McCain finally conveyed to the nation why. John McCain and his family have given over over 2 centuries of service to this nation, with roots that lead back to the Revolutionary war. But with that love of country and service have come great sacrifices, sacrifices that few, other than our military families and the greatest generation will ever understand. John McCain is the only person on the ticket who has seen first hand the toil of war and experienced the absolute tragedies that occur during a war; and last night Senator McCain finally told the nation the truth that many of us already knew, that he "Hates War".

No President, and I repeat No President, wants war. It is the toughest decision that they will ever make, it is greatest sacrifice that they could ever ask of their nation. John McCain understands that, but he also understands that there are times in this nation during which that decision is not made by our President but rather by those belligerent nations that are beyond reason, beyond peace and hell bent on power, destruction and aggression. Anyone who believes that John McCain would arbitrarily and with no other choice send America's young men and women to suffer the travesties he has, is simply a moron. There is no other way I can put it.

John McCain "hates war", not because of a slogan or idealism, but because he has seen how wars break apart families and he has experience the worst that humanity has to offer. It is those experiences which guarantee that he will never rush into war, but those sacrifices that guarantee that he will never allow threats to the people of this nation to blossom into greater evil.

The first and foremost function of any Government is to protect the sovereignty of that nation. Without sovereign status there is no level of economic or social reform that will ever be sustained. Their have been times in this nation's history when we have retreated into protectionism or into willful ignorance of the events occurring around us. There have been times, when Democrats led us into Vietnam or Republicans led us into Iraq, where our nation has been torn as to whether they were the rights wars at the right time. There have been times when we have stood by and watched the the sovereignty of other nations in Europe, Asia and the Middle East fall, and we have paid the price for inaction at a later date. We need leadership that will NOT drive this nation back into isolation, protectionism, nor back into a uniquely European-style of diplomacy which has failed for 100 years. We need leadership that will not rush to war, but that understands that America is the beacon for hope and peace around the world and that belligerence that is unchecked, is a threat to our security.

Those who understand McCain know that only those that have seen the worst of humanity will work diligently to protect our nation and our soldiers from that evil. Only those that have seen the ravages of War will ever truly understand why it is that we fight, and will not sacrifice our freedom nor that our allies. Only those that have experienced genuine suffering and pain will work diligently to see that others will never suffer the same fate. And...those who would call John McCain a 'war-monger' or suggest that he would willingly and without provocation send our proud service men and women to suffer his fate, only demonstrate their own ignorance. Those who believe that our nation should remain neutral against the belligerence of other nations, that such belligerent actions do not affect our sovereignty, and share some distorted belief that equality in military strength among nations will lead to peace; clearly have no understanding of the history of conflict, the history of our nation and the history of humanity.

J. Brown
September 5th, 2008


Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

Despite An 86% Favorability Rating, They Will Attack & Demonize Palin!

Throughout the primaries fringe-left websites such as Huffpo and the Daily Kos, Obama's campaign, supporters and surrogates launched misogynistic attack-after-attack upon Hillary Clinton. They had their candidate and feared that Clinton might actually govern rather that further the party line and as a result they demonized her. But Clinton wasn't the first to face this wrath, just 2 years earlier, Democratic Party Leadership and the groups above played the same attack game on another candidate, one who agreed with the party on 90% of the issues, but had the audacity to question their positions on the other 10%. That candidate of course, was Joe Lieberman. But the attacks on Clinton were different than those on Lieberman, they represented a level of vitriolic hate and overt sexism that the broader base of their party does not support.

When Clinton shed a tear in New Hampshire, they attacked. They accused of her of being either too soft, without the necessary strength of character and perhaps too much of a Woman; or she was merely faking to earn sympathy points among the female community. They accused her of playing the race card, demonized her husband and showed up to rallies wearing shirts telling her to pick back up the iron.

And Now... The very same crowd has launched the very same attacks upon Sarah Palin. Let's take a breath, stop reading the attack stories for five minutes and consider...just consider...the where these attacks are coming from and the actions of these groups in the past.

Governor Palin, and I stress the word GOVERNOR, has not risen to power through money, not through a lifetime of party loyalty, and not through Political machine with a hundred years of proven corruption. She rose to power through her involvement in community and proven experience in leadership. She did not join the PTA to further her political career, she did for a love of her family and genuine belief that she had a responsibility to her community. She ran on a pledge to reform Alaska Politics, and when she took office she fought for the people of Alaska, fought against the powerful oil lobby and took on leaders of her own party. That is unmistakable and genuine leadership. As a Governor, the buck stops at her, just as it should. She has dealt for two years with every aspect from budgeting, to state security, to conservation, to economics. That is a level of experience that no Senator, including John McCain or Joe Biden can boast of and that is why only 2 Senators have been directly elected to the Presidency. The bottom line is that she led a PTA, she led a business, she led a city and she led a state. What has Barack Obama led, a campaign and a Senatorial committee for which he has never held a single hearing.

During this time she has raised a family and a large family at that. But despite her story, her success can be displayed in just one number: 86%. The 86% and highest approval rating of any Governor in office today.

Yet, the same parties that demonized Clinton have set forth on a concerted effort to destroy Sarah Palin and create the perception that she is a right-wing radical hell bent on destroying personal freedom and destroying American families. 86%.

If she were such a radical, then wouldn't the people in the State she governs be willing to point that out or are we to believe that Alaska is the magical land of right-wing nuts where only 14% of the people are Democrats. After all, if more than 14% of the state were Democrats than that would mean a hefty level of approval among Democrats. The attacks on Palin and her family have ranged from ridiculous to downright mean and driven by fear. Fear of a strong woman, that is able to balance between family and career, fear of a reformer and fear of a family that represents the silent majority.

The accused her of faking a pregnancy to cover-up that of her daughter, and when she debunked those rumours they attacked her political policies as leading to her daughters pregnancy. But if Palin, and her abstinence views, are to be blamed for her daughters pregnancy then do we hold Obama accountable for the high teen pregnancy rates and near epidemic-level STD rates that exist within the urban communities who choose a different path a sex-education? They want to mention her husband's DUI from 22 years ago, but of course are silent on what their candidate was doing at the time. After all, didn't Obama admit to his illegal drug use? And...when her family came to the forefront, I watched the most shameful assault on her and women in general, when self-proclaimed feminists took the position that Governor Palin, because of her pregnant daughter, special needs son, and three other children could not possibly balance the responsibilities of family and the Vice Presidency. Yet, how many children did Bobby Kennedy have?? How large is Nancy Pelosi's family?? Oh, and by the way, is the new position of the women's right movement that a women must choose between family and career; a position that she cannot have both nor handle both; a position that she cannot 'have it all'? If it is then I'm afraid that our daughter will never fit that mold, because we have always taught her that she can achieve anything and can have it all.

The fringe left is not interested in solutions, they are interested in power. Governor Palin scares them because she is a strong woman, with strong convictions, and a record of reform; she is a women that will not tote the party line, understands first hand the struggles of middle-class families, and believes in American exceptionalism. She scares them because she breaks the perception that the fringe has created of the Republican Party; a party that they want you to believe is made up of old, racist, sexist white men. So they will attack, they will lie and they will try to create the perception that she is a radical.

So once again, take a deep breath and remember 86%.

J Brown
September 4th, 2008


Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

The Tragedy Obama & Democrats Forgot! 3 Months W/ No Flood Relief Bill!

With the natural disasters of Hurricane Gustav and the expectations of Hurricane Hanna and possible a third hurricane, perhaps we should take time to recall a tragic disaster which this Democratic Controlled Congress has still failed to address. From April to the first weeks of June Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Indiana and states throughout the Midwest suffered through some of the worst flooding in 100 years. Iowa, in particular was especially hard hit with nearly 1/5th of the States' land being underwater in early June. Yet, despite the media attention of early June and promises of quick relief by both Presidential candidates, the President and Congressional leaders, nearly 3 months later Congress has still not acted upon promised flood relief legislation.

Despite pleas and outrage by state legislative leaders from Indiana to Iowa, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid have utterly failed to allow legislation to move forward. Moreover, the Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, whose constituents in Western Illinois suffered substantial losses has remained silent on pushing through legislation. The situation has become so ridiculous that the city of Cedar Rapids and Linn County in Iowa have recently spent $10,000 to hire a Washington DC lobbying firm to lobby for movement on the relief bill that was promised to them nearly 4 months ago.

When interviewed yesterday, Iowa RNC delegate and former Cedar Rapids Council Member, Sarah Henderson stated, "After what Cedar Rapids went through, I'm extremely sensitive to what's going on along the Gulf Coast... But I think it brings to light that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats had no problem going on vacation without passing a flood relief package for Eastern Iowa."

Yesterday, Republican Congressional Candidate Marianette Miller-Meeks stated,“Although Cedar Rapids and Linn County have the resources to hire a lobbyist to navigate the intricacies of a relief package, who will advocate for those in Columbus Junction, Oakville, Burlington or Eddyville or the numerous other smaller communities? That’s the job of our elected congressman, and that job isn’t getting done... As more recent natural disasters have occurred, flood relief for our district threatens to be pushed from the back burner to off the stove completely. A $60 billion package was approved for New Orleans within weeks of Hurricane Katrina, and we are only asking for equitable treatment,” Miller-Meeks added.

So as our thoughts turn to the devastation of the gulf coast and likely damages that will occur with new Hurricane threats let's not forget about those affected by this Spring's Midwest flooding. And while it was local, state and federal officials under the Bush Administration that fumbled in their response to Katrina, remember that it is a Democratic controlled congress, aided by an eerily silent Senator from Illinois, that has held up billions of dollars in flood relief to Midwestern states that have suffered billions of dollars in economic losses.

J Brown
September 2nd, 2008
Get your free subscription to Online Magazine or o over 600 other free trade and industry publications courtesy of PDOP. No cost, no credit card, no bill. Online Magazine focuses on best practices in all areas of online marketing, including e-commerce, search engine marketing, optimization, email marketing, web analytics and affiliate marketing.

Click Here To Order Your Free Subscription To Online Magazine or one of 600 Other Trade Publications.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers

Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article.

McCain Voted With Bush 90%, uh-95% Of The Time? Umm, Not Really!

This is an update of an article we originally wrote back in early July.

There was a time in this country when the main stream media would do more than just repeat the talking points of political candidates. A time when they reported the facts, and checked to them for accuracy. Obviously that time has passed, and whether it is out of adoration for Senator Obama or just negligence the media has been a willing accomplice in spreading Obama campaign rhetoric.

In recent weeks, Senator Obama has increased his attacks upon John McCain, once again trying to define him as no longer being the 'maverick' that he was once perceived as. During his acceptance speech Obama pointed out the John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time, a sentiment echoed in the remarks of Joe Biden a day earlier when he stated McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time. So which one is, 90%, 95%, or is does the argument have any actual weight.

First, on a lighter note, let me state that it is 100% impossible for John McCain to have voted with President Bush, after all the President has no voting powers in the Senate. But that's just a laughable technicality. In reality, however, the problem with the McCain/Bush voting argument and the attempts to paint McCain as some radical right winger is that there are organizations that track the votes of congressional members. According to the Washington Post's Votes Database Project, Obama and the DNC's claims are 100% false.

McCain, unlike his Democratic Rival, has continued to maintain one of the highest levels of independence demonstrated by any US Senator since 2000. For instance, during the 110th Session of Congress, McCain ranked 65th among his colleagues having voted along party line 88% of the time, a far cry from the 12th place rank of Obama. Yet, McCain's voting record during the current session of Congress is likely to hold closer to party lines due to the nearly 50 bills that contained an Troop Withdrawal Timeline. During the 109th session of congress, McCain ranked 94th out of 100 Senators, having voted along party lines 79.4% of the time. This ranking and percentage are nearly identical to his 93rd place rank during both the 107th and 108th Congressional Sessions.

McCain has not voted with his party or George Bush 90% or 95% of the time. Obama's statistics are not based upon any actual statistical data, but rather a soundbite taken years ago at a highly partisan rally in which McCain made a misstatement. But then again, that misstatement would be no different from the fact that even Obama and Biden can't seem to keep the rhetoric straight. McCain should take Obama to task on the partisan voting issue, after all, Barack Obama, the self-proclaimed moderate, has voted along party lines more often than even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have.

That's right, according to The Votes Database, During the 110th Congressional session running from Jan 2007 to now, Senator Obama ranked 12th among 100 Senators, having voted along party lines 96% of the time; an amazingly high percentage for someone who claims to be able to reach across the isle. The Obama campaign and pundits will argue that Obama's voting record during this session was driven by a need to shore up support among his base supporters. Yet, if that were true then we would expect his record during the 109th session of Congress to reflect a greater level of moderation. According to the Vote Database Project, During the 109th session Obama was ranked 5th in the Senate having voted along party lines 94.8% of the time. Ironically, during both sessions of congress, Obama voted along party lines more often the Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid, and Senator Kerry. For a candidate who talks about unity and his ability to work with the side, he certainly has not demonstrated it. After all, how can a candidate claim moderation when the current Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has crossed party lines during the past two sessions of congress more often than Obama?

Summary - Candidates voting with their party.

Rank & % of time voted with party
2007-2008
Obama - 12th - 96.0%
McCain - 65th - 88.0%

2005-2006
Obama - 5th - 94.8%
McCain- 94th - 79.4%

2003-2004
Obama - NOT IN CONGRESS
McCain - 93rd - 84.5%

2001-2002
Obama - NOT IN CONGRESS
McCain - 93rd - 76.2%

These numbers are interesting, because I still don't see the 90% or 95% represented anywhere. But then again, I suppose that I could go through the voting record and find a three month period somewhere when McCain did vote along the same position as Bush and the party 95% of the time. But, by those standards, I could also take the 1 week period last year, when Obama supported the President's Immigration position and state that Obama voted with the president 100% of the time.

Obama is no centrist or moderate, he is a panderer willing to say anything based upon what group he is talking too, so long as it forwards his position. His voting record does not demonstrate any reasonable level of non-partisanship and has proven that he is beholden only to party leaders. His base of support has not come from moderate Democrats, it has come from the far-left power brokers intent upon control of the government.

John McCain's voting record has proven consistent with that of a candidate who unwilling to sacrifice his principles and beliefs in order to appease party leadership. He has upheld his ability to work with both sides of the isle. Democratic leadership can attempt to demonize McCain as a mini-me Bush, but the record will never support that claim.

J Brown
September 2nd, 2008

Get your free subscription to Online Magazine or o over 600 other free trade and industry publications courtesy of PDOP. No cost, no credit card, no bill. Online Magazine focuses on best practices in all areas of online marketing, including e-commerce, search engine marketing, optimization, email marketing, web analytics and affiliate marketing. Click Here To Order Your Free Subscription To Online Magazine or one of 600 Other Trade Publications.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader OffersWant to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article.

As Hurricane Gustav Makes Landfall, Barack Obama Is Giving A McCain Bashing Speech In Michigan!

The Time is 10:45AM CST, and as I write this short post, Levees in New Orleans are being topped, 1 barge and atleast 2 ships have broken free from their moors and Army Corps of Engineers ships are fighting to protect the levees from the ships. From the panhandle of Florida to Eastern Texas Hurrican Gustav's impact is being felt.

...AND WHERE IS SENATOR OBAMA, at a rally in Michigan giving a live speech on C-Span in which he is basking in the sun and bashing Senator McCain. Is this leadership?? Is this what we expect of our leadership?? Is this where Senator Obama should be and what he should be speaking about??

If Senator McCain or President Bush were in attendance of a Labor Day Parade followed by a speech, I guarantee that would have been branded by left-wing bloggers and media as aloof and out-of-touch. CNN and MSNBC would have gladly of broadcast pictures of the smiling faces while in the corner we watched NOLA being battered. Although Obama did cancel the remainder of the days campaign events, the idea that he happily attended a parade on the very morning that Gustav made landfall is ridiculous. If he wishes to be the president than he has an obligation to act presidential.

Although early news reports surfacing out of Detroit have centered upon the part of his speech that asked for prayer and donations for those affected by the storm, do not overlook the parts of his speech that were clearly political, partisan and completely uncalled, an UNPRESIDENTIAL, on a day such as today.

J Brown
September 1, 2008
Our school, a small parochial school, is currently holding their annual fundraising drive through Innisbrook Wraps. InnisBrook offers a large variety of Gift Wraps, Scrapbooking, Fine Chocolates, Gifts, & Holiday Specialties. Please help us help our school in their fundraising efforts. Purchases made through Innisbrook in no way help this site, 100% of the proceeds are directed towards their school. If you have enjoyed our site, then please visit Innisbrook and consider a small purchase. Please purchase through the link below as it assures the school gets credit.

CLICK HERE FOR INNISBROOK WRAPS

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article

Where's Gustav, Hanna, McCain & Obama? A Lesson In Leadership?

This morning, millions of Americans will wake up to a somber holiday in which celebrations of Labor Day will take a somber backseat to the events unfolding in along the Gulf Coast. Although Gustav has not strengthened to the level of its predecessor Katrina three years ago, its impact could likely be as devastating. Meanwhile, off the Eastern shores of the United States a second tropical storm, Hanna, is expected to increase in strength following the land fall of Gustav, and is likely to impact the Florida or the Carolina's as a hurricane by next weekend. As the Local, State and Federal Agencies and leaders sprung to action over the weekend, perhaps we should ask how the two most four most prominent political figures in the nation reacted.

John McCain, reacted quickly to the Gustav and Hanna by cancelling political events he had scheduled throughout the rust belt in order to head to Mississippi to meet with local and state officials. His trip was aimed to receive a first-hand briefing of the preparations and evacuation operations and to find out specifically what resources local and state agencies will need after landfall. Accompanying McCain, was his newly announced Vice Presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, the Alaskan Governor who can empathize first hand with the pressures exerted upon state government's during times of natural disaster.

The visit proved not to be a distraction, nor media circus, and local and state officials along the Gulf coast welcomed the visits and knowledge that such high profile politicians were there to ask what support they needed.

McCain halted his political attacks upon Barack Obama and quickly cancelled non-essential aspects of the Republican National Convention in Minnesota. He made a plea to all Americans to step forward to help provide relief to the millions who will be effected by the events transpiring this morning. McCain & Palin halted his campaign, joined other national leaders who had flocked to the scene and promised all the help he could to the affected regions. McCain's moves were not extraordinary by any means, but his actions were what all Americans would expect of their leadership.

Meanwhile a thousand miles away, Barack Obama stated that he empathized with the people of the Gulf Coast, but would not travel to the region because he did not want be a distraction or hinder the ongoing efforts of local and state officials. To me this was a strange response, considering that Obama criticized President Bush for his failure to be on site and lack of upfront leadership in the days prior to Katrina. Obama failed to set aside his elections efforts when he failed to halt his campaign and his attacks on John McCain. Obama and Biden spent Sunday at multiple political rallies throughout Ohio and Michigan relentlessly attacking the McCaign Campaign with little mention of the events unfolding. On Sunday night, even as the fist effects of Gustav were being felt along the Gulf Coast, Obama was a late-night rally in Michigan practicing partisan politics at its worst. As for today, labor day, as of this morning there had been no signal from the Obama campaign that they would change their politically driven schedule of rallies, no signal that he would begin to set aside partisanship.

Obama has called for action as he has stated that his campaign will push his donor database to contribute to relief efforts after the Hurricanes hit. On Sunday morning, Obama stated that they would wait until after the Hurricane made landfall so that they could see what relief items were needed. Personally, I felt it was strange that he would appeal to his donors rather than all Americans. Additionally, wasn't the biggest problem in Louisiana and other states following Katrina, the Wait-&-See approach of the Fema and Administration at the time. Hurricane Relief is not rocket science, everyone knows what essential materials and items will be needed in the coming weeks.

The reactions of the campaigns can speaks volumes for leadership. There is a time for politics as usual in this nation and there is time for nothing more than genuine leadership. A visit to John McCain's website will offer you a front page with a single message, a call to service, volunteerism, and a link to donate to multiple hurricane relief funds. In the lower corner you will find a small link to take you on to the campaign website. A visit to Senator Obama's website, as of this morning will take you to his campaign website, with the top announcement area linking to the American Red Cross along with links to "Barack Accepts the Nomination", Michelle's Speech", Barack Has Chosen Joe Biden" and of course the Weekend Of Action Item : "Organize For Change - Find An Event".

Only time will tell over the next few days if local, state and Federal leadership got it right, but as of this morning it certainly appears that coastal evacuations have gone much better than anyone expected and the preliminary reports have applauded the response and planning of local, state and Federal officials. Natural Disasters provide our leadership a needed learning experience in preparations and post-event operations, why any of our nations leadership would not be on hand to obtain first-hand knowledge is beyond me.

J Brown
September 1st, 2008
Our school, a small parochial school, is currently holding their annual fundraising drive through Innisbrook Wraps. InnisBrook offers a large variety of Gift Wraps, Scrapbooking, Fine Chocolates, Gifts, & Holiday Specialties. Please help us help our school in their fundraising efforts. Purchases made through Innisbrook in no way help this site, 100% of the proceeds are directed towards their school. If you have enjoyed our site, then please visit Innisbrook and consider a small purchase. Please purchase through the link below as it assures the school gets credit.

CLICK HERE FOR INNISBROOK WRAPS

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics
Be Sure To Visit Our Friday Coffee Break Section For Reader Offers
Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article