Archive for the ‘Election’ Category

h1

Cartoon: Clinton / Obama

August 3, 2009

h1

Palin Vs. Kerry (And MoveOn.org)

July 16, 2009

Palin Vs. Kerry (And MoveOn.org)

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 16 July 09

Politics: John Kerry, replying to an op-ed Sarah Palin wrote on cap-and-trade, suggests the Alaska governor “check the view from her front porch.” What she sees from there, senator, is energy wealth going to waste.


Related Topics: Global Warming


The political death of Sarah Palin has been greatly exaggerated. In a devastating op-ed in the Washington Post, Alaska’s governor exposes the cap-and-tax fraud that has nothing to do with earth’s temperature and everything to do with government control of the economy.

She also exposes the stealth socialism ambitions of the Democratic left and once again points out the availability of abundant “shovel-ready” resources under America’s soil, off America’s shores and even in America’s rocks.

Judging from the reaction from Sen. Kerry and the political arm of George Soros, one must ask: If Palin is spent as a political force, why is everyone on the left so worried and talking about her?

Kerry took to the ultraliberal Web site Huffington Post to object to Palin’s description of “the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax” as “an enormous threat to our economy.” In Alaska, she wrote, “we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, energy and security.”

Kerry, who opposed the Cape Wind project off breezy Cape Cod because a wind farm capturing energy from ocean breezes might spoil his view, went ballistic. In a thinly veiled reference to Tina Fey’s “Saturday Night Live” skit, he repeated the warm-monger mantra that the “global climate change crisis threatens our economy and national security in profound ways” and that “Gov. Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be.”

What Palin sees is a cap-and-tax plan that will result in a “dried-up energy sector” that even the sponsors of the Waxman-Markey bill anticipate, or they wouldn’t have included a provision providing $4.2 billion over eight years for newly unemployed energy workers.

It’s not just the energy sector that will be devastated. Palin notes that “even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan.” We have cited an analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation that found unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

Kerry responded that Palin failed to mention that “jobs in our emerging clean energy economy grew nearly 2 1/2 times faster than overall jobs since 1998.” That’s easy when you start from almost zero. Note that 1998 is also the year the earth started cooling, with not a warmer year since. There’s even been snow in Malibu.

From Palin’s front porch, senator, she can see “the largest private-sector energy project in history” — her “3,000-mile natural gas pipeline (that) will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America.”

From Palin’s front porch you can also see the 2,000-acre part of ANWR’s frozen tundra that contains 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil (such estimates often underestimate actual yields) and that could supply all the oil needs of Kerry’s Massachusetts for 75 years.

And from her front porch, Palin can see the Chukchi Sea northwest of Alaska’s landmass. Awaiting development there, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 30% of the world’s supply, and 83 billion barrels of oil, 4% of global conventional resources.

MoveOn.org began e-mailing members Tuesday, asking them to fund a rapid response ad blasting Palin’s op-ed. Soros’ group said Palin was positioning herself as the face of conservative opposition to Obama’s energy policy, telling supporters her op-ed was “a marvel of misinformation and outright lies.”

What really hurts is Palin’s truth. Kerry and MoveOn.org say Sarah Palin must be stopped. We say, drill, baby, drill.

h1

Obama Spends $950,000

June 22, 2009
Get a load of this
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. – In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.  To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.  The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain ‘s Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.< br>
In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey .. This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources “to block disclosure” of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to20comment on the matter.

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS THAT THE MEDIA WON’T EMBRACE!

STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER DEVOLOPMENTS!
h1

ANNE WORTHAM

June 17, 2009

ANNE WORTHAM

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution.

She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association.

She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the Nation al Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.


In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer’s television series, “A World of Ideas.” The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas.

Dr. Wortham is author of “The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness” which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues.

She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.
Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004,she was awarded tenure.

This article by her is something:

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America .

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America , all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America .

Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that “fairness” is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that a man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest.. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destr o ying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won.  Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.

So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, BlackAmerica. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good.

There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness. God Help Us all…

h1

Pipeline, Not Pipe Dream: Credit Palin

June 15, 2009

Pipeline, Not Pipe Dream: Credit Palin

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 15 June 2009

Energy: Exxon Mobil’s surprise decision to join Trans-Canada on a vast Alaska gas pipeline project is a big step toward making the U.S. self-sufficient in domestic energy. By defying naysayers, Sarah Palin is now vindicated.


Read More: Energy


It must be sweet vindication for Alaska’s governor. Against critics who said her 1,712-mile natural gas pipeline project would never get off the ground, who should the project bag but the “big gorilla” of American energy — Exxon Mobil.

In a major surprise, Exxon announced Thursday that it had forged a partnership with TransCanada, the Canadian pipeline company that holds the state license for Palin’s $126 billion Alaska Gasoline Inducement Act project.

It’s a big vote of confidence in Palin’s top project from a by-the-books company known for its rigid investment standards.

“We evaluated all the options and it came down to our belief that this approach with TransCanada and Exxon Mobil was going to be the most successful project,” said Marty Massey, U.S. joint interest manager of Exxon Mobil Production Co. He said Exxon might look at expanding its participation.

Rival oil firms had whispered to IBD that it would never happen. “It’s gonna happen and we’re very excited about this development,” Palin told “Good Morning America” on Friday.

Doubters of Palin’s pipeline plan were numerous.

Some said the pipeline would be too big to work, and that a rival BP/ConocoPhillips project, called Denali, would doom Palin’s plan because Alaska didn’t have enough natural gas for both.

Exxon’s tilt toward TransCanada suggests the oil giant believes that’s not true. Exxon is America’s largest company, with extraction rights to a third of all Alaska’s gas reserves. It can use them to fill either pipeline. “We will make a decision based on commercial reality,” Massey said. “But . . . why would we put our money and not our gas in the pipeline?”

Obama administration officials who had nothing to do with this, like Energy Secretary Ken Salazar, rushed to claim credit too.What better vote of confidence could there be?

Other doubters had suggested the pipeline could never happen because of a global gas glut, making the pipeline uneconomical. But with the project slated for completion in 2018, and the need for natural gas expected to rise between 20% and 40% by 2030, it’s precisely now that such a project should be built.

“I think it’s very shortsighted” to assume that “market conditions are going to stay as they are today,” Palin told CNN. In an interview with IBD last July when gasoline hit $4 at the pump, she noted that if drilling had started in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge just five years ago, when policymakers were dismissing the idea of $100-a-barrel oil, “we wouldn’t be in our predicament today.”

This is another in a series of successful steps to build the world’s largest commercial construction project. For this, credit Palin. Despite the too-hip ridicule of comedians like David Letterman, she was the one who got the pipeline past Alaska’s legislature, something governors had tried — and failed — to do for 30 years.

Other partners are sure to join, and the near-impossible task of bringing Alaskan energy to the continental U.S. is that much closer.

If there are any doubts left, note that it’s Alaska’s officials giving Palin the most credit. As Deputy Natural Resources Commissioner Marty Rutherford told IBD, Palin relentlessly drove this project, walking the process through the bureaucracy, asking questions, even going to Texas on Thursday to hear from Exxon itself.

“We’re sitting here and in a short two-and-a-half years we have two premier companies in the world moving this process forward,” said Alaska Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin. “Thank you Gov. Palin, thank you participants and thank you Alaskans.”

With praise like this, maybe it’s time Palin started getting some attention for helping to secure America’s energy future — and less for having to defend herself from the dirty jibes of over-the-hill comics.

For Americans tired of high energy prices and dependence on foreign energy, Palin’s hitting some very big home runs indeed.

h1

Justices Mixed On Clinton Movie

March 25, 2009

Anti-Clinton film focus of top court case

by: MICHAEL DOYLE McClatchy News Service
Wednesday, March 25, 2009

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices gave decidedly mixed reviews Tuesday to efforts to regulate “Hillary: The Movie,” as they considered a case that may shape future election campaigns.

Everyone agrees the 90-minute film is vehemently anti-Hillary Clinton. The justices disagree on whether it’s tantamount to a political ad that can be regulated, or a documentary that enjoys full free-speech protection.

“I saw it,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “It’s not a musical comedy.”

The arguments in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, indicated that the Supreme Court will produce another sharply fractured decision guiding campaign finance rules. The justices are expected to issue a ruling before early summer.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer suggested that they consider the film the kind of campaign advocacy that’s subject to reasonable regulation. By contrast, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito cast the campaign-finance regulations as an infringement on the First Amendment.

Alito drilled home the point that campaign books might be banned next if the Obama administration prevails in the argument that campaign-finance restrictions extend to a lengthy documentary.

“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito said, to say that “if a campaign biography was published, that could be banned.”

A conservative group called Citizens United produced “Hillary: The Movie” and released it in January 2008. Featuring conservative commentators such as Robert Novak and Ann Coulter, the movie repeatedly describes Clinton with words like “cunning,” “ruthless,” “deceitful” and “Machiavellian.”

At the time of the film’s release, Clinton was a New York senator in the midst of the Democratic presidential primary, which she eventually lost to Barack Obama. Now secretary of state, she was at the time considered the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“This documentary is the very definition of the robust, uninhibited debate … that the First Amendment is there to guarantee,” said Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration solicitor general who represents Citizens United.

Corporations and labor unions long have been banned from directly funding political campaigns, although they can establish political action committees. A 2002 campaign-finance law extended the restrictions to cover ads that seek to sway voters without explicitly calling for a particular vote.

The 2002 law blocks corporations and labor unions from funding such “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Individual contributors also must be disclosed.

Citizens United showed the movie in six theaters nationwide. The organization also wanted to pay $1.2 million so the movie could be distributed through a video-on-demand service.

h1

Obama Campaign Promises

March 12, 2009