6 Things Biden Pick Says About Barack Obama

A response to JIM VANDEHEI & JOHN F. HARRIS of Politico.com and their pitiful screed, a portion of which appears below:

"6 things Palin pick says about McCain

The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential and the most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decision-making — and some of it is downright breathtaking.

We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain.

1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states, such as Indiana and Montana, that the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.
   
   McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike..."

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah...

Last week, Barack Obama made his long anticipated selection of who he believes would make a good vice-presidential running mate. He chose Joe Biden, the Democrat Senator from Delaware. "Plagiarizer Joe," as he is affectionately known, was a good, solid choice. He is far more qualified than Barack Obama to be President (as is McCain's choice for vice-president, Sarah Palin).

In fact, I would be far more comfortable if this election was between John McCain and Joe Biden rather than between John McCain and Barack Obama, as we would be facing a choice between two qualified candidates rather than one qualified candidate and one neophyte, still wet behind the ears, politician.

We would also be facing an election between two capitalists rather than one capitalist and one hardcore Marxist.

Well enough fantasy, it's time to examine the implications of Obama's choice.

1. He's desperate: At a time when every MSM pundit and all Democrats expected Obama to be up in the polls by double digits, he is either tied or slightly in the lead. Most Americans are beginning to have doubts about Obama's fitness to lead. He is a neophyte with less experience than any previous presidential candidat in history, in either party.
   
   He has never led any large organization, never run any governmental entity or business, and achieved nothing that would lead people to believe he was up to leading the greatest nation on Earth.
   
2. He's willing to gamble: Barack has chosen a man who very clearly believes he is not prepared to take on the burdens of the Presidency. Barack has also chosen a man who believes his opponent is more qualified for the Presidency than is Obama.
   
   Biden is a loaded gaff gun just waiting to go off. Such a choice exudes desperation on the part of the Annointed One.


3. He lacks "gravitas:" Barack Obama has no foreign policy experience, has never dealt with any crises, and in his first opportunity to respond to a "3:00 AM phone call moment," he choked. His first reaction was to call for an immediate meeting of the United Nations Security Council so they could pass a resolution calling for Russian troops to withdraw from the sovereign nation of Georgia.
   
   Apparently Barack Obama doesn't know that Russia is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council and would veto any such resolution.
   
   Obama is not ready for prime time.


4. He is worried about his image as an elitist: Joe Biden is everything Barack Obama isn't, down to Earth, working class, and patriotic.
   
   You will find no pictures of Joe Biden refusing to salute the flag. Joe Biden is the son of a blue collar guy, and rather than living insid the Washington Beltway, Biden commutes to his home in Delaware to be with his family...every day.
   
   No concern about the price of arugula there.


5. He's worried that he only appeals to Liberals and Blacks: Obama knows he must broaden his appeal to moderates and independents. He also needs someone on the ticket who knows how many states there are in the United States.


6. He's not his own man: It has been obvious for some time that Obama is being supported and run by those on the Left. He gets tremendous support from Goerge Soros front groups like Moveon.org.
   
   He is the figure head for a cabal of socialist/communist true believers who would see this nation destroyed in order to institute their own corrupt, utopian view of what America "should be," a nation in the thrall of special interest groups like the gay rights movement, the pro-abortion movement, the African American Elites of the NAACP, the Ivory Tower "Intelligencia" of academia, and the tin-hat brigade of "9-11 truthers" and America haters of dailyKos and the democraticunderground.
   
   The Biden pick gives him at least some semblance of being independent.

The American people are beginning to understand and doubt Barack in a way they have never before shown. The more information that comes out about "Barry Soeto," the more doubt grows.
Is he prepared for the Presidency? Is he qualified to govern this greatest of nations? Is he even legally qualified to stand for the office?

The courts will decide the last, as they examine Obama's birth records, but at least one lawyer and long time supporter of Hillary Clinton doesn't think so.

A presidential candidate's choices say a lot about how he will govern. Obama's decisions, so far, suggest he will govern as Jimmy Carter did...incompetently.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hurricane Gustav: Democrats Place Politics Over Lives

It's bad enough that Democrats, for the past 5 years, have worked tirelessly for our defeat in Iraq. Now Democrats are celebrating the arrival of killer Hurricane Gustav and the destruction it will cause all along the Gulf Coast, simply because it will disrupt the Republican Presidential Convention.

Democrats, both their candidates for the Presidency and their members of Congress, have spent the entire war in Iraq, seeking to undermine the moral of our troops while, simultaneously, bolstering the moral of our enemies...even to the point of providing al Qaeda's propaganda machine with talking points.

First the opposed the "McCain Troop Surge" (so named by them, not by McCain or any Republican), then, before the president had even gotten the surge troops into Iraq, they were busy proclaiming the surge a "failure."

Once the troop surge was in full swing, Democrats made every effort to portray the surge as a failure, even as its success was becoming so obvious that members of the mainstream media were forced to comment that violence was receding and political gains were being made.

So determined were Democrats to win the 2008 election, they and their annointed leader continue to deny the efficacy of what has now become one of the most successful operations in military history.

Defeat at any cost has become the battle cry of the Democrat Party. So focused are the Democrat leadership on winning the upcoming election, that they would willingly sacrifice the Iraqi people and the lives of our troops it they could bring about a defeat.

So now they have turned the "compassion" toward the people of the Gulf Coast, laughing at the approaching Hurricane Gustav and claiming that it is proof that "God is on our side."

Former DNC chairman was caught saying the following:

"[laughing]...it looks as if the storms going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is, at least it appears now that it will be there on Monday. I think that demonstrates that God is on our side. Everything's cool."

Mr. Fowler certainly seems to find it amusing that millions of people are going to be dislocated, millions of dollars of people's property will be destroyed, and some will probably die. Truly Democrats are the compassionate, caring party.

Can you imagine if some Republican was caught saying such a thing? Remember the uproar that Pat Robertson caused when he declared that the 9-11 attacks were God's retribution for our nation's embracing of the homosexual agenda...and he wasn't even an official of the Republican Party. Yet now we have a former chairman of the Democrat National Committee giggling like a school girl over the misfortune of the millions of people who live on the gulf coast.

Of course the ghoulish Mr. Fowler isn't the only Democrat saying these things, the indescribably grotesque pig, Michael Moore also finds the approaching disaster amusing.

Michael Moore: Hurricane Coming During GOP Convention 'Proof There Is a God in Heaven'

Controversial filmmaker admits he's delighted to see a natural disaster potentially interfere with the Republican event.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/30/2008 12:13:18 AM

Sometime you really have wonder at what cost some are willing to see their political ideology advanced.

To liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, the bounds are seemingly endless. Moore has made a recent career out of attacking President George W. Bush, bashing conservatives and criticizing business. His latest outrage occurred on MSNBC’s August 29 “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and when he commented about the coincidental timing of an unfortunate disaster – the potential for Hurricane Gustav to make landfall at the beginning of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said, laughing. “To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”

After that comment, Moore backed off a bit and did say he hoped nobody got hurt and he hoped everybody is taking cover. However, he failed to make note of the $43.625 billion in damage the last hurricane to strike New Orleans caused – Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – and the billions of dollars the storm cost taxpayers.

Ha, ha, ha...yes Michael, you and your fellow traveller Keith Olbermann yuck it up. It's just soooo funny that millions of people's lives are going to be turned upside down. I am certain that they are happy to lose all of their posessions for your amusement, you cold-blooded bastard.

What you won't here from these losers. What the mainstream media will avoid at all costs is mentioning the profound difference between the reactions of Republican Governors in this crisis versus that of Kathleen Blanco, the then Democrat Governor of Louisiana during Katrina.

The difference was evident even during Katrina in the manner in which Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of Mississippi handled Katrina. Mississippi was even more devastated by Hurricane Katrina than was Louisiana, they got the "dirty side" of the storm yet little of the whining, chaos, and lawlessness so prevalent in Louisiana was evident there.

Now, Louisiana has a Republican Governor, Bobby Jindal. Governor Jindal informed the RNC that he would not be going to the Republican Convention several days ago, once it became apparent that Hurricane Gustav posed considerable threat to his state. He has already activated the Louisiana National Guard, unlike Blanco who waited until Hurrican Katrina had already wreaked havoc in her state and stranded hundreds of thousands of her citizens.

We can see the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Governor Perry of Texas, a Republican has begun preparations for a mandatory evacuation of the Texas Gulf Coast. Bobby Jindal the Republican Governor of Louisiana has, as I have already stated began evacuating the citizens of New Orleans and the Louisiana Gulf Coast and is doing it in such an organized fashion that the residents of New Orleans are praising him.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (a Republican) issued his declaration of a state of emergency three days ago (August 28th), saying:

“I urge all Mississippians to please take this storm seriously. One of the most important lessons we learned after Hurricane Katrina was that there is no substitute for awareness and self-help, especially in the days before a hurricane is predicted to hit. Now is the time to prepare yourself, your family and your friends.”

Pay attention Democrats, this is how you are supposed to handle a crisis. Too bad Democrat Kathleen Blanco chose to wait for the Federal Government to do her job for her. I guess that's what comes from being a Big Government Democrat. Republicans know that you don't wait for FEMA to solve your immediate problems. Republicans know that FEMA is not, was not, and was never intended to be a first responder.

What do Democrats offer America? Compassionless incompetence and political expedience over solutions. Anybody out there remember Hurricane Floyd? Bill Clinton's FEMA failed in its duties even more than did President Bush's FEMA under Michael Brown's" supervision. A full month after Hurricane Floyd, the residents of North Carolina and Virginia were still waiting on relief. If Brown was incompetent, what does that say about Clinton appointee James Lee Witt?

The difference...there was no major city below sea-level (New Orleans) and no collapsed system of levees during Floyd, yet the aftermath was as disasterous. If the Katrina disaster was shameful, the Floyd disaster was criminal.

These merry comments at the expense of the lives of Democrat's fellow citizens prove beyond any doubt the truth McCain spoke when he said:

“This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Jimmy Carter Proves Once Again, Democrats Have No Class

Well, former President "Malaise" Jimmy Carter, the most incompetent president in the history of America, the man who almost single-handedly destroyed our nation (he did have the assistance of a rubber stamp Democrat controlled Congress}, the man who gave us double digit inflation (in excess of 18%), double digit unemployment (over 12%), and double digit interest rates (over 22%), and the man who gave us the most useless and wasteful cabinet level departments in government-the Department of Energy and the Department of Education-has taken it upon himself to launch a personal attack against Republican Presidential nominee John McCain.

This clown prince of the Democrat Party, the man who single-handedly repelled an attack by the killer bunny rabbit, had the temerity to accuse Senator John McCain of "milking every drop possible" from his experience of 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war.

Carter: McCain 'milking' POW time

By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY

DENVER — Former president Jimmy Carter called Republican presidential candidate John McCain a "distinguished naval officer," but he said the Arizona senator has been "milking every possible drop of advantage" from his time served as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Carter spoke Thursday with USA TODAY and Gannett News Service reporters before Barack Obama's acceptance speech to cap off the Democratic National Convention. Carter spoke of Obama's challenges facing the lingering effects of racism in the United States and the ability of the Clintons to bring their supporters over to Obama. He decried Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's decision to "abandon" the Democrats by speaking at the Republican convention next week.

Carter, however, focused heavily on McCain. He said he was bewildered by McCain's performance at the Saddleback Presidential Forum hosted by pastor and author Rick Warren in Lake Forest, Calif., earlier this month.

Carter said that whether he was asked about religion, domestic or foreign affairs, every answer came back to McCain's 5½ years as a POW.

...And his experience in the military was...??? Oh yeah, while running for president, he lied about his service, claiming that he was a "nuk-yer" [sic] (later corrected to "nuc-u-ler") engineer in the United States Navy's submarine fleet.

The truth about "Jimmah" is far different. He served (according to Wikipedia)

"on surface ships and on diesel-electric submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. As a junior officer, he completed qualification for command of a diesel-electric submarine."

He was discharged from the Navy, at his request following the death of his father, on October 9,1953. That's right folks, this self-proclaimed "nuk-yer engineer" never served on a nuclear submarine. The first SSN was the Nautilus which was launched January 17, 1955; over a year after Carter left the Navy...Talk about "milking" an experience...he didn't even have.

I think all those years spent underwater on diesel-electric submarines gave the peanut farmer from Plains a wet brain. When you think of Jimmy Carter's military experience, think of Ensign Parker from McHale's Navy. How dare he criticize John McCain's record?

But Carter wasn't simply incompetent in domestic policy, he was a disaster in the international arena as well; giving away the most strategically valuable asset America had, the Panama Canal Zone, standing idly bye as the Soviet Union invaded and attempted to crush Afghanistan (oh yeah I almost forgot, he boycotted the 1980 Olympics, my what a great and powerful response), and subjecting America to one of the most humiliating experiences in our history, the Iranian hostage crisis, with its consequent misguided and disastrous attempted rescue mission.

I wonder that anyone would trust the judgment of a man who has said:

"Every election Hugo Chavez has won has been completely open and fair."

Our Jimmy does have an interesting definition of "fair."

On the other hand, he did say of Obama, before he entered the Democrat Presidential race:

"I just don't think he's got,yet, the proven substance or experience to, to be the president."

I guess it just proves that even an incompetent, lying, idiot can occasionally lapse into telling the truth.

Like most Democrats these days...no class, no competence, no integrity...no how.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President McCain? Sarah Palin Named as Republican V.P. Nominee

Today Republican Presidential Nominee apparent, John McCain, named Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his proposed vice-presidential nominee.

I can only say, "HOMERUN."

Following the Democrat Party nominee's snubbing of Hillary Clinton and her 18,000,000 supporters by not even considering her for the Democrat Party vice-presidential spot, America's moderate voters are now granted a vision of what the Republican Party, the true "big-tent party," is all about.

While Democrats pay lip-service to supporting minority and women's rights, the Republican Party proves it through the actions. Republican President George W. Bush had more minority members of his cabinet than any Democrat President in history. Now Republican nominee and soon to be President of the United States John McCain will have the first woman vice-president.

As for Democrats, the panic has already set in. They immediately began scrambling to dig up dirt on the new nominee. The first response is daring and hysterical...they are questioning her qualifications by claiming she "lacks the foreign policy experience" for the office...lacks experience? Are they kidding?

Only Liberals could have the Hubris to criticize in their opponents vice-presidential candidate that which holds true in their own Presidential Nominee.

From Breitbart:

Obama campaign highlights Palin's 'zero' experience

Aug 29 01:11 PM US/Eastern

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign on Friday blasted his Republican rival's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a running-mate, highlighting her "zero" foreign policy experience.

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Burton also criticized Palin as a vice presidential pick for her support of oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and her anti-abortion stance, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the United States.

"Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies. That's not the change we need, it's just more of the same," he said.

Democrats have no shame. Now that's not news, but this is a solid reinforcement of that knowledge.

They field the least qualified, least experienced candidate in living memory as their annointed candidate for the office of President and then dare to criticized Governor Sarah Palin's qualifications? That my friends is hubris.

Sarah Palin begins this campaign more qualified to be our president than Barack Obama is after a year and a half of campaigning for the office. The question remains, what qualifies Barack Obama to be president, other than his race? What has he run? What organization, what business, what political entity has Barack run that qualifies him to run the nation?

His is a paper thin resume which culminates with his 143 days (spread over 3 years) as a senator. Sarah Palin enters the race as having accomplished what Obama claims he will do if he becomes President, reform a corrupted government.

Sarah Palin moved into the Alaskan governorship and immediately began dismantling the excesses of her predicessor. She already has a stronger and more compelling resume than Barack Obama...that's right folks, the Republican vice-presidential nominee is more experienced and qualified for the Presidency than the Democrat presidential nominee.

This is a master stroke by John McCain. In a single decision he devastated the Democrat Party's ticket and robbed them of any and all the press coverage they expected to receive following their convention.

As I said in my last comment about McCain, following his magnificent performance at Saddleback, he continues to grow in stature in my view. He continues to impress.

Go John Go! McCain/Palin 08!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Waiting for Rescue

By Brooke Dollens Terry

If public charter schools are really so bad, then why are tens of thousands of Texas students standing in line for admission?

The State of Texas, which prides itself on everything being bigger and better, does not have enough room for every student who wants to attend the public school of their choice. Last year, at least 16,810 Texas students were on a waiting list to attend a public charter school. Imagine the entire Pearland school district on a waiting list.

This large waiting list demonstrates a tremendous parental and student demand for educational options besides their government-assigned public school.

Houston’s regional waiting list was the largest, with 7,415 students waiting to get into a charter school last year. The Dallas/Fort Worth region had 5,896 students on a waiting list, while the Rio Grande Valley had 2,110 students on a waiting list.

Most Americans are unfamiliar with charter schools. In fact, only 20 percent of Americans can correctly identify a charter school as a public school, according to a Center for Education Reform national poll.

Charter schools, while subject to less government regulation, are public schools funded with public funds. Charter schools cannot charge tuition, teach religion, discriminate, or cherry pick students.

Charter schools serve more students who are academically behind their peers than traditional schools, with many focusing on hard-to-serve students and students at risk of dropping out. As a result, charter schools serve a higher percentage of minority and low-income students than traditional schools. In Texas, 81 percent of students in charter schools are minorities, compared to 60 percent in traditional public schools.

When a charter school has more applicants than room for new students, the school holds a lottery to determine which students may attend. Imagine parents, whose child is trapped in a low-performing public school, crying for joy that their child is randomly selected to attend a school with a track record of serving at-risk students with innovative strategies.

With tens of thousands of students dropping out of Texas public schools each year, it is ridiculous that state policy prevents students from obtaining an education in a setting that best meets their needs.

Some education associations, policymakers, and reporters fixate on a few poorly run and mismanaged charter schools as a reason to cap enrollment or limit student choice. Abuse of public funds is unacceptable – whether by a public charter school or a public school district – and the Texas Education Agency should always investigate and pursue such misconduct wherever it occurs.

But depriving thousands of students more educational opportunities because of a few bad actors makes no sense. It is like saying an exemplary school district should have its enrollment capped or be prevented from expanding because a different school district mismanages its finances and fails to teach its students.

Overall, charter schools are meeting the individual needs of many students in innovative ways with less government funding. Unfortunately, state lawmakers have capped the number of public (open-enrollment) charters to only 215. With 210 active charters, the cap may be reached this fall leading to more students waiting to attend a charter school.

Texas charter school enrollment is a drop in the bucket compared to traditional public school enrollment with only two percent of the more than 4.6 million students in Texas public schools attending a charter school last year. The last thing that Texas needs to do is stifle competition in the area of public education. Each and every child’s education is too important not to allow them the opportunity to attend a public charter school if they choose.

The Texas Legislature should eliminate the cap preventing new public charters from opening and allow charters to operate in a free market.

Ultimately, parents, not government, should decide where their child attends school. Until that day arrives, Texas has at least 16,810 students waiting for rescue.

Brooke Dollens Terry is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Texans demand accountability for education dollars

A Hoover Institution scholar, Roger A. Freeman, in bygone times observed wryly that popular support for dumping more and more public dollars into public education called to mind the alchemists of yore, who never managed to turn base metals into gold, but, say, what did that prove? Only – so far as the alchemists themselves were concerned – that the experiment hadn't been tried long enough.

The emotional linkage of alchemy and the more-money-for-public-schools movement is an unhappy one – a reminder that baseless and unwarranted faiths can be as stubborn as, well, education lobbyists, making their umpteenth pitch for another financial transfusion.

What's heartening, at last, is that the public may be catching on to the emptiness of the lobbyists' arguments.

Consider a brand new poll by the University of Texas-Austin's government department and Texas Politics Project. The poll – which shows opinion evenly divided on the quality of the public schools – indicates that just 37 percent of Texans see increased funding as the remedy for the schools' record of stagnant or declining achievement.

By contrast, 56 percent see more accountability as the answer. There we go at last. At a minimum, we're pointing in the right direction – away from money as plasma for laggard schools, toward insistence on performance in exchange for such money as the schools receive.

No one capable of correctly adding one and one suggests that money – for teachers, for books, for scientific equipment, for buildings – bears no relationship to educational attainment. Many teachers, as if we didn't all acknowledge it, deserve a lot more money than they make. The point is that education unions, egged on frequently by school officials and editorial writers, more than suggest such a connection. They demand the taxpayers acknowledge it.

Higher public school funding, of course, isn't merely burdensome for taxpayers. It's diversionary. It deflects attention from – as Texans seem to suspect – our cultural and political reluctance to hold accountable those schools and teachers and principals who just plain don't get the job done.

Not that "accountability" doesn't present issues of its own. Texas, by calculation of the Brookings Institution, has relatively strong accountability standards (unlike, according to Brookings, "irresponsible" states like Minnesota, Maine, and Tennessee). There's a difference, all the same, between merely setting standards and actually using them as prods to steady improvement. The Texas Education Agency reported Aug. 1 that 66.6 percent of school districts and 43 percent of campuses received the "academically acceptable" rating – a grade, in effect, of C. Thirty-seven districts and 217 campuses came in as flatly "unacceptable."

No less a public figure than Bill Hammond of the Texas Association of Business – whose members depend on a predictable flow of competent recruits to the workplace – complained this summer about enforcement of the standards.

Hammond accused the Texas Education Agency of disingenuousness in setting standards with so many escape clauses that not to attain a particular benchmark requires some craft. Or some plain old-fashioned incompetence.

"For too long," Hammond said at an Austin press conference, "the TEA has fostered an environment where number games and bureaucracy cast a shadow over public education. A third of our high school students cannot graduate high school in four years.

"Instead of focusing on the root causes of poor performance, TEA is lowering standards and manipulating statistics, which ultimately victimizes our children from receiving the type of education they richly deserve."

It all suggests how much more there is to real improvement of the schools than simple recognition of their problems. And yet, when a clear majority of Texans profess to see accountability as the likeliest remedy for improvement, as contrasted with perhaps the least likely remedy, that of turning on the money spigots – well! Even an alchemist or two might be moved by the sight.

"Texas taxpayers, families, and – most importantly – students," Hammond said, "deserve an education system that ensures our children are prepared to meet the challenges of college and the job market."

A 24-karat appraisal, you might say. No alchemists needed or wanted.

William Murchison is a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Joe Biden to be Obama's Veep: Republicans Rejoice

Barack Obama continues to star in the DNC remake of "A Comedy of Errors" as he selects Joe Biden (D-DE) to be his running mate in the upcoming election.

An amusing observation on this pick; it blunts the attack by the Obama Campaign repeatedly against John McCain, that McCain was on the wrong side of the decision to vote to go to war against Saddam Hussein, Biden voted with McCain on the resolution. So...it begs the question, if McCain (and Biden) made the wrong judgment in voting for the Iraq War Resolution, then what does that say about Obama's decision to select Biden as a running mate?

As for Biden, he is an absolute gift to Senator McCain's campaign. His mouth outstrips his brain so frequently, that he has been called a "gaff machine." He described Senator Obama as:

"the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

and in another racist gaff:

"In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking,"

Such comments have long been fodder for his political opponents.

More to the point, Obama has been the target of that same self-absorbed, arrogant, and often mean-spirited tongue. Those comments will come back to haunt him and Obama this fall. Statements such as his criticism of Barack's Iraq policies:

"My impression is he thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany" of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. "I've seen zero evidence of that."

These gaffs leave both senators vulnerable to attack from McCain.

Biden's own recommendation for Iraq was to effectively dismantle the nation and divide it into three separate "federations" along ethnic lines. Truthfully, his recommendation was far more reasonable than Obama's, but far more short-sighted and naive than Senator McCain's long fought for and now proven successful strategy of the troop surge.

Biden on Barack:

• "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate."
• “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic" [on Iraq]
• “One thing is clear: These weapons must be must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power.” [Voting for the Iraq war]

Jim Gerhaty of NRO (National Review Online) provides a fairly comprehensive list of "Bidenisms" for the interested:

On McCain:

• Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”
• Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”
• On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”
  
  On Obama:
• Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”
• Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
• Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”
• Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
• Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”
• Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”
• December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”
• Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”
• September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.
• December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

See the full list.

The man is a font of quotable material, most of it to the detriment of the Obama/Biden hopes of winning the 2008 Presidential Election.

This predilection of his to speak out of turn is a certain sign of his arrogance. That arrogance, which he shares with Obama, has been evident throughout his career in the U.S. Senate. Biden has always believed himself far cleverer than he is.

He is known for his long, rambling, condescending, speeches in committee hearings, in which he attempts to trap witnesses with the transparent ruse of complementing them and seemingly agreeing with them right before he asks what he thinks will be (but rarely is) a devastating question; a performance which has long since lost its charm and become hollow and tiresome rather than witty. He routinely performs this act while donning a frozen, meaningless smile, more reminiscent of a fox stalking his prey, than a senator interested in discovering the truth.

So what do other Democrats think of Joe Biden? Democratic Pollster Geoff Garin said of Biden,

"The basic rap against Biden is that he's a candidate of style, not substance."

Well that makes two of them.

It will be fun to watch to whom Joe Biden (a.k.a. "The Plagiarizer") will turn for his rhetorical gems. The search engines are replete with references to Biden's penchant for pirated prose. Will it be more tales from former British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock's biography, or will it be a few unattributed pages of the Syracuse law review?

I'll end this blog with a great quote from Walter Shapiro in his Sep. 28, 1987 article on Biden (my emphasis added):

"In the end, Biden may be remembered as the candidate who truly offered the voters an echo and not a choice."

Wahoo! Break out the popcorn, this convention is going to be a hoot.

Oh yeah, and don't be surprised if we come out of this convention with Hillary Clinton being the nominee of the Democrat Party. Since Obama began his slide in the polls, I have detected a bit of "buyer's remorse" in Obama's committed "super delegates." Remember, they are technically free to change their minds at any time in the convention. The die is not cast until Obama actually gets enough delegate votes to win the nomination.

I doubt that his doubters would have the guts to make such a choice since it would alienate a great many African American voters, but it is still an outside chance worth remembering.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation publishes Texas charter school waiting list

Foundation publishes Texas charter school waiting list

Nearly 17,000 Texas students waiting to enroll in charter schools

AUSTIN – School will open on Monday, but nearly 17,000 Texas children will find the doors to their preferred charter schools locked, according to a report released today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“Last year, at least 16,810 Texas students were on a waiting list to attend a public charter school,” said Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Terry. “Imagine the entire Pearland school district on a waiting list.”

The Foundation’s new report, “Calculating the Demand for Charter Schools,” is the first attempt to compile a Texas-specific waiting list for charter school enrollment. The report provides a statewide total (16,810) as well as regional breakdowns.

Terry said the reason so many students are unable to get into charter schools is because the Texas Legislature has capped the number of open-enrollment charters at 215. There are currently 210 active charters, and the State Board of Education is expected next month to grant the last five allowed under current law.

“If this cap is unchanged, the waiting list could get larger with more students being prevented from attending a charter school,” Terry said. “In 2009, the Texas Legislature should eliminate the cap so that new charters can meet the overwhelming parental demand.”

Terry noted that charter schools are public schools, and that many serve groups of students who are behind academically upon entering the charter school – such as high school dropouts or students at risk of dropping out because they are teenage parents, drug offenders, in foster care, or homeless.

“Many charter schools focus on students who have fallen through the cracks of the public school system,” she said. “Rather than writing these students off, we should increase the range of educational settings and options available to them so that they can receive the education they’ll need to be productive citizens.”

About the Texas Public Policy Foundation: TPPF is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas.

About Brooke Terry: Ms. Terry is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats Looking Desperate, Out of Touch, Dishonest

I guess truth will out. True to their nature, Democrats are turning to distortion and lies in effort to bolster Obama's faltering campaign.

Today Obama, as Senator McCain predicted in Saturday Nights Forum, attacked McCain's humorous comment that "$5 Million seems about right" when asked where you draw the line between rich and middle class.

Obama rips McCain for $5 million "rich" definition

Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:36pm EDT

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (Reuters) - How much money makes a person rich? That's the latest question dividing Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. presidential race.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped Republican rival John McCain on Monday for joking during a televised discussion on values that $5 million fit the definition for being monetarily rich.

"I guess if you're making $3 million a year, you're middle class," Obama told a campaign event in New Mexico.

"That's reflected in ... his policies," Obama said, adding McCain would give a $500,000 tax credit to people making more than $2.5 million.

I guess when you are polling far worse than you had expected, in a year that is supposed to be a Democrat Party year, you have to resort to distortion and lying to bolster your poll numbers.

Even worse for Obama, his answer and his response to McCain's answer proves just how debased his sense of morality and justice is. Obama is "all in" when it comes to the redistribution of wealth, or as I like to call it, Communism.

Whereas Obama's answer was predictably shallow and focused on generating discontent and class envy, by defining anyone who makes over $250 Thousand as "rich" and worthy of higher taxes, McCain's answer focused on what is really important, i.e. home and hearth.

The question asked of both candidates was:

"Define rich." Everybody talks about taxing the rich, give me a number.

Obama's answer was standard Liberal Democrat boiler plate, class envy stuff:

"Look, here's how I think and this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150 Thousand a year or less as a family, then you are middle class, or you may be poor. But 150 down, you are basically middle class. Obviously it depends on region, where you are living...I would argue that if you are making more than $250 Thousand, then you are in the top 3, 4 percent of this country. You are doing well.

Now these things are relative and I'm not suggesting that everybody that is making over $250 Thousand is living on easy street, but the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then we've got to pay for these things...

What I'm saying is, under the approach that I'm taking, if you make $150 Thousand or less you will see a tax cut. If you are making $250 Thousand or more, you will see a moderate increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code..."[I'm leaving out all of the side political talking points here]

McCain's answer to the same question invokes what most Americans intuitively know, money doesn't equal happiness and that wealth in America is not a "zero sum game." One person being wealthy does not necessarily mean that others must be poor. So his answer to the same question:

"Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich is - should be defined by a home, a good job and education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited.

I don't want to take money from the rich; I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth, but I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as "rich," my friends, who want to raise their taxes and raise their payroll taxes.

Let's have - keep taxes low...So, I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 Million?...The point is, that I'm trying to make here seriously - and I'm sure that comment will be distorted - but the point is that if we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues, and my friend, it was not taxes in America in the last several years, it was spending..." [Again, leaving out some of the dross]

True to McCain's prediction and Obama's character, that $5 Million comment has become one of the main talking points among the Left-wing moonbats...including, as can be seen above, Obama.

Obama is losing and Democrats are getting desperate. Further witness to this fact is the sudden and growing claim that McCain "cheated" by somehow getting access to the questions before hand, and that Pastor Rick Warren was in on the "cheat."

How very Liberal of them. Their man loses...badly...in this back to back conversation forum and, rather than sucking it up over the loss and learning the lesson from their bad showing, they choose rather to impugn the reputation of their host and their opponent.

Even sadder than all of this dishonesty and personal attack, is the fact that the questions asked of each candidate are not questions that lend themselves to last minute preparations. They are questions that any mature adult should be capable of answering without preparation...They are "life questions."

As McCain, with his extensive experience and knowledge, predictably shone in this forum, Obama, with his lack of substance and experience, predictably stumbled and failed.

This result is not due to "cheating" it is due to life experiences. It was, or should have been as predictable as the sun rising.

Obama's lack of character, which manifested itself Saturday night in his inept handling of the questions asked by Rick Warren, is further amplified by his attempt to distort what was obviously a joke by McCain into a policy statement.

Obama's star continues to sink, as his opponent begins to outshine him.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

McCain Shines at Saddleback, Obama Hesitant, Equivocal

Will Malven
8/16/2008

Score one for McCain.

In the forum at Pastor Rick's Saddleback Church Obama was hesitant, vague, and clearly outclassed by McCain.

This may have been the most lopsided debate in American Presidential politics since Ronald Reagan demolished Jimmy Carter in 1980. It most certainly was McCain's best performance of this campaign and possibly of his entire career.

Where Obama came off as ambiguous, McCain came off as knowledgeable and specific. Where Obama came off as hesitant and equivocal, McCain came off as decisive and straight forward...and McCain's sense of humor was very much in evidence.

The reason for this lopsided result was clearly a matter of the candidates' core beliefs. For McCain, the answers came easily because all he had to do was state what he believed. For Obama the answers were strained because he was forced to calculate his responses.

A Democrat with national political aspirations who may personally feel abortion is an evil must be careful in his answers not to offend the pro-abortion faction. Questions about national defense must be answered with a view of not offending the large anti-war faction, and questions about education must be addressed without offending the teachers' unions and other Liberal special interest groups.

On topic after topic Liberal Democrats face a minefield every time they are asked to state their views on difficult issues. Every response must be weighed for how it will be seen by their various special interest groups. They cannot afford to be straight forward because they know that their core values are far out of step with the majority of voters.

For a man with strong core values very much in line with those of the American people, like John McCain, a forum like this at Saddleback Church is a cake walk. All he must do is speak from the heart and his answers will resonate with the audience because as honesty always does. He doesn't have to pause or hesitate. He doesn't need to stutter or vocalize his thought process with "um" or "uh" while he searches for the response he feels will make him look best to the voters.

Faced with difficult questions, Barack Obama invariable stutters as he searches for just the right message. A performance like Obama's is an object lesson in self-awareness and self-obsession. It is an exercise in vanity. For candidates like Obama, the question which is always being asked internally is, "How do I answer this question so that I will appear to be wise and just?"

Contrarily, for candidates like McCain, the underlying question is much less stressful, "What do I believe?" As a result, the answers from Obama are necessarily hesitant and equivocal and the answers from McCain are necessarily straight forward and rapid.

This contrast was made manifest in the fact that McCain's responses were so rapid that Pastor Rick was able to ask him additional questions simply to fill out the allotted time.

As my regular readers know, I have never been much of a McCain fan. In fact, I have been quite hostile in my early editorial comments about McCain, but one aspect of McCain's character has always been evident and that is his record as a straight shooter. Tonight's "debate" (actually back to back interviews) only served to further illustrate that trait of Senator McCain's.

I must admit, I was very impressed with Candidate McCain in this arena and it has warmed me considerably to his candidacy.

The contrast between the two has never been made clearer. McCain is a man of the people and a strong advocate for America. He is a man of strong conviction.

Obama is a man of opportunism and expedience. Honesty, including self-honesty is not his strong point.

The night was clearly Senator John McCain's...no if's, and's, or but's about it, round 1 goes to McCain.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Harold, TX Teacher Concealed Carry Ruling Good News for Teachers, Parents, and Students

At last!

A school district with some brains. Hopefully this will be a "camels nose under the tent" scenario and other Texas, and national, school districts will follow suit.

Small Texas school district lets teachers, staff pack pistols

By MARK AGEE
Fort Worth Star Telegram
Posted on Fri, Aug. 15, 2008

When classes start Aug. 25 in the tiny Harrold school district, there will be one distinct difference from years prior: Some of the teachers may have guns.

To deter and protect against school shootings, trustees have altered district policy to allow employees to carry concealed weapons if they have a state permit and permission from the administration. The 110-student district lies 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth on the eastern end of Wilbarger County, near the Oklahoma border.

More than a dozen state legislatures have considered making it legal to carry guns on college campuses, but experts and officials contacted by the Star-Telegram say the move is unheard of in elementary or secondary schools.

Superintendent David Thweatt said a main concern was that the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff’s office, leaving students and teachers without protection.

American Concealed Carry Licensees have a sterling record when it comes to choosing if they should fire their weapons and are less likely to be involved in any criminal activity that the general population. That goes for all age groups.

This policy is in the best interests of all concerned...except for any miscreant. If people are truly interested in protecting our kids in school, they should immediately jump on this band-wagon.

There is no rational argument against teachers and other adult school employees being able to carry firearms as long as those individuals meet the minimum requirements for permitting, according to state laws.

That concealed carry laws are a deterrent to violent crime has now been proven beyond any reasonable objection. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean fewer crimes, both violent and non-violent.

The Harold, Texas school district's decision is the right decision and hopefully will lead to many, many more school districts making the same choice.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

New Expansionist Russia Must Be Opposed with Strength, Not Appeasement

Following close on the heels of the Russian invasion of the sovereign nation of Georgia, Russia's top military commander, Anatoly Nogovitsyn has upped the ante by threatening Poland with military action should the former Soviet satellite nation continue in their agreement with the United States to have an anti-ballistic missile system built within their borders.

The threat includes, most disturbingly, the threat of a nuclear strike. America and the rest of the world cannot permit this kind of nuclear black-mail to go unchallenged.

Following the attacks on 9-11 we turned our attentions toward the Middle East, almost to the exclusion of the other threats to our national security. We assumed that with the fall of the former Soviet Union the threat of expansionism from Moscow had ended and that we were all good friends.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. Do to that neglect, Russia has been gradually reverting to its former oppressive, Soviet-style, domestic policies and military aspirations of building a hegemony.

In trusting to the (erroneously assumed) good will of former President Vladamir Putin, the Federation Council, and the State Duma, we in the West, especially here in America, have made a grave miscalculation.

When President Bush met with Putin and "looked into his eyes," he didn't see reality, he saw what he wanted to see. Historically Western democratic leaders have been naive when facing aggressive despots like Putin. Because democratic nations lack any aspirations of conquest, they have the foolish tendency to assume that other leaders and governments share their values.

The only difference between Bush's inane statement about Putin that, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue," and Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" statement, was the lack of any immediate negative consequences. The same Western naivete was present and has proven to have equal potential for disasterous consequences, as we have witnessed in Russia's invasion of Georgia.

Because of that benign neglect and our American leaders' inability to discern reality from wishful thinking, we are again on the brink of a "cold war."

Russia's imperialistic dreams are no longer driven by the failed and antiquated ideology of Karl Marx's communism, they are driven by a lust for wealth and power. Putin and his puppet government are looking further into their past to the days of tsarist Russia, a no less dangerous and oppressive regime.

As with Hitler and Stalin's Soviet Union, this new Russia must be faced with strength, not negotiation and appeasement. America and the other democracies of the world must send a powerful and unambiguous message that their expansionist desires are not acceptable.

Placing the entrance of Georgia and the Ukrain into NATO on a fast track would be a good first step. Threatening Russia's membership in the WTO and the G8 would be good additional disincentives for their further aggression.

We must not back down in the face of these renewed threats from Putin and his gererals.

We in the West must learn from the testimony of those who have fled Russia for the greener pastures and freedom our democracies offer.

Former KGB operative Sergei Tretyakov warned us of this "new Russia" when he said in his book, Comrade J:

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and Russia entered into what was supposed to be a new era of cooperation. The Cold War was behind us. We could become friends. Many in the U.S. believe today the old Spy-versus-Spy days are finished. The September 11 terrorist attacks shifted the American public's attention away from Russia toward international terrorism, especially Islamic fanaticism. Russia was suddenly, and is today viewed as, an ally, even a friend of the U.S.

In speaking out, I hope to expose how naive this is. During the Cold War, in the Soviet military doctrine there was the definition of the MAIN ENEMY, which was also used by intelligence as a basic guiding principle. It was the United States, followed by NATO and China. What is the official guiding line for the modern SVR today? The terms have changed. It is now called the MAIN TARGET. But it is exactly the same: the United States, followed by NATO and China. Nothing has changed. Russia is doing everything it can today to embarrass the U.S."

In 2007 Tretyakov amplified his warnings, saying:

I want to warn Americans. As a people, you are very naive about Russia and its intentions. You believe because the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia now is your friend. It isn't, and I can show you how the SVR is trying to destroy the U.S. even today and even more than the KGB did during the Cold War.

Western democracies can no longer afford to assume the good will of nations like Russi