TPPF COMMENTARY: A Bailout That Sacrifices Freedom for Dependency

Throughout our nation’s history, the size and scope of government has grown by leaps and bounds during times of crisis, financial or otherwise. The political class’ natural instinct is for government to rush to the rescue, particularly when an election is near. The current financial meltdown appears to be no exception, as our government responds with a $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout that is at best a Band-Aid and at worst a more deadly strain of the same disease.

Rather than punishing taxpayers, an array of smarter options is at the government’s disposal: abandon cheap-money policy; remove financial incentives that make home purchasing so easy for those who don’t yet have the means to own a home; let solvent firms naturally emerge from the mess while firms without sound business models go under; just to name a few.

Many people have played into the hands of big-government apologists by arguing that free markets are "better" because "they work," rather than defending freedom as a fundamental, God-given right for everyone.

I was fortunate to be with Margaret Thatcher once in England when she reminded a group of Americans fretting about a temporary dip in the stock market: "The most important word in the phrase 'free markets' is not the word 'markets.' You cannot justify your freedom based on today's Dow Jones Industrial Average." Her words ring true, as Bush appointees scramble to stoke the engine of our economy by tossing in ever-larger quantities of our tax dollars and freedom.

Charging the Federal Reserve, investment bankers, and politicians to "solve" this crisis is like deputizing arsonists to fight a wildfire. The central enabler is the government, with Wall Street hucksters as eager accomplices. It’s time to let the market sweep away decades of excessive leverage and loose monetary policy.

Worrying about a repeat of the Great Depression is a valid concern. But check out hyperinflation in Germany in the 1930’s or Zimbabwe in 2008 before you decide that flooding the world in dollars is a better idea. Free from intrusive governmental tinkering, markets will clear soon enough, even if it means many speculators are wiped out.

Pouring in more government dollars into bailouts may rescue a few Wall Street bondholders, but it will only harm the average American. In the end, vesting large amounts of economic power in a few government officials simply is a bad idea. It won’t work any better here than it did in the former Soviet Union. The world economy is too complex to be managed in a top down fashion, even by a Wall Street dealmaker and a Princeton economist.

Benjamin Franklin once warned: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The seeds of this problem were sown long ago, and the financial bill will be paid one way or another. The only question is how much freedom Americans will lose in the process.

Jeff Sandefer is the founder of the Acton School of Business and serves on the board of directors of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

What do you think?

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

TPPF COMMENTARY: Economic Damage From Ethanol Mandate Will Continue

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson’s denial of Gov. Rick Perry’s request for a 50 percent waiver of the federal ethanol mandate came and went without much fanfare. But the economic damage from this market distorting policy will continue to increase.

Far worse is yet to come, as this year’s ethanol mandate of 9 billion gallons expands to 12 billion in 2010 and to a whopping 36 billion in 2022 – an amount that would consume more than today’s entire U.S. corn crop.

Those who deny ethanol’s role in today’s food inflation need a reality check. This year’s dramatic 9.8 percent rise in the Producer’s Price Index and the 6.7 percent six-month increase in the Consumer Price Index for food is undeniably tied to a tripling of the price of a bushel of corn in less than four years. Food inflation not seen in 20 years, these CPI rates coincide with the first year of implementation of the ethanol mandates enacted in late 2007.

Economists at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the United Nations recently concluded that 70 to 75 percent of the unprecedented increase in global food prices results from international bio-fuel policies, among which the United States is the dominant player.

If the price of the main raw material in a product triples within a few years, the price of the retail product necessarily will increase. Roughly 80 percent of the production cost of eggs is the price of feed grain made from corn. The retail price of eggs has increased more than 30 percent in the last year. Similarly, dairy products have double-digit price increases driven by a 50 percent production cost in feed grain.

The price of flour has soared 33.8 percent during the first half of this year. The price of pasta and cornmeal rose 40.6 percent. Higher and higher corn prices lead farmers to plant more acres to corn and less to essential food grains like wheat. In 2008, 234.8 million acres were planted to the four major U.S. crops (corn, wheat, soybeans and cotton). To meet the expanding bio-fuel mandates, five million additional acres of corn will be needed in 2009.

The EPA evidently was convinced by ethanol proponents who claim that the price of corn is a minor player among multiple inflationary forces. Of course, fuel prices, a weak dollar, and rising foreign demand influence domestic and international food prices.

Ethanol proponents, however, misleadingly claim that oil price is the main culprit. Crude oil prices influence food prices because corn is now valued more as a fuel source than as food. The omission in this claim: the federal ethanol mandate largely created the fuel value of corn, a generous tax credit buttressed that value, and an import tariff protected the domestic price.

Since all taxpayers eventually must make up for the federal revenue lost through ethanol tax credits, taxpayers are indirectly financing their own food inflation! In 2008, the tax credit will amount to approximately $4.6 billion. In 2015, the amount approaches $7.6 billion under a 15-billion gallon mandate. The aggregate loss to the U.S. Treasury under the current law is $1.6 trillion of ethanol tax credit in 2022.

Gov. Perry’s wise request for EPA to waive 50 percent of the annual ethanol mandate was widely supported. Twenty-five U.S. senators, including both Texas senators and presidential candidate John McCain, have called for a waiver or repeal of the mandate. The EPA received 15,000 comments on the waiver. Many organizations devoted to world hunger support the repeal of America’s current ethanol policy.

U.S. energy policy has been supplanted by counterproductive environmental policy. Built on mandates, subsidies, trade restrictions, and bans on production, federal energy policy operates like slipshod energy central planning. Let ethanol compete in the market without government preference.

Food inflation is just one of the reasons why our federal ethanol policy must be repealed.

Kathleen Hartnett White is Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. She is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

What do you think?

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

TPPF COMMENTARY: Consumers Lose with Texas' Burdensome Insurance Regulations

Why do Texas homeowners pay insurance rates that are much higher than the national average? And why can’t coastal residents obtain private windstorm insurance coverage?

Weather plays a role – Texas endures arguably the most severe and wide-ranging weather risks in the nation – but so does Texas’ unreasonably burdensome regulatory structure.

The Texas Insurance Code permits the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) to reject filed rates before they are used in the marketplace. This runs against the Texas Legislature’s stated preference for a file-and-use regulatory system, where insurers may use rates immediately after filing them. Such pre-market regulation costs insurers – and thus consumers – time and money.

TDI’s focus on “excessive” insurance rates also contributes to our current woes. Again with authority from the Code, TDI may reject “excessive” rates, defined by statute as “likely to produce a long-term profit that is unreasonably high in relation to the insurance coverage provided.” But what is “excessive” for one person is not necessarily “excessive” for another. And why should a government agency get to decide what is an “unreasonably high” profit? How often do you hear governmental concern about a business loss being “unreasonably high”?

There is simply no one-size-fits-all solution for insurance prices, and attempts to impose one wreak more havoc on consumers than the supposed problem.

For example, a focus on blocking “excessive” rates risks putting TDI in a position where it cannot ensure “adequate” rates, another call of the Code. The very rates that TDI might reject as unreasonable may be the ones that ensure a company remains solvent.

If “excessive” rates enter the market, consumers retain the option to go elsewhere for more affordable coverage. But if rates that enter the market are too low to keep insurers solvent, consumers are in danger of losing their coverage altogether and doling out even more money to get reinsured.

Consider the current funding crisis of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA), the state’s provider of windstorm insurance. Because of below-market rates and a corresponding failure to enforce TWIA’s status as the state’s provider of last resort for windstorm insurance, TWIA has seen an explosion in the number of policies in force and in its overall exposure. As of August 31, 2008, there were 224,468 TWIA policies in force – up from 68,756 in 2001– and TWIA’s total exposure was $66.6 billion.

However, prior to Hurricane Ike, TWIA could cover less than $2.1 billion in losses. As claims from Ike will eclipse TWIA’s reserves, Texas taxpayers will be forced to bail out the state for losses that should have been covered by TWIA were reasonable policies in place.

Fortunately for Texas insurance consumers, the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission acted on Wednesday to address the shortcomings in Texas insurance law. It recommended measures that will provide insurers greater clarity and predictability during the rate-setting process. More regulatory certainty will attract companies to Texas, expanding the choices available to consumers.

The Commission’s recommendations strengthened the transition to a true file-and-use regulatory system. If the Legislature follows suit next session, rates will respond more quickly to market conditions, and more insurers will compete aggressively for Texas consumers.

The Commission also took important steps to fix our broken windstorm insurance system. TWIA’s rates were too low because its methodology relied exclusively on Texas storm damage from the last 30 years, during which Texas saw only one major storm. But modern hurricane loss models have proven to be reliable tools for setting windstorm insurance rates. The Commission recommended that TWIA be allowed to join the rest of the world in using such models.

Finally, to slow TWIA’s dramatic growth, the Commission recommended that applicants for TWIA coverage be required to provide written proof of two declinations from windstorm insurers writing policies in Texas.

Enacting these measures during the upcoming legislative session will provide Texas consumers the benefits of increased competition and greater insurance availability. Texas’ homeowners’ insurance market will be better equipped to handle – and Texas’ tax dollars will be at much less risk from – the next catastrophic storm to strike our coast.

Drew Thornley is an economic freedom 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

Foundation praises Sunset Commission support for competitive insurance reforms

AUSTIN – Today, the Sunset Advisory Commission approved reforms that will make the Texas homeowners’ insurance market more competitive and reduce costs for both consumers and taxpayers.

“The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) has been in regulatory limbo for the last five years,” said Foundation policy analyst Drew Thornley. “With these reforms, its marching orders are now clear: step back and let open competition bring down rates.”

The Sunset Advisory Commission adopted its staff’s recommendation to strengthen the transition to file-and-use insurance regulation. Prior to 2003, TDI regulated insurers under a “prior approval” model, where companies had to file their proposed rates and be approved by TDI before they could be used. Under “file-and-use,” an insurer is supposed to be allowed to use a rate as soon as it is filed with TDI, with the department allowed to reject a rate after the fact if it is determined to be “excessive.”

“The 2003 law added file-and-use without fully repealing prior approval,” Thornley said. “Having both systems on the books has created an erratic regulatory climate where insurers are hesitant to sell policies. Consumers pay a high price when government regulators limit the choices that the free market can provide. Though the commission report keeps prior approval under certain circumstances, it requires the department to limit its use and provide clear definitions.”

Thornley cited his recent research, which showed that competitive insurance reforms adopted by Washington, D.C., Illinois, and South Carolina attracted insurers, lowered or stabilized premiums, and decreased the size of residual markets, which are markets for insurance applicants that primary markets deem too risky.

The Foundation also applauded the commission’s support for reforms to TWIA so that it functions as a true “provider of last resort” rather than a first option for windstorm insurance coverage.

“Texas has been warned for at least a decade that TWIA’s rates did not accurately reflect the risks to coastal communities and that TWIA’s funding mechanism would not survive a major hurricane strike to the Texas Gulf Coast,” Thornley said. “Sadly, Hurricane Ike broke our windstorm insurance system, putting Texas taxpayers on the hook for a costly bailout. We must fix TWIA to prevent additional damage to Texas homeowners and taxpayers.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas.

Drew Thornley is a policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the co-author of the recent report “Consumers, Competition, and Homeowners’ Insurance: A Sunset Report on the Texas Department of Insurance and the Office of Public Insurance Counsel.”

The Sunset Advisory Commission is a legislative advisory committee that reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies once every 12 years.

– 30 –

What do you think?

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

Texas PolicyCast: Bailing out on freedom

This week, Congress is considering a financial system bailout that would give the U.S. Treasury Secretary the authority to buy up to $700 billion of bad debt off of Wall Street balance sheets. But will this plan shore up our wobbly economy and calm our turbulent credit markets, or will it kill the value of the dollar and set off a vicious inflation spiral? And even more importantly, what effect will this plan have on our freedom? To probe these questions, we bring you a conversation with Jeff Sandefer, president of Sandefer Capital Partners, teacher at the Acton School Business, and a member of the Texas Public Policy Foundation board of directors.

What do you think?

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

Iraqi Oil Ministry Awards Oil Contract to China: Thank Chuck Schumer

Well, Senator Chucky Schumer (D-NY) "the bank destroyer" strikes again.

It seems that Iraq had planned to award 6 no-bid contracts to Western oil companies for rebuilding and improving their oil existing oil production facilities with an aim of increasing production by 200,000 barrels/day.

This didn't sit well with Chucky...we can't have those evil "Big Oil" companies making more money, it might create jobs for Americans and we all know that creating jobs is only a good thing when Democrats do it.

So Chucky, the execrable Senior Senator from New York, assisted by three of the other usual Democrat "Hate America First" suspects, Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), John Kerry (D-MA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), sent a letter to the State Department complaining about the contracts.

Here's part of the text:

"We are concerned that U.S. policy regarding these oil contracts has not been clearly defined, communicated or consistently implemented by the Iraqi government, the Kurdistan Regional Government and international oil companies seeking to do business in Iraq..."

In response, Harold Geisel who is the acting Inspector General of the State Department, informed these meddling, anti-American, anti-business senators that he was initiating an investigation. This in spite of the stated policy, as confirmed by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that:

"The United States government has stayed absolutely out of the matter of the awarding of Iraqi oil contracts. "It's a private sector matter."

Once again the Democrat Party strikes a blow against the needs of the American people in their tireless pursuit of an electoral victory.

While not large by normal standards, these contracts would have opened the door for further investment opportunities.

Sounds like a good idea for a Western world strapped by rising oil prices and the plans, by OPEC, to cut production by 500,000 barrels/day.

Thank-you "Microphone Moth" Schumer!

Here's part of the International Herald Tribune report:

Iraq cancels six no-bid oil contracts

By Andrew E. Kramer and Campbell Robertson
Published: September 11, 2008

An Iraqi plan to award six no-bid contracts to Western oil companies, which came under sharp criticism from several United States senators this summer, has been withdrawn, participants in the negotiations said on Wednesday.

Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters at an OPEC summit meeting in Vienna on Tuesday that talks with Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Total, BP and several smaller companies for one-year deals, which were announced in June and subsequently delayed, had dragged on for so long that the companies could not now fulfill the work within that time frame. The companies confirmed on Wednesday that the deals had been canceled.

While not particularly lucrative by industry standards, the contracts were valued for providing a foothold in Iraq at a time when oil companies are being shut out of energy rich countries around the world. The companies will still be eligible to compete in open bidding in Iraq.

The six no-bid deals were for work to increase Iraqi oil production from existing oil fields by half a million barrels a day — the same amount by which OPEC countries agreed Tuesday to reduce output. After its cancellation of the deals, Iraq reduced by 200,000 barrels per day its goal of producing 2.9 million barrels per day by the end of the year.

So, instead of Western Oil companies like Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Total, BP, and the previously mentioned "smaller oil companies" gaining access to Iraqi oil, the Chinese have been awarded the first of the anticipated hugely lucrative oil contracts in Iraq.

Of course Senator Chucky and his erstwhile America haters prefer the freedom and liberty, so evident during the Beijing Olympics, in China to our oppressive, capitalistic corporations.

One truly has to conclude that these senators aren't simply misguided do-gooders looking out for the best interests of our nation; rather, they really do hate America. They really do hate capitalism. They really do want gasoline prices to reach outrageous levels so that they can implement, by force, their socialist, "greenist," agenda.

Well, I have a few choice words for these senators, most of them can be written with four letters, but I cannot use them here.

If you like big government running your life, I definitely suggest you vote Democrat. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will assure your live will be miserable as they institute their socialist agenda.

If however, you prefer freedom, capitalism and the legacies left to us by our Founding Fathers, vote Republican. At least then we will have a chance of maintaining our current system of government.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

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

Obama's Freudian Slip? "My Muslim Faith

Okay, I know this guy has been involved in (an extremist Black Nationalist) Christian Church for 23 years (listening to his "mentor" and spiritual leader, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, castigate and denigrate our nation) so he has the right to claim he is a "Christian" (even when the messages being preached from the pulpit for those 23 years are about as unChristian as one can get) and it is legitimate to claim that the question of his faith goes somewhat beyond the pail, but just listen to the following.



Can you say WHOOPS!!!!

Sigmund Freud would find this statement very interesting. This comment #137 from smith288, courtesy of freerepublic.com

"Freudian Slip: A Freudian slip, or parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is believed to be caused by the unconscious mind.

Me thinks, in trying to make his point about McCain never questioning his faith, he forgot to filter "which" faith and with many believing he is Muslim, forgot that little nugget and let it out. Thats Fruedian Slip defined."

Is Obama a Muslim? Well there is some body of opinion that, according to Sh'ria Law, he is. Do I believe he is a practicing Muslim...not really, but I do believe that he holds underlying sympathies towards the faith of his ancestors, and this slip of the tongue is a legitimate concern.

So I guess the snarky answer to the underlying question, "Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim?" is..."Only his Imam knows for sure."

I'm lovin' it here in Texas watching the Obama Inevitable Express self destruct.

Oh, just a thought, maybe the correct answer is "above [his] paygrade."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

By the way, if you are a real glutton for punishment, or if my video excerpt is removed out of copyright violation, here is a link to the entire ABC interview.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5745258

The slip occurs at "-2:48" in the interview countdown (it begins at -5:40).

What do you think?

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

Democrats Trash the Flag: Phony Patriotism in Action

Obama and the Democrat Party have taken great umbrage over Republican and Conservative questions and comments concerning their patriotism.

Obama even tried to make it a campaign issue when John McCain truthfully and accurately 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.”

For years, Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have attempted again and again to force the President to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Democrat Party Leadership has worked tirelessly for our defeat from day one of the war in Iraq.

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) even declared the war "lost" in Spring of 2007 only months after President Bush began the now remarkably successful McCain Troop Surge.

Up until his interview on Thursday's on The O'Reilly Factor, The Annointed One, Democrat Presidential Nominee Barack Obama, has steadfastly refused to give credit for the successes in Iraq to the troop surge and even then only reluctantly and with a lot of caveats.

Democrats were outraged that questions kept being asked why Barack Obama refused to salute the flag during the playing of our National Anthem or even wear a flag pin on his lapel.

Well the truth has become abundantly clear. At least for the elite in the Democrat Party, patriotism is viewed as a disease and if shown at all, it is done so with some considerable embarrassment.

They don't care for our nation. They hold our nation's flag, the flag that millions have sacrificed their lives to protect, in contempt...and now we have the proof.

This from the Denver Post:

Republican Recycling

by David Harsanyi
Denverpost.com
September 6, 2008

This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage — with dramatic effect, no doubt — and tell the story.

“What you see in the picture I sent you is less than half of total flags,” a Republican official emailed. “We estimate the total number to be around 12,000 small flags and one full size 3×5 flag.”

I’m not sure what the DNC was supposed to do with unused hand-flags, frankly. But the Republicans are obviously questioning someone’s patriotism here.

Obviously even the Mr. Harsanyi doesn't get it, but at least he managed to report it.

Here's a clue for all of you Democrats, including you Mr. Harsanyi, you don't throw them in the trash, you take them home. You carry them with pride. You treat them with the reverence they deserve and if you need to get rid of them, you burn them, not in the streets like our enemies and the hate America protestors do, but with respect.

Here is one of the fundamental differences between Democrat elites (note that I am careful to say "Democrat elites" and not Democrats, because I know that most people who vote for Democrats love their nation as much as we Republicans do) and Republicans. Republicans (and most Democrats) intuitively know how you treat a flag. We have been raised by our parents to respect the flag and what it represents. We understand what it represents and the price others have paid so that we can raise that flag.

For the record, the Boy Scouts recovered an estimated 12,000 American Flags. The Republicans will be using them during the campaign as a reminder to all who care, which party is the party that respects our flag, our nation...and our military.


Democrats don't care and they can't even understand why they should.

Do you wonder why most of those who serve in our military vote Republican? They know the truth...and now you do too.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

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

The Sarah Palin Effect: Obama Sends Female Surrogates to Fight

So...Obama, increasingly appearing like a fighter on the ropes following the stellar performances of Vice-Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin and Presidential nominee John McCain, has decided to send Democrat women out to do his fighting for him.

Well, this is not to be unexpected from a metro-sexual political neophyte, spawned of the Daley-South Chicago Political Machine, who believes that surrender is the best option when the going gets tough, but it is still worth noting...primarily for what it says about his understanding of the American electorate.

There is no doubt that the selection and stellar performance of Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, has set the political world and the Democrat Party on their collective ears.

Strong, witty, intelligent, beautiful, and accomplished, Sarah Palin is an imposing new presence in the political arena. She is already being compared to former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Israeli P.M. Golda Meir, and the late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan...pretty lofty company.

First in her being chosen as a running mate by John McCain and later in her galvanizing...electrifying acceptance speech, Sarah Palin impressed. She has proven herself a "game-changer." She has also proven herself to be a formidable attack dog.

Unable to respond himself and having failed to destroy her with lies, distortions, and smears using the usual Democrat Propaganda Machine (virtually the entire mainstream media-ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, US Magazine, etc., etc.), we are now informed that Obama has sent out "female surrogates" to do his fighting for him.

Here is the Herald Tribune's take on it:

To counter Palin, Obama to dispatch female surrogates

By Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny
Published: September 5, 2008

ST. PAUL: Senator Barack Obama will increasingly lean on prominent Democratic women to undercut Governor Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain, dispatching Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Florida on Monday and creating a rapid-response team to deploy female surrogates to battleground states, Obama advisers said on Thursday.

Clinton's campaign event in Florida, her first for Obama since the Democratic convention last month, will include a forceful response to the searing attacks and fresh burst of energy that Palin injected into the race with her convention speech on Wednesday night, Obama aides said.

With the McCain-Palin team courting undecided female voters, including some who backed Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Obama aides say they are counting on not only Clinton but also Democratic female governors to criticize their Alaskan counterpart, Palin — and, by extension, McCain — including Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Still, within the Obama campaign and among Democratic officials nationwide, talks are well under way about how the party should treat Palin in the final two months of the campaign — and what Obama and his running mate, Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, need to do to regain the offensive after the Republican convention.

This ploy will fail, just as the despicable assault by the MSM failed. It will fail not because the strategy is flawed, it will fail because-as usual-it and the Democrat Party fails to comprehend what the Palin phenomenon is about.

Governor Palin's attraction is not about all of those qualities I listed above, though they certainly add to it. It is that sense of genuineness, her innate authenticity, her appeal as an "every woman" that has struck an accord among those who watched her magnificent speech Wednesday night and those qualities, especially that the last one, his surrogates don't have.

Senator Hillary Clinton, Governor Janet Napolitano, and Governor Kathleen Sibelius, however accomplished they may be, lack Governor Palin's innate connection to the everyday homemaker-professional woman.

None of them have had to balance raising a large family with running a large organization. None of them have Governor Palin's compelling biography. None of them have begun their careers as "hockey moms." They all lack the common touch.

Hillary rose on the coat tails of her husband's (President Bill Clinton) career and his notorious womanizing. She "made her bones" by standing by her man through his struggles to survive his impeachment. She won her election as the junior Senator of New York by playing on the sympathies of the Liberal electorate of that state.

Governor Napolitano first achieved fame by being Anita Hill's lawyer during the Democrat Party's attempted lynching of Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. As a reward, she was appointed to be the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by President Clinton. She is a creature of and a creation of the Democrat Party Machine.

Governor Katherine Sibelius is the daughter of former Ohio Governor John Gilligan. She moved to Kansas in 1974 and began a long, successful career in politics by serving eight years in the Kansas State Legislature.

All three of these ladies are lifelong politicians. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm merely pointing out that all three got where they were with the aid of strong political insiders and the assistance of the Democrat machine.

What Sarah Palin has achieved, she has achieved on her own. She began as a housewife who was tired of the political corruption and incompetence in her own town. She has spent her career in fighting against the very type of political nepotism that Obama's surrogates represent.

More than that she has achieved what she has while raising a family with the same high morals and love of country that most American family women share. She is a "hockey mom" who still (up until she became the Republican Nominee for Vice President) drove her children to school and herself to work.

Obama, as another product of the Democrat Political machine, complete with his Ivy-league education and his stint as an Ivory Towered law professor, cannot match Governor Palin's connection with the voters.

Yes Obama's biography is a compelling story, but since his humble upbringing, he has wallowed in the Political trough. His concerns seem to be more about the price of arugula than the price of gasoline.

There is little doubt that Sarah Palin presents the Democrat Party and the Obama Campaign with a daunting challenge, just as Senator McCain's own compelling biography presents them with a daunting challenge.

This latest move just proves that Democrats still "don't get it." It is not Sarah Palin's gender that presents a problem; it is who she is and what she represents.

It will not matter how many women Barack Obama sends out to do his fighting for him, unless they can relate directly to the life experiences of the likely Palin voters, their efforts will fail.

Democrats still don't get it. Character matters. Morals matter. Obvious and unapologetic love of God and Country matter.

God, guns, guts? The phrase may be trite among the elites in Washington D.C. and among the tinhat Leftists who control the Democrat Party, but it accurately captures the soul and heart of the real America.

You can't fake that and the Democrats just don't understand.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

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

Sarah Delivers in Spectacular Fashion

Tonight at the Republican Convention, Sarah Palin faced one of the most daunting tasks a candidate can face, introducing herself, to the nation and a virulently hostile press, as the Republican prospective next vice-president of the United States.

While the verdict, as dictated by the polsters may be 5 days away, for this voter, Sarah Palin may have delivered a near knock-out blow to the Obama-Biden campaign. If it wasn't a knock-out blow, it was certainly enough to stun the Obama Campaign and their initial response was as weak as a fighter coming off the mat after a solid knockdown

She was strong, she was confident, she was powerful, she was genuine, she was humble, she was, in short, everything Hillary Clinton wishes she could be but never will be...and she did it wearing a skirt.

Sarah Palin is every woman. Down to earth, proud of her family, trend-setting in a way the feminists have so often claimed "Stand By Your Man" Hillary Clinton to be, but never was. She is a mother, a governor, an unapologetic Christian, a gun-totin', speaker of truth to power who has successfully achieved things that Hillary (and Obama) could only dream about.

And how have the feminists reacted to this bolt of energy out of Alaska?

The very women who shouted out in anger when anyone dared to question whether or not a woman could simultaneously take care of her family and hold down a demanding job are now stone silent, or worse, joining in the mainstream media's reprehensible quest to destroy Governor Palin. They encourage the networks questioning Sarah Palin's ability and even her right to persue the vice-presidency while caring for her four month-old special needs baby.

In doing so, the "feminazis" have shown themselves to be what conservatives have been saying about them for decades, shills for the Left's destructive agenda. They are not about women's rights, they are about Liberal politics and socialist policies.

But Sarah tonight gave a face and a new name to feminism...real feminism.

She has shown that real feminism, faith in family, God, and her own ability to achieve whatever she desires, is a Conservative concept, a Republican concept. Worse yet, she stole an issue Democrats have always attempted to appropriate for themselves, caring for special needs children, and made it a solidly Republican issue.

Tonight Sarah Palin gave notice. She's here, she's for real, and she's the most formidable woman in American politics today, Hillary not withstanding.

To say the Sarah Palin woke up the Republican electorate would be an understatement. The Republican Party is galvanized like it has not been since the Reagan Revolution.

More importantly and more fun for us, tonight the very foundations of the Democrat Party were shaken to their very core.

In a face off, Sarah Palin would eat Hillary's lunch, combining more experience, more charm, grace, and class, with the fact that she is a self made success story and not someone who achieved her status on the coat tails of her husband’s peccadilloes.

Who knows, she just may get the chance in 2012...but tonight Sarah Palin did what she needed to do and she did it in a manner that will have Democrat Party hacks in the Obama Campaign and in the New York Lies Times, The Washington Charmin Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and the worst, most biased member of the mainstream media of all, MSNBC fecklessly scrambling for a response.

The fear which has been in evidence throughout the Liberal press is now going to be full blown panic.

Sarah Palin's choice as V.P. by John McCain will no longer be the target of questions as to John McCain's judgment. After tonight, that will be laid to rest, lest the press receive even more of a black eye in persuing it than they already have. Sarah Palin exceeded all expectations and she did it with grace, strength, and humor.

Sarah delivered all right and she did it in spades. If I was Joe Biden, I would be quaking in my wingtips at the thought of debating Governor Palin.

Afterall, the lady at the bottom of the Republican ticket proved tonight, beyond any doubt, that she is more prepared to assume the presidency, should such an unthinkable tragedy arise, than either the top or the bottom of the Democrat ticket.

To add further to the absurdity of the Democrat ticket, Barack Obama today made the bizarre claim that his running a presidential campaign for eighteen months makes him more qualified than Sarah Palin's two years as the chief executive of the State of Alaska.

From the CNN Political Ticker:

Obama defends natural disaster experience

From CNN Political Producer Ed Hornick
September 1, 2008

In an interview on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, Obama was asked about whether his experience in the U.S. Senate dealing with weather-related situations compares to Palin’s executive experience running the state of Alaska and as the small town mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

Our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the past couple of years and certainly in terms of the legislation I’ve passed in the past couple of years...

Is he joking? Does he really believe that running a political campaign can stand in comparison to being mayor of a small town, or even more absurd, being governor of a state?

As governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has had a constituent population of 600,000 people, overseen a 9 billion dollar budget with over 25,000 people. She has managed the Alaskan national guard and as governor overseen one of the nation's largest economies.

Does Obama really want to go there? Does he really want to play the numbers game? If so, he has lost already.

The Democrat Party has become the laughing stock of the nation. They have an inverted ticket with their most experienced candidate, Joe Biden who also has never managed any sort of business or government organization, on the bottom of the ticket and their least experienced candidate and the least experienced candidate in the past century in either party, on the top.

Democrats have the audacity to question whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be "a heart-beat away from the presidency," when the question they should be asking themselves is if their candidate who would be the president is even qualified to be ten of fifteen heart-beats away from the presidency.

Democrats are right about one thing though, the presidency is not the place for on the job training...so one is forced to ask...why is Obama their candidate.

Quite some time ago, I quietly thought to myself that, should the Democrat Party choose Barack Obama to be their candidate, this election had the very real potential to be a Republican blow-out on the order of the Reagan-Mondale election, or the G.H.W. Bush-Dukakis election. Now that Sarah Palin has proven her mettle, I am beginning to wonder if this years election might not just be a Republican Presidential blow out, but if the "year of the Democrat Party" might not turn out to be the year of the Republican Party.

One can only hope.

Oh, and if I sound somewhat impressed with Sarah Palin, you're right, I am, very much so.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

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