by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 22, 2008
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll finds only a handful of women are turned off to voting for John McCain because of his running mate Sarah Palin's abortion views. The survey also finds women split on the McCain-Barack Obama contest and 23 percent of Hillary Clinton backers supporting McCain.
The press and political pundits make much of the supposed gender gap in each election, but the new Lifetime Network poll finds the Alaska governor is helping McCain run even with his pro-abortion rival.
In a dramatic reversal since late July, when the women's television network conducted its previous poll, McCain and Palin are now virtually tied with Obama and pro-abortion running mate Joe Biden.
Obama/Biden garnered 47 percent of the women's vote to McCain/Palin's 45% in the survey -- within the margin of error -- and another 7 percent are undecided.
The poll also looked at women's views on Governor Palin and found that a majority (52%) of women had a mostly positive view while 29% were mostly negative and 13 percent neutral.
Of the women who had negative views, 48 percent said it was because of the governor's position on the issues. Of that 48 percent, just 18 percent pointed to her pro-life position as the main position they opposed.
That means just 2.5 percent of all women surveyed in the poll indicated they disagree with Palin on the issues and say abortion is the reason why.
That's hardly representative of key pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, who say millions of women will oppose McCain and Palin when they learn the governor is pro-life.
In Lifetime's late July poll, Barack Obama handily beat John McCain 52% to 18% with 11% volunteering "neither" to the question of who understands women better. Just six weeks later, and with the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, McCain/Palin has dramatically reversed those fortunes, now in a virtual tie with Obama/Biden, 44%-42%.
A majority of Senator Clinton primary supporters (57%) were upset that Obama did not pick her as his running mate, but most are not holding it against him. Nearly four in ten (38%) said that while they were upset, they will still support Obama.
Thirty-one percent of Clinton primary supporters said that they were not upset that Senator Clinton was not added to the Democratic ticket. Roughly a third (35%) of Clinton supporters said they'd be less likely to vote for McCain with Palin on the ticket, while nearly one in five (19%) said they'd be more likely to do so.
Twenty-three percent of Clinton primary voters now say they will pull the lever for McCain versus 18% when asked in July.
McCain/Palin edged out Obama/Biden by four percentage points, 47% to 43%, on which pair is better ready to lead the country.
Women also said Governor Palin is not getting a fair treatment in the media.
Women believe Senator Clinton has been treated more fairly than Governor Palin, with 56% saying coverage of Clinton was fair and 50% saying that coverage of Palin has been fair. Still, 40% maintained that Clinton had been treated unfairly, and 42% said the same about Palin.
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who is pro-life, and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who supports abortion, combined for the LifeTime poll.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Abortion: Front And Center In This Election
By Monte Harms on September 22, 2008 5:39 AM | No Comments | No TrackBacks
Several events have occurred in the last couple of months that have made the abortion issue one of the prominent topics in the campaigns of both parties. This congruence of events should keep the abortion topic on the front burner until the election.
First of all, there couldn't have been a better display of the differences in the two candidates then when they were asked at the Saddleback Forum about when human rights begin. John McCain stated that life begins at conception, while Barack Obama gave some rambling incoherent answer which he finally said he couldn't answer because it would be above his pay grade.
Barack Obama's view of abortion takes the issue to a whole new level. With his refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator, it displays to the world that he is not only 100% pro-abortion, but if a baby survives an abortion, it should be left to die. Obama has tried to dispute his own vote, but the truth is there for all to see.
Another event that brought abortion to the forefront was the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. This selection has pro-abortion groups fuming for two reasons. Since she's an adamant pro-life woman, it is something they just can't comprehend. It seems they believe every woman should be for women's rights, which, of course, to them means abortion on demand. Also, her decision not to abort her child with Down Syndrome has put the liberals in this country in a perplexing position. Those who believe in abortion usually agree that it can be used to destroy an unborn baby with a disability, and now the whole world can see that Palin and her family love and cherish this baby.
It seems that nearly every day there are abortion comments and stories on the news channels and talk radio from either side of the aisle. For instance, they reported the story of an interview posted on the political Web site Politico with South Carolina's Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler. She said Republican John McCain picked a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." Ads are now running about Gianna Jessen's remarkable story about living through a failed abortion - something Barack Obama was opposed to. If the Republicans keep hammering home Obama's view on abortion, it can be a crucial reason that the undecided or moderates voters will choose McCain.
It is obvious, but not always stated, that abortion has an excellent chance to be the one issue that voters can't ignore in the upcoming election. This gives the pro-lifer an incredible opportunity to discuss abortion with people who rarely ever think about the issue. In the next 40 days there will be increasing dialogue at work, school, or just in social interactions about the issues of this election. The abortion topic can be easily worked into the conversation without people thinking you're trying to ram your views down their throats. Since the mainstream media has virtually ignored Obama's view on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the vast majority of Americans know little or nothing about it. Now is the time to educate them on this and other pro-life views.
Then the shift can be made to what people personally believe about abortion. From what I have heard lately from some, they believe abortion is wrong, but we shouldn't restrict someone from being able to have one. Or in the case of Barack Obama and other politicians, they state that everyone agrees that we need to have a reduction in abortions, but still there should be a right to choose to have one. The logical responses could be, "Why do you think it's wrong, and why should we have less abortions? So you are personally against killing of babies, but for killing of babies if someone else does it? So you are against bank robbery, murder, rape, but it's fine if someone else does it."
I believe the abortion issue in this election will continue to take a front and center position like no other time in our history. Thus, pro-lifers have a tremendous opportunity to explain to their fellow citizens the truth about abortion.
Several events have occurred in the last couple of months that have made the abortion issue one of the prominent topics in the campaigns of both parties. This congruence of events should keep the abortion topic on the front burner until the election.
First of all, there couldn't have been a better display of the differences in the two candidates then when they were asked at the Saddleback Forum about when human rights begin. John McCain stated that life begins at conception, while Barack Obama gave some rambling incoherent answer which he finally said he couldn't answer because it would be above his pay grade.
Barack Obama's view of abortion takes the issue to a whole new level. With his refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator, it displays to the world that he is not only 100% pro-abortion, but if a baby survives an abortion, it should be left to die. Obama has tried to dispute his own vote, but the truth is there for all to see.
Another event that brought abortion to the forefront was the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. This selection has pro-abortion groups fuming for two reasons. Since she's an adamant pro-life woman, it is something they just can't comprehend. It seems they believe every woman should be for women's rights, which, of course, to them means abortion on demand. Also, her decision not to abort her child with Down Syndrome has put the liberals in this country in a perplexing position. Those who believe in abortion usually agree that it can be used to destroy an unborn baby with a disability, and now the whole world can see that Palin and her family love and cherish this baby.
It seems that nearly every day there are abortion comments and stories on the news channels and talk radio from either side of the aisle. For instance, they reported the story of an interview posted on the political Web site Politico with South Carolina's Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler. She said Republican John McCain picked a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." Ads are now running about Gianna Jessen's remarkable story about living through a failed abortion - something Barack Obama was opposed to. If the Republicans keep hammering home Obama's view on abortion, it can be a crucial reason that the undecided or moderates voters will choose McCain.
It is obvious, but not always stated, that abortion has an excellent chance to be the one issue that voters can't ignore in the upcoming election. This gives the pro-lifer an incredible opportunity to discuss abortion with people who rarely ever think about the issue. In the next 40 days there will be increasing dialogue at work, school, or just in social interactions about the issues of this election. The abortion topic can be easily worked into the conversation without people thinking you're trying to ram your views down their throats. Since the mainstream media has virtually ignored Obama's view on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the vast majority of Americans know little or nothing about it. Now is the time to educate them on this and other pro-life views.
Then the shift can be made to what people personally believe about abortion. From what I have heard lately from some, they believe abortion is wrong, but we shouldn't restrict someone from being able to have one. Or in the case of Barack Obama and other politicians, they state that everyone agrees that we need to have a reduction in abortions, but still there should be a right to choose to have one. The logical responses could be, "Why do you think it's wrong, and why should we have less abortions? So you are personally against killing of babies, but for killing of babies if someone else does it? So you are against bank robbery, murder, rape, but it's fine if someone else does it."
I believe the abortion issue in this election will continue to take a front and center position like no other time in our history. Thus, pro-lifers have a tremendous opportunity to explain to their fellow citizens the truth about abortion.
Pro-Life Chair to Congress: 'We Can't Reduce Abortions By Promoting Abortion'
WASHINGTON, Sept 22, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Writing to all members of Congress on September 19, Cardinal Justin Rigali warned against enactment of the proposed "Freedom of Choice Act" or "FOCA" (S. 1173, H.R. 1964).
"Despite its deceptive title," he wrote, "FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country."
Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote that under FOCA "abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women." While some have said the bill would simply codify the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, he added, supporters of FOCA say it "would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies" that are now in effect because they do not conflict with Roe. These include bans on public funding of abortions as well as "modest and widely supported state laws" protecting women's safety, informed consent and parental rights.
With his letter, Cardinal Rigali enclosed a legal analysis by the bishops' Office of General Counsel documenting the extreme legal impact of FOCA.
"Members of both parties have sought to reach a consensus on ways to reduce abortions in our society," wrote Cardinal Rigali. He cited laws restricting and regulating abortion, and "bipartisan legislation providing practical support to help women carry their pregnancies to term, such as the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407, H.R. 3192)," while noting evidence that programs promoting access to contraception do not generally reduce abortions.
"However," wrote Cardinal Rigali, "there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can't reduce abortions by promoting abortion.... No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions."
Cardinal Rigali urged all members of Congress "to pledge their opposition to FOCA and other legislation designed to promote abortion," so that "we can begin a serious and sincere discussion on how to reduce the tragic incidence of abortion in our society."
"Despite its deceptive title," he wrote, "FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country."
Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote that under FOCA "abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women." While some have said the bill would simply codify the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, he added, supporters of FOCA say it "would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies" that are now in effect because they do not conflict with Roe. These include bans on public funding of abortions as well as "modest and widely supported state laws" protecting women's safety, informed consent and parental rights.
With his letter, Cardinal Rigali enclosed a legal analysis by the bishops' Office of General Counsel documenting the extreme legal impact of FOCA.
"Members of both parties have sought to reach a consensus on ways to reduce abortions in our society," wrote Cardinal Rigali. He cited laws restricting and regulating abortion, and "bipartisan legislation providing practical support to help women carry their pregnancies to term, such as the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407, H.R. 3192)," while noting evidence that programs promoting access to contraception do not generally reduce abortions.
"However," wrote Cardinal Rigali, "there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can't reduce abortions by promoting abortion.... No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions."
Cardinal Rigali urged all members of Congress "to pledge their opposition to FOCA and other legislation designed to promote abortion," so that "we can begin a serious and sincere discussion on how to reduce the tragic incidence of abortion in our society."
Terror attack in Jerusalem, 17 wounded
At least 17 reported wounded as terrorist runs private car into pedestrian crowd at busy intersection in central Jerusalem. Paramedics say two in serious condition. Terrorist reportedly shot dead by IDF officer
Efrat Weiss Latest Update: 09.23.08, 00:17 / Israel News
A terrorist driving a black BMW ran his car into a crowd of pedestrians at a busy intersection in central Jerusalem near the Old City on Monday evening.
At least 17 people were confirmed wounded at Zahal Square, most in light-to-moderate condition. Magen David Adom paramedics evacuated those wounded to the Hadassah Ein Karem and Shaare Zedek hospitals for treatment.
Most of those wounded are reportedly soldiers belonging to the Artillery Corps who were on a 'Selichot Tour' in Jerusalem. Selichot are Jewish penitential prayers said during the High Holidays.
The terrorist, a Palestinian from east Jerusalem, was shot dead by an IDF officer holding the rank of lieutenant who was with the soldiers.
A female civilian sustained moderate-to-serious wounds.
Rescue services rushed to the scene, and police have blocked traffic in the area. Sappers examined the terrorist's body, fearing he may have been wearing a bomb belt.
The terrorist reportedly began his rampage on Shivtei Yisrael Street. Security authorities say they have been able to ascertain the identity of the terrorist, it has not yet been released for publication.
"The terrorist was in a private car, he rammed straight into a group of people touring the area," said first
responded Haim Weingreten, a ZAKA volunteer.
Police say had no alerts
Jerusalem District Commander Aharon Franco said that police officials did not have a specific warning regarding an intention to carry out an attack in Jerusalem.
"This attack could have taken place anywhere," he said. "The police are deployed in force in order to prevent such incidents.
Earlier this summer, Jerusalem was the scene of two similar attacks. In the first attack, three people were murdered after an east Jerusalem terrorist went on a rampage with his bulldozer, targeting passersby in central Jerusalem. More than 30 people sustained wounds in the attack.
Three weeks later, a terrorist who went on a similar rampage was shot to death early into his attack. As a result, he was unable to murder anyone, but 18 people were wounded in the attack. The terrorist who perpetrated the second rampage was also from east Jerusalem.
First Published: 09.22.08, 23:15
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus: The American taxpayer
Sol Sanders writes the "Asia Investor" column weekly for East-Asia-Intel.com.
Someone from the New York Times, in some circles the presumed voice of God, told us that the new globalized world was flat. He meant there was so much competition out there that to keep up with the rest of the human race you had to recognize that the old rules didn't apply any more.
Well, as they say, something happened on the way to forum.
It turns out the world is still round. It not only turns out that most of the old rules still apply. But that, furthermore — one more cliché — the mot is in our own eye. The threat to the system and livelihoods came not from all those new industrializing economies willing to work harder and to cut corners doing it, but from the bunch on Wall Street and in The City.
They believed they could substitute the digital revolution for common sense and human judgment. That's why they thought they could bundle up a bunch of mortgages whose dubious value they had no way of knowing, "securitarize" them, then take out leveraged insurance against their eventually doing what they naturally would do — turn into worthless paper. Going under the pseudo-financial name "derivatives", megachip machines were supposed to calculate all the risks and substitute logarithms for investment experience and prudent counsel.
Meanwhile, the non-American members of the new club convinced themselves that growing "intra-Asian" trade, self-aggrandizing bureaucrats in Brussels, and Russians selling inefficiently produced hydrocarbons into and oil and gas bubble, would go on forever.
But instead of a fuse from an incredibly corrupt Chinese financial system pulling down the whole "construct", as some of us had anticipated, it started at the other end of the world economy. And suddenly all the way to Dubai the world found out how dependent it was on the American economy and its genius, however temporarily fouled by the new yuppie clan in the counting houses.
The economists will be analyzing what happened for decades, hopefully long after most of its immediate effects have been cleaned up.
But in what is, indeed, a globalized world, the Wall Street debacle is having its effect on all the other problems with which the world has been living.
The newest immediate crisis, a rapacious Putin regime in Moscow invading its southern neighbor, is facing its own debacle. However much Putin's bravado was welcomed in nationalist circles, his own tycoons didn't like it.
The half trillion dollars in foreign reserves the Russians had accumulated in the inflated hydrocarbons markets is rapidly being trimmed. Some $200 billion has had to be thrown in bucking up the ruble and the local equity markets — and that won't be the end of it. One may well ask how Ras hopes to finance his proposed 27 percent increase in a defense budget, meant to frighten the world. There has been a flight of capital to the West with investors and the Russian oligarchs themselves sending their cash after their luxury homes in London and the Mediterranean. If oil prices — with a decelerating world economy — fall below $90 a barrel, the Russians will be in even more trouble while they dig deeper to keep the fragile post-Soviet economy equilibrium.
The Chinese, already beset with a multitude of problems which must be faced in the afterglow of an expensive but only ornamental Olympics, are facing lower growth rates. It had been taken as a rule of thumb that China had to keep growing at double digit rates of gross national product if increasing demands for employment were met in a society bereft of its old Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rationale. That won't be easy even with lower imported energy costs since the 75 percent of exports generated by the multinationals — which lead the economy — will now be under all kinds of new pressures including likely depressed American and EU consumer markets. The still budding scandal of milk products adulteration, while not a major financial drain, is again more evidence that systemic corruption has reached levels of economic concern and a further system of the loss of control over an authoritarian system by the monopoly Communist Party.
Japan, caught in a quiet but decisive and confused struggle over continuing former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's revolutionary reform of the old 1950s regime's politics as well as its economics, now has to face new trials for an economy which might be slipping back into the decade of stagnation of the 90s. The Japanese have become increasing dependent on their and other multinationals' assembly operations in China, now its number one trading partner. But for all the talk of the growth of trade among the East Asian industrial economies, their ultimate overly heavy dependence on exports to markets in the U.S. and Europe is going to be crucial. Choosing a new prime minister in mid-September may be the smallest of the tests Tokyo faces what with a continuing declining population catastrophe, an internal debt that at least until now, has made the other industrial economies look good.
Even Australia, luxuriating in the world commodities boom with its growing exports of minerals and hydrocarbons, especially to China, suddenly feels the cold wind. Its dollar was climbing to parity with the U.S. dollar only a few weeks ago. But now the rippling effects of the Wall Street financial crisis are likely to be felt Down Under as well.
Singapore, trying to transform itself from the quintessential Nanny society into a painted lady, trying to replace its increasingly noncompetitive manufactures with tourism replete with casinos and car racing and other service industries, is going to find hard sledding into a more straightened world with tourist bucks, too, harder to come by.
How long and how difficult the adjustment to the fallout to the U.S, fiasco is going to be will depend, of course, on how quickly the Bush Administration in its dying months can put together at least a short-term fix. A trillion dollars in taxpayer supported buyouts for the decimated real estate market — what apparently at this writing in mid-September appears in the cards — may stem the atmosphere of foundering confidence and panic.
If there is any satisfaction for Americans in the perception, it is clear, again, as it has been since the end of World War II, and even more after the end of the Cold War, that the U.S. is not only the residual center of world stability. It is also clear that with all the talk of how much of the world's resources it consumes and how much the rest of the world is willing to pick up its IOUs, the American taxpayer is still the last pocket picked in fixing any world economic crisis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sol W. Sanders, (solsanders@cox.net), is an Asian specialist with more than 25 years in the region, and a former correspondent for Business Week, U.S. News & World Report and United Press International. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com and East-Asia-Intel.com.
Someone from the New York Times, in some circles the presumed voice of God, told us that the new globalized world was flat. He meant there was so much competition out there that to keep up with the rest of the human race you had to recognize that the old rules didn't apply any more.
Well, as they say, something happened on the way to forum.
It turns out the world is still round. It not only turns out that most of the old rules still apply. But that, furthermore — one more cliché — the mot is in our own eye. The threat to the system and livelihoods came not from all those new industrializing economies willing to work harder and to cut corners doing it, but from the bunch on Wall Street and in The City.
They believed they could substitute the digital revolution for common sense and human judgment. That's why they thought they could bundle up a bunch of mortgages whose dubious value they had no way of knowing, "securitarize" them, then take out leveraged insurance against their eventually doing what they naturally would do — turn into worthless paper. Going under the pseudo-financial name "derivatives", megachip machines were supposed to calculate all the risks and substitute logarithms for investment experience and prudent counsel.
Meanwhile, the non-American members of the new club convinced themselves that growing "intra-Asian" trade, self-aggrandizing bureaucrats in Brussels, and Russians selling inefficiently produced hydrocarbons into and oil and gas bubble, would go on forever.
But instead of a fuse from an incredibly corrupt Chinese financial system pulling down the whole "construct", as some of us had anticipated, it started at the other end of the world economy. And suddenly all the way to Dubai the world found out how dependent it was on the American economy and its genius, however temporarily fouled by the new yuppie clan in the counting houses.
The economists will be analyzing what happened for decades, hopefully long after most of its immediate effects have been cleaned up.
But in what is, indeed, a globalized world, the Wall Street debacle is having its effect on all the other problems with which the world has been living.
The newest immediate crisis, a rapacious Putin regime in Moscow invading its southern neighbor, is facing its own debacle. However much Putin's bravado was welcomed in nationalist circles, his own tycoons didn't like it.
The half trillion dollars in foreign reserves the Russians had accumulated in the inflated hydrocarbons markets is rapidly being trimmed. Some $200 billion has had to be thrown in bucking up the ruble and the local equity markets — and that won't be the end of it. One may well ask how Ras hopes to finance his proposed 27 percent increase in a defense budget, meant to frighten the world. There has been a flight of capital to the West with investors and the Russian oligarchs themselves sending their cash after their luxury homes in London and the Mediterranean. If oil prices — with a decelerating world economy — fall below $90 a barrel, the Russians will be in even more trouble while they dig deeper to keep the fragile post-Soviet economy equilibrium.
The Chinese, already beset with a multitude of problems which must be faced in the afterglow of an expensive but only ornamental Olympics, are facing lower growth rates. It had been taken as a rule of thumb that China had to keep growing at double digit rates of gross national product if increasing demands for employment were met in a society bereft of its old Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rationale. That won't be easy even with lower imported energy costs since the 75 percent of exports generated by the multinationals — which lead the economy — will now be under all kinds of new pressures including likely depressed American and EU consumer markets. The still budding scandal of milk products adulteration, while not a major financial drain, is again more evidence that systemic corruption has reached levels of economic concern and a further system of the loss of control over an authoritarian system by the monopoly Communist Party.
Japan, caught in a quiet but decisive and confused struggle over continuing former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's revolutionary reform of the old 1950s regime's politics as well as its economics, now has to face new trials for an economy which might be slipping back into the decade of stagnation of the 90s. The Japanese have become increasing dependent on their and other multinationals' assembly operations in China, now its number one trading partner. But for all the talk of the growth of trade among the East Asian industrial economies, their ultimate overly heavy dependence on exports to markets in the U.S. and Europe is going to be crucial. Choosing a new prime minister in mid-September may be the smallest of the tests Tokyo faces what with a continuing declining population catastrophe, an internal debt that at least until now, has made the other industrial economies look good.
Even Australia, luxuriating in the world commodities boom with its growing exports of minerals and hydrocarbons, especially to China, suddenly feels the cold wind. Its dollar was climbing to parity with the U.S. dollar only a few weeks ago. But now the rippling effects of the Wall Street financial crisis are likely to be felt Down Under as well.
Singapore, trying to transform itself from the quintessential Nanny society into a painted lady, trying to replace its increasingly noncompetitive manufactures with tourism replete with casinos and car racing and other service industries, is going to find hard sledding into a more straightened world with tourist bucks, too, harder to come by.
How long and how difficult the adjustment to the fallout to the U.S, fiasco is going to be will depend, of course, on how quickly the Bush Administration in its dying months can put together at least a short-term fix. A trillion dollars in taxpayer supported buyouts for the decimated real estate market — what apparently at this writing in mid-September appears in the cards — may stem the atmosphere of foundering confidence and panic.
If there is any satisfaction for Americans in the perception, it is clear, again, as it has been since the end of World War II, and even more after the end of the Cold War, that the U.S. is not only the residual center of world stability. It is also clear that with all the talk of how much of the world's resources it consumes and how much the rest of the world is willing to pick up its IOUs, the American taxpayer is still the last pocket picked in fixing any world economic crisis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sol W. Sanders, (solsanders@cox.net), is an Asian specialist with more than 25 years in the region, and a former correspondent for Business Week, U.S. News & World Report and United Press International. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com and East-Asia-Intel.com.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.
"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."
Seriously?
This is unacceptable from a politician. Any politician in America, no matter who it is. I'd drop John McCain like a load of bricks if this was his approach, and indeed, if I was working on his ads, I'd make Mr. Obama, Junior Senator from Illinois, famous for these words.
He lectures America about civility, then tells his supporters to get in people's faces? How dare he?
Barack Obama and his campaign have been engaging in dangerous behavior lately. In following posts, I'll outline some of the more awful things being done by his campaign and his followers.
Suffice it to say, I agree with the Washington Times.
Oh, and for the record, he's not telling you the whole truth in that quote, either. Mr. Obama believes in the Second Amendment for target shooting and hunting only. He called the Washington D.C. gun ban - which banned handguns from homes and required that rifles and shotguns be unloaded and disassembled or locked up - Constitutional. As a Constitutional lecturer, he knows full well that the Bill of Rights (don't confuse them with the purpose of all of the Amendments) were limitations on the government's powers over the people. You can read James Madison's speech arguing for the need for the Bill of Rights yourself. Target shooting and hunting have nothing to do with that. Possessing the means of rebelling against a tyrannical State does. Read it for yourself.
As I recall, the third and fourth paragraphs are kind of plodding, but it's all that kind of 18th century formal language to signify deference and politeness. The rest of it is plain English.
For more information on Mr. Obama's desire to keep Americans servile and defenseless: go here or here.
As far as Obama on taxes: no, he's not going to lower taxes. It's repeated often enough that Obama will cut taxes on the poorest Americans. The problem is the poorest Americans don't pay taxes. They get money back. Obama will take other people's money (including yours) and give it to the poor. Whatever you think the merits of that are (personally, I'd rather see more Americans do more things on our own for other Americans), it's not exactly true that he'd be lowering their taxes. You can't lower below zero. After that, it's bread and circuses.
What Obama will do is allow the Bush Tax Cuts (which actually shifted the tax burden even more in the direction of "the rich," despite the "Tax Cuts for the Rich" meme) and use the money to plow back into health vouchers. He will also allow the return of the death tax, which is a huge problem for middle-class and poor Americans, something I'll get to in another post. What Obama also plans to do is massively increase spending, which draws wealth out of the system, instead of putting it in, thereby effectively putting a huge tax on future earnings and assets for younger generations. We've had enough of that since the 70s.
Barack Obama: intimidation you can believe in.
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.
"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."
Seriously?
This is unacceptable from a politician. Any politician in America, no matter who it is. I'd drop John McCain like a load of bricks if this was his approach, and indeed, if I was working on his ads, I'd make Mr. Obama, Junior Senator from Illinois, famous for these words.
He lectures America about civility, then tells his supporters to get in people's faces? How dare he?
Barack Obama and his campaign have been engaging in dangerous behavior lately. In following posts, I'll outline some of the more awful things being done by his campaign and his followers.
Suffice it to say, I agree with the Washington Times.
Oh, and for the record, he's not telling you the whole truth in that quote, either. Mr. Obama believes in the Second Amendment for target shooting and hunting only. He called the Washington D.C. gun ban - which banned handguns from homes and required that rifles and shotguns be unloaded and disassembled or locked up - Constitutional. As a Constitutional lecturer, he knows full well that the Bill of Rights (don't confuse them with the purpose of all of the Amendments) were limitations on the government's powers over the people. You can read James Madison's speech arguing for the need for the Bill of Rights yourself. Target shooting and hunting have nothing to do with that. Possessing the means of rebelling against a tyrannical State does. Read it for yourself.
As I recall, the third and fourth paragraphs are kind of plodding, but it's all that kind of 18th century formal language to signify deference and politeness. The rest of it is plain English.
For more information on Mr. Obama's desire to keep Americans servile and defenseless: go here or here.
As far as Obama on taxes: no, he's not going to lower taxes. It's repeated often enough that Obama will cut taxes on the poorest Americans. The problem is the poorest Americans don't pay taxes. They get money back. Obama will take other people's money (including yours) and give it to the poor. Whatever you think the merits of that are (personally, I'd rather see more Americans do more things on our own for other Americans), it's not exactly true that he'd be lowering their taxes. You can't lower below zero. After that, it's bread and circuses.
What Obama will do is allow the Bush Tax Cuts (which actually shifted the tax burden even more in the direction of "the rich," despite the "Tax Cuts for the Rich" meme) and use the money to plow back into health vouchers. He will also allow the return of the death tax, which is a huge problem for middle-class and poor Americans, something I'll get to in another post. What Obama also plans to do is massively increase spending, which draws wealth out of the system, instead of putting it in, thereby effectively putting a huge tax on future earnings and assets for younger generations. We've had enough of that since the 70s.
Barack Obama: intimidation you can believe in.
Moving billboards of fetuses offend some
City offcials say the truck-billboards are protected free speech
By Jazmine Ulloa
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Two delivery trucks displaying 22-by-7 feet images of aborted fetuses will be driving through Austin's downtown streets today, despite complaints from some residents that the vehicles violate city code and that the images are too graphic.
The vehicles are part of an effort to raise anti-abortion awareness by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a nonprofit group based in Los Angeles.
Initiated in 2001, the "Reproductive Choice Campaign" exhibits the images on the sides of delivery trucks that travel throughout the country to "change the way people perceive abortion," according to the center's Web site.
The moving billboards hit Texas for the first time a month ago in Houston and San Antonio. They began making their way around Austin on Monday near the University of Texas.
Residents have been calling the Police Department and the City of Austin complaining that the images are too graphic.
However, the campaign falls under the protection of the First Amendment and is legal, said Veneza Aguinaga, spokeswoman for the Police Department.
Some of those opposing the signs have said the trucks are violating city code, which prohibits the use of moving billboards. Council members passed an ordinance forbidding such billboards in June to prevent traffic and air pollution problems.
When Council Member Mike Martinez first saw the campaign's trucks, he said he called the Police Department to enforce the city code. But law enforcement officials told him the ordinance only prohibited for-profit advertising, not advocacy, he said.
"That's what they are — billboards. I absolutely wanted to stop them," said Martinez, who spearheaded the move against mobile billboards. "I disagree with their message and their method."
Vehicles also aren't classified as mobile billboards if they advertise messages directly related to the vehicle owner's business, Assistant City Attorney David Lloyd said. In this case, the center owns all of its trucks and is displaying its own message, he said.
"They're in your face and in my opinion tasteless," said Steven Shaw, who works downtown. "It's not what I wanted to see when I was eating my lunch yesterday, but it's fair game (to let them keep driving)."
lulloa@statesman.com; 445-3851
By Jazmine Ulloa
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Two delivery trucks displaying 22-by-7 feet images of aborted fetuses will be driving through Austin's downtown streets today, despite complaints from some residents that the vehicles violate city code and that the images are too graphic.
The vehicles are part of an effort to raise anti-abortion awareness by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a nonprofit group based in Los Angeles.
Initiated in 2001, the "Reproductive Choice Campaign" exhibits the images on the sides of delivery trucks that travel throughout the country to "change the way people perceive abortion," according to the center's Web site.
The moving billboards hit Texas for the first time a month ago in Houston and San Antonio. They began making their way around Austin on Monday near the University of Texas.
Residents have been calling the Police Department and the City of Austin complaining that the images are too graphic.
However, the campaign falls under the protection of the First Amendment and is legal, said Veneza Aguinaga, spokeswoman for the Police Department.
Some of those opposing the signs have said the trucks are violating city code, which prohibits the use of moving billboards. Council members passed an ordinance forbidding such billboards in June to prevent traffic and air pollution problems.
When Council Member Mike Martinez first saw the campaign's trucks, he said he called the Police Department to enforce the city code. But law enforcement officials told him the ordinance only prohibited for-profit advertising, not advocacy, he said.
"That's what they are — billboards. I absolutely wanted to stop them," said Martinez, who spearheaded the move against mobile billboards. "I disagree with their message and their method."
Vehicles also aren't classified as mobile billboards if they advertise messages directly related to the vehicle owner's business, Assistant City Attorney David Lloyd said. In this case, the center owns all of its trucks and is displaying its own message, he said.
"They're in your face and in my opinion tasteless," said Steven Shaw, who works downtown. "It's not what I wanted to see when I was eating my lunch yesterday, but it's fair game (to let them keep driving)."
lulloa@statesman.com; 445-3851
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
