Freedom Ain't Free: Michelle Ma Belle - Obama's Greatest Liability

Freedom Ain't Free: Michelle Ma Belle - Obama's Greatest Liability

What/who Obama should fear this Halloween

BOO!
Are you scare Barack?
You should be.

Obama Tax Calculator

Special props to Robert Bentley with Governor Jihndal's Facebook page for pointing out this Obama Tax Calculator.

George Allen: Start your Creative Engines!

Young Conservatives of Texas at the University of Texas hosted George Allen on Tuesday evening. George Allen, the former Governor and Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, spoke on how to use our common sense, conservative, Jeffersonian principles to address one of the biggest problems facing our generation: energy policy. George Allen's wit and outlook gave a very clear picture into what our country must do to achieve energy independence while growing our business infrastructure simultaneously.

As Governor of Virginia, George Allen worked with Texas and Austin area leaders to bring Motorola and Seimens microchip manufacturing to the Richmond area. Governor Allen was amazed out how well Texas handles its energy resources, even though the average cost of a kilowatt-hour in Texas is at 11 cents, which is above the national average. The split on Texas energy use is roughly 50% coal, 38% natural gas (well above the national average), 11% nuclear, and 1% hydro-electric/other. George Allen is impressed with Texans using our home-grown resources to power our state's economy and is touring the country to encourage our entire country to do the same.

America's energy woes began in the Carter Administration when President Carter imposed additional taxes on oil and natural gas production and increased environmental regulations on energy resources. Since then, America's dependence on foreign oil and resources has increased every year to the point that America consumes more energy than we produce. This trend cannot continue for America to be a viable superpower. Our economy cannot sustain the pace of the cost of energy outpacing the rate of inflation for the average American and average businessman.

George Allen's proposal is very similar to Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams' proposals, only on a national stage. Here are the main points of the plan.

• America needs affordable and reliable energy.
  
  
• Our citizens are creative and responsible. We need to give incentives to allow this creativity and entreprenuership to take hold in the energy market to develop new, reliable, and clean technologies. Innovation is the key to producing products. But, we must remove the heavy hand of government regulations and taxes to allow individuals to kick-start our creative engines.
  
  
• America needs to lift the ban on off-shore drilling production to give the individual states the option to drill in their own lands and offshore waters. Virginia wants the freedom to explore and drill for oil off of its coast; to have the same freedoms and opportunities that Texas and Louisiana do. The Virginia Legislature plans to invest the money from the offshore oil royalties into the state infrastructure to build new roads and lower the costs of higher education. With Virginia keeping 37% of the royalties, that will make a huge impact on offering citizens a better quality of life.
  
  
• Current American domestic energy keep this country in the grip of foreign dictators.
  
  
• Americans are not addicted to foreign oil. We are addicted to freedom!"
  
  
• Common sense conservation techniques need to be employed by every American. We need to lower the demand for energy while increasing supply.

George Allen inspires maximum productivity in our energy market and plans to give freedoms to individuals willing to develop new technologies that will make our country a better, cleaner, and more economical place to live. There is no reason that foreign countries should produce energy better than we do. With policies that will start our creative engines, the sky is the limit. Kudos to Young Conservatives of Texas for bringing in such an insightful and provoking speaker.

Pro-abortion money stirring up local races

Texans for Life has sent out an alarm over the large amounts of pro-abortion (Annie's List, Planned Parenthood) money pouring into Statehouse races, especially here in central Texas, including NARAL-supported Diane Maldonado for HD-52 against pro-life Bryan Daniel and NARAL-supported Valinda Bolton against Donna Keel:

Who are Abortion Advocates Pulling Out All the Stops For & Why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wendy Davis: big winner with over $100,000 in cash and inkind gifts
Fort Worth's Wendy Davis has received over $100,000 from Annie's List, and Planned Parenthood has sent mailings for her and is phoning on her behalf. Her opponent is incumbent Sen. Kim Brimer, who has a 100% pro-life voting record. According to Annie's List, "This race is of tremendous strategic importance because Democrats now hold 11 out of the 31 Texas Senate seats. Because Senate rules require a 2/3rd vote to consider legislation, Wendy's victory would mean that Democrats could block destructive Republican legislation! We must win this seat to defend against the Republicans' extremist agenda in 2009 and the inevitable redistricting battle in 2011."

Diana Maldonado in 2nd Place with over $50,000
Williamson County's Diana Maldonado has benefited from over $50,000 in gifts from Annie's List, and is also endorsed by NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), Texas Freedom Network (founded to combat the Religious Right) and Planned Parenthood, even as she touts her volunteer work at St. Williams Catholic Church. Her opponent in the race for HD 52, Bryan Daniel, is endorsed by several pro-life groups.

Kristi Thibaut Scores over $40K in cash & inkind gifts
Thibaut has received over $30,000 in cash and inkind gifts from Annie's List, and also lists Planned Parenthood and Texas Freedom Network as endorsers. Annie's List just made an additional $10,000 media buy on her behalf. Her opponent for this open seat in Houston (HD 133), Jim Murphy, is endorsed by several pro-life organizations.

Austin's Valinda Bolton (I) Scores Big (Again)
Bolton is one of Annie's List's successes, so they were happy to support her again with $40,000 plus inkind polling. A member of First Baptist, Austin, Bolton is also endorsed by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and boasts membership in Texas Freedom Network. Donna Keel, her opponent in the race for HD 47, is pro-life.

Other big recipeints of $$ from Annie's List:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Veronica Gonzales (I), $20,000 for her challenge by pro-life Javier Villalobos for HD 41, McAllen.
Paula Pierson (I) returned to collect $25,000 for her challenge by pro-life Bill Burch for HD 93, Mansfield.
Sherri Metula got $20,000 for her challenge to pro-life John Davis (I) for HD 129 (Houston), and another $5,000 in polling, as well as inkind comsulting support. She is also endorsed by Planned Parenthood.
Carol Kent got $10,000 to help with her challenge of pro-life Tony Goolsby (I) for HD 93 (Dallas).
Diane Trautman who is challenging Paul Bettencourt for Harris Co. Tax Assessor, got a whopping $45,000 for a mere county race.

The Real Problem with William Ayers

William Ayers has received a lot of media attention in the last few months because of his ties to Senator Obama. There is good reason for Ayers to get attention as he was a leader of a domestic terrorist organization the Weathermen. This is an organization that is know for acts of violence and terrorism against Americans and judges in the 1960's in an effort to intimidate the court system to give into their Marxist agenda. The Weathermen are no better than the KKK in their attempts to intimidate African Americans into not voting or moving into segregated neighborhoods.

Alas, I digress. William Ayers is now a professor at the University of Chicago. He can now take his ultra-liberal agenda and instead of inciting violence, he can indoctrinate students into believing his agenda. A teacher who interjects their attitudes and prejudices into the classroom is far more dangerous than a street thug who lobs bombs into Federal Courthouses. A teacher who only teaches their side of the story instead of teaching students to think on their own has the ability to create a generation of Americans who have a warped perspective on freedom, patriotism, and ethics.

William Ayers shows all that is wrong with academie today. Professors who are like William Ayers philosophically receive tenure from government universities; universities that claim to promote critical thinking and a balanced education. According to Martin Anderson in his book Imposters in the Temple, about 80% of professors in the major American public universities are liberal Democrats. These professors have the ability to indoctrinate students into hearing and believing their world views, thus creating the next generation of liberals.

This is not to say that all professors impose their prejudices against conservatives into the classroom. In fact, most do not. But, there are extreme cases in which domestic terrorists like William Ayers and communists like Robert Jensen at the University of Texas publicly celebrated when the jets hit the World Trade Center on September 11. These extreme cases are what promotes and encourages philosophical liberals who have never worked an honest job and hold elitist views that shun the average Americans. These extreme cases result in ultra-liberals like Barack Obama being able to be a viable candidate for the highest public service office in the land.

This is the real problem with William Ayers.

Barack's Bombshell goes Viral

This is Must watch TV - Barack Obama tells a radio audience that we "suffer" from a Constitution focussed on 'negative' liberty, and his desire for 'redistributive change'. His quote:

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

American Thinker reaction: "Obama wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistributive schemes."

That's ... Socialism we can believe in.

8 days and counting down ... A time for choosing remains so today.

Another Obamedia whitewash - Rezko & Obama

Rezko is singing (reported back on October 10th in the back pages), and the Feds have delayed sentencing as Rezko spills the beans on Chicago political corruption:

Last week, defense attorneys representing figures in Illinois corruption cases tipped the media that Tony Rezko may have decided to cooperate with federal investigators. Now it appears their worst nightmare has come true. Federal prosecutors requested a delay in Rezko’s sentencing, almost certainly a sign that Rezko has cut a deal to limit his time in prison after his conviction on multiple counts of corruption: Federal prosecutors moved Monday to delay indefinitely the sentencing of convicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, sending their strongest hint yet that he is ready to spill his political secrets. The filing asks for a postponement while prosecutors and defense attorneys “engage in discussions that could affect their sentencing postures.” Speculation has simmered for weeks that the key fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama was whispering what he knows about corruption in Illinois government to federal prosecutors in hopes of getting a lighter sentence. Rezko raised more than $1 million for Blagojevich’s campaign fund and was one of the governor’s key advisers. He was frequently by the governor’s side in the early days of his administration and could be in a position to shed considerable light on federal investigations into patronage hiring and a host of other issues involving Blagojevich. Rezko also raised $250,000 for Barack Obama and was his most important fundraiser during Obama’s state senate career, as well as for his US Senate race.

But the Obamedia has continued to be utterly silent, even though the Rezko issue was there from the spring. Tony Rezko, the developer convicted on fraud and corruption, was an early patron of Obama. Rezko had given Obama $250,000 in campaign contributions over the years, and in exchange, Obama had steered $37 million or so in Government grants to Rezko's slumlord buildings.

That house deal between Obama and Rezko was a very simple quid pro quo bribe. Rezko overpaid for a lot next to Obama's house that served as Obama's yard, so Obama could get into a million dollar house on the cheap; the seller reduced his $1.65 million asking price to $1.35 million for Obama. The house and the lot were bought on the same day, and appraisal fraud may have been involved. Later, to make the gift of the yard less obvious, Obama bought a strip of land in the yard from Rezko, a strip that made the lot unservicable for anything but as Obama's yard.
But wait there's more - a Connection between Obama, Rezko and Alexi Giannoulias:

"Alexi Giannoulias, who became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, has pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator’s Oval Office bid.

Before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution.

Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state’s speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama’s help."

So Giannoulias is a pretty dirty politician/operator with mob links. And Obama's links to him? "Alexi also approved millions in loans for Rezko’s various real estate projects. Obama used (Giannoulias-controlled) Broadway Bank for both his personal business and for his Senate campaign fund." The Obama - Giannoulias connection goes way back, as Hillbuzz states:

(4) The Giannoulias family was involved with Obama as far back as his first state senate campaign in 1996. It has been long rumored here in Chicago that Obama obtained a sweetheart deal on his first town home here in Chicago — which he could not have afforded otherwise — and guess who the financing came from for that house? We’ve been told it was Broadway Bank, the Giannoulias bank. Now, this sets up a scenario where the Giannoulias family helps Obama with his campaign finances and gets him deeper in their pocket with his sweetheart mortgage deal ...
(5) One favor political Chicago claims Obama did for the Giannoulias family was in 2006 when, out of the blue, 29 year old Alexi Giannoulias, with no experience, and without ever having voted before, decides to run for State Treasurer of Illinois. Also out of the blue, Barack Obama endorses Alexi Giannoulias for State Treasurer. This was a SHOCK to everyone in Chicago — and Giannoulias would have never become State Treasurer without Obama’s help. In political circles here, it has always been believed that this endorsement was bought years ago with that sweetheart mortgage deal Broadway Bank arranged for Obama to buy his town house.

Alexi Giannoulias and his link to Obama are important because it appears that Rezko is turning on him. So now two of Obama's biggest and earliest supporters are actually both mob-related corrupt Chicago operators, and Obama participated in apparent bribery schemes with at least one (Rezko).

As with the media whitewash on Ayers and Rev Wright, Obama's real history and associates, includng this Chicago-style corruption, is completely whitewashed away. There is pretty clear evidence that Barack Obama got himself bought by corrupt mob-linked Chicago operators. And we are letting the Obamedia IGNORE this story?

LA Times Holds Back Video of Obama at a Khalidi Reception

This is from the Gateway Pundit's blog. This report, if true, is disturbing. I would like to think of Senator Obama as being open-minded and level-headed, just with an opposing viewpoint than me. But, the more I read and research on him, the less I think of him as a person and as a political figure.

I Support Congressman McCaul

I first met Michael McCaul during the 2004 Republican Party Primary election cycle. This was right after redistricting created an oblong-shaped district that ran from Pflugerville to Katy. There were at least eight candidates vying to become our Congressman then, including Michael McCaul, John Devine, Ben Struesand, and Dave Phillips, among others. I had the privelege to meet all of these candidates then while I was working with Young Conservatives of Texas on their endorsement process.

After interviewing all of the candidates in January and February of 2004, I came to the conclusion that Michael McCaul was the best choice for representation in Congress and recommended Young Conservatives of Texas to endorse him then. I have the same conclusions now as I did in 2004.

(More...)

Obama: Our Next Worst President

Some liberal pundits are doing the psy-ops thing and trying to declare the race over and Obama the winner, before the votes have been cast and despite numerous polls that show neither candidate above 50% in battleground states. Let me retort by pre-declaring Barack Obama our Next Worst President. He will out-do Jimmy Carter in historic feebleness in the face of foreign threats and will have a job-killing and economic-growth-chilling agenda on our economy. On social issues, he is a left-liberal extremist who will usurp First Amendment rights. The real change we need is to defeat the Democrat incumbent Congress. Should Obama win, I will be telling my Grandkids decades from now how he managed to be the Worst President Ever in the history of the United States. That's why I will spend the next 10 days fighting to avoid that calamity, and I urge you to do the same.

Pledge with Texans Spotlight: Limiting the Growth of Government

Limit the Growth of Governments

Impose strict constitutional spending restraints to further slow the growth of state government; ensure that dedicated funds are spent for their intended purpose or return the money to taxpayers; return to a true zero-based budgeting process to force agencies to justify all spending requests each legislative session; close loopholes in welfare programs; increase resources for child support collection to reduce reliance on government programs; and, end double taxation on phone bills by eliminating the sales tax on telecommunications fees and surcharges.

In the recently released Pledge with Texans, the Texas Conservative Coalition highlights limiting the growth of government as one of the key planks to the Legislative Agenda for conservatives in the 81st Texas Legislature. I could not agree more with this statement.

The best plan of the 80th Legislative Session was proposed by State Representative Ken Paxton (R-McKinney). Paxton's plan would have limited state spending to the rate of inflation plus the increase in population. This amounts to about a 5% increase per year. If the Legislature has an emergency and needed to spend beyond the 5% increase, there would need to be a 2/3 super-majority to increase the appropriation beyond that point. Any additional money that was brought in from taxes under the Paxton plan would automatically go into tax-relief funds, under the oversight of the Comptroller, which would be evenly dispersed to all citizens to lower their property, business, and sales taxes. Representative Paxton's bill, HJR 53, would have also put the caps in place on local governments as well.

The current constitutional spending cap that limits Legislative appropriations is very tough to comprehend and is easily broken every year by a simple majority. Which ever party happens to be in power choses to break the cap by voting to increase the limit on the appropriation before the budget is heard. In 2007, the Republicans in teh House voted to break the constitutional spending cap to pass property tax relief.

Regardless of the intent to increase government spending, an increase in spending is still an increase in spending. Why is this important? Taxpayers complain about high taxes. Taxpayers have the potential every year of having their homes taken by the government because of climbling property taxes. Business owners are now subject to the gross margins business tax so revenue can continue to come into the Texas coffers. Why? Because Texas spends a lot of money.

If a true constitutional spending cap that limits state spending to the rate of inflation plus the rate of population growth that also takes a 2/3 super majority to break had been put in place in 1978, the Texas budget would be about 1/2 the size that it currently is. The current state budget is roughly $168 billion and growing.

There is no better way to limit the authority and power of government and the role of government in our daily lives then to limit the growth of the budget. Without increasing spending, the government cannot grow because the government does not produce a marketable product that, on its own merits, will make money for itself. All government programs are subsidized by taxpayers. If the subsidies go away, the program will too. If the program was truly necessary, a non-profit or business will quickly fill in to continue the job and will produce better results than the government agency.

Now is the time to take bold initiatives and bold steps to create the most business friendly climate that we can in Texas. With the national economy sputtering and jobs going oversees, it is imperative that Texans give the rest of the country an example of how to attract businesses and limit the role of government to give our citizens a better quality of life for all.

It's Official - The Democrats in Congress are Big Spenders

Pelosi/Reid Congress most profligate of Bush years with a 12% increase in spending.

Environmentalists vs the Economy

Greens: ‘Economic growth is killing the planet’.

Me: No it isn't, but environmentalists are killing economic growth.

Lawyers for Obama Vote Illegally

... and then are forced to withdraw their votes cast in Ohio early voting (I don't know how that is done).

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the vote fraud, voter registration fraud, and potential campaign finance fraud that the Obama campaign is engaged in.

CNN exposes ACORN fraudulent voter registrations - 50% of registrations are fraudulent. Mentions how ACORN voter registrations are under investigation in several states. Obama's campaign has enables online credit card donor fraud by disabling verifications.
Phony names accepted for Obama contributions: "The Obama campaign deliberately disabled AVS for its online donors ... The end result? “Donors” like “Doodad Pro” can submit tons of donations totaling well above the $2,300 limit using different bogus addresses." A commenter did just that:

Hello HOTAIR. I just made a contribution to Obama’s campaign. The site is still allowing fraudulent transactions. The only error it throws is if you try to put in $1. I posed as Osama Bin Laden, Terrorist Leader, Mujhadein, in A CAVE IN WAZIRISTAN KHOST, AR, 12345. email was osamabinladenforobama@obl.gov.

Another commenter points out the obvious motive for disabling AVS here:

Donations from overseas. This is where the millions are coming from, and why he won’t disclose the list of “$200 or less” donors. The man and his cohorts are, without a doubt, the most incorrigible, blatantly dishonest, and corrupt group in history.

Perils of Straight-ticket voting

Apparently some people can't figure out how to use the electronic voting machines:

A widely circulated Internet message telling people to vote straight party and to vote again for their choice for president needs to be ignored, Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said. ... If Travis County voters mistakenly vote that way, a message will appear on the screen saying that they have changed their choice, she said.
The electronic ballot allows voters to reselect that candidate, which means that their selection will be counted, she said. The process is still confusing, said Buck Wood, an attorney representing the Texas Democratic Party. A lawsuit that the party filed last year against the Texas secretary of state alleges that the electronic voting machines used in Travis and 101 other Texas counties disenfranchise voters who make the same mistake that DeBeauvoir discussed. The lawsuit is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seems like nonsense to me. It was fairly easy to vote this morning, going straight party first, then checking and correcting. Anyone who can't handle it probably shouldn't be deciding on who runs the country.

No Faith in Austin Interfaith

I attended the Austin Interfaith forum tonight. As a St Thomas More parishioner, I got the notice, and originally confused this with a parish event. I found out later this was an event that included other churches (St Albert), a synagogue (Kol Halev), and members of other groups (teachers unions). The 'forum' was not really a forum, but rather was an endorsement rally put on by the Austin Interfaith 'faithful' for their issues. (This was said directly by one of the leaders: "Our Issues are our candidate" and they endorse an agenda.) This was a highly scripted event, where almost all the talking was done by the Austin Interfaith leaders and questioners, and only a little time by candidates to answer, and no free-range audience participation.

The most objectionable part of the forum was how it was set up. Before the candidates came in, the 'pre-session' leaders instructed the audience directly that when a candidate answer "YES" to a question, they were to answer with loud applause and when a candidate answered "NO", they were to sit on their hands. They even rehearsed this activity, just to make sure the audience was 'trained' right! So even audience participation was scripted and controlled!

It's very creepy to have the audience trained like seals to applaud when directed rather than simply being permitted to express their opinions openly. Why the mind control? There is a reason: the 'accountability session' clearly has a very heavy hand of intimidation on the candidates themselves, to make them feel accepted if they go along with the Austin Interfaith questions, and very isolated should they be brave enough to have a different opinion than the Interfaith group. This was not about information, but about intimidating candidates and exercising power. By being so scripted and non-open, this 'forum' had the worst aspects of mass-movement power-intimidation.

Further more, the handouts had a scorecard on the back, where the audience members would 'score' the candidates on whether they were answering well or not.

Father Elmer Holtman set the focus with a general speech ("justice for all") that in a few areas got into specifics - such as "We want to make sure immigrant families do not live in fear. ... we support rule of law, but not local officials doing the work of immigration agencies." (But the real issue seems to be they dont want the law enforced by anyone.) While I appreciated the desired to speak about living our moral values through active participation in the public sphere, the elephant in the room at least for me was the complete and utter failure to mention, while lamenting the litany of items affecting us, the moral issues around the unborn, right to life, end-of-life, or the family itself. The agenda was centered around 4 themes: Jobs/"living wage', Education, Affordable healthcare, immigration. The set of issues has a common theme of spend more Government money and relax standards and the rule of law. While they claim to be non-partisan, the group and their agenda is quite liberal.

The candidates who came were: Donna Howard and Pam Waggoner (HD-48 candidates), Jerry Mikus (HD-50), and Gerald Daugherty (county commissioner, pct 3). They had 4 'stories' before they got to the questions, which were short speeches about the challenges these members had in a particular area. After that, they got into questions. The questions themselves were biased and leading, in that they were stumping for their agenda item and demanding a simplistic 'yes' to what in some cases (especially healthcare and education) were complex multi-agenda items.

They first had Daugherty up, since he had to go early. He was supportive of the CapitalIDEA item; on healthcare, he keyed off 'working with you' on for the mental health issue, pointing out how mental health patients should be out of jails. Interfaith's immigration question was to ask if he would call on the County Sheriff to revoke his decision to work with ICE to deport illegal immigrant held in the jail. He did an admirable job being straight with Interfaith and saying no, pointing out that Sheriff Hamilton was an independently elected official.

Then the House Rep candidates took turns on the questions. Each candidate got only 15 to 30 seconds to speak to a question, not enough time to explain where they stand, which made this session more intimidative than informative. The CapitalIDEA item was universally supported. On education, they spoke about being less 'punitive'; there was general support, and for Pam Waggoner, enthusiastic support. The healthcare question had Howard declaring "Health care is a right" (which should be argued against since no 'right' exists to spend someone
else's money on your behalf). Jerry Mikus and Pam Waggoner argued cogently about the risks of expanding CHIP as the agenda desires, so gave qualified answers (which were cut off).

The most contentious perhaps was the immigration question, where Austin Interfaith opposes state law efforts to have local law enforcement work with Federal immigration officials to enforce immigration law. Donna Howard expressed support for Interfaith's pro'sanctuary city' position, but both Republican candidates, Waggoner and Mikus, argued that enforcing Federal law was part of the proper domain/responsibility of local law enforcement; Waggoner mentioned that its in the Constitution.

On the answers that went against the Interfaith agenda, there was a smattering of applause. I was among them, applauding the courage of the candidates for speaking their mind rather than getting intimidated by the forum setup. Their parting shot warning to the candidates was "You are giving us permission to hold you accountable to the questions you say yes to." This struck me as another example of power-mongering/threatening intimidation towards candidates.

In summary, the 'accountability session' was an overly scripted session and excercise in mass-movement intimidation tactics that was disturbing and troubling on several levels:

1. The forum was a hostile environment for free thinking and free exercise of one's conscience. It was an endorsement rally for the specific agenda of Austin Interfaith. There were mind-control and though-control methods used that were frankly creepy, akin to what you see in cults, not a free and open forum (which this was not).

2. Held in a Catholic church venue, it violated the guidelines put out by Texas bishops (Texas Catholic conference) on how Catholic churches should behave. Item IV. "Evaluations of candidates or political parties should be avoided" - when this session did just that - rating candidates 'good' or 'bad' on the Austin Interfaith agenda. This was an endorsement/evaluation rally/exercise, that graded not merely an issue forum.

3. For a Catholic church to host an event - the elephant in the room question - why wasn't the life issue on the agenda? Surely, its unfortunate that Rebecca McIlwain's daughter didnt get into accelerated English in 10th grade (the 'story' on the education, but I've been there too with my daughter in the past week, disappointments happen), but does it rise to the level of the right to life itself for the unborn? The agenda was a narrow agenda and missed "Faith citizenship" agenda items such as the issues of life, family, etc.

We know why life is off the agenda - because the other partners in this coalition force it to be so. After the session, I had a discussion with a woman from the synagogue. She mentioned how there were other 'pro-choice' groups and so that item was 'divisive'. So too was school choice. Why? Oh, because the teachers unions are against it. Yet she warmly related how the lessons learned from catholic colleagues were used by other groups to push for gay marriage (oh joy!) This begs the question of why the Catholic church, which goes out of its way to limit political participation in other ways, would lend credence to a coalition comprised of other groups who are on the other side of the catholic church on fundamental issues.

4. I do not believe that the Austin Interfaith agenda was a genuine grounds-up agenda coming from our parish. Rather, it was a pre-defined agenda that the backing organization, Industrial Areas Foundation, has been pushing, and the 'house meeting' and other meetings are less to discover the agenda of the parish, than to find those members receptive to push this agenda. In short, Austin Interfaith is pushing a narrow liberal agenda (including agenda items of teachers unions) into the church, rather than taking the church members' agenda into the community. The Catholic church should not be taken advantage of in this way. To put it bluntly: Why is the moral capital of the Catholic church squandered on pet issues of the teacher's unions and other external groups, when those groups themselves have enough power to push their own agenda?

These concerns make me wish the Catholic church would reconsider participation in this organization.

Lyin' Trial Lawyer Doherty Fails to Respond

Larry Joe Doherty is raking in some big bucks (out of district liberals trying to buy a conservative district) to challange Republican Michael McCaul for TX-10 Congressional race. But Doherty still hasn't apologized for slandering and insulting the American soldiers who served this country in Iraq. James Crabtree noted on the 16th:

To date he has still not replied even though a copy of the letter was hand delivered to his campaign manager, posted on his Facebook page, printed in the Austin Chronicle, and emailed to him. Perhaps he’s waiting for it to be sent by semaphore or carrier pigeon? Either way, there will be more to come on this matter before Election Day. Stay tuned.

As of yet, still not a word or remorse from Doherty for calling the U.S. military baby-killers.

Freedom Ain't Free: A Clarion Call for Honest Reporters

Freedom Ain't Free: A Clarion Call for Honest Reporters

Obama's Circle of Friends

Ayers' radicalism and Obama's similar language - on the record. Meet Mike Klonsky, another radical friend of Barack. And there is a leftism and corruption nexus - Feds and Rezko Piecing together Ayers, Giannoulias, Obama [Crossroads Fund]. Obama's Change themes are based on radical left "change" themes - cynicism, isolation, and a call for identity through social(ist) action.

Does this stuff matter? Yes, if Obama's agenda is influenced by it. Yet we know Obama's record is liberal:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-ratings-and-record.html

BHO Admits He's a Socialist. We also know what his agenda is. We wrote about what the Obama/Democrat majority will deliver here: Change we Need: Defeat the Democrats in Congress. He is also calling socialism "opportunity": Obama: I Don't Call it Socialism, I Call it Oppurtunity.

And every day, we find another outrage that they will enact: House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks and Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get CitizenshipWhen you look into the heart of Obama's extremist liberal record - the most liberal Senator as rated by National Journal in 2007 - and his left-liberal promises - $800 billion in spending promises, Government takeover of healthcare, against protecting traditional marriage and for appointing liberal activist judges - it all adds up. Obama's radical friends are a reflection of what Obama really believes and wants to advance himself. Expect a huge shift to the left in the Federal Government if he is elected and the Democrat majority in Congress is re-elected.

Catholics, Obama, and the life issue

We know that the right to life is a non-negotiable fundamental tenet of Catholic teaching:

"Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions used to justify it." - Bishop Chaput

"As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage…; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children." - Pope Bendict XVI, 2006

We also know that Obama is a proabortion extremist, probably the most extreme pro-abortion candidate in our nation's history. Obama is cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act", that would make partial-birth abortion legal again, strike down restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, and nullify virtually every state and federal law or policy that would in any way "interfere with" access to abortion, including parental notification laws. Obama promises to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would uphold abortion on demand. He voted to block a bill to require an abortionist to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl who lives in another state.

If bishops would make clear the moral gravity of ignoring the fundamental issue of abortion, or critique the false statements of pro-choice politicians like Biden and Pelosi, or debunk the rationalizing away how wrong Obama is on the issue, it could well turn the electoral tide sufficient to be a huge victory for the prolife cause. When Catholics vote en masse pro-life, politicians would be forced to listen.

Well, the bishops already have spoken out:

(Denver) Archbishop Criticizes Obama's Catholic Allies

"None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They've been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ''get beyond'' abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won't be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues."

Little Murders [Bishop Chaput Slams Obama on Abortion & Blasts Kmiec for Misleading Catholics]

Bishop Finn does everything but name Obama

Colorado bishops correct governor’s ‘bad theology’ on Catholic teaching about human dignity

Bishop Holley Calls on Black Community to Stop Planned Parenthood's Racial Slaughter

Mashek of US News: Bishop Violates First Amendment by Denying Biden Communion

Bishop of Scranton pledges vigilance in correcting pro-choice Catholic politicians

Bishop Finn: Can a Catholic Vote in Support of Abortion?

Values: Abortion tops list (Area Catholics get warning from bishop)

Bishop Robert Hermann on Voting to 'Save Our Children'

Black Catholic Bishop Holley: Abortion Exploits African-American Community

Bishop of Fresno removes priest who opposes Prop. 8

Bishop Martino of Scranton on Respect Life Sunday

Bishop Vasa: Pro-Abortion Candidates are 'Disqualified'

Bishop reminds Catholics to remember Judgment Day in the voting booth(Vote for Obama-get zapped)

Arizona Bishops Encourage Yes Vote in Support of Proposition 102, the Marriage Amendment

Bishop Aquila's Address on Absolutes in Life Issues

Kerry: Abortion, HELL is a Reality and we are Free to Choose it, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, Fargo

Bishop Soto Stuns national homosexual ministries conference

Biden avoids confrontation with his new bishop

OBAMA DEMAGOGUERY

OBAMA DEMAGOGUERY
By Bob Ward

When Joe the Plumber pointed out to presidential candidate Barack Obama that his tax proposal could kill the s mall business he hoped to start, Obama replied that he just wanted to “spread the wealth around.”

Obama is spreading something, but it is not wealth. His answer reveals a concentrated dose of economic ignorance. The reality is that without a damaging take hike on businesses, without a government program with its attendant bureaucracy and stifling regulations, wealth, left alone, spreads itself around.

No sane person, and certainly not Joe the Plumber, takes his money and buries it in the backyard. He spreads it around by spending it. And his expenditures create jobs for the people who manufacture the goods and provide the services that he purchases.

Obama’s tax proposals would interrupt that spontaneous, market driven spreading of the wealth by seizing money from the producers -- the businesses that provide the goods and services people purchase. In promoting this scheme he is invoking the myth that taxes imposed on businesses are somehow not paid by the people. He is being deceptive.

Corporations do not print money to pay their taxes. They get that money from the people in the form of higher prices for their products, lower wages or layoffs for their employees, curtailed purchases from their suppliers, or smaller dividends for their shareholders. And shareholders, it should be noted, includes the pension plans that working people rely on to provide a decent income for their retirement.

The bottom line is that the government cannot tax an abstraction and that’s what a corporation is, a legal fiction. The actual payer of taxes is real people. There is no one else.

Obama talks a lot about “fairness” but his proposal to tax business instead of people is not fairness – it is demagoguery.

Final Stretch Case Against Obama

The comprehensive argument against Obama.

Change we Need: Defeat the Democrats in Congress

The Democrats are the incumbent party in Congress. Since liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker after 2006 elections, the price of oil rose, the stock market fell 20%, unemployment rose 20%, and the economy has sputtered. The Democrats’ threats of tax increases and their attacks on businesses and markets and energy producers have had a toll on the economy. The Democrats tried and failed to lose the war in Iraq, but they have managed instead to break promises to cut earmarks (they made it worse), and have spent over $1 trillion and counting on bailouts this year alone. They want more - money from the taxpayer to new govt welfare cases, with a slice for their special interests on the side. An example of their special-interest giveaways is the ‘alternative energy bill’ that included $50 billion in new taxes and had a hidden $1 billion gift to trial lawyers.

The Democrats’ earlier support for the creation of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), sowed the seeds for subprime lending. Barack Obama, did legal work on behalf of ACORN to sue banks to force them to engage in subprime lending. that subprime lending ballooned, and the leaders in it, like Countrywide, gave sponsors like Sen Chris Dodd, sweetheart deals as thank yous; when Republicans warned about Fannie Mae supporting these risky schemes in 2005, the Democrats stopped them. The chicken’s have come home to roost on the flawed idea of giving homes and mortgages to people who cannot really afford them. Democrats instigated this financial crisis as much as anyone else.

But these policy errors and bad actions are just the preview. Here is what the Obama/Democrat majority will deliver:

• Regulation overdrive that will kill jobs
• Special interest giveaways to groups like ACORN
• Government takeover of health-care, shifting as many a 50 million more people into a Government run plan (See below, Obama ultimately wants single payer aka 100% Socialized medicine!)
• pork barrel-overspending, like the $200 billion farm bill the Pelosi Congress passed, and the $1+ TRILLION in bailouts this year; Pelosi wants another bailout for $300 billion, on top of the $700 billion for wall street, $300 billion housing bailout and $100 billion govt check giveaway - when will it end?
• Pro-abortion extremism, including taxpayer funded abortions and ‘Freedom of Choice’ Act, which will override state desires to protect unborn life
• Amnesty for illegal aliens, and drivers licenses for illegal aliens, which Obama supports
• No drilling in ANWR or offshore, and an anti-energy policy that won’t allow full exploration offshore; it means higher energy prices
• Trade policies that are the worst since Herbert Hoover (who created a depression out of similar policies)
• Higher taxes that will kill jobs; Obama in the past year proposed higher payroll taxes, higher income taxes, and raising the capital gains taxes from 15% to 25%. Now in the general election, Obama has flipflopped on it, but he will surely flipflop back in order to make taxpayers pay for his $800 billion in spending promises that he can’t keep without higher taxes.
• Job-killing ‘cap-and-trade’ CO2 regulations
• Attacks on free speech, with “fairness doctrine” attacks on talk radio, and political correctness attacks on free speech( Missouri DAs investigating people who say bad things about Obama)
• Attacks on the ballot box, by ending the secret ballot for union elections, and by opposing voter ID laws
• Gay marriage: Obama and Biden oppose Cali proposition 8, which protects traditional marriage, in effect signalling that he supports gay marriage, and Obama and the Democrat platform calls for the repeal of DOMA to take gay marriage nationwide; they will enforce ENDA, gay rights in the workplace and a tort lawyers dream and HR dept nightmare, and the result will be attacks on religious organizations and groups that dare to take an opposing moral position; gays openly in the military
• Appointment of liberal activist Judges, who will be handpicked to overrule the people and legislate liberal social policy from the bench.

Here’s what the WSJournal says is in store with that Obama/Democrat majority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. “We have some harsh decisions to make,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the “Issues and Legislation” tab on Mr. Waxman’s Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is “card check.” Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The “Employee Free Choice Act” would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union “contract” after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for “the rich,” substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the “community organizer” left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress — Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar’s ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get “net neutrality” rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

---

Obama’s campaign is a $500 million hollywood production, a fiction designed to bamboozle foolish uninformed voters, and the liberal media is complicit in keeping people as uninformed as possible of the real Barack Obama. As part of that fiction, Obama’s left-liberal positions and views have been airbrushed aside, and he’s running on focus-group-tested pablum.

Normally, political realities will restrain Obama's extremist, but the liberal Democrats think they have the kind of majority coming that will reshape things further. Only twice before has a President on the Democrat side won with overwhelming majorities. In the 1930s and 1960s. Both times we got the most signification shifts towards big Government in our history - The New Deal and the Great Society. Our problems will not be solved by more Government - we need LESS Government. Our only chance to stop this radical and dangerous shift is to vote against every Democrat in Congress in the coming election.

If you want to save America ... you have one duty - NOW - and that is to spread the word and warn others: Maybe it is too late to stop the manifestly unqualified and extreme Barack Obama from becoming President. Certainly we can all try to vote McCain/Palin to stop the disaster from happening, but in the event that it wont be enough: The change we need is to defeat the Democrats in Congress. Defeat Nancy Pelosi and her earmark, pork-barrel,
corrupt trial-lawyer leftwing-special interest ACORN-supporting buddies in Congress.

Quote of the Day

“The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamoring to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — Henry Louis Mencken

Austin Chronicle Endorses Bob Vann

I was shaking my head at the Austin Chronicle's endorsement of every single liberal Democrat on the ballot. Then I found this gem, a perfect example of why Democrats shouldn't vote straight-party. They know how much better Constable Bob Vann is compared to his opponent and so just have to make him their token Republican endorsement:

Travis Co. Constable, Precinct 2: Bob Vann

This is not the first time we've endorsed Vann, a Republican, for this seat, but he has served in this office since 1996, and it would be nice to see a viable Democrat making a run for this seat. The Democratic candidate in this race is Adan Ballesteros, but we couldn't bring ourselves to endorse him (or for that matter his opponent, Paul Labuda) in the Democratic primary, and we find no reason to endorse him now. Voters in this district are better off sticking with a known quantity like Vann.

A lot of comments on the article from Democrats upset about the Vann endorsement. But what the comments don't mention is Ballesteros' questionable past including getting fired for possible corrupt activities:

-The DEA made a call to the DPS in January of 1995 to say that they were investigating activities that occurred in 1991 involving Ballesteros, and wanted the DPS's assistance.

-DPS began investigating, and interviewed Ballesteros in May of 1995. After a year and a half of joint investigation by DPS and DEA, a formal complaint was filed against Ballesteros for five counts of allowing confidential informants to import cocaine without interdiction, accepting cash gifts from a confidential informant, and failing to make accurate and truthful reports to his supervisors regarding his activities.

-In May of 1995, Ballesteros was placed on administrative leave (with pay) pending the results of the full investigation.

-When the investigation concluded, most of the allegations against Ballesteros were sustained, and in October of 1997, the director of DPS decided that Ballesteros was to be terminated. His status was changed to "suspended without pay."

-Ballesteros appealed the termination recommendation, and in August of 1998, a full evidentiary hearing was held before the Public Safety Commission. On September 10, 1998, they determinded that Ballesteros was fired for cause.

... Ballesteros is a man of apparent questionable character. He was fired by the incumbent because of his history. He did not fully disclose his legal past. How can a man who was fired for illegal activities have any hope of challenging the Republican incumbent in November?

Lesson: You know you have a pretty disreputable Democrat candidate when even the Austin Chronicle endorses the Republican! Please, Pct 2, do the right thing and re-elect Bob Vann.

Pledge with Texans

Conservative Texas lawmakers have pledged support for a common and comprehensive agenda called "Pledge with Texans":

• Cut property taxes until they are eliminated
• Protect the right to vote by requiring photo ID and verifying citizenship
• Secure the Texas border
• Stop trans-Texas corridor and eminent domain abuses
  
• Cut, simplify and reform business taxes
  
• Lower electric rates and clean the environment
  
• Make Texas a leader in public education
• Make Texas a national leader in higher education
• Make healthcare more affordable for families
  
• Limit the growth of Government

The details for this pledge are here. This is a very good agenda, and I hope this pledge is rolled out well in the media.

Down Ballot Spotlight: Constable Bob Vann

Constable Bob Vann has served Travis County Precinct 2 with honor and dignity for twelve years now. Every person that I have met who knows Bob Vann recognizes him as a man of integrity, respect, and determination. He has served the residents of Travis County very well over the last decade.

The Constable's Office has the responsibility for serving civil process issued through the Justice of the Peace Courts, County Courts and District Courts. The Civil Process Division is responsible for Citations, Writs of Possession, Writs of Reentry, Writs of Sequestration, Writs of Execution, evictions against non-paying tenants, and levying on property/equipment as ordered by the courts. The Constable's Office also handles civil orders from the Attorney General's Office.

Under Bob Vann's tenure, the Travis County Constable's Office has collected on a record number of warrants and civil fines that have increased the revenue to Travis County. Bob Vann has also been an advocate of using the Constable's office to provide contract peace officer work for school districts, to ensure the safety of our students and children in public schools.

Travis County Precinct 2 covers Pflugerville and the majority of North Central Austin. Constable Bob Vann deserves our continued support to uphold the office of County Constable with dignity and integrity. He has proven to get results in running an efficient local government.

Stop the Subsidies - Support Prop 2

The Travis County Republican Party has officially endorsed Prop 2, supporting a call to eliminate subsidies for Domain and other retail developments. It's an obvious good thing to eliminate this unnecessary subsidy, which goes above and beyond mere property tax rebates and provides sale tax rebates. This pits one retail development against other existing developments and does nothing to really add jobs or economic activity in the community; rather it just lines the pockets of some developers at the expense of other taxpayers and property owners.

For these reasons, the Republicans are on board support for Proposition 2, now supported by groups across the ideological spectrum from left to right. Got this message from Linda Curtis of "Stop Domain Subsidies" noting the convergence:

Now, wrap your brain around this. Tuesday night the Travis County Republican Party made it unanimous that all political organizations (who never agree on anything!), are now supporting Prop 2.

This morning, the Chronicle joined with the developers, Chamber and City Council to line up against Prop 2!

What's the Chronicle opposition really about? As we see it, The Chronicle's fundamentally trusts the City Council to take care of us Austin citizens and small businesses. What planet do they live on and who do they talk to? Did they call any of the merchants like Tim League of Alamo Drafthouse, or Michael Parker, Opal Divine's or any of the 500 merchants who support Prop 2? Does the Chronicle see that there's a problem with how the City makes decisions "for us"?

The Austin City Council made a mistake to sign up for this bad deal in the first place, so why trust them now? Either way, the right vote is to vote FOR Proposition 2.

Down Ballot Spotlight: Reasons I Support Jerry Mikus

I have had the privilege of getting to know Jerry Mikus over the past couple of months during this year’s campaign. Jerry is a candidate for State Representative in District 50, which covers north and northwest Travis County. When Jerry talks to people, he speaks from his heart, which is the main reason that I support him. Jerry is not the mouth-piece for a consultant or for a special interest group. Jerry’s special interest is the people of north Austin in the Texas Legislature.

I recently asked Jerry some questions that will philosophically define him as a common sense conservative. These are questions that I, as a taxpayer and citizen of Texas, am concerned about. These are questions that help to define the future direction of our country on a local, state, and federal level. Jerry agrees with me on a number of these issues, which is why I support him.

I urge every voter in Texas House District 50 to support Jerry Mikus in his bid to become our representative. His common sense conservative views are shared by the majority of the people in our district.

(More...)

Exposing Obama's tax cut Lie

This guy did some digging and got non-straight talk from the Obama campaign on the "We are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans" lie.

The Wall Street Journal exposed the tax cut illusion. In Obama's plan, payments for low income families are called a 'tax cut', the most creative and dishonest mis-naming of expanding welfare payments ever. The real story is this: Obama's plan massively increases the welfare state an called those payments to people a 'tax cut'! "The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year." Even worse, marginal tax rates on middle-class Americans are going up!

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

UPDATE: Clinton talking up his “middle class tax cuts” (that was an infamous broken promise) in a 1992 debate that is eerily similiar to today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EalCmTANIg

U

McCain calls it SOCIALISM and attacks Obama's phony 'tax cut' as a welfare redistribution scheme administered by the IRA. Finally, we are getting some light shed on this matter.

Presidential Stock Market Returns, A critique

This in-the-tank-for-Obama New York Times chart purports to show how the Democrats are better than Republicans as President, by reaching back to the Hoover days.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

The chart is dumb for many reasons:

1. It's hand selected to start with the worst performing stock market president ever, when starting at the top of a stock market bubble is the most distortive place to start a chart. But The idea that we should rate today's Republicans based on a President who presided before our parents were born is a real stretch. And btw, if you include Hoover, why not Harding, Coolidge, and Wilson?? We know why - it would make Republicans look better. Coolidge had the highest stock market returns of any President in history (and just happens to be the President before the cutoff in this chart): The stock market rose by almost 3 times over 5 years, about a 23% average return.

See this critique - the difference shrinks to almost nothing ($217,000 for Democrats, $156,000 for Republicans) by extending back further.

http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/10/16/stock-market-returns-by-presidential-...

It gets really interesting if you extend the timeline back and make your initial investment in 1897. Now we see that the crash of 1929 was really the bursting of a bubble: the 12 Republican years of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were a wild ride, but more or less a wash in the end. (The Dow’s peak in 1929 would not be seen again until 1954! Imagine, 25 years including the worst depression and the greatest war the world has ever seen, and in all that time the stock market never reached the level it had for a few giddy months in 1929. Will it be 25 years before we match the Dow’s high of 2008?)

The wild ride is another way of saying the late 1920s stock market bubble and bursting was at work, and measuring only half of that distorts the numbers.

2. Looking at Presidents only ignores the Congressional effect. If you go by the congress, you will find that Gingrich Congress was quite successful, so was the Republican Congress from 2003 to 2007. But since 2007, the Democrats in Congress have presided over a significant drop in the stock market. A mutual fund "The Congressional effect" notes that

Likewise, it is not surprising that the stock market did well under Truman, as the conservative post-WWII Congress did a lot to "free up the economy" from the ravages of the New Deal. Note that FDR had the best baseline to work from ever, a stock market that dropped 90% 4 years prior, yet still had a mediocre return. The reason is simple: The New Deal was actually economic snake oil, it did no good and the economy sputtered along, making a recession into a 'great depression'.

3. YOU CANNOT IGNORE INFLATION. Historically, Democrats create more inflation. That boosts dollar denomiated returns artificially. It's just been their thing, either due to the Fed boards they've appointed or other mis-management factors. The #1 example was Jimmy Carter. In after-inflation real terms, Jimmy carter had the most negative stock market returns since Herbert Hoover. As a result, the REAL stock market returns favor the Republicans.

Furthermore, if you go back to Taft, you will see negative returns under Wilson as well, and a Republican advantage of $50,000 versus $25,000 in the after inflation return.

4. Lastly, we have to return to the fact of policies not party labels deciding stock market returns. It's not the party label its the actions they took that matter. Hoover and GHW Bush raised taxes. Hoover raised tarriffs. Nixon imposed wage and price controls. Once Gingrich took control of the Congress in 1994, we had a Government that was shrinking as a %age of GDP for the first time in decades! We see clear trends:

0) Harding and Coolidge policies of lower taxes after Wilson's failed economic policies created a boom

1) The failed Hoover administration and New Deal of high taxes, tariffs and intervention kept returns sub-par from 1930 to 1945.

2) Post WWII relaxation of Govt control of economy, from the Republican Congress of late 1940s right through to the Kennedy tax cuts, were good for the stock market. Free trade helped.

3) Johnson's Great Society and Nixon's wage and price controls and Jimmy carter's inept monetary policies hurt the economy and markets.

4) Reaganomics worked. Reagan's tax cuts and the deregulation of 1980s and 1990s put the economy on a big upswing. Clinton's policies, once he was paired with conservative Gingrich, followed the Reagan path more than deviated.

5) Under GWBush we have had tax cuts, but also increased regulation (Sarbanes-Oxley) and a govt-induced housing meltdown (due to CRA and subprime lending) that was fueled by Govt meddling and lax monetary policy.

The recipe for a good real return in the stock market is clear: Low tax rates, smaller Government, hard money monetary policies, and less regulation. It doesnt matter which party implements those policies or does not. that's the recipe that works.

Obama's economics are Hoovernomics: Higher tax rates - his tax plan, a bogus govt giveaway marketed as a 'tax cut', will actually raise marginal tax rates on the middle class; he promises more regulation, higher spending, less free trade, and with more bailouts, a poor fiscal and monetary position. There is very little reason to hang hopes for a good stock market return under obama, unless we get a Republican Congress along to hem Obama in.