McCain Good for Business and Good for the Economy

Often times pro business even pro small business policies are looked upon with disdain as can be seen in Senator Obama recently comments criticizing Senator McCain for caring more about Wall Street than Main Street. However, this is a myopic view of the economy. Pro business policies create jobs, pro business policies help grow the economy. Putting the breaks on an already sagging economy with increased taxes does nothing for the American worker exept make life harder. CNBC notes that small business owners recognize that McCain Understands Small Business Owners

The following is a statement from American Small Business League (ASBL) President Lloyd Chapman: One look at Senator John McCain's website will tell you, this is a man that knows and cares about America's 27 million small businesses. He knows 56 percent of all Americans work for small businesses. John McCain is a small business guy through and through.

Time also reported on the 300+ professional economists that back McCain. Conversely the Union Leader disusses how Senator Obama's tax plan does not add up in their article It doesn't compute: Obama's tax plan a ruse.

Numerous organizations, including the Associated Press, have noted that Obama's proposals spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than his tax hikes raise. What is less well known is that Obama's tax plan itself sends out of Washington far more than it brings in. Obama's campaign twice admits that in the wording of the tax plan.

According to the plan, "his tax relief for middle-class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000." That sounds like he's giving a net tax cut. But much of what he calls "tax cuts" are actually cash payments to low- and middle-income Americans. Ultimately, he sends out of Washington hundreds of billions of dollars more than it takes in.

In other words, Obama promises more in benefits to low- and middle-income Americans than his plan can finance with his tax hikes on "families" making more than $250,000 a year. And note the word, "families." Even though Obama says that no "family" making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase, in fact his plan raises taxes on individuals making $200,000 a year or more.

The bottom line is that Obama is not being honest about his tax and spending plans. It is impossible -- impossible! -- for him to finance his giveaways by taxing only those making $250,000 or more. He will have to raise taxes substantially on people making much, much less than that.

Senator Obama's plans to "spread the wealth" are anti-growth measures done in the name of fairness. However, there is nothing fair about halting economic growth. There is also nothing fair about punishing success.

---

McCain Good for Business and Good for the Economy

Biden Says Obama Will Be Tested With A ‘Major International Crisis’

Barack Obama will need help in a crisis, says Joe Biden from Times Online UK...

Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, has told Americans to expect a “major international crisis” that will present an early test of a Barack Obama administration.

His comments were seized upon by the Republican campaign yesterday to raise fresh doubts about the prepared-ness of Mr Obama to be commander-in-chief.

Speaking at a fundraiser in Seattle on Sunday night, Mr Biden said: “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here . . . we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

He cited Russia and the Middle East as possible places that may cause problems, as well as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – “crawling with al-Qaeda” – as being of particular concern.

Mr Obama would need help and support, Mr Biden suggested, “because it’s not gonna be apparent, initially, that we’re right.” He then spotted the media in the room, “I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.”

Now why would anyone vote for Barack Obama when his own VP states that a vote for Obama is a vote for an international crisis? Why would anyone want to be a part of a ticket that one believes will lead the country to crisis? What an unbelievable statement. The only time a time camera falls on Senator Biden at this point is when he is trying to pull his foot out of his mouth. However, this is beyond a gaffe; this is disturbing. It appears Senator Biden sees Senator Obama as weak. It appears that Senator Biden, is not confident in Senator Obama's ability to handle a crisis, and it appears that Senator Biden would prefer a "major international crisis" that a Republican president.

---

Biden Says Obama Will Be Tested With A ‘Major International Crisis’

Obama Funding Complaints

As mentioned in the previous post Reports of Obama Fundraising Fraud (below) there have been questions about the manner in which the Obama campaign has raised such large sums of money. Newsweek has also taken notice of the problems with small donors in its article Obama’s ‘Good Will’ Hunting, and has noted that the McCain campaign has made all of its small donor information public while the Obama campaign has refused.

"Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
...(In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

The American Spectator in its article Obama's Fishy $200 Million reports that an unnamed auditor for the Federal Elections Commission is being prevented investigating questionable fundraising techniques by the Obama campaign.

The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system...

...The FEC analyst says that Obama's filings indicate he has received large, bundled sums of donations from overseas, sometimes exceeding a quarter millions dollars. "It's suspicious, but it's the small donations made by credit card that need to be examined. We've raised red flags on many of these and the Obama campaign just ignores us. After this election, after we've sifted through everything -- if we're allowed to sift through everything -- I am confident that we are looking at perhaps the largest fine every leveled against a national campaign entity."

Similarly Newsmax reports in their article Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign that online fund raising combine with no requirement to report donors who contribute less than $200 has lead to serious questions about Obama contributors.

Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can 'redesignate' the contribution to the general election on its books.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as 'Will, Good' from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as 'Loving' and his profession as 'You.'

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama's Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will's cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there's no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

Similarly, a donor identified as 'Pro, Doodad,' from 'Nando, NY,' gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as 'Loving' and his profession as 'You,' just as Good Will had done.

Foreign contributions are particularly suspect.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain's or Sen. Hillary Clinton's online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton's presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

The National Review is also reporting on "Sen. Obama's eye-popping fundraising operation" in their article Obama's Funny Money, or Who's "Loving" "You," Barry?

At TD Blog the article Whistleblower Ignored by DOJ, FEC, FBI: $200 Million in Fishy Obama Donations! they are asking readers to contact the authorities and request that they investigate these allegations.

DOJ, Office of Inspector General
e-mail: oig.hotline@usdoj.gov
hotline: (contact information in English and Spanish): (800) 869-4499

FEC Office of Complaints Examination & Legal Administration Division
(202/694-1650)

FBI Tip Hotline
866-483-5137

---

Update: Washington Post reports RNC to File FEC Complaint on Obama Fundraising Practices

The RNC is alleging that the Obama campaign was so hungry for donations it "looked the other way" as contributions piled up from suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors.

"We believe that the American people should know first and foremost if foreign money is pouring into a presidential election," said RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross.

Cairncross alleged there was mounting evidence of this, and cited a report in the current issue of Newsweek magazine that documents a handful of instances where donors made repeated small donations using fake names, such as "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro."

---

Funny Funding for Obama

The Presidential Debate and the Bracelet Moment

Senator McCain talked, as he has previously, about Matthew Stanley and his family of Wolfboro, NH, and the bracelet Senator McCain wears in his honor.

Senator Obama reading the name off 'his bracelet' was tacky, and poorly done.

The story of John McCain, Matthew Stanley, and the bracelet.

Speak Out Against Media Bias

The McCain Palin 2008 blog is sponsoring a petition protesting media bias with the support of groups/sites across the political spectrum. While many have witnessed a decisive pro-Obama slant in this news reporting during this election, this bias became glaringly apparent when Governor Palin was selected as the vice-presidential nominee. Whether it is an organization like the New York Times having to retract stories about Governor Palin because they printed rumor and not fact; networks investigating the children of the Governor; or network pundits questioning the Governor's 'mothering' skills, this over-the-top behavior and blatant bias is unacceptable. With over 1200 people having already signed we urge all readers to speak out against an irresponsible media by signing the following petition.

Petition - Speak Out Against Media Unfairness and Sexism

Petition Founder - McCain Palin 2008 Blog

Co-Sponsors -
Grizzly Groundswell
Free Me Now
Hillary Clinton Forum
Lets Get This Right
McCain Now
Nobama
Palin for America
Puma Truth is Gold
Purple People Vote

FactCheck Sex-Ed Ad Response - Correction Still Needed

FactCheck.org has followed up on emails rebuking their article on the McCain ad ‘Education’ with a statement that says in part,

'We also never wrote that Obama said class material about 'inappropriate touching' was the main purpose of the bill. Our article said that 'Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ and that Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles."

Factcheck also categorizes the ad as false because it states that it was Senator Obama’s ‘one achievement’ in education. It is true that Senator Obama did not achieve the passage of this legislation, and may be able to account for other education successes. Also, the previous article should have been more clear in stating that it was Senator Obama that stated the bill was about ‘inappropriate touching’ not FactCheck. However, there are still major problems in FactCheck’s story.

They state outright in their response. "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." The ad does not state that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ that is solely Factcheck’s own interpretation. Yet this is repeated as proof that the ad is false as they later refute their own interpretation by saying, "But Obama has also said he does not support, 'explicit sex education to children in kindergarten." That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the McCain ad.

Second, as they state in their rebuttal and in their original article, "Obama 'made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles." Again, this has nothing to do with the McCain ad. Motive was never discussed in the ad and Factcheck misleads about the content of the ad by refutiating a claim not made in the ad.

Finally, Factcheck refutes the ad as having cherry picked quotes about Obama’s record. Well, welcome to politics. The statements are all verified, but FactCheck explains that those sources frequently did not have glowing reviews of McCain’s education plan either. Certainly that is fair to point out, but that does no make the ad false.

The one claim they are able to back up is the statement in the ad saying that this bill is Senator Obama’s ‘only accomplishment’ in education. They cite three ammendments to a bill that Senator Obama worked on that were aproved by unanimous consent. As Factcheck states, "Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless." Point taken.

I appreciate that FactCheck has responded to complaints about their article. However, I am still disappointed in the lack of actual fact checking within their article. Please read their response and email them at Editor@Factcheck.org if you agree that their article is still off base.

For clarity here are the basic complaints:

1. The statement, "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’

2. The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.

3. Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.

4. If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence.

---

FactCheck Sex-Ed Ad Response - Correction Still Needed

McCain Palin Take on Economic Crisis

Obama Snubs Hillary

Politico reports in their Hillary Gets Stiffed that Senator Clinton was never vetted as a potential Obama VP.

“She was never vetted,” a Democratic official reported. “She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she’d take it?”

The official also said Clinton never met with Obama’s vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy.

And the official said she was never asked for medical records or for any financial 2008 information about her or former President Bill Clinton. The last information the couple has disclosed about taxes and financial holdings was for 2007.

Not only is this a snub to Senator Clinton and her supporters, but it again raises the question of Senator Obama's honesty. As he stated previously that Senator Clinton would be on anyone's VP shortlist.

What Has Senator Obama Actually Done?

Obama No Cameras Then No Troops

The Wall Street Journal Reports...

The Obama camp said they canceled the event after the Pentagon ruled it was a campaign event, and needed to be funded from the senator’s election kitty.

“Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go,” Obama advisor, retired Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement.

How about visiting the troops without the media tagging along, then it wouldn't look like a campaign event. Senator Obama is spending $5 on advertising during the Olympics, but won't visit wounded soldiers on his campaign's dime? Apparently, it's more important for him to have the media take pictures of him at the Ritz Carlton gym lifting weights, than to take a moment leave the press behind and talk to the people who defend this country.

---

NBC and Hot Air are now confirming that Obama did not visit the troops because press would not be allowed to also attend.
Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed
MSNBC First Read

Obama No Cameras Then No Troops

Hillary Supporter for McCain

Protests Planned for Denver

Several different groups are planning protests for the Democratic Convention in Denvers.

Nancy Armstrong a No Deal representative is actively organizing bloggers who are willing to travel to Denver for the convention. Bloggers who want to participate can contact her at renaissancelady46@yahoo.com

Puma on the other hand is holding a pre-convention meeting to make plans for Denver.
The Pre-Convention PUMA Conference (PCPC) will be held on August 8-10 at the Marriott Wardham Hotel, the scene of the crime.

The purpose of PCPC will be to organize PUMA for the purposes of the Denver convention and to define our role going forward. We see great potential in PUMA as being an organization that keeps an eye on the major parties. Right now, there is no particular entity whose responsibility it is to make sure that the parties play by the rules. There is no group that holds the party players accountable to the voters for the decisions they make and the propaganda they generate. PUMAs are now to assume the mantle of responsibility that others have abandoned. We will become the referees. We hope to represent the voice of the voters who will give democracy back to the electorate. We want to make sure that our votes are counted, our primary results are respected, and what is important to us is recognized and included in party platforms. And unlike more ideologically motivated groups that have sprung up in the last several years, it is our desire to find that place where most Americans are and base our positions on principle, and to survey the political landscape from those principles, in order to resist the cults of personality and fad movements which have siphoned our strength and diminished our role as voters.

A Denver Revolt