Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end !!
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pres sure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsou nd manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Net windfall . . . $190 million!
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Mr. Smith (McCain) Goes to Washington
Senator John McCain on Wednesday, suspended his campaign as of Thursday morning so that he could return to Washington to do his job as Senator and try to help the Congress reach an agreement to save the country’s economy.
Naturally, the liberal media is portraying this as a political stunt to try to save a free-falling campaign. There is no thought that McCain considers this crisis to be real and that he’s one of 100 people that are supposed to deal with this crisis. This is understandable, since the press is in the pockets of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and he’s not going to follow suit and return to do his job.
I have one disagreement with McCain’s decision. I don’t think he should have suspended his campaign. I do agree with his decision to return to Washington, but I think he missed an opportunity here.
He could have said he’s returning to Washington to help with the “rescue package” but said that due to his having to honor his duties first, he is instead sending his VP choice (Sarah Palin) to the debates to stand in his place against Senator Obama. This would have shown a couple of things. 1. It would show that he takes the crisis seriously. 2. It would be a presidential move by sending his VP to fill in for him. When the President can’t fulfill his duties, the VP steps in. This would have been a very real example of how he would lead.
Had he done that, Obama would have had several decisions to make. As it is, he’s chosen to continue his campaign and claim that Presidents need to handle more than one thing at a time. Had he stuck by that decision even if Palin was sent to debate him, he’d have had to make another decision. Does he debate McCain’s stand in or does he then agree to postpone it? If he postpones it, he’d have looked like he was afraid of Palin. Had he agreed to show up for the debate, he’d have appeared weak because he was debating the second slot on his opponents ticket against someone that he claims has no experience but who in fact has more experience than Obama does.
If nothing else, this would have been fun to watch. The events that happen, or the debate if it was to take place. It would have been fun to watch the maneuvering.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Naturally, the liberal media is portraying this as a political stunt to try to save a free-falling campaign. There is no thought that McCain considers this crisis to be real and that he’s one of 100 people that are supposed to deal with this crisis. This is understandable, since the press is in the pockets of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and he’s not going to follow suit and return to do his job.
I have one disagreement with McCain’s decision. I don’t think he should have suspended his campaign. I do agree with his decision to return to Washington, but I think he missed an opportunity here.
He could have said he’s returning to Washington to help with the “rescue package” but said that due to his having to honor his duties first, he is instead sending his VP choice (Sarah Palin) to the debates to stand in his place against Senator Obama. This would have shown a couple of things. 1. It would show that he takes the crisis seriously. 2. It would be a presidential move by sending his VP to fill in for him. When the President can’t fulfill his duties, the VP steps in. This would have been a very real example of how he would lead.
Had he done that, Obama would have had several decisions to make. As it is, he’s chosen to continue his campaign and claim that Presidents need to handle more than one thing at a time. Had he stuck by that decision even if Palin was sent to debate him, he’d have had to make another decision. Does he debate McCain’s stand in or does he then agree to postpone it? If he postpones it, he’d have looked like he was afraid of Palin. Had he agreed to show up for the debate, he’d have appeared weak because he was debating the second slot on his opponents ticket against someone that he claims has no experience but who in fact has more experience than Obama does.
If nothing else, this would have been fun to watch. The events that happen, or the debate if it was to take place. It would have been fun to watch the maneuvering.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, September 22, 2008
President Bush: Right Man at the Right Place at the Right Time
We very nearly suffered through a meltdown that could have made the Depression look like prosperous times. Through a week of bailouts, high CEO payout stories and the dire prediction of the meltdown, something needed to be done. President Bush stepped up.
On Thursday, President Bush called a meeting with SEC Chair Christopher Cox, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. They came up with a plan to attempt to stop this country from falling into a precarious financial situation. They developed a plan to stop that in its’ tracks.
While the two Presidential candidates jockeyed for position that would make them look better to voters, the President stood up and grabbed the bull by the horns. If it succeeds, he will be a hero. If it fails, he will be a goat. The success or failure of his efforts now lay in the hands of Congress.
Congress has failed for years. This trouble goes all the way back to the Jimmy Carter Presidency. They’ve put in laws that forced lending institutions to loan money to those that would not otherwise be eligible for loans. They’ve not done the proper oversight as is their charge.
In 2003 President Bush tried to end some of these tactics and laws that would bring about the very situation that we just ran into last week. Congress wouldn’t act. Last Thursday, President Bush had a choice. Call in his people to try to solve the problem or let the problem work itself out.
The President has just four months left in office. He could have put it off to the next President. If you watch the news, he’s already considered a failed administration by the liberal media. He could have done nothing and let it play out. It may have played out and worked itself out. Instead, President Bush didn’t take the chance of the country going down the economic drain. He put the country first and acted. I don't know that the solution is the correct one. I tend to think that it's not. Nationalizing the markets doesn't seem to be a correct answer. That's not the point of this however. The point is that the situation called for someone to stand up and present a plan and President Bush did so.
Now our fate is in the hands of Congress. Congress, who always adds their pet projects to bills that have nothing to do with the bill, are now being asked to deal with this situation and not politicize it with those pet projects. Already it’s begun. Congressman Barney Frank has called for a surtax on the rich blaming them for the situation we’re in.
President Bush had a moment that is similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were on the brink of a disaster and he stepped up to the plate and got the job done. Now it’s in the hands of Congress. Congress holds the purse strings. Not the President. Yet, President Bush stepped up and did Congress’ job which they’ve neglected for years, and now we’re back to hoping that Congress can step up and do as the President has done.
Can they do it? With the likes of Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Barney Frank who have received deals on their mortgages and are directly and indirectly responsible for this situation, it’s a scary thought. Congressman Rangel, who writes tax law, but didn’t realize he owed taxes on property. Again I ask. Can they do it?
Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate who said that they didn’t know what to do so they left on Friday. It doesn’t look promising.
I hope that the people of each district take a very close look at their Representatives and Senators and ask themselves if they really trust the person in office and vote for the proper the person, not based on party, but based on whether they have the wherewithal to do what’s necessary when called upon.
I suspect that this will get taken care of, but then we’ll be subjected to the return to the blame game. The blame lies with Congress. Democrats and Republicans. Some are no longer in Congress. Some have been entrenched there for 20 years or longer. What is needed is a plan to get this money back to the people of this country that are bailing out this problem. The real problem with Congress will be their propensity to create new laws that will make things worse once they have this problem resolved. Assuming that they can put aside their hatred for each other and get this legislation done cleanly.
President Bush stepped up when needed as needed. Now we have to hope that Congress, contrary to their history, can do the same thing.
President Bush was the right man, at the right place as he was on September 11, 2001. Imagine if we had Al Gore as President on September 11, 2001. Now imagine if Barack Hussein Obama was President last Thursday. President Bush was the man to have there in both instances.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
On Thursday, President Bush called a meeting with SEC Chair Christopher Cox, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. They came up with a plan to attempt to stop this country from falling into a precarious financial situation. They developed a plan to stop that in its’ tracks.
While the two Presidential candidates jockeyed for position that would make them look better to voters, the President stood up and grabbed the bull by the horns. If it succeeds, he will be a hero. If it fails, he will be a goat. The success or failure of his efforts now lay in the hands of Congress.
Congress has failed for years. This trouble goes all the way back to the Jimmy Carter Presidency. They’ve put in laws that forced lending institutions to loan money to those that would not otherwise be eligible for loans. They’ve not done the proper oversight as is their charge.
In 2003 President Bush tried to end some of these tactics and laws that would bring about the very situation that we just ran into last week. Congress wouldn’t act. Last Thursday, President Bush had a choice. Call in his people to try to solve the problem or let the problem work itself out.
The President has just four months left in office. He could have put it off to the next President. If you watch the news, he’s already considered a failed administration by the liberal media. He could have done nothing and let it play out. It may have played out and worked itself out. Instead, President Bush didn’t take the chance of the country going down the economic drain. He put the country first and acted. I don't know that the solution is the correct one. I tend to think that it's not. Nationalizing the markets doesn't seem to be a correct answer. That's not the point of this however. The point is that the situation called for someone to stand up and present a plan and President Bush did so.
Now our fate is in the hands of Congress. Congress, who always adds their pet projects to bills that have nothing to do with the bill, are now being asked to deal with this situation and not politicize it with those pet projects. Already it’s begun. Congressman Barney Frank has called for a surtax on the rich blaming them for the situation we’re in.
President Bush had a moment that is similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were on the brink of a disaster and he stepped up to the plate and got the job done. Now it’s in the hands of Congress. Congress holds the purse strings. Not the President. Yet, President Bush stepped up and did Congress’ job which they’ve neglected for years, and now we’re back to hoping that Congress can step up and do as the President has done.
Can they do it? With the likes of Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Barney Frank who have received deals on their mortgages and are directly and indirectly responsible for this situation, it’s a scary thought. Congressman Rangel, who writes tax law, but didn’t realize he owed taxes on property. Again I ask. Can they do it?
Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate who said that they didn’t know what to do so they left on Friday. It doesn’t look promising.
I hope that the people of each district take a very close look at their Representatives and Senators and ask themselves if they really trust the person in office and vote for the proper the person, not based on party, but based on whether they have the wherewithal to do what’s necessary when called upon.
I suspect that this will get taken care of, but then we’ll be subjected to the return to the blame game. The blame lies with Congress. Democrats and Republicans. Some are no longer in Congress. Some have been entrenched there for 20 years or longer. What is needed is a plan to get this money back to the people of this country that are bailing out this problem. The real problem with Congress will be their propensity to create new laws that will make things worse once they have this problem resolved. Assuming that they can put aside their hatred for each other and get this legislation done cleanly.
President Bush stepped up when needed as needed. Now we have to hope that Congress, contrary to their history, can do the same thing.
President Bush was the right man, at the right place as he was on September 11, 2001. Imagine if we had Al Gore as President on September 11, 2001. Now imagine if Barack Hussein Obama was President last Thursday. President Bush was the man to have there in both instances.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, September 15, 2008
Obama Tried His Own October Surprise
Senator Barack Hussein Obama tried his own October surprise in this election asking Iraq not to enter into an agreement for troop withdrawal with the Bush administration but rather to wait until after the elections here in the United States. He then wanted the Iraqi's to negotiate the troop withdrawal with the new incoming administration. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama asked for this delay.
Why would Obama want to leave troops in a war zone where he says the war was illegal? This would delay the troop withdrawal if it were successful.
Once again, we see that Obama's concern is not about the war, the troops or even the success of the war, but his concern is about his potential election.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama asked for this delay.
Why would Obama want to leave troops in a war zone where he says the war was illegal? This would delay the troop withdrawal if it were successful.
Once again, we see that Obama's concern is not about the war, the troops or even the success of the war, but his concern is about his potential election.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Democrats Fading Fast, Republicans Rising
I have been very disappointed in the Republicans over the past months. They have not been actively seeking election nor re-election. It was as if they had decided there was no way they could win so why bother campaigning for a seat. Through no effort of their own, that seems to be changing. Recent polls indicate that not only are the Republicans now in a position of regaining control of Congress, but they are leading in that by 5 points.
The Democrats are running from Senator Barack Hussein Obama like rats leaving a sinking ship.
A local race to me was looking like it was going to be the most exciting race in the country this year after the Presidential race. Tim Walberg is being challenged by State Senator Mark Schauer a Democrat. With what the Democrats have done to the state of Michigan the past five years, and Schauers active participation in the states downfall, I’m surprised that any Democrat would even be considered competitive.
With the recent choice of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate, it’s now looking like the man has coat tails where just a month ago people were wondering if he even had a jacket, let alone a coat.
The hope here is that the Republicans don’t start playing defense to protect their lead, but rather that they stay on offense and build on their lead. That means that the Republicans that have been dormant this election season, should star running with vigor in all of their races.
Once they are elected, they’d best remember why they were kicked out two years ago. They were booted because they spent money like Democrats. They now have a second chance at this. They need to jump in with both feet and run their offense.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
The Democrats are running from Senator Barack Hussein Obama like rats leaving a sinking ship.
A local race to me was looking like it was going to be the most exciting race in the country this year after the Presidential race. Tim Walberg is being challenged by State Senator Mark Schauer a Democrat. With what the Democrats have done to the state of Michigan the past five years, and Schauers active participation in the states downfall, I’m surprised that any Democrat would even be considered competitive.
With the recent choice of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate, it’s now looking like the man has coat tails where just a month ago people were wondering if he even had a jacket, let alone a coat.
The hope here is that the Republicans don’t start playing defense to protect their lead, but rather that they stay on offense and build on their lead. That means that the Republicans that have been dormant this election season, should star running with vigor in all of their races.
Once they are elected, they’d best remember why they were kicked out two years ago. They were booted because they spent money like Democrats. They now have a second chance at this. They need to jump in with both feet and run their offense.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Experience and Change
Looking at a list of Presidents and Presidential candidates over the years, it really is no wonder about who is more experienced and who represents change from the Washington insiders.
In 2000 and 2004, we had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Cheney had been a Congressman, but was really out of it when he was named as Bush’s running mate. His opponent in 2004 was John Kerry and John Edwards. John Kerry was definitely part of the Washington entrenchment. In 2000 it was Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a long time Senator, although not as liberal as the rest of the Democrats on some issues. Gore’s dad was a Washington politician and Gore himself had been in the Senate for years.
1996 was Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. Kemp had been away for a number of years. Dole had been there for years. He lost.
1992 was Clinton and Gore and President Bush and Dan Quayle. Bush had been part of Washington for years, and Quayle was fairly new to Washington, but Clinton wasn’t part of Washington, Gore was.
1988. President Bush and Quayle vs. Dukakis and his running mate (I don’t remember who it was. Bush was actually serving Reagan’s third term. Reagan had a successful two terms and Bush benefitted for one term.
1984. Ronald Reagan (governor, never part of Washington) and Bush. Mondale and Ferraro. Two entrenched Washington insiders.
So what do we look at this year. John McCain part of Washington for years, but known as a maverick. He may be part of Washington, but nobody knows on any given issue, which part of Washington. Palin is not part of Washington. Which his part of what the Obama camp is complaining about.
Then there is Obama/Biden. Obama has aimed at Washington and then he arrived he began planning to move his residence down the street to the White House. Biden came into the work force and after two years, joined Washington and stayed ever since.
For all of the Democrats entrenchment in Washington, they haven’t gained any experience to satisfy the people that they would be worthy of being in the White House. Their two forays into the White House in the past 39 years have been disasters. Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter failure and Bill Clinton was filled with 8 years of scandals to the point that he didn’t look at terrorism as anything more than a traffic violation.
Governor Palin makes the difference in this election. She is not an insider, yet she has proven her ability to not only work with both sides, but to hold the corrupt accountable.
The biggest problem for McCain/Palin is the results of the next four years. If they don’t actually follow through on their reforms, we could still end up with Hillary for President in 2012. The best thing they have going for them in this regard is that neither is actually a third term of Bush/Cheney. The last time there was a third time was Bush for Reagan. None of Bush’s team is part of the McCain/Palin team, which makes this the greatest possibility of success for a third term.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
In 2000 and 2004, we had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Cheney had been a Congressman, but was really out of it when he was named as Bush’s running mate. His opponent in 2004 was John Kerry and John Edwards. John Kerry was definitely part of the Washington entrenchment. In 2000 it was Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a long time Senator, although not as liberal as the rest of the Democrats on some issues. Gore’s dad was a Washington politician and Gore himself had been in the Senate for years.
1996 was Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. Kemp had been away for a number of years. Dole had been there for years. He lost.
1992 was Clinton and Gore and President Bush and Dan Quayle. Bush had been part of Washington for years, and Quayle was fairly new to Washington, but Clinton wasn’t part of Washington, Gore was.
1988. President Bush and Quayle vs. Dukakis and his running mate (I don’t remember who it was. Bush was actually serving Reagan’s third term. Reagan had a successful two terms and Bush benefitted for one term.
1984. Ronald Reagan (governor, never part of Washington) and Bush. Mondale and Ferraro. Two entrenched Washington insiders.
So what do we look at this year. John McCain part of Washington for years, but known as a maverick. He may be part of Washington, but nobody knows on any given issue, which part of Washington. Palin is not part of Washington. Which his part of what the Obama camp is complaining about.
Then there is Obama/Biden. Obama has aimed at Washington and then he arrived he began planning to move his residence down the street to the White House. Biden came into the work force and after two years, joined Washington and stayed ever since.
For all of the Democrats entrenchment in Washington, they haven’t gained any experience to satisfy the people that they would be worthy of being in the White House. Their two forays into the White House in the past 39 years have been disasters. Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter failure and Bill Clinton was filled with 8 years of scandals to the point that he didn’t look at terrorism as anything more than a traffic violation.
Governor Palin makes the difference in this election. She is not an insider, yet she has proven her ability to not only work with both sides, but to hold the corrupt accountable.
The biggest problem for McCain/Palin is the results of the next four years. If they don’t actually follow through on their reforms, we could still end up with Hillary for President in 2012. The best thing they have going for them in this regard is that neither is actually a third term of Bush/Cheney. The last time there was a third time was Bush for Reagan. None of Bush’s team is part of the McCain/Palin team, which makes this the greatest possibility of success for a third term.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Friday, September 5, 2008
Oprah Afraid to Have Governor Palin on her Program
The staff of the Oprah show are divided regarding inviting Governor Sarah Palin on her television show, it’s now being reported.
I find this to be another double standard by the extreme liberals. The liberals want the fairness doctrine implemented to try to offset Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others. This action/problem of Oprah’s shows the liberals have no soul. If they truly believed in the fairness doctrine, they would stand by their beliefs and enact their own form of the fairness doctrine on what they do control. Their own programs.
This puts on display that the fairness doctrine is their only way to shut up some of the conservative talk shows and not necessarily to get their positions out there. They have had liberals that have been out there on the radio to try to compete with Rush Limbaugh and they have failed. Remember Mario Cuomo? He didn’t last. After a few attempts at programs like Mario Cuomo’s that failed, they then decided to create their own network.
That network was Air America. Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and others. Let’s see, Al Franken is gone and now running for the Senate in Minnesota and is finding himself in more and more trouble over there. I’m not sure where Randi Rhodes is these days. Air America is gone.
People don’t want the liberal programs. They get it with the nightly news, CNN, MSNBC and others. They don’t want to listen to them on the radio too. How do I know? Because they keep failing!
Now it’s Oprah’s turn. She backed Obama, and still does, but refuses to ask Sarah Palin onto her program. It makes sense. In one week, Sarah Palin has soared to popularity that even Obama couldn’t do.
I suspect Oprah will give in. After all, it’s not about Oprah, it’s about what people want and ratings. She’ll eventually give in and have Governor Palin on, if the Governor wants to go on a daytime talk show. Personally, I think Palin would be much better off going where the voters are, not where egotists play.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
I find this to be another double standard by the extreme liberals. The liberals want the fairness doctrine implemented to try to offset Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others. This action/problem of Oprah’s shows the liberals have no soul. If they truly believed in the fairness doctrine, they would stand by their beliefs and enact their own form of the fairness doctrine on what they do control. Their own programs.
This puts on display that the fairness doctrine is their only way to shut up some of the conservative talk shows and not necessarily to get their positions out there. They have had liberals that have been out there on the radio to try to compete with Rush Limbaugh and they have failed. Remember Mario Cuomo? He didn’t last. After a few attempts at programs like Mario Cuomo’s that failed, they then decided to create their own network.
That network was Air America. Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and others. Let’s see, Al Franken is gone and now running for the Senate in Minnesota and is finding himself in more and more trouble over there. I’m not sure where Randi Rhodes is these days. Air America is gone.
People don’t want the liberal programs. They get it with the nightly news, CNN, MSNBC and others. They don’t want to listen to them on the radio too. How do I know? Because they keep failing!
Now it’s Oprah’s turn. She backed Obama, and still does, but refuses to ask Sarah Palin onto her program. It makes sense. In one week, Sarah Palin has soared to popularity that even Obama couldn’t do.
I suspect Oprah will give in. After all, it’s not about Oprah, it’s about what people want and ratings. She’ll eventually give in and have Governor Palin on, if the Governor wants to go on a daytime talk show. Personally, I think Palin would be much better off going where the voters are, not where egotists play.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Governor Palin Didn't Say "Economy"
Governor Sarah Palin showed why she was selected to be John McCain’s Vice President last night. Barack Hussein Obama said he hit a home run with his choice of Joe Biden. If that was a home run, then John McCain hit a Grand Slam with his choice of Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin made it a second Grand Slam in the same inning with her speech last night.
Democrats complained following her speech about what she didn’t say. Donna Brazille, Carl Bernstein, David Gergen, Paul Begala, and the rest, including the group that was on Larry King later all said she didn’t mention the economy, didn’t mention health care, and so on.
Look at the speech. First, she talked about how she lowered taxes, lowered spending, balanced the budget and has a surplus in Alaska. Is that not economic speak? She talked about Obama’s plans. Increase income taxes. Increase capital gains taxes, increase death taxes, increase taxes on businesses, small and large.
Perhaps they didn’t notice that she spoke of her sister and sisters husband who have just built and opened a new business and asked about them paying higher taxes under an Obama tax plans.
Do they not recognize economic speak when they hear it? Or were they just fuming too much from when she said that she was only the mayor of a small town that had to balance a budget, cut spending and end corruption which Obama doesn’t seem to consider a community organizer.
Maybe they missed where the speakers last night said that the answer to health care does not lie with big government programs. Or maybe they didn’t understand what it means that when you have to give all to government, you beg for government to give back.
I do have to admit that my favorite part of the night was when Carl Bernstein said that we were suffering through skyrocketing unemployment. Unemployment has been below 5% for the better part of six years and in the past year it’s gone up to 5.5% and then, in July, the exact same time that the minimum wage increased, the unemployment rate increased to 5.7%.
Ok, so that wasn’t my favorite part. Sarah Palin was my favorite part. This woman is amazing. In the past six months, she’s dealt with a new baby that has Down Syndrome, a son that is about to be deployed to Iraq, a daughter that is about to get married and her pregnancy and being selected to become Vice President of the United States.
In the past week, she’s been subjected to liberal blogs accusing her of not having a baby, but that it was actually her grandchild, which we know is untrue. She’s been accused of being part of a party that wants to secede from the United States, also untrue. She’s now being accused of having had an affair. She’s been questioned in the press about whether or not she can be a mother and Vice President. They now are demanding a DNA test on her baby and after her speech last night Senator Harry Reid called her “shrill”. The press is also questioning whether she was adequately vetted.
Poor Joe Biden. He’s not getting any attention. Palin is being compared to Obama. Yet they aren’t running for the same office. While Palin talks about John McCain’s trials and tribulations of being a POW and talking about how he’s stood up to Democrats and Republicans over the years, the liberal Democrats are comparing her to Obama. Not Biden, who would be her counterpart, but to Obama.
Sarah Palin has proven in the past six months and especially in the past six days that she is qualified for the Presidency and those that have proven it are the liberal Democrats. They’ve made the case for her. So the Republicans actually have two Presidential candidates while the Democrats have one candidate who is probably not qualified to be President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Democrats complained following her speech about what she didn’t say. Donna Brazille, Carl Bernstein, David Gergen, Paul Begala, and the rest, including the group that was on Larry King later all said she didn’t mention the economy, didn’t mention health care, and so on.
Look at the speech. First, she talked about how she lowered taxes, lowered spending, balanced the budget and has a surplus in Alaska. Is that not economic speak? She talked about Obama’s plans. Increase income taxes. Increase capital gains taxes, increase death taxes, increase taxes on businesses, small and large.
Perhaps they didn’t notice that she spoke of her sister and sisters husband who have just built and opened a new business and asked about them paying higher taxes under an Obama tax plans.
Do they not recognize economic speak when they hear it? Or were they just fuming too much from when she said that she was only the mayor of a small town that had to balance a budget, cut spending and end corruption which Obama doesn’t seem to consider a community organizer.
Maybe they missed where the speakers last night said that the answer to health care does not lie with big government programs. Or maybe they didn’t understand what it means that when you have to give all to government, you beg for government to give back.
I do have to admit that my favorite part of the night was when Carl Bernstein said that we were suffering through skyrocketing unemployment. Unemployment has been below 5% for the better part of six years and in the past year it’s gone up to 5.5% and then, in July, the exact same time that the minimum wage increased, the unemployment rate increased to 5.7%.
Ok, so that wasn’t my favorite part. Sarah Palin was my favorite part. This woman is amazing. In the past six months, she’s dealt with a new baby that has Down Syndrome, a son that is about to be deployed to Iraq, a daughter that is about to get married and her pregnancy and being selected to become Vice President of the United States.
In the past week, she’s been subjected to liberal blogs accusing her of not having a baby, but that it was actually her grandchild, which we know is untrue. She’s been accused of being part of a party that wants to secede from the United States, also untrue. She’s now being accused of having had an affair. She’s been questioned in the press about whether or not she can be a mother and Vice President. They now are demanding a DNA test on her baby and after her speech last night Senator Harry Reid called her “shrill”. The press is also questioning whether she was adequately vetted.
Poor Joe Biden. He’s not getting any attention. Palin is being compared to Obama. Yet they aren’t running for the same office. While Palin talks about John McCain’s trials and tribulations of being a POW and talking about how he’s stood up to Democrats and Republicans over the years, the liberal Democrats are comparing her to Obama. Not Biden, who would be her counterpart, but to Obama.
Sarah Palin has proven in the past six months and especially in the past six days that she is qualified for the Presidency and those that have proven it are the liberal Democrats. They’ve made the case for her. So the Republicans actually have two Presidential candidates while the Democrats have one candidate who is probably not qualified to be President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Message to Liberals
Beat that!!
Governor Sarah Palin rocked the house!
Governor Palin is a better man than Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden.
You're welcome to comment, but if you disagree, it will fall on deaf ears.
Brett
Governor Sarah Palin rocked the house!
Governor Palin is a better man than Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden.
You're welcome to comment, but if you disagree, it will fall on deaf ears.
Brett
Best Line of Tuesday Nights Convention Speeches
In my opinion, the best lines of Tuesday nights speeches were both given by former Senator Fred Thompson:
To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.
History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.
and this one....
Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.
They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.
To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.
History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.
and this one....
Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.
They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.
Senator Lieberman's Career Ended
Last night at the Republican Convention, Senator Joe Lieberman looked into the camera and said that Barack Hussein Obama is not ready to be President. He made an appeal to Democrats and Independents to vote for the country by voting for McCain.
This has the liberals up in arms. Harry Reid within minutes came out with a statement about Lieberman's comments. Obama's team campaign came out with comments. Donna Brazille on CNN said immediately afterwards that she thought he'd talk about what a wonderful man McCain is, but didn't expect him to play the part of "attack dog".
Senator Joe Lieberman put his career in the Senate, his chairmanship of a committee on the line and he's going to lose it. He claims to be an Independent now but caucuses with Democrats. I believe it's only a matter of time before the liberals punish him by removing him from the committee he chairs and ostracizes him from their party.
Why would Lieberman go this far? For one, I believe that he really believes in John McCain's presidential bid. I think he laid it all on the line with the expectation that McCain/Palin will win the election. He's so close to John McCain that McCain will appoint him to a cabinet position. He'd have to give up his Senate seat if that happens and I think he's banking on that happening.
Lieberman is not a Republican and will never be one. Even if he was to switch parties, he'd still be a Democrat in Republican clothes. He is more liberal than Olympia Snowe. He could become a Republican, but he would be a liberal Republican.
In his assessment of Senator Obama, he is very credible. He is not a liberal lap dog. He truly believes in the Democrat ideology, but he's sensible enough to recognize reason when he sees it.
It will be fun to watch as the Democrats remove him from the fold in the coming weeks.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
This has the liberals up in arms. Harry Reid within minutes came out with a statement about Lieberman's comments. Obama's team campaign came out with comments. Donna Brazille on CNN said immediately afterwards that she thought he'd talk about what a wonderful man McCain is, but didn't expect him to play the part of "attack dog".
Senator Joe Lieberman put his career in the Senate, his chairmanship of a committee on the line and he's going to lose it. He claims to be an Independent now but caucuses with Democrats. I believe it's only a matter of time before the liberals punish him by removing him from the committee he chairs and ostracizes him from their party.
Why would Lieberman go this far? For one, I believe that he really believes in John McCain's presidential bid. I think he laid it all on the line with the expectation that McCain/Palin will win the election. He's so close to John McCain that McCain will appoint him to a cabinet position. He'd have to give up his Senate seat if that happens and I think he's banking on that happening.
Lieberman is not a Republican and will never be one. Even if he was to switch parties, he'd still be a Democrat in Republican clothes. He is more liberal than Olympia Snowe. He could become a Republican, but he would be a liberal Republican.
In his assessment of Senator Obama, he is very credible. He is not a liberal lap dog. He truly believes in the Democrat ideology, but he's sensible enough to recognize reason when he sees it.
It will be fun to watch as the Democrats remove him from the fold in the coming weeks.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Are We Defending Teenage Pregnancy?
Earlier today, while listening to a radio program, the discussion was about John McCain’s choice for his Vice President. Naturally, the discussion turned to her qualifications especially since it’s been discovered that her 17 year old daughter is with child. A caller brought up an interesting aspect to this story. He said that we’re now in a position of defending teenage pregnancy. Almost glorifying teenage pregnancy.
I believe he couldn’t be more wrong and I also believe that he couldn’t be more right. Confused? Me too. I’m going to start with how he couldn’t be more right. Teenage pregnancy has the possibility of becoming defendable in certain segments of society.
We now have a Vice Presidential candidate in this position. To the hard partisans of her party, this could be turned to say ‘so what. She’s only done what all teenagers do and her only mistake was not using contraception.’ They will defend the circumstance regardless of what they are, not because of their beliefs, but because it’s “their” candidate. This would be akin to saying “I’m voting for the black man because I’m black.” Or “I’m voting for the ticket that has the woman because I’m a woman.” In cases like that, I believe that caller could be right.
We see this attitude all of the time, on both sides. Liberals will say ‘I’m willing to pay a little extra in taxes to solve the problems that others are having which is causing a drain on the states economy.’ Then they move their investments into tax free investments so that they don’t have to pay those taxes.
However, I believe that the caller couldn’t be more wrong. Teenagers are not mature. They are caught between puberty and adulthood. They still want to be a child and do child things, but not where any adult can see because they want to be able to be seen as an adult. A boy will want to go out and play baseball in the summer, but he’s got this girlfriend that he wants to take out to a movie on the weekend, so he works a little to make money for that while still trying to find time to play some baseball.
I am the father of an 18 year old boy that thinks he’s an adult and wants to be heard, but he’s still not mature enough to know that he could be wrong and the adult might actually know better. I’m forever saying that I wish I was 18 again when I had all of the answers. Now that I’m in my fifties, I know that I didn’t have all of the answers then, and I still don’t have all of the answers.
Teenagers want to experiment. They want to try things that mom and dad have said is not proper. They want to know why it’s not proper. They don’t have the maturity to say no all of the time to things that they shouldn’t do, and they are pressured to say yes.
If a 30 year old woman gets pregnant, she knew in advance what she was getting into and made a choice. She’s mature enough. But a teenager is not mature enough to make those decisions. This shows with each teen that gets pregnant and with each teenage boy that finds himself having to marry, or having to pay child support for the next 18 years. The other options is to come up with a couple of hundred dollars (or go to the school and government and let them pay for it out of our taxes) and end the pregnancy. This is often done so that the parents never knew that there was a pregnancy.
When a teenager makes a wrong choice, is that a reflection on the parents? A little yes. In some cases, it may even be a direct reflection of the values (or lack of values) of the parent. But not always. Teenage pregnancies happen in the poorest of families and in the most well off families.
Nothing is 100%. Teenage pregnancy can be the lack of upbringing by the parents. However it can also be due to teenage experimentation without looking forward to the consequences of their actions. Maturity is then forced on the young teenagers. They must make a major decision. How to tell the parents. Should they tell the parents. Whether to continue the pregnancy. Marry the father/mother of the unborn child. Raise the child alone. Put the baby up for adoption.
Regardless of what is thought about, an accidental pregnancy when it happens to a teenager, it comes from a lack of maturity that gives one the ability or at least the thoughtfulness of looking ahead and saying “if I do this, what could be the repercussions”. Most teens won’t think about the ramifications. It’s the heat of the moment.
Teenage pregnancies are a mistake in judgment on the teens part. It’s not, in most cases, a lack of good parenting. Teaching abstinence doesn’t stop teen pregnancies. Being abstinent stops pregnancies. Contraceptives don’t stop teen pregnancies. It just lessens the chances of pregnancy. Using contraceptives actually says more about parenting than not using them. It says that it’s okay to have sex as a teen. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, permitting the use of them is telling a teen that it’s okay to engage in adult activities. It doesn’t relieve the teens of making a mistake in judgment, it’s advocating putting off the responsible decision making.
So am I defending teenage pregnancy? No. I can’t speak for the VP candidate, but I suspect that she didn’t condone the activity. I can’t think of even one parent that I know that would want to see their teenager pregnant or responsible for a pregnancy. Once the activity has been done and the mistake is magnified with a pregnancy, the decision now has to be made. Parents guidance should become most important at that time.
Once there is a pregnancy though, the situation must be dealt with. Barack Hussein Obama says that he wouldn’t want to force an unwanted child on his daughters. I have yet to hear anyone accuse the VP candidate or anyone in her family say that they are about to have an unwanted child added to the family. Would they have preferred this happened a few years from now, with their daughter married? More than likely. Would their daughter prefer that she be pregnant with a husband rather than have to go through the embarrassment on top of everything else that she would be going through if her mother wasn’t a public figure? I suspect so. That wasn’t to be for her, however.
The liberals, and the liberal media are keeping this in their reporting for their own political purposes. They are making this pregnancy even more difficult for this teenager that is still learning to deal with mature issues that she’s not mature enough to handle alone as yet.
I trust her mother and father to know their daughters ability to deal with being in the spotlight, and to protect her if the spotlight starts affecting her still more. The boyfriend is going to be at the convention tonight, which tells me something about his character. He didn’t run out on the girl. He didn’t hang back and hide while his girlfriend had to go through the national spotlight alone. He’s gone to join her. I’m sure that the press will make a big deal out of his being there and create more pressure for these two teens.
I would never advocate teenage pregnancy, and I would never defend teenage pregnancy, but once the pregnancy is a reality, the situation must be dealt with and from all appearances thus far, these two teens seem to be doing well and I’m quite certain that a lot of that has to do with the parents of both teens and how they are supporting these two.
Should McCain and Palin win this election, which I believe they will, we’ll hear when this daughter has her baby and I believe that we’ll see an outpouring of support for the daughter and the new baby from people all across the country.
It is wrong for the press and the liberals to use a child, and she is still a child. They risk making this pregnancy more difficult than it needs to be. They are walking a dangerous line here if anything goes wrong with this pregnancy due to stress. This teenager has enough to deal with in plotting the rest of her life, she doesn’t need the added stress of the liberals and the liberal media passing moral judgment on her.
Defend teenage pregnancy? Nope. No way, no how. Defend the teen once pregnant? ABSOLUTELY!!!
I welcome your comments.
Brett
I believe he couldn’t be more wrong and I also believe that he couldn’t be more right. Confused? Me too. I’m going to start with how he couldn’t be more right. Teenage pregnancy has the possibility of becoming defendable in certain segments of society.
We now have a Vice Presidential candidate in this position. To the hard partisans of her party, this could be turned to say ‘so what. She’s only done what all teenagers do and her only mistake was not using contraception.’ They will defend the circumstance regardless of what they are, not because of their beliefs, but because it’s “their” candidate. This would be akin to saying “I’m voting for the black man because I’m black.” Or “I’m voting for the ticket that has the woman because I’m a woman.” In cases like that, I believe that caller could be right.
We see this attitude all of the time, on both sides. Liberals will say ‘I’m willing to pay a little extra in taxes to solve the problems that others are having which is causing a drain on the states economy.’ Then they move their investments into tax free investments so that they don’t have to pay those taxes.
However, I believe that the caller couldn’t be more wrong. Teenagers are not mature. They are caught between puberty and adulthood. They still want to be a child and do child things, but not where any adult can see because they want to be able to be seen as an adult. A boy will want to go out and play baseball in the summer, but he’s got this girlfriend that he wants to take out to a movie on the weekend, so he works a little to make money for that while still trying to find time to play some baseball.
I am the father of an 18 year old boy that thinks he’s an adult and wants to be heard, but he’s still not mature enough to know that he could be wrong and the adult might actually know better. I’m forever saying that I wish I was 18 again when I had all of the answers. Now that I’m in my fifties, I know that I didn’t have all of the answers then, and I still don’t have all of the answers.
Teenagers want to experiment. They want to try things that mom and dad have said is not proper. They want to know why it’s not proper. They don’t have the maturity to say no all of the time to things that they shouldn’t do, and they are pressured to say yes.
If a 30 year old woman gets pregnant, she knew in advance what she was getting into and made a choice. She’s mature enough. But a teenager is not mature enough to make those decisions. This shows with each teen that gets pregnant and with each teenage boy that finds himself having to marry, or having to pay child support for the next 18 years. The other options is to come up with a couple of hundred dollars (or go to the school and government and let them pay for it out of our taxes) and end the pregnancy. This is often done so that the parents never knew that there was a pregnancy.
When a teenager makes a wrong choice, is that a reflection on the parents? A little yes. In some cases, it may even be a direct reflection of the values (or lack of values) of the parent. But not always. Teenage pregnancies happen in the poorest of families and in the most well off families.
Nothing is 100%. Teenage pregnancy can be the lack of upbringing by the parents. However it can also be due to teenage experimentation without looking forward to the consequences of their actions. Maturity is then forced on the young teenagers. They must make a major decision. How to tell the parents. Should they tell the parents. Whether to continue the pregnancy. Marry the father/mother of the unborn child. Raise the child alone. Put the baby up for adoption.
Regardless of what is thought about, an accidental pregnancy when it happens to a teenager, it comes from a lack of maturity that gives one the ability or at least the thoughtfulness of looking ahead and saying “if I do this, what could be the repercussions”. Most teens won’t think about the ramifications. It’s the heat of the moment.
Teenage pregnancies are a mistake in judgment on the teens part. It’s not, in most cases, a lack of good parenting. Teaching abstinence doesn’t stop teen pregnancies. Being abstinent stops pregnancies. Contraceptives don’t stop teen pregnancies. It just lessens the chances of pregnancy. Using contraceptives actually says more about parenting than not using them. It says that it’s okay to have sex as a teen. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, permitting the use of them is telling a teen that it’s okay to engage in adult activities. It doesn’t relieve the teens of making a mistake in judgment, it’s advocating putting off the responsible decision making.
So am I defending teenage pregnancy? No. I can’t speak for the VP candidate, but I suspect that she didn’t condone the activity. I can’t think of even one parent that I know that would want to see their teenager pregnant or responsible for a pregnancy. Once the activity has been done and the mistake is magnified with a pregnancy, the decision now has to be made. Parents guidance should become most important at that time.
Once there is a pregnancy though, the situation must be dealt with. Barack Hussein Obama says that he wouldn’t want to force an unwanted child on his daughters. I have yet to hear anyone accuse the VP candidate or anyone in her family say that they are about to have an unwanted child added to the family. Would they have preferred this happened a few years from now, with their daughter married? More than likely. Would their daughter prefer that she be pregnant with a husband rather than have to go through the embarrassment on top of everything else that she would be going through if her mother wasn’t a public figure? I suspect so. That wasn’t to be for her, however.
The liberals, and the liberal media are keeping this in their reporting for their own political purposes. They are making this pregnancy even more difficult for this teenager that is still learning to deal with mature issues that she’s not mature enough to handle alone as yet.
I trust her mother and father to know their daughters ability to deal with being in the spotlight, and to protect her if the spotlight starts affecting her still more. The boyfriend is going to be at the convention tonight, which tells me something about his character. He didn’t run out on the girl. He didn’t hang back and hide while his girlfriend had to go through the national spotlight alone. He’s gone to join her. I’m sure that the press will make a big deal out of his being there and create more pressure for these two teens.
I would never advocate teenage pregnancy, and I would never defend teenage pregnancy, but once the pregnancy is a reality, the situation must be dealt with and from all appearances thus far, these two teens seem to be doing well and I’m quite certain that a lot of that has to do with the parents of both teens and how they are supporting these two.
Should McCain and Palin win this election, which I believe they will, we’ll hear when this daughter has her baby and I believe that we’ll see an outpouring of support for the daughter and the new baby from people all across the country.
It is wrong for the press and the liberals to use a child, and she is still a child. They risk making this pregnancy more difficult than it needs to be. They are walking a dangerous line here if anything goes wrong with this pregnancy due to stress. This teenager has enough to deal with in plotting the rest of her life, she doesn’t need the added stress of the liberals and the liberal media passing moral judgment on her.
Defend teenage pregnancy? Nope. No way, no how. Defend the teen once pregnant? ABSOLUTELY!!!
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Liberals Take the Low Road…Again.
During the past several days, the liberals, through the Daily Kos blog and others have really dipped down into the mud regarding Governor Sarah Palin. They involved her family. Had they gone after her husband, fine. He’s a big boy and can take it. But their going after the Palin’s 17 year old daughter smacks of pedophilia.
First the Daily Kos made the accusation that the Palin’s latest addition to their family was not actually their child, but rather the child of their 17 year old daughter. They claimed that Governor Palin didn’t look pregnant, but that their daughter seemed to have a “baby bump” back in March. Why are they looking at a 17 year old girl? Isn’t a child off limits to adults?
Governor Palin delivered a baby boy back in April of this year. The baby was born with Down Syndrome. Which led to Alan Colmes, of Hannity and Colmes fame, to ask the question on his blog if the baby being born with Down Syndrome might not be the fault of the mother, the Governor, because she may not have taken the proper pre-natal care.
Then came the announcement from Governor Palin to stop the salacious talk of their daughter, that she was pregnant, planned to keep the baby and marry the father. This became the talk on the first day of the convention by the press. They sent an army of “reporters” to Alaska to check on this, discover who the father is and while at it, take a look at the investigation into what the press now calls “troopergate” bringing up memories of Bill Clinton using Arkansas troopers to procure women for himself.
The double standard was employed by Senator Barack Hussein Obama when he brought up the news of teenage pregnancy of Governor Palin by saying that families should be off limits, but then talked about his family, more specifically his mother having had him at the age of 18. The liberal media was fawning all over Obama after these comments. By the way, Obama also said that nobody in his campaign had anything to do with this story or the comments made by the blogs. I don't believe it. Nobody asked where it came from. He offered it. This leads me to believe that he was, or his staff was involved.
Naturally, the talk in the media turned to sex education in the schools and how Governor Palin is against it, and how abstinence obviously doesn’t work. Teenage pregnancy has increased since schools started teaching sex education.
This should have been a private matter within the Palin family. They should have been provided the opportunity to bring this out on their own terms. After all, we went through 8 years of the Clinton’s not permitting any talk of their daughter Chelsea including her use of drugs as she got into her late teens. This privacy wasn’t afforded the Bush twins when George Bush became President. Remember the liberals going after them with their drinking?
The liberals, through the blogs and Alan Colmes didn’t just dip their toes into the muck and mire that they accuse Republicans of all of the time. They plunged right in and made themselves look like pedophiles examining the body of a 17 year old girl.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
First the Daily Kos made the accusation that the Palin’s latest addition to their family was not actually their child, but rather the child of their 17 year old daughter. They claimed that Governor Palin didn’t look pregnant, but that their daughter seemed to have a “baby bump” back in March. Why are they looking at a 17 year old girl? Isn’t a child off limits to adults?
Governor Palin delivered a baby boy back in April of this year. The baby was born with Down Syndrome. Which led to Alan Colmes, of Hannity and Colmes fame, to ask the question on his blog if the baby being born with Down Syndrome might not be the fault of the mother, the Governor, because she may not have taken the proper pre-natal care.
Then came the announcement from Governor Palin to stop the salacious talk of their daughter, that she was pregnant, planned to keep the baby and marry the father. This became the talk on the first day of the convention by the press. They sent an army of “reporters” to Alaska to check on this, discover who the father is and while at it, take a look at the investigation into what the press now calls “troopergate” bringing up memories of Bill Clinton using Arkansas troopers to procure women for himself.
The double standard was employed by Senator Barack Hussein Obama when he brought up the news of teenage pregnancy of Governor Palin by saying that families should be off limits, but then talked about his family, more specifically his mother having had him at the age of 18. The liberal media was fawning all over Obama after these comments. By the way, Obama also said that nobody in his campaign had anything to do with this story or the comments made by the blogs. I don't believe it. Nobody asked where it came from. He offered it. This leads me to believe that he was, or his staff was involved.
Naturally, the talk in the media turned to sex education in the schools and how Governor Palin is against it, and how abstinence obviously doesn’t work. Teenage pregnancy has increased since schools started teaching sex education.
This should have been a private matter within the Palin family. They should have been provided the opportunity to bring this out on their own terms. After all, we went through 8 years of the Clinton’s not permitting any talk of their daughter Chelsea including her use of drugs as she got into her late teens. This privacy wasn’t afforded the Bush twins when George Bush became President. Remember the liberals going after them with their drinking?
The liberals, through the blogs and Alan Colmes didn’t just dip their toes into the muck and mire that they accuse Republicans of all of the time. They plunged right in and made themselves look like pedophiles examining the body of a 17 year old girl.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)