Who Should Confront the Iranian Time Bomb - Obama or McCain

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: With the presidential election upon us, many people are also focused on the economy. However, we know from history that we will be able to correct our economic problem even if it takes longer than our American tendency to want instant solutions for everything. However, because of the economic crisis, many voters are ignoring the most significant issue that our next president is directly responsible to address. That issue is the very real global threat to America's very survival. Since confronting this threat every day is not part of our personal daily routine and responsibilities (until it is too late), we tend to be myopic and look at the "me things."

If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.

To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.

The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":

"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.

Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."

So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?

Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).

Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.

The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?

Heeeere's Johnny . . .

H/T ARRA News & Purple People Vote: Who can make both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama roll with laughter? . . . John McCain at the Albert E. Smith Dinner.

1st Part of McCain's Comments:

2nd Part of McCain's Comments

Oh please, please, let this be a sign that McCain will be McCain in the last weeks of this election.

Hank Williams Jr - "The McCain-Palin Tradition"

Hank Williams JR supporting john McCain and Sarah palin singing - "The McCain-Palin Tradition"

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

ARRA News Service - H/T the Mouth Piece: This video is an informative look at the factors that are causing our current financial and economic crisis. It discusses policy changes 13 years ago that unleashed the sub-prime mortgage-backed securities market, which accelerated prices erratically, inviting speculation and loose lending practices which were both condoned and encouraged by existing regulation and carried out by risk-blind executives and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

They Gave Your Mortgage To A Less Qualified Minority

by Ann Coulter, On MSNBC this week, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter tried to connect John McCain to the current financial disaster, saying: "If you remember the Keating Five scandal that (McCain) was a part of. ... He's really getting a free ride on the fact that he was in the middle of the last great financial scandal in our country."

McCain was "in the middle of" the Keating Five case in the sense that he was "exonerated." The lawyer for the Senate Ethics Committee wanted McCain removed from the investigation altogether, but, as The New York Times reported: "Sen. McCain was the only Republican embroiled in the affair, and Democrats on the panel would not release him."

So John McCain has been held hostage by both the Viet Cong and the Democrats.

Alter couldn't be expected to know that: As usual, he was lifting material directly from Kausfiles. What is unusual was that he was stealing a random thought sent in by Kausfiles' mother, who, the day before, had e-mailed: "It's time to bring up the Keating Five. Let McCain explain that scandal away."

The Senate Ethics Committee lawyer who investigated McCain already had explained that scandal away -- repeatedly. It was celebrated lawyer Robert Bennett, most famous for defending a certain horny hick president a few years ago.

In February this year, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," Bennett said, for the eight billionth time:

"First, I should tell your listeners I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on (McCain's) side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five. ... And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him."

It's bad enough for Alter to be constantly ripping off Kausfiles. Now he's so devoid of his own ideas, he's ripping off the idle musings of Kausfiles' mother.

Even if McCain had been implicated in the Keating Five scandal -- and he wasn't -- that would still have absolutely nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis currently roiling the financial markets. This crisis was caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending industry in the Clinton era.

Before the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."

Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."

Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.

When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.

In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."

Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.

A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.

In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.

Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.

Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.

Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.

Major "Earmark" in Democrat Bailout Agreement

Update (9:58AM, Sept. 26th): While Sens. Harry Reid and Chris Dodd stand before the news this morning pontificating and mocking Republicans, especially Sen McCain, for the perceived delay in reaching agreement, they also continues to prevaricate. Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi initially asserted that they needed McCain to clinch a deal for Democrats and now they are like a pack rabid dogs blaming John McCain for the deal falling apart. In fact, the deal fell apart before McCain arrived.

A republican senate source has confirmed that the questioned provision reported in this post is being opposed by Senate Republicans which has upset Democrats. Republicans are not opposing the obvious issues identified by Reid. They are working to get rid of the questioned provision "if they can." Also, they have already gotten the Democrats to back down from providing "most" of the money ("future profits") to the groups mentioned in the article "to a much smaller percentage." Negotiations are likely to continue throughout the day. Obviously no one is happy - especially the majority of the American public.

Breaking News - Bill Smith, ARRA Editor. I received a copy of "Agreement in Principle" relative to the $700 billion "bailout" being proposed and supported by Senate Democrats. The one page agreement from the U.S. Senate Banking Committee details guidelines to be put in place relative to taxpayer protection, oversight and transparency, home ownership preservation and Funding Authority.

While on the surface the agreement looks generic and positive, However, the "devil is in the detail." There is one detail that Democrats are concerned that Republicans will not agree to in the bailout agreement. That is if the Republicans even see the item. It seems that this issue may be one reason that many Democrats have hounded Sen. John McCain and pushed for his speedy approval. Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) has already identified that it is Sen. John McCain's approval, not Barack Obama approval, that is needed to secure the agreement of Senate Republicans. In fact, the questioned provision indirectly focus on some prior concern regarding Sen. Barack Obama involvement with various organizations. Maybe that is why Obama would prefer being at a debate in Mississippi than being in Washington D.C.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) cohorts are also hounding Sen. McCain to agree. They know that neither the House Republicans nor the House Blue Dog Democrats are going to sign on easily to an agreement extending $700 billion "bailout" if Sen. McCain disagrees. Pelosi does not have control of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs who are not happy with committing $700 billion to the "bailout" effort.

In the "agreement in principle," there is the effect of a major "earmark" which commits money from future "profits" to be given to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza and potentially the National Urban League. This agreement clearly evidences that the Government expects to benefit in the future from the bailout when the values of property rises and mortgages or properties are then sold by the Federal government. The agreement --

"Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs."

In the proposed bailout agreement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee and other Democrats desire to pre-direct that future funds (profits) not be returned to the taxpayers via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite potential questionable (maybe even illegal activities) of certain nonprofits which have had a hand in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities, illegal voter registrations and extensive lobbying activities.

Let’s examine the connection of the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund with the various nonprofit groups mentioned above. In July, 2008, a Wall Street Journal article addressed the previous housing bill signed into law:

Provide[d] a stream of billions of dollars for distressed homeowners and communities and the nonprofit groups that serve them. One of the biggest likely beneficiaries, despite Republican objections is Acorn, a housing advocacy group that also helps lead ambitious voter-registration efforts benefiting Democrats. Acorn -- made up of several legally distinct groups under that name -- has become an important player in the Democrats' effort to win the White House. Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record.

The organization's main advocacy group lobbied hard for passage of the housing bill, which provides nearly $5 billion for affordable housing, financial counseling and mortgage restructuring for people and neighborhoods affected by the housing meltdown. A third Acorn arm, its housing corporation, does a large share of that work on the ground. Acorn's multiple roles show how two fronts of activism -- housing for the poor and voter mobilization -- have converged closely in this election year. The fortunes of both parties will hinge in part on their plans for addressing the fall of the nation's housing market and the painful economic slowdown. . . .

Partly because of the role of Acorn and other housing advocacy groups, the White House and its allies in Congress resisted Democrats' plans to include money for a new affordable-housing trust fund and $4 billion in grants to restore housing in devastated neighborhoods. In the end, the money stayed in the bill; the White House saw little choice. What most riles Republicans about the bill is the symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and the housing advocacy groups, of which Acorn is among the biggest. Groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League also lobby to secure government-funded services for their members and seek to move them to the voting booth. Acorn has been singled out for criticism because of its reach, its endorsements of Democrats, and past flaws in its bookkeeping and voter-registration efforts that its detractors in Congress have seized upon. . . .

Sen. Obama is especially reliant on registration drives, such as Acorn's with Project Vote, to help him win the White House. The Illinois Democrat draws his strongest support from blacks, Hispanics and young people, groups that are among the least likely to be registered. After law school, Sen. Obama was the director of Project Vote in Chicago. . . .

Democrats on Capitol Hill have helped to steer millions of dollars in housing and other grants from the federal government toward Acorn and groups like it. The groups must qualify and compete for the money, which is typically doled out from the federal government to states and municipalities. The housing package includes a new, permanent source of affordable-housing money that congressional Democrats and grassroots groups have sought for years. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund will be funded by a tax on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage titans.

That tax eventually will channel upwards of $600 million annually in grants for developing and restoring housing, mostly as low-income rentals, available to Acorn and other groups. Democrats on Capitol Hill and housing groups say the housing-assistance money is vital to helping Americans hit hardest by what some call the largest drop in home values since the Great Depression. But they acknowledge the perception of political conflict in giving federal funds to an organization that does political work. "We are guarding against it," said Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank in an interview. He secured the Affordable Housing Trust from his seat as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. . . .

Acorn describes itself as the nation's largest grassroots community organization, with more than 400,000 families organized into 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities. Over four decades, Acorn has turned its broad membership into a powerful lobbying tool. Its representatives are well-known in the marble halls of the Capitol, and press local, state and federal governments . . .

ACORN is the agency where Sen. Barack Obama worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud. It is this same organization from which a large part of the mortgage mess has grown. After Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.

In 2006, the Wall Street Journal addressed Acorn Indictments. In a recent article, additional complaints, indictments and arrests and conviction of ACORN members for voter fraud have been detailed for Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Wisconsin. Democrats on Capitol Hill have steered billions of the taxpayer monies to risky ventures and to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza through the government’s Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. As a result groups like ACORN have developed powerful lobby groups to secure tax money for their organizations. Now the proposed "agreement in principle" for the $700 Billion "bailout" seeks to continue the protection of this process. In another article by James H. Walsh, a former federal prosecutor, it was noted that:

ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which has plagued the mortgage markets since 1977. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to “communities of color” disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of “outdated” risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were “communities of color” required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of “subprime” loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets.

In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora’s Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and a zero down payment.

In 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife’s lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama.

Open Secrets reveals the investment made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Democrats and details the Top 25 Democrat Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions in 1989-2008. The top three in order were Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

When government tries to fix social issues through the use of the taxpayers’ money, there are consequences. Now the American taxpayers are being called upon again to underwrite the problems exacerbated by the prior actions of former and the current Congress and past administrations. It is hoped that Senators and Representatives will avoid this massive "earmark." All "future profits" from the resolution and disposition of the alleged current bad mortgages ("bad paper"), should accrue to the American taxpayers as a whole and be returned to the Treasury. Any determination as to the use of "future profits" should be determined by those elected and representing the people at that future point in time. No agreements should include an obligation on the potential "future profits." No agreements should support questionable programs that support organizations that contributed to the failures of mortgages or to the bad lending practices promoted by prior Congresses and administrations.

Hillary Clinton Democrat Fundraiser Endorses John McCain

ARRA News Service: Former Clinton supporter Lynn Forester de Rothschild explains her switch to McCain and why she calls Obama "elitist." Rothschild a D.N.C. Member and Hillary Clinton top fundraiser has endorsed and supports John McCain and Sarah Palin for President and Vice-President, and NOT Barack Obama, she speaks with CNN and Fox News Greta Van Susteren about John McCain and Sarah Palin being Mavericks and holds that Obama and the Democratic Party has gone too far to the left, she also spoke of the Dangers of a Barack Obama presidency with Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the house failing even now to do her job and the checks and balances in our Government.

CNN Reports:

Fox News Reports:

Dear Mr. Obama

An Iraq Veteran (Joe Cook) has a personal message for Barack Obama. Joe returned from Iraq last year. Be sure to watch the whole thing.

John McCain Speaks to America

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor, Reporting at the RNC 2008: Tonight, John McCain accepted then nomination of the Republican Party the presidency of the United States. McCain reintroduced himself to his fellow Americans. Long known as the courageous POW who refused early release, a maverick in the Senate, and a devoted reformer, tonight Americans saw John McCain in yet another new light: as our nominee for president. He shared his story of courage, his plans to fix Washington, and his desire to strengthen our security. It is this record, this vision, this experience and ability that will compel millions of Americans to support John McCain and Sarah Palin this November. Tomorrow, John McCain and Sarah Palin will begin their journey together, meeting with voters and talking about their plans to make our nation more prosperous and more secure.


The Full Text of the Remarks by U.S. Senator John McCain: (Thursday, September 4, 2008 is available at the ARRA News Service - Click Now.

Sarah Palin - She Can Handle It!

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor, Reporting at the RNC 2008: All the republicans at the Republican national Convention were ecstatic after Sarah Palin's speech. However, I wanted to get a feel for opinions of others. Kathy Morrison, an Independent from New Hampshire, agreed to answer my questions:

Q: Kathy, tell me a little about yourself.
A: I am a female, 32, single and live in New Hampshire. I am an Independent. I am employed as a techy and webmaster for a company.
Q: Kathy, you have press credentials, what brought you to this convention?
A: I have a brother who moved to the St. Paul area and I wanted to visit him, my sister-in-law and their children. I am also a blogger and applied for press credentials as an Independent. And the RNC granted them. So, I took vacation and paid my way here. I have meet bloggers of all types: republicans, libertarians, democrats, independents and some from other countries.
Q: Kathy, what was your general impression of tonight?
A: The test for Governor Palin was to see if she could perform on the big stage. Could she handle the pressure? Could she handle the criticism? Oh yeah! She can handle it. She just crushed her critics, and showed the media for what they are, glorified gossip hounds. While the media sulks, lets look at what was so amazing about this speech. She talked details, no sweeping generalities, but hard facts on current issues. She gave her background and explained how her experience as Governor and as mayor has prepared her for being VP. She addressed her family, and laid to rest the swirl of nasty remarks made over the weekend. She championed small town America, and echoed the theme of service and country. Finally, she destroyed the opposition. From nailing Harry Reed, to shooting down the Obama campaign's message of hope and change as an empty rhetoric that lacked action, to deflating the Obama campaign's attacks on her experience by flipping those remarks onto Obama himself. This speech had it all and Governor Palin knocked it out of the park.
Q: Kathy, being an independent, can you vote for the Republican ticket?
A: Sen. john McCain made several trips to New Hampshire during the primary and I attended many of his town hall meetings. I was impressed with what I heard. Tonight, after hearing Sarah Palin, I will be voting for the McCain - Palin ticket. In fact, I a guess I am now "in the tank" and will work for their election.

Seven Positive Signs for McCain

What's really going on in the presidential election . . .Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Glenn Thrush at the Politico has an interesting read about "7 Worrisome Signs for Obama." Since these are making the rounds today in the media, Below is very brief summary with additional notes by Stephen Maloney and myself:

" . . . His [Obama's] supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls -- with Rasmussen's most recent daily tracker showing a statistical dead heat."

The seven worrisome signs for Obama:
1. The role Obama's race will play in voters' decisions; "How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows — and that’s the problem." (Note: In the 2006 Senate race, Republican George Allen, who waged a terrible campaign, lost by only 9,000 vote to a "moderate" Democrat with a military background. Race is not an issue for a qualified candidate. But Obama's own words of allegiances to his African family, questionable issues concerning his prior Muslim education, and anti-white racist comments by Obama's associates and pastors may affect him with many voters. The issue isn't race but the "cling-ons" of numerous negative factors. America is ready for president of any race and for female president. However, America may not be ready for a person of color forced upon them when that person is definitely not qualified except for his age. Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are still suffering from after-shock that a female with more qualifications was defeated by Obama primarily because of her last name.)

2. "Obama’s strength in Virginia may be over hyped"; Obama staffers look at the state as a 50-50 proposition, and his odds of winning may be less than that. [If Obama doesn't do very well in the DC suburbs, he will lose VA.)

3. "Michigan's in play for McCain"; the Democrats probably can't win without Michigan. There, "McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate." (Note: Michiganders would have much preferred Hillary Clinton as the candidate.)

4. Difficult times can engender fear among voters, and that could benefit McCain, who is more of a known quantity than Obama. (Note: Economics may not be McCain's strongest suit, but he has proven that he has an understanding of the concept. He knows high gas prices hurt the American people and our economy. But it also doesn't look like an Obama strength.)

5. McCain doesn't have to face the "Ross Perot factor" that helped Bill Clinton greatly in bringing down George H. W. Bush in 1992; Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states. (Note: However, the maverick conservative or libertarian who places his or her own interest above those of the country, may indeed sacrifice their vote in an effort to punish the other conservatives and Republicans for not agreeing 100% with their positions. They may be be a spoiler that advances socialism under Obama. These folks will not win in the long run and unlike Ross Perot helping to elect Bill Clinton with A Republican congress, those supporting Barr are willing to send Obama to the White House with a the Democrats in full control of Congress. Even a major libertarian Republican like Rep. Ron Paul has recognized this danger and has tried to rechannel the efforts of his followers to more reasonable avenues of influence for the future.)

6. Obama is NOT a white Southerner with border-state strength, the only kind of a Democrat who has won the White House in the last 65 years (LBJ, Carter, and Clinton);

7. "Americans may WANT divided government"; as one Democratic strategist puts it, ". . . nobody wants a pair of Pelosis [Nancy and Barack] running things." (Note: not to leave out Reid as part of the socialist liberal trio: Reid, Pelosi & Obama. In addition with "No Will To Drill" America will faced with higher prices for not only gas but for the very basics: food, home/rent, utilities, etc. Transportation costs are going no where but up if this 'trio is in office" together.)

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey puts it this way: People "want change, but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans." (Note: Many, including democrats, know that youth has never proven to be a prediction of success and McCain, a maverick in his own party, has reached across party lines his experienced career when doing so benefited the American people. Having served America most of his life, McCain not Obama should be the run away candidate. But, left leaning biased media continues to promote a younger glamor candidate with no almost no experience candidate over the candidate who is better prepared and qualified to confront the global military and economic dangers already on the horizon for the United States.) . . . [ 7 Worrisome Signs for Obama]

Iran - One Good Reason to Vote McCain

Here's another good'un. Iranian Missle- One Good Reason to Vote McCain

Executive Summary - Presidential Candidates

ARRA News Service - I know that some of you don't like to read long, drawn-out missives...
so here's the Executive Summary:

Candidate	Congress	Military
John McCain	26 Years	22 Years
Barack Obama	143 Days	-0- Years

Character matters in a president & in a commander-in-chief

ARRA News Service - There was an outstanding column about Senator John McCain’s character by Abraham Katsman in the Jerusalem Post. I encourage you to read this column and to share it with friends and family members. Below are excerpts from the Katsman's article:

"How aware is the public that McCain has raised seven children? Or that he adopted his two oldest sons as small boys (children from his wife's prior marriage)? Or that he has raised a Bangladeshi girl with severe health problems adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage? Or that his own sons have served in the military, including in Iraq? . . . McCain never brought up his own son's service in some of the roughest areas of Iraq. His principled refusal of political advantage from his son's Iraq service extends to refusal even to be interviewed on the subject, or to introduce his son to campaign audiences. . . .

The contrast with other politicians couldn't be more stark. How many candidates have we heard try to score political points as they crow in the public limelight about their own brief military stints, or their wife's cancer, son's car accident, or sister's death from smoking? The contrast is consistent with McCain's internalizing the codes of honor and military conduct since his youth: the veneration of courage and resilience; the expectation of fidelity to principles of honor; the homage paid to Americans who sacrificed for their country; the nobility of service and sacrifice; the expectation that one would prove worthy of the country's trust; and the humility that comes from recognizing that there are causes and people greater than oneself. It is, in short, a contrast in character.

Character matters. In a president-and particularly in a commander-in-chief, that kind of character arguably counts more than any particular political orientation or policy. From character flows leadership, as it is character which dictates morally grounded direction and engenders public trust. Character is critical to determining how a leader will respond to crisis. Will he reach deep within himself and in the traditions that shaped him and find the courage and grace to inspire strength and greatness? Will soldiers trust the wisdom and integrity of his decision when he orders them to war? Will he truly understand the terrible toll of war, as well as the price of appeasement? Will he make decisions based on considerations greater than cheap political expediency? Now, ask yourself: which candidate has repeatedly demonstrated that kind of character?" . . . [Read More]

Is Obama's candidacy constitutional

WorldNetDaily: Bloggers are raising questions about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's qualifications to be U.S. president, because of the secrecy over his birth certificate and the requirement presidents be "natural-born" U.S. citizens.

Jim Geraghty, reporting on The Campaign Spot, cited the "unlikely" but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.

Geraghty defined the concerns most clearly, stating: "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen; because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"

He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

Geraghty continues: " (Interestingly, apparently there isn't much paperwork on Obama's parents' marriage. 'Obama: From Promise to Power,' page. 27: 'Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama's maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.' Also note that Obama's father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)"

The reports released to date show Obama was born in Honolulu to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, of Wichita, Kan.

According to FindLaw.com, which is cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."

Obama's father, a student sent to the United States from Africa, lived several places in the United States while attending class. He then returned to his homeland. Obama's mother later married another man and moved to Indonesia.

Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.

"The campaign cited the birth certificate in their 'Fact Check' on William Ayers, so presumably, someone in the campaign has access to it," he said. Hawaii doesn't make public information from birth certificates.

"If the concern of the Obama campaign is that the certificate includes his Social Security number or some other data that could be useful to identity thieves, that information could easily be blocked out and the rest released. (Although I wonder if identity thieves would find Obama a tougher than usual target, since using the name on purchases would almost inevitably bring closer scrutiny.)," Geraghty said.

The Obama campaign repeatedly has declined to respond to WND requests for comment, instead replying with solicitations for campaign donations. The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., already has gone through the same type of challenge, and the U.S. Senate responded with a resolution in April declaring him to be a "'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

That article declares that "no person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of president." McCain was challenged because he was born to two U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone. According to a report from Michael Dobbs on The Fact Checker, the McCain campaign consulted two leading jurists, Theodore Olsen and Laurence Tribe, and they agreed. "They argue that McCain is a natural born citizen because the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, he was born on a U.S. military base, and both of his parents were U.S. citizens," the report said. Others say the issue isn't quite that simple, and the matter could be resolved fully only by a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.