Friday, October 31, 2008

Sarah Palin: Successful Governor and Superb Pick for VP

Despite the media's new slant that the majority of women supposedly "have a negative opinion of Sarah Palin," and that many supposed noted political analysts and strategists find Sarah Palin "grossly unqualified to serve as VP" and "not ready to assume presidency:"

I, myself (a college-educated, hard-working, married, mother of 3), find Sarah Palin to be more qualified to be Vice President -- and potentially President -- than Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Historically, governors have been deemed by the American people, as well as political analysts and strategists, to be uniquely qualified to run for the Presidency and to serve as Vice Presidential candidates. The fact that Sarah Palin is a woman governor makes her no less qualified. Mrs. Palin's record on turning the economy of the state of Alaska around, taking on a corrupt incumbent governor, and tackling government corruption in the state of Alaska is very strong. Her record speaks volumes about her qualifications to be Vice President, and yes -- if need be -- President of the United States.

[To learn about Sarah Palin's qualifications visit:]

In this time of economic uncertainty, more than ever, a team that has proven economic experience -- like Palin in the state of Alaska, as governor -- should invoke confidence in the American electorate. Not non-specific uncertainty.?! If there are doubts, put a name on them. The media's latest slant has no substance. Their claims are non-specific, and I have yet to see them produce a high ranking member of the Republican Party who will state on camera -- or in print -- that they are unhappy with Sarah Palin as the VP pick, let alone why. At least with specifics, Sarah Palin and the McCain camp can address legitimate concerns of the American people.

I think Sarah Palin, as the Republican Party VP candidate was a very smart move by John McCain. McCain's choosing Palin truly energized a lethargic, unhappy, and splintered Republican party. I think -- based on conversations with my friends, family, and other acquaintances -- despite what the media says, that the choice of Sarah Palin has brought many independents -- particularly women -- over the Republican ticket. I also think that in these final days -- when the independents are done analyzing all of the issues -- that independents will see that the McCain-Palin ticket is truly the strong and wiser choice for our country in the long run.

Also, if -- as the media says -- there are so many supposed Republicans in the party, who are "unhappy with the choice of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate," then I would challenge the media to actually find them and interview them. If not: stop talking about them! Because, I truly don't believe many, if any, exist.

Hang in there Sarah: you're doing an awesome job! (and to be writing this in a rush on Halloween eve: I really must think that you're something! : )

God Bless!


Free Speech in Jeopardy? National Security in Jeopardy?

Saw Obama's speech in Iowa this morning. I have a big concern about the security of the United States of America under the leadership of Obama as president. Obama said in his speech this morning:

That he would "end the war in Iraq immediately" when he becomes president. Then he followed with "I will snuff out terrorists like Osama Bin Laden".

Well how can you "strike at the heart of terrorism" if you order an immediate, across the board, withdraw of US military troops from Iraq, and systematically destabilize the region? Make no mistake, destabilization is statistically highly likely given Obama's withdraw scenario. Destabilization of the region will result in an increase of available resources (i.e., guns and other weapons) and unhindered movement for terrorists. Terrorist groups will once again have an increased influence in the region and may once again have the means necessary to strike on U.S. soil.

The U.S. military "surge" in Iraq has resulted in a semblance of order and our taking out the number 2 leader behind Bin Laden. The surge has worked, and we are closer than ever to "striking at the heart of terrorism". If we suddenly change course, 180 degrees, with an immediate troop withdraw, we would loose the ground that we have gained with lives of our own American men and women thus far.

Obama's statement this morning is a prime example of Obama's inexperience and pandering to a segment of the American electorate who truly don't understand military strategy or what is at stake in Iraq and the greater Middle East. We, as Americans, ALL WANT PEACE and order in the world, but that peace and order sometimes comes at a price and is kept in place by military intervention. History has shown this time and time again: especially when you are dealing with extremists who have no intention of "sitting down and negotiating";their unswerving end goal is the total annihilation of the "evil western world" and its people (that's you and I!).

I fear that Obama's inexperience in Foreign Policy would put American back in the position of having its head in the sand again: right back where we were on 9/11/2001 and the months leading up to this horrific terrorist attack on American soil. That is NOT "CHANGE WE NEED!"

Obama also said that "We need new leadership in Washington." I agree, and McCain and Palin are poised to bring new leadership to Washington. He followed with "We need new policies in Washington." Again McCain and Palin are poised to bring new policies to Washington.
To find out more specifics on what McCain-Palin stand for visit:

Another thing that concerns me about Obama is that he does not truly support our 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech. After an interview in Florida, where Joe Biden was asked if Obama's philosophy of "spread the wealth around" was "marxist," the Obama campaign ended the interview and has since denied ABC -- and its affiliates -- all access to their campaign. If the shoe were on the other foot (e.g., Katy Couric asked a similar question to Sarah Palin) you can bet that the McCain campaign would be criticized and ridiculed to no end for a similar stunt.

Campaigns are indeed about THE ISSUES, but they are also about pointing out inadequacies, flaws, questionable judgements and associations. Why? Because all of these factors speak to the ability, or lack of ability, of the presidential candidates to hold and effectively execute the highest office of our nation. If you can't stand up to scrutiny while running for office how can we, the American people, expect that you will be able to stand up the demands and scrutiny of the Office of President of the United States?

This morning (per Fox News) the "Washington Post," "New York Times," and the "Dallas Morning News" all endorsed John McCain for President. The Obama campaign summarily told each of these papers, and their staff --that had been travelling with the Obama campaign -- that they no longer had room for them on the Obama campaign transportation. They would have to make other arrangements. How presidential is that? What does it say about right to Free Speech under an Obama presidency?

McCain, his campaign and supporters, contrary to what Obama and his campaign would have you believe are not engaging in "dirty politics". The McCain camp are merely trying to lift THE VEIL that prevents Obama from being scrutinized in any way. The American people have a right to know the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and to decide for themselves when they have all of the cards on the table.

Lastly, I wish that John McCain -- having now supported the congressional bailout to stabilize the American financial system -- would speak specifically as to what steps he will take, once in office, to ensure that the AIG's, Fannie Mae's, Freddie Mac's and their respective executives don't have the ability to do what they did to destroy their companies and jeopardize the American financial system again. And perhaps speak to a criminal investigation into these companies and executives.

P.S. College Students: Obama is offering to "help pay for college" tuition of those who agree to sign-up for some form of service to the country. I think that this is a worthy idea and worth pursuing. I don't, however, think that this idea ALONE makes Obama worth voting for. This idea can be effectively put forth, and pursued, by an congressperson or senator of the United States. My husband and I both worked our way through college and paid 100% of our college tuition. If you have the will and determination, you will find the way and be the better for it in the end.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Mason-Dixon Poll Reports: McCain and Obama are Tied

I wrote this on my blog the other day:

" Another form of bias is seen in the media constantly pointing out what a great performer and orator Obama is. But you have to look deeper. Look to the issues and where the candidates stand. Look at their voting records. Look at their work experience. Then say to yourself: "Which candidate is going to do the best job for the country when the cameras are off and the real work begins?"

You may have a favorite actor on TV. They play politicians, surgeons, doctors, lawyers, and nuclear physicists. They may be brilliant actors worthy of your devotion, but would you want that actor to run the nuclear power plant down the road? Would you want them to perform brain surgery on you? Would you want them to represent you in court? "

This is the most important message that needs to get out to voters.

Today I saw a TV ad that said, "You wouldn't want Obama as your surgeon. He has no real experience .... (Are you sure you want him as your president?) ... Barack Obama is UNTESTED."

I am glad that this precise message is getting out there. A Mason-Dixon poll shows McCain and Obama tied, neck in neck Most other major polls show Obama with only 3 point lead, which is within the margin of error they sight.

For more information and to find out ways you can help visit:

Be sure to vote on Nov. 4th or in early voting! Your vote makes a difference!

God Bless!


Monday, October 27, 2008

Biased Independent Poll Data?

The polls are in and they say that Obama is in the lead by as much as 6 points. But are these polls truly accurate? In reality they are a best guess sampling. The election isn't over until the American people have voted and the votes have been counted; Don't let the media or any polls tell you otherwise!

I always gave the polls the benefit of the doubt and took them as a best guess sampling, but without bias or hidden agenda until I heard a caller on the Sean Hannity radio program last week. The caller was a woman from North Carolina. She said that the Gallup Poll center (verified by caller ID) in her area had just called. They began asking her questions: "Had she registered to vote? What issues were most important to her in this election?" When they asked if she had decided on a specific candidate for president, she said that she had "decided on John McCain." The pollster asked her to "hold for a moment please" and then hung up on her! Unbelievable?!

This story is very unnerving! It may be evidence that the polls are not truly representative of a RANDOM sampling and that they may, in fact, be biased. This is just one story? Are there more? There may be individuals who have a hidden agenda to bias the polling data -- in this specific case: the Gallup Polls.

So now we may not be able to trust the independent election poll data either? Who can you trust to give you give you accurate information about the candidates, the issues, and where the candidates stand with the rest of the country?

The answer: NO ONE!

You have to listen directly to the candidates themselves and take secondary news information as suspect, always looking for the bias or slant. You have to watch, read, and listen to a variety of news sources and play them off of one another to get to the truth. Voting in this day, and age of information and technology, is harder than ever and comes with greater responsibility to get to the TRUTH. This is the only way you can make an informed decision when you cast your ballot for the next president of the United States of America.

Remember the Presidential Election 2000? The media (CBS) claimed "It's over. Al Gore has won!" Then they had to go back on the air and admit that they were wrong, but at that point many Republicans had decided not to bother with voting. This could have affected the outcome of the election in favor of Al Gore. The point here is not whether a Democrat or a Republican would have won, but that the media had such a sway in the voting process!

The media influence (and yes, bias) is ever present in this Presidential Election 2008. This time we need to keep them in check and not let them have the sway that they held in 2004. We need to question their motives for reporting this story and not that story (e.g., for focusing on Sarah Palin's wardrobe cost and ignoring Obama's questionable associations). We need to take the polls with a grain of salt, realizing that there may in fact be bias in the independent poll data that is being reported. We need to send a clear message to the media, the pollsters, and groups and individuals that try to commit voter fraud that we, the American people, are going to: 1) hold them accountable for what they say and do; and that 2) we are going to be informed and decide for ourselves who we think the best president for our country will be.

Bottom Line: It's not over until the American People vote in a fair election and ALL of the votes are counted!

One more thing: Brave men and women have fought for, and are still fighting today, to protect our freedom and right to vote. Don't dishonor their valiant efforts by defrauding the election process with bogus voter registrations and voter fraud on election day, or by being too lazy to get out and vote on election day. You owe it to your country, and yourself, to be honest and fair in the voting process and to actually vote on election day. God Bless! Now go vote!

P.S. Another form of bias is seen in the media constantly pointing out what a great performer and orator Obama is. But you have to look deeper. Look to the issues and where the candidates stand. Look at their voting records. Look at their work experience. Then say to yourself: "Which candidate is going to do the best job for the country when the cameras are off and the real work begins?"

You may have a favorite actor on TV. They play politicians, surgeons, doctors, lawyers, and nuclear physicists. They may be brilliant actors worthy of your devotion, but would you want that actor to run the nuclear power plant down the road? Would you want them to perform brain surgery on you? Would you want them to represent you in court?

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Buying Election Votes?

Well Obama gave us some specifics on his economic plan yesterday, 10/14/08. Finally, some hard core facts. I have one question though: is giving a tax rebate (totally different from a refund) to 42% of Americans*, who paid little or no taxes for the 2008 calendar year, equivalent to buying election votes with taxpayer dollars?

Will this truly benefit the overall economy of the United States, or mainly benefit Obama at the polls on election day?

I hope that John McCain addresses this in the debate this evening 10/15/08.

*(42% number from Fox News sources)

Friday, October 10, 2008

Obama: Demand Specifics now!

It is unprecedented, in a presidential election, that such a large percentage of the electorate are willing to vote for a candidate solely on the grounds of FAITH in his non-specific message of "CHANGE."

Senator Obama may be a very charismatic individual and gifted orator, but all of his rhetoric is empty and without specific details. Obama is great at pointing out what (he thinks is wrong) is wrong with McCain's positions on various issues, but at least McCain has stepped up to the plate and laid out his positions and plans for addressing issues -- such as the current financial crisis -- in detail. Obama is focused on pointing the finger. John McCain is focused on leading. When will Obama -- and the American people -- realize that the time be "present" is over. If Obama can't give us specifics on issues and demonstrate his ability to lead now, how can we trust him to lead as president?

The fact that so many Americans are sold merely on the rhetoric and promise of "change" scares me! What will that change entail? I want details, and answers, and I want them now!

If change is what you want: stop and look at John McCain's record. His voting record is consistent with change and voting for what he feels is best for the country as a whole, even when it goes against the establishment. Even if you don't agree with John McCain's vote on every issue: at least he has a record to examine. What does a vote of "present" on issue, after issue, tell you about a prospective presidential candidate?

Governor Palin has a record of "change" as well. Palin took on corruption in her state of Alaska. She ousted an icumbent governor and cleaned up corruption in the government of Alaska. Governor Palin turned the economy of Alaska around, established a surplus of government funds, and put money directly back into the pockets of every citizen in Alaska. How can Americans not see that her experience and successes as a governor can translate directly to benefit the economy of the United States as whole? Palin's only lack of experience comes in the area of foreign policy where John McCain has a wealth of experience, both militarily and as a congressman of 20+ years.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are in a position to bring concrete and beneficial "CHANGE" to the United States of America.

They have a long-range, detailed plan for America, and they have committed to keeping America strong, both economically and militarily.

They realize that we can't just stick our heads our in the sand and focus on purely economic issues at home and still remain a world power.

They realize that a strong United States of America has maintain a leadership role in the world.

They realize that America can't just vote "present" when innocent people are being murdered en mass, when extremist regimes violate UN directives and continue to develop nuclear weapons technology, or when foreign governments overstep their bounds and oppress fledgling democracies.

They realize that we can't sit down and talk with leaders of terrorist and/or extremist regimes on their terms. We can't afford to give these regimes even the slightest semblance of legitimacy.

McCain and Palin realize that men and women in the United States of America armed forces have put their lives on the line for this country and that government of the United States, and its representatives, has an obligation to be fair and truthful in their support of American troops with what they say (i.e., unsubstantiated claims of troops repeatedly killing civilians on a mass and daily scale) and how they vote.

McCain and Palin have the facts on the advancement of safe technologies for harvesting American energy resources (e.g., offshore oil drilling) that would take America closer to a state of true "energy independence", while alternative energy sources are studied, developed, and perfected to make a viable energy contribution.

McCain and Palin are dedicated to strenghtening the economy, creating jobs, and reducing corruption in Washington and on Wall Street (I hope to hear more specifics on this from McCain at the next debate).

Most recently Obama has criticized John McCain's economic plan to buy failing mortgages at their current value, vs. their fallen value. This plan, while costly, is a concrete step that would help to put a floor under plummeting home values and allow homeowners to stay in their homes with readjusted fixed-rate mortgages. It may not be Obama's idea of a perfect solution, but a least John McCain has proposed an immediate and viable solution. What is Obama's plan? He doesn't have one! Or perhaps an even scarier scenario: Obama (and his inner circle) has a plan, but he doesn't want to share it with you the American people because he thinks that the details of his plan are beyond your understanding or need to know. And who comprises Obama's inner circle? Just look at the laundry list of questionable Obama associations. Are these the kind of individuals who will be helping to formulate the decisions behind an Obama presidency?

If you are for "CHANGE" you better start demanding the specific details of that change. It is just over 4 weeks until the presidential election. For the sake of our country, our freedoms, our right to the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness": let us once and for all demand specifics on issues from Obama, starting with his detailed plan for the current economic crisis, and the mortgage crisis in particular [While we are at it let us look at Obama's ties to Acorn, a company which is in large part responsible for many of the defaulted mortgages in this current meltdown].

I myself am going to get out there, face-to-face, and campaign for TRUE CHANGE via the McCain & Palin ticket. Maybe I can help to make a breakthrough with the liberals in this state where I am currently residing.

God Bless America!


Monday, October 06, 2008

Hardwired Political Disposition?

A lot has been going on this past year, but I'm still alive and kicking. Can't believe it has been it has been nearly a year since I last wrote.

These days it's politics, politics everywhere you go. It's good to see that nothing has changed! With that in mind: I read an interesting article the other day that suggests that our political orientation (i.e., Republican, Democrat, or Independent) may have to do more with our biology than our brainpower or personal beliefs.

"The very different way conservatives and liberals view the world isn't just the product of experience or thought -- it's also the product of biology."

This assertion is based upon a study done by researchers at the University of Nebraska. In this study researchers asked participants a set of initial questions to ascertain their political affiliations. Then they exposed the subjects to a series of "startling sounds and threatening images."

Subjects whose views fell on the right side (conservative) of the spectrum had much stronger physiological responses (e.g., sweating and eye-blinking). Subjects whose views fell on the left side (liberal) of the spectrum had significantly more muted reactions: "They simply didn't perceive the same level of threat."

"The results suggest that people's political orientation is at least to some extent hard-wired, which is why conservatives and liberals often find each other mystifying. Neither side is necessarily correct in it interpretation of possible threats. "People are simply experiencing the world differently." "

The Washington Post article, interview with Researcher John Hibbing.

Interesting theory? Wonder how evolution and survival of the fittest would come into play here? Just joking! Bottom line, looks as if given this perspective of "hardwired" political disposition that neither "side" is likely to persuade the other to see their point of view. It's biologically impossible?

Any thoughts?