Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Obama rolls over on Olympics too

Olympic Flip Flop: Obama Sponsors Olympics After Demanding Bush Boycott Same Olympics

(from Gaffe Nation)

This from USA Today:

Democrat Barack Obama took issue Monday with President Bush’s decision to attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, saying he would go to Beijing only if he saw progress between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama.

Of course, giving money to NBC to propagandize his likeness throughout the entire China-hosted games is, I guess, not as harmful as Bush attending the Opening Ceremony. Yeah, right.

This from Advertising Age:

It’s official. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal’s Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads.

Question: I wonder if Obama supporters who earlier threatened Olympic sponsors will back off now that the Messiah is one of the “moral cowards?” Just asking.

Comments from Hoosiers for McCain:

Sorry for the long rip off from Gaffe Nation, but the comments and format were nicely done. My thoughts? Of course he's going to advertise, the Olympics will dominate media for the month of August leading up to his convention. Of course this is another hypocrisy, but when you don't really stand for anything and you are sending up trial balloons every day, it's easy to keep changing your mind.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Do we really want the Germans to choose our leader?

Remembrance in Spacetime reminds of of past German mistakes in choosing leaders

"Fortunately, the American Presidency is not necessarily awarded to anyone whom the Germans happen to favor overwhelmingly. Nor should the choice be dependent merely on a candidate's popularity in the United States. Popularity contests are for grade school elections, not national elections. At least that is the theory. Of course it would be naive to assume that the American electorate is any more sophisticated than, say, the German electorate or any other electorate. We do, after all, have a penchant for "reality" programing on TV and Holyshitwood movies."

Continuing with:

They did choose Kaiser Willhem II and ... worse they loved Hitler. Perhaps stadiums filled with fans isn't the best indicator of freedom loving democracy?

Kudlow - Is Obama Freedom Deficient?

Sorry to take entire post, but it was too short to cut down, from Larry Kudlow on Is Obama Freedom and Democracy Deficient?

"Why is it that in all his statements in his recent foreign-policy trip to the Mideast and Europe, Sen. Obama never mentions the importance of spreading freedom and democracy around the world, and most especially in the very troublemaking nations that are so tied to terrorism that he has been discussing?

"Perhaps I’m wrong about this. But I tried to read most of his speeches and I watched his television interviews, and I can’t find or don’t recall any references to freedom and democracy. What’s up with this?

And let me add, although Obama does mention terrorism, I do not recall him using the phrase “global war on terrorism,” or “war on terrorism,” or “protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks.” I’m no expert on foreign policy, so I ask my colleagues at NRO to tell me what I’ve missed here. I’ll be happy to recant. But I continue to believe that the biggest reason to stop Iran, stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, nail Osama and his evildoing friends in Pakistan, and generate some sort of protection for Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the weak Palestinian government is a) to get the bad guys on their home turf before they get us and b) to spread freedom and democracy since democratic countries tend not to attack each other or us."

Allowed to question - fundamental democracy

Insightful article by Brazilian philosopher is the rage on the blogs this week, are we allowed to question Barack Obama? Has he risen to the level that Americans are not allowed to question his stance on issues, I believe that used to be called a Monarchy.

From What is Wrong with that? Olavo de Carvalho

Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.

For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience - and with below-minimal political experience - to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.

With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?”

Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?

Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols - the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed - Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?

Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system - which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”

Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it.

Translated by Donald Hank

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Letter from solider - Obama pretending

A Soldier’s Letter Home (From Hoosier Access)

I received an email from a friend, who has an acquaintance serving in Afghanistan at present. This soldier is giving his first hand account of Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s visit to Afghanistan.

Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to ‘The War Zone’. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle , got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.

As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.

So really he was just here to make a showing for the American’s back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.

I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don’t understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

[Note: All misspellings are from the original email. Crossposted to the DFB]

Friday, July 25, 2008

Is Bloomberg endorsing McCain?

Word early this morning that Mayor Bloomberg may endorse and fully support Senator John McCain for President

Anyone have links to the reports?

I found one so far -

Bloomberg Bullish on McCain


July 24, 2008 2:08 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg plans to reinject himself into the presidential campaign on Friday by talking up Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in a speech to the Independence Party of Minnesota.

Bloomberg plans to praise McCain's record of bucking his own party while stopping short of making an endorsement.

Blogs for McCain Today

Gateway Pundit follows video interview and insists that Barack Obama has changed his tune, lied, on the surge and his support for it.

Power Line is starting to believe that he may be a serial liar.

The Audacity of Vanity” By Charles Krauthammer

McCain gains in Minnesota, 3 other states
Seattle Times, United States - 4 hours ago
Republican John McCain is tightening the presidential race against Democratic rival Barack Obama in four key states, according to polls. ...

McCain pumps up online presence
Boston Globe, United States - 4 hours ago
Trying to catch up with Barack Obama's online machine, John McCain's told supporters this evening that it has created "McCain Nation," a way for them to ...

McCain Nation was news to me - so headed there now to see what's up?

Create your event!


Click here to find events in your area.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Polls narrowing - McCain down by 2

Is McCain closing on Obama in Minnesota?

"There are a couple of new Minnesota polls out today to digest. Most notably, the Quinnipiac University poll shows impressive gains for Sen. John McCain in the state. The survey found that Sen. Barack Obama now leads by just two percentage points, 46-44. A month ago the same poll showed the Democrat with a healthy 17-point lead and suggested that the notion that Minnesota is up for grabs in November is a fallacy.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that McCain is closing the gap in three other battleground states. The Republican actually now has a two-point lead in Colorado, according to the poll, while he trails in Michigan by four points and in Wisconsin by 11 points."

Go to link for entire article ...

Obama pretending in Israel

Obama's smoke and mirrors game in Israel

Thanks to Indiana's Hardball Conservative for post.
So Obama went to the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem early this morning in what was announced as "not a planned stop" but clearly was a staged photo op.

Check out some of the story from ABC News:

The pre-dawn sky was dark.

And then one man at the Wall began screaming: "Obama, Jerusalem is our land! Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!"

He kept yelling this for Obama's entire 10 minutes at the Wall, refusing to stop despite repeated entreaties to do so from the crowd.

Obama chatted with the men with whom he'd come to the Wall, before walking to the Wall to place a note he had previously written between the Wall's cracks. He put his hand on the Wall, bowed his head and appeared contemplative.

The heckler, not an Obama fan, continued yelling.

Obama turned from the Wall and walked back to his crowd. Some young men tried to drown out the heckler, chanting, "Obama! Obama! Obama!"

After shaking some hands, Obama got back in his motorcade and headed to the airport.

"It was rowdier than the last time I was there, you know?" Obama told reporters on the plane. "I mean, people were sort of, like, holerin'. You know I was expecting more reverence."

Wait... last time you were there? But you were expecting something else?
So if you've been there before, you'd know what to expect when you came a second time.

So, hadn't planned on stopping yet had a prewritten note to leave at the Wall.

Love how this "news story" is written. "The predawn sky was dark." Sounds more like a romance novel or a love note. Yet this reporter, Jake Tapper, is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent. Senior, so that means he's one of the best? Edward R. Murrow must be rolling over in his grave about now.

This whole trip is smoke and mirrors. Planned photo ops to try and hide the fact that Obama has no foreign policy experience.

After Obama leaves the Wall, is he headed to the river Jordan to walk on the water? I mean, the press and others alike are trying to compare him to the Messiah.

This whole trip is great way for the press to build Obama up.

But if you look, he is only "even" in the polls with McCain.

Do the Democrats honestly think the American people don't see there's a whole lot of fluff and no substance?

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Obama head-fake in Indiana?

Is he just raising money in Indiana to force John McCain to waste resources on a solid state? Indiana Hardball Conservative writer Chris Faulkner poses both the question and his thoughts on the matter:

Official: State fits Obama's game plan

The Indianapolis Star reports:
It's Official: State fits Obama's game plan: "Indiana, Plouffe said, is a 'state people are surprised we are playing so hard in. We believe that Indiana is highly competitive. We think we've got a terrific organization there, and McCain is not on the air and doesn't have any organization to speak of.'
Plouffe said the decision to run TV ads in Indiana and 17 other states is 'not a head fake.'"


What if the "Indiana plan" was part of a fundraising scheme for Obama?

What if Obama and HRC had already raised 1.7 million dollars out of Indiana and wanted to raise another 5-6 million? Why not invest one to two million dollars into a great diversion like Indiana?

NOTHING will motivate donors more than a real, or at least perceived to be real, local campaign for President. I think that if you "invest" a couple million into Indiana, even though you have no shot to win, but still net 3-4 million you can spend in Ohio, Iowa, Virginia or Colorado.

Why not do it?

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Obama blowing cash in Indiana

From Polis Politics:

"Much has been made of Barack Obama's decision to advertise and open offices in GOP strongholds such as Indiana, North Dakota, and others. Some see it as a ploy to distract McCain. Others find it evidence that Barack Obama will pull a Ronald Reagan and win 49 states.

From what we see, the best observation came from NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who called the move a "Head Fake by Obama." We couldn't agree more with the sports analogy."

Indiana will remain in the red state column for McCain, but Obama is trying to force John McCain to use up resources in places like Fishers and Carmel, where McCain will win by 20 points, instead of focusing on blue state opportunities to pick up votes. Sorry Barack, John McCain isn't on his first trip around the block.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Hillary supporters ticked at Obama

Obama Campaign doing website “maintenance” — down since this morning.

Meanwhile, a virtual mutiny is taking place on Obama’s campaign Web site, which is swamped with angry complaints that Obama has sold out his “base.”

h/t Come a long way

Obama and Chicago Ties - Problem for election

The New Yorker investigates Chicago influences on Obama

Ryan Lizza writes a New Yorker article entitled "Making it: How Chicago shaped Obama." If you ask me, Barack Obama does not come off well here. Calculating politicians, ready to find scapegoats and godfather to pull levers for him and shower money unto him. But more importantly, 15 pages later, I find no evidence that Obama accomplished anything other than helping out on Project Vote. My guess is that he allied himself with ACORN on that one, but we don't see any information on that.

Lizza ignores his work on what he calls the two "liberal foundations" -- which is wrong -- especially because the Ayers connection comes up later. I could go on but this is the must read of the week. He is just a Machiavellian politician. And it is nice to know he once subbed for "Israel lobby" critic John Mearsheimer, and that he advised Governor Blagojevitch, who may be indicted over the Rezko affair.

Read the Full Article by CLICKING HERE

Palin to McCain - visit ANWR with me

Palin Says "Come to ANWR"

Philadelphia, Penn.--With John McCain still adamant in his opposition to oil exploration in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), the governor of Alaska yesterday called on the soon-to-be Republican nominee for President to come to her state and see for himself the proposed site for drilling. "I'm asking him to come up and see ANWR," Republican Gov. Sarah Palin told me Saturday during the centennial meeting of the National Governors Association here. As to her discussions so far with McCain, Palin said "We agreed to disagree." But, she quickly added, "I am encourged with his evolved thinking on offshore drilling and I think he might come along on ANWR if he sees our 2000 acres for himself."

Thursday, July 3, 2008

John McCain in Columbia - Big News There

Statement by John McCain on Today's Hostage Rescue in Colombia

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement on today's hostage rescue in Colombia:

"Today, I spoke by phone to President Uribe. He told me some of the details of the dramatic rescue of the people who were held hostage. Three Americans are now free and Ingrid Betancourt is now in good condition. I'm pleased with the success of this very high-risk operation. Sometimes in the past, the FARC has killed the hostages rather than let them be rescued.

"So I congratulate President Uribe, the military and the nation of Colombia. It is great news. Now we must renew our efforts to free all of the other innocent people held hostage. With regard to the three Americans and Ingrid Betancourt -- they had been held many years, as many as six years.

"Last night, President Uribe and the defense minister did brief us that the operation was going to take place today."

Speech by John McCain in Indy this week

To The National Sheriffs' Association

Thank you, Sheriff Webre, for the kind introduction, and thank you all very much. I appreciate the warm welcome to Indianapolis, and I am proud to be in the company of more than two thousand sheriffs and deputy sheriffs. I'm very honored, and have never felt safer.

There is a small fraternity of occupations that deserve every citizen's gratitude, every day. And sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are charter members. Some functions of government take place far from public view, and success and failure can be hard to measure. But that is never true in your calling. In law enforcement, the standard is always 100 percent success, and there is no such thing as "close enough" for government work. Protecting innocent citizens from those who would do them harm is the most elementary responsibility of government. Law enforcement work is often hard, sometimes heroic, and always necessary. We are all in your debt, and I thank you for your service.

When President Ronald Reagan came before this organization in 1984, he spoke of a "new mandate from the American people." He described some of the social theories of the preceding decades, and how these fashionable ideas had fostered a permanent criminal class of violent repeat offenders. In the 1960's and 70's, violent crime had increased throughout most of our country. In some cities, people felt as if their neighborhoods were under hostile occupation. At the federal level, President Reagan offered a different approach to criminal justice, focused on vigorous enforcement and stricter sentencing. Criminal justice reform is a part of the Reagan revolution that is often forgotten today. But over time, America became a better, safer, and more just country because of those reforms. And you're the ones who helped to make it happen.

We still hear some academics and politicians speaking as if a rising rate of incarceration and a reduction in crime were unrelated facts. But, of course, when the most violent and persistent criminals are in prison, crime rates will go down. And this is exactly what happened through the 1990's and most of this decade. The progress our country made against crime was the result of smart policies, bipartisan cooperation, and, above all, high-quality work by the men and women of law enforcement.

Many of our cities became safer during the 1990's, thanks to the resolute action of city and county leaders such as my friend Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner Bill Bratton. During both Republican and Democratic administrations, Congress continued to supply states and localities with new resources. Under legislation I've supported, we have also sought to increase penalties for repeat felons who commit crimes with a firearm, or commit violent crimes on behalf of a criminal gang. We have worked to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for firearms purchases. And we have sought to increase the fines criminals must pay into the Federal Crime Victims Fund and bar all criminals from profiting from their crimes.

We also expanded public registry requirements for convicted sex offenders -- because to prevent and punish the exploitation of children, the surest policy is zero-tolerance. When anyone is convicted of a sexual assault on a child, they should stay in prison for a long time, and their names should stay forever on the National Sex Offender Public Registry. When they are released -- if they are released -- they should be tracked both in their physical movements and in their Internet usage. And under a bill I have authored as a senator, and intend to sign into law as president, we're going to get serious against Internet predators: Anyone who uses the Internet in the commission of a crime of child exploitation is going offline and into prison for an additional ten years.

In protecting children and in all criminal justice policy, at both the state and federal level, we have shown how much can be achieved when consistent principles are applied and both parties work together. And this spirit will be needed in meeting the challenges of our own time. The overall trends in crime are small comfort to the more than six million victims of violent crime in America each year, or to the more than 18 million victims of property crime. In an enterprise measured by the standard of 100 percent success, there is no time to linger on the progress of the past. We need to stay on the offensive against crime, and especially crimes of violence.

The federal government has its own well defined set of law-enforcement concerns, such as multi-state criminal syndicates, terrorist cells, government corruption, and the protection of America's borders. And from the standpoint of state and local law enforcement, often the best service our federal government can render is to do these things and do them right. Presidential leadership is essential in all of these responsibilities. But nowhere is the influence of a president more critical to law enforcement than in the power of judicial nominations.

It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of men and women to the federal courts. These choices will have far-reaching consequences for all Americans, and perhaps especially for law enforcement. When a serious crime is investigated, prosecuted, and punished, it takes many hours and the best efforts of police, trial courts, and juries. Yet one badly reasoned opinion, by one overreaching judge, can undo it all. Just like that, evidence of guilt can be suppressed, or a dangerous predator released because of judge-made laws having little or nothing to do with the requirements of the Constitution. Even worse, when such opinions issue from the highest court, they set a precedent for many more injustices, and they add one more obstacle to the work of law enforcement.

We saw such presumption again just last week in a matter before the Supreme Court. In the considered judgment of the people of Louisiana and their elected representatives, the violent rape of a small child is a capital offense. There is nothing in our Constitution to contradict that view. But five justices decided the people's judgment didn't take into account "evolving standards of decency," and so they substituted their judgment for that of the people of Louisiana, their legislators, their governor, the trial judge, the jury, the appellate judge, and the other four justices of the Supreme Court.

It's a peculiar kind of moral evolution that disregards the democratic process, and inures solely to the benefit of child rapists. It was such a jarring decision from the Court that my opponent, Senator Obama, immediately and to his credit expressed his disagreement. I'd like to think this signals a change of heart on his part about his votes against the confirmation of two of the four dissenters in the case, Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. More to the point, why is it that the majority includes the same justices he usually holds out as the models for future nominations? My opponent may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama Court.

Should I be elected president, I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. They will be the kind of judges who believe in giving everyone in a criminal court their due: justice for the guilty and the innocent, compassion for the victims, and respect for the men and women of law enforcement.

In all of criminal justice policy, we must put the interests of law-abiding citizens first -- and above all the rights of victims. And when we formulate criminal justice policy, words of praise for the good work of local law enforcement are not enough. We must give active support to officers of the peace across America, by providing the tools you need to meet new dangers. Even as crime has diminished in some areas, including New York and other major cities, crime is spreading in many small and mid-sized jurisdictions. And the general numbers in crime reduction conceal one of the most disturbing facts of all -- the rise of new, better organized, and more widely dispersed gang violence and transnational gangs. Once largely confined to major cities, the threat of gang violence is now well known to sheriffs and corrections officers across America. And in all cases of violent crime, in both urban and rural areas, it's the poorest among us who are most vulnerable.

To meet all of these challenges, and others, you will need assistance, critical resources, and new technologies that often only the federal government can provide. And one of the most critical of these resources concerns the radio spectrum. So that police, fire-fighters, and other public safety agencies can freely communicate with one another, we will build a long overdue national, interoperable public safety broadband network. You and all your colleagues in law enforcement need seamless communication across every agency and jurisdiction for emergency response. For more than a decade now, I have tried to persuade the Congress to provide dedicated radio spectrum and funding for communications equipment to local, state, and federal law enforcement officers. Just last year, I introduced a bill that provided for more than twice the capacity that the FCC has currently set aside for public safety. Special interests in Washington want the FCC to auction off more of that spectrum than I do. But no matter what price it might fetch at auction, it should be available for fighting crime and saving lives.

The Congress, too, needs to get its priorities straight, and that begins by supporting the priorities of front-line law-enforcement personnel. As it is, funds distributed by the Department of Justice are too often earmarked according to their value to the re-election of members of Congress instead of their value to police. This is especially true in the case of grants allocated under the Byrne program -- many of which are urgently needed to interdict drugs and track the movement of violent gangs. The result is that millions of dollars are wasted every year, and a lot of good ideas and programs in local law enforcement never get funded.

Earmark spending bills are the broken windows of the federal budget process, and by ending these abuses we set a new tone and we set much greater reforms in motion. Earmark spending runs against the public interest in many ways, and especially when public safety is in the balance. And that's why, as president, I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. It may take a while for Congress to adjust, but sooner or later they'll figure out that there's a new sheriff in town.

Law enforcement professionals know best what they need in the field. And today, what's often needed most are more personnel and better technologies for tracking criminals, gathering data, and sharing vital information. We need to make certain that every agency is working with others where necessary, so that the miscommunications and missed opportunities before 9/11 are never repeated. To protect our energy supply, air and rail transport, banking and financial services, we need to invest far more in the federal task of cyber security. In this new century, and especially with the threat of terrorist attacks, every state, local, and federal agency concerned with public safety should have access a shared repository of information. In the case of any suspected terrorist, we must make certain that law enforcement knows who they are, where they are, and what they're up to.

We know as well that tens of thousands of felons -- in custody and at large -- entered our country illegally. Why has it has fallen to sheriffs and other local officials to protect their citizens from these foreign-born felons? Because our federal government failed to protect our borders from their entry, and this serious dereliction of duty must end.

Our compassion for laborers who entered this country unlawfully -- our understanding of their struggles, even as we act to secure the border -- speaks well of America. But this respect does not extend to criminals who came here to break our laws and do harm to people. Through the Criminal Alien Program, we have made some progress in recent years. Too often, however, states are left to deal with the high costs and excessive regulation involved in deportation proceedings, and many local officers are left waiting for immigration agents to show up on site. So, as president, I will expand the Criminal Alien Program. We will require that the federal government assume more of the costs to deport and detain criminal aliens -- because this is a problem of the federal government's own making.

As if all of these challenges were not enough, another has arisen because of your own hard work and success these past 25 years in sending serious offenders to prison. Many are due for release, and just last year some 750,000 inmates reentered society. Unless we change our approach over the next four years, these released prisoners are likely to reoffend in very high numbers, committing millions of new crimes and finding millions of new victims. And we need to be as committed in preparing them for freedom as we were in taking that freedom away.

Maybe you have heard the story of an ex-inmate named Don Cox, who received a sentence of 90 years for being an accomplice to a murder right here in Indianapolis in 1978. Mr. Cox would likely have spent the rest of his life in prison, had it not been for the efforts of another man named Tim Streett. In the short version of a powerful story, Mr. Streett is the son of the victim, and had even been a witness to his father's murder. He is also a witness to the possibilities of redemption. After years of bitterness, Mr. Streett sought out the prisoner. In time, he even became his friend. And it was he who asked prosecutors to seek parole for Mr. Cox. As Tim Streett explains his change of heart, "Anger and bitterness -- that can build up. But true forgiveness says, 'I forgive you, and it's over.'"

Across a prison and jail population of 2.3 million souls, there may be some who will never find or even seek this path. But the way should be open to all. This was the spirit of the Second Chance Act of 2007, a law designed to make the walk out of prison, past the gates and razor wire, a one-way journey. Ex-convicts need more than a few bucks and a bus ticket out of town. Many will need job training, a place to live, mentors, family counseling, and much more. Beyond government, there are churches and community groups all across our country that stand ready to help even more. And these groups will have the committed support of my administration.

With so many sentences about to expire, and so many second chances about to be offered, the stakes are high for our country. And nobody understands that better than sheriffs, their deputies, and other officers of the peace. Great challenges lie ahead of you, and you will meet them as those who carry the badge of law enforcement always have -- with courage and with honor. I thank each one of you for the dedication you bring to a hard job. I thank all of you for your commitment to the cause of justice. And I thank you for your kind attention here today.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Deny your faith - and you're on the Obama team

From: Obama Takes the "faith" out of faith based inititives

In his speech today on faith-based programs, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) proposed that religious groups cannot compete for government contracts unless they give up their freedom to consider religion in their hiring decisions, a radical proposal that effectively repeals Charitable Choice:

We should evaluate any policy efforts to maximize civil society and faith-based solutions by whether they move in the direction of reducing the size and scope of government and whether they help individuals escape dependence and achieve a life of independence.

Remember when President Bush challenged us as a country to get more involved in faith based organizations at the local level? When we all agreed that local faith organizations can actually meet needs more effectively due to proximity and lack of government largess?

If Barack Obama is elected, that is over. It's going to be government or nothing, that is unless some liberal faith-ish organization agrees to sell their souls to get some cash.

Press Release from Lets Get this Right

Don't forget Let's Get This Right is LIVE BLOGGING form McCain Head Quarters Tonight! 6-10pm


Let’s Get This Right Announces Support

For Initial 15 Republican Candidates

For Immediate Release Media Inquiries: 617-763-6787

July 1, 2008

Boston, Massachusetts

The Let’s Get This Right Coalition, an organization with 25 websites, 165+ affiliated blogs, and roughly 15,000 volunteers/supporters all dedicated to Republican political activism has announced its support of the following candidates:

John McCain President

US Senate

Jeff Beatty MA – Senate

John Sununu NH – Senate

Dick Zimmer NJ – Senate

US Congress

Lou Barletta PA 11th

Tim Bee AZ 8th

Gus Bilirakus FL 9th

US Congress (cont.)

Henry Brown SC 1st

Steve Buyer IN 4th

Scott Garrett NJ 5th

Melissa Hart PA 4th

Lyle Larson TX 23rd

William Russell PA 12th

Jean Schmidt OH 2nd

Darren White NM 1st

Let’s Get This Right (www.LetsGetThisRight.com) is the outgrowth of the unofficial online efforts in support of John McCain for President. Those efforts include www.McCainVictory08.com, www.McCainNow.com, www.McCainGoogleGroups.com and 20 additional websites, 165+ affiliated blogs and roughly 15,000 volunteers/supporter nationwide.

The goal of Let’s Get This Right is to provide financial, online and “boots on the ground” volunteer support to this initial slate of candidates.

Let’s Get This Right is neither a PAC nor a 527 organization. It is not affiliated with any candidate, candidate committee, the RNC, NRSC or NRCC. It accepts no donations directly but rather fundraises for candidate campaigns through Slatecard.com, a utility to support and enhance Republican activism.

"Slatecard" is Slatecard.com PAC. Slatecard.com PAC is an independent, federally registered political action committee (PAC) which acts as a "conduit" to raise money online to help Republican candidates for federal office in compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Let’s Get This Right is also working in conjunction with David Mastio, Editor of www.Blognetnews.com and www.rightyblogs.com which has taken down its Slatecard slate of candidates and replaced it with our initial slate www.slatecard.com/slatecards/letsgetthisright. Let’s Get This Right appreciates that type of grassroots operational support.

After seeing the results from 2006 and the last three special elections for Congress, Let’s Get This Right has concluded that the Republican leadership is fundamentally broken and that securing America’s future comes down to grassroots political activism.

The Let’s Get This Right Political Review Team selected the above candidates after a national review of US House and Senate Republican Candidates. The team considered many factors including the following:

1) The candidate had no further primary competition.

2) The candidate is opposed in the general elections in November.

3) NRCC financial support and Campaign fundraising to date is such that additional national support may prove beneficial.

4) Special criteria: Some candidates have peeked national interests based on specific causes or service to country and merited support from outside of their districts. Some candidates face increased opposition by left wing bloggers and organizations. Some candidates are in races with National significance in that a Republican win would remove liberal democrats from the House and Senate.

While it was not easy selecting the initial Let’s Get This Right candidate list, let us assure everyone that the list was not based on the requirement that the candidate should win. Each race is important and each will require a lot of work by the candidates, their support teams and the voters in their districts. Let’s Get This Right seeks to see a strong Republican base developed regardless of the election results.

Let’s Get This Right supports these candidates with no strings attached. We hope to be able to draw along side their campaigns, to offer assistance and to advance the goals of Let’s Get This Right.

Brad Marston - Co-Executive Director executivedirector1@letsgetthisright.com

Sheridan Folger - Co-Executive Director executivedirector2@letsgetthisright.com

Dr. Bill Smith - National Political Director. politicaldirector@letsgetthisright.com

Sharon Caliendo - Deputy National Political Director.

SJ Reidhead - National Volunteer Director. volunteerdirector@letsgetthisright.com

Media requests should be sent to mediarelations@letsgetthisright.com