See It Again: Third Presidential Debate (Full Video)

Obama Uses Secret Service to Intimidate Voter

Here is the kind of political intimidation we should expect were Obama to become President.

From LifeNews.com

A pro-life woman who received an unsolicited phone call from the Barack Obama campaign complained about his pro-abortion position. The call earned her a visit from the Secret Service, who were apparently given erroneous information from the campaign volunteer that she made a death threat.

Jessica Hughes of Texas says she received a phone call last Wednesday from a woman with the Obama Volunteers of Texarkana.

She told the Lufkin Daily News: "She asked if I was an Obama supporter, to which I replied, 'No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time.' (And then) I hung up."

Hughes was referring to bills in the Illinois legislature that Obama opposed that would have required medical personnel to provide appropriate medical care for babies who survive failed abortions. A Chicago nurse had exposed how some of the babies were left to die.

Her comment about abortion was apparently changed by the Obama volunteer and reported to the Secret Service, who are protecting both presidential candidates.

Two federal agents showed up at Hughes' home on Thursday and asked her if she has said, "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."

Hughes told the Lufkin newspaper she is upset the Obama campaign would allege she had made a death threat and is considering filing a complaint."She has made a charge that will follow me the rest of my life," she said. "I find that repugnant and violating — that some person got her undies in a bundle because she didn't like what I had to say."

Hughes went further than her comments to the newspaper in an email about the incident and indicated the Secret Service threatened her.

She indicated the agents asked her why the Obama campaign volunteer would make up the quote about her wanting Obama to die.

"I replied that I supposed she wasn’t happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said 'That’s right, you were rude.' The last time I checked being rude wasn’t a crime in America," she said.

"Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama," she said. "That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service."

She said the agents admitted there was no tape of the call and threatened that she could wind up in court or they would talk to neighbors and associates if she didn't cooperate.

"I recognized this as a veiled threat. I told them I would happily go to court since I did nothing wrong and at least then my accuser would have to face me rather than sending the thought police to my house," Huhghes said.

Hughes said she asked the agents for their badge numbers and they refused to supply them to her.

Ultimately, Hughes said she worries what will happen to pro-life advocates and other dissidents if Obama is elected.

"Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer," she concluded.

O Canada!

It took Canada a mere 37 days to do the right thing. How is it possible that after two, long years, so many Americans fail to grasp that Barack Hussein Obama is a radical Marxist thug, having spent his whole life being mentored by and consorting with Communists and domestic terrorists, and who is committed to overturn, through any means possible, the basic institutions of the United States?

Obama: The Post Turtle

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our president.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'Post Turtle''.


Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When your driving down a country road an you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with'.

"Liberal" Outrage: A Pro-McCain March In Manhattan

A Pro-McCain march on the Upper West Side in Manhattan on Sunday, September 21, 2008. A group of McCain-Palin supporters dare to march through the Upper West Side - infidels in the "liberal" Mecca. Local "progressives" boo, jeer, and flip fingers at them with a rage they never display even to this country's enemies.

See for yourself the Obama supporters' liberal-minded tolerance, the attitudes that academe has implanted about each finding one's own truth, their openness, and consideration of other points of view.

Would New Yorkers greet a parade of Islamist terrorists this way? Imagine what America would become were these "liberal" fascists to control the levers of government. Perhaps this is what their leader, "the Anointed One," meant when he commanded his followers to "get in their faces."

Perhaps some of the lefty bloggers can explain this; there seem to be some wanna-be Gauleiters among them.

Sarah!

Could Obama Be Getting Secret Foreign Donations?

From Traditional Values Coalition

$222.7 million in untraceable contributions

October 2, 2008 – Newsmax.com reporter Ken Timmerman has conducted an investigation into the strange donations being given to the Obama campaign – including questionable donations from foreign sources.

Most of the donations are under $200 – amounting to $222.7 million! Only $39.6 million comes from donors who must be identified.

Newsmax reviewed donations through the Federal Election Commission and analyzed 1.4 million individual donations. One of those odd donors was Mr. Good Will who made 1,000 separate donations, most of them for $25. In all, Will gave $17,375 to Obama’s campaign.

Another donor identified himself as Pro, Doodad, from Nando, New York. He gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most for $25.

Foreign donations have also poured into Obama’s campaign – 11,500 of them totaling $33.8 million. More than 250 listed IR (Iran) as the source. More than 1,400 were donations from U.S. diplomats or military personnel. Other donations, however, came from Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy and many towns in France.

Timmerman also noted: “In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. “‘All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,’ the Libyan leader said. ‘They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency...’”

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has asked the Obama campaign to redesignate or refund 53,828 donations totaling under $30 million. None of this money, however, involves small donors – which involves nearly half of the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

There are FEC limits/prohibitions on what can be given by individuals, corporations and foreign nationals.

An analyst with the Federal Election Commission has asked for a formal investigation into Obama’s funny money trail.

McCain-Palin's Most Recent TV AD: "Mum"

"A Risk Your Family Can't Afford"

Supreme Knight's Letter to Biden

Dear Senator Biden:

I write to you today as a fellow Catholic layman, on a subject that has become a major topic of concern in this yearʼs presidential campaign.

The bishops who have taken public issue with your remarks on the Churchʼs historical position on abortion are far from alone. Senator Obama stressed your Catholic identity repeatedly when he introduced you as his running mate, and so your statements carry considerable weight, whether they are correct or not. You now have a unique responsibility when you make public statements about Catholic teaching.

On NBCʼsMeet the Press, you appealed to the 13th Century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas to cast doubt on the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion.

There are several problems with this.

First, Aquinas obviously had only a medieval understanding of biology, and thus could only speculate about how an unborn child develops in the womb. I doubt that there is any other area of public policy where you would appeal to a 13th Century knowledge of biology as the basis for modern law.

Second, Aquinasʼ theological view is in any case entirely consistent with the long history of Catholic Church teaching in this area, holding that abortion is a grave sin to be avoided at any time during pregnancy.

This teaching dates all the way back to the Didache, written in the second century. It is found in the writings of Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas, and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which described abortion as "an unspeakable crime" and held that the right to life must be protected from the "moment of conception." This consistent teaching was restated most recently last month in the response of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to remarks by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Statements that suggest that our Church has anything less than a consistent teaching on abortion are not merely incorrect; they may lead Catholic women facing crisis pregnancies to misunderstand the moral gravity of an abortion decision.

Neither should a discussion about a medieval understanding of the first few days or weeks of life be allowed to draw attention away from the remaining portion of an unborn child's life. In those months, even ancient and medieval doctors agreed that a child is developing in the womb.

And as you are well aware, Roe v. Wade allows for abortion at any point during a pregnancy. While you voted for the ban on partial birth abortions, your unconditional support for Roe is a de facto endorsement of permitting all other late term abortions, and thus calls into question your appeal to Aquinas.

I recognize that you struggle with your conscience on the issue, and have said that you accept the Churchʼs teaching that life begins at conception – as a matter of faith. But modern medical science leaves no doubt about the fact that each person's life begins at conception. It is not a matter of personal religious belief, but of science.

Finally, your unwillingness to bring your Catholic moral views into the public policy arena on this issue alone is troubling.

There were several remarkable ironies in your first appearance as Senator Obamaʼs running mate on the steps of the old state capitol in Springfield, Illinois.

His selection as the first black American to be the nominee of a major party for president of the United States owes an incalculable debt to two movements that were led by people whose religious convictions motivated them to confront the moral evils of their day – the abolitionist movement of the 19th Century, and the civil rights movement of the 20th Century.

Your rally in Springfield took place just a mile or so from the tomb of Abraham Lincoln, who in April 1859 wrote these words in a letter to Henry Pierce:

“This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.”

Lincoln fought slavery in the name of “a just God” without embarrassment or apology. He confronted an America in which black Americans were not considered “persons” under the law, and were thus not entitled to fundamental Constitutional rights. Today, children of all races who are fully viable and only minutes from being born are also denied recognition as “persons” because of the Roe v. Wade regime that you so strongly support. Lincolnʼs reasoning regarding slavery applies with equal force to children who are minutes, hours or days away from birth.

The American founders began our great national quest for liberty by declaring that we are all “created equal.” It took nearly a century to transform that bold statement into the letter of the law, and another century still to make it a reality. The founders believed that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and that first among these is “life.”

You have a choice: you can listen to your conscience and work to secure the rights of the unborn to share in the fruits of our hard-won liberty, or you can choose to turn your back on them.

On behalf of the 1.28 million members of the Knights of Columbus and their families in the United States, I appeal to you, as a Catholic who acknowledges that life begins at conception, to resolve to protect this unalienable right. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues personally with you in greater detail during the weeks between now and November 4.

Respectfully,

Carl A. Anderson
Supreme Knight

September 19, 2008

McCain Responds to Biden's "Be a Patriot, Pay More Taxes" Message

The Battle for Sarah Palin's Soul

From The Telegraph

By Damian Thompson

Sarah Palin is at the centre of a furious battle behind the scenes of the US election between conservative Christian tribes who want to claim her as one of her own. "Paleocons" and "theocons" are shrieking: "She's ours!" while the Republican campaign looks on in horror, hoping they will go away.

I stumbled across this drama by the unlikeliest of routes. I noticed that the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) - anti-Zionist Catholic rebel traditionalists - are backing Palin because of her uncompromising stance on abortion. But then a link on an SSPX website led me to Patrick Buchanan, the hard-Right, anti-Israel scourge of the neocons whom Palin has been accused of supporting in the past.

Buchanan, a Catholic hero of the SSPX, said this week that "the lady is no neocon". But, clearly, he's worried that the Zionist lobby is getting to his girl:

"Will the neocons who tutored George W. Bush in the ideology he pursued to the ruin of his presidency do the same for Sarah Palin? Should they succeed, they will destroy her. Yet, they are moving even now to capture this princess of the right and hope of the party.

"In St. Paul, Palin was told to cancel a meeting with Phyllis Schlafly and pro-life conservatives. McCain's operatives said Palin had to rest for her Wednesday convention speech. Yet, on Tuesday, Palin was behind closed doors with Joe Lieberman and officials of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. There, according to The Washington Post, Palin took and passed her oral exams."

The neocons are not a religious movement. But their born-again Christian allies, the theocons, passionately support Israel because they believe that it will be attacked by the forces of the Antichrist, as predicted in the Book of Revelation. And Palin has a foot in this camp, too.

She was born a Catholic but raised a Pentecostalist. Her former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, takes the standard fundamentalist line that the apocalypse will begin in the Middle East. Indeed, the liberal Huffington Post claims that Alaskan fundamentalism (yup, there is such a thing) may have influenced Palin's view that the US is doing God's work in Iraq.

Not so fast, says Buchanan. His CNS article quotes Palin's reaction to the "surge" in 2007: "I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our President, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place." That's not the language of "benevolent global hegemony", he says.

Meanwhile, bible-prophecy.com, a leading resource for America's 10 million or so hard-line fundamentalists, is rapidly turning into a Sarah Palin fansite. That's not what the vice-presidential candidate needs to attract swing voters – but then, neither is the support of isolationist paleocons who think Jewish money will determine the result of the election.

Even more than most candidates, Palin has to think twice before saying anything with even the slightest religious resonance. Because, as Pat Buchanan puts it, "the battle for Sarah's soul is not over".

McCain Kicks Obama in the Fannie Mae

Senator McCain is sounding more and more like a winner at a rally in Ohio today. Although, I'm not sure "reform of Wall Street" is the answer. It was Democrat "reforms" that fueled the current crisis. Let's hope the "reform" he has in mind is a return to economic liberty and free markets.

Joe Biden and American Charity -- What His Tax Returns Mean

Who needs charity when the plan is to give your money to their causes? In the following column Byron York looks at Joe Biden's tax returns and the approximately one eighth of one percent of adjusted gross income that the Senator has given to charity over the past ten years.

From National Review Online
By Byron York

It has become a common practice, when a presidential candidate releases his or her tax returns, for reporters and pundits to examine how much the candidate gave to charity. In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent — to charity.” Other stories about other candidates routinely included figures on charitable giving.

Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

Here is a chart of the Bidens’ giving for the years covered by the tax returns:

Adjusted
Gross Income Charity

1998 $215,432 $195

1999 $210,797 $120

2000 $219,953 $360

2001 $220,712 $360

2002 $227,811 $260

2003 $231,375 $260

2004 $234,271 $380

2005 $321,379 $380

2006 $248,459 $380

2007 $319,853 $995

Total $2,450,042 $3,690

To take Biden’s worst year, 1999, one percent of his adjusted gross income would have been $2,100. One half of one percent would have been $1,050. One quarter of one percent would have been $525. One eighth of one percent would have been $262. And one sixteenth of one percent would have been $131 — still a bit more than the Bidens gave.

To take Biden’s best year, 2007, one percent of his adjusted gross income would have been $3,190. One half of one percent would have been $1,595. One quarter of one percent would have been $797 — a figure Biden surpassed by nearly $200.

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

A spokesman for Biden, David Wade, says the figures on Biden’s tax return do not reflect the true extent of his giving. “The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity,” Wade said in a statement to NRO. “Like most regular churchgoers, they contribute to their church, and they also contribute to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks, whether it’s [Jill] Biden’s volunteer work with military families or the Biden breast-health initiative, or the way in which the family pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, or the ways Sen. Biden has supported charities that help women, police, and veterans.”

Wade also suggests that Biden, who is famous for being the least wealthy member of the U.S. Senate, simply doesn’t have piles of money to give. “Like a lot of families that put three kids through college and have an aging parent move in with them, the Bidens aren’t divorced from the realities of everyday life,” Wade says. Still, Wade continues, “finding ways to give back is important to them.”

So far, at least, Biden’s tax returns have attracted little attention. On Saturday, the Washington Post published a 468-word story on the subject, the main point of which was that the release of Biden’s returns was an effort by the Obama campaign to pressure the McCain campaign to release Sarah Palin’s returns. After a few brief paragraphs on Biden, the rest of the story concerned Palin, reporting that “progressive groups” are eager to find out whether Palin “skirted tax obligations” on the per diem payments she received from the Alaska state government. The story made no mention of Biden’s charitable giving.

But for people who have studied the impressive generosity of the American public, there is news in Biden’s returns. “I’m not going to say he’s a bad guy,” says Arthur Brooks. “My only point is that his values are not typical American values when it comes to charitable giving. Americans in general are very generous.”

Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview

NewsBusters has revealed that ABC News shamelessly distorted Charles Gibson's interview with Governor Palin. The recent interview is also in striking contrast to the soft-ball questions asked of Senator John Edwards in 2004. Is it any wonder that these MSM propaganda organs -- print and broadcast -- are dying?

*****

From News Busters
By P.J. Gladnick

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relations with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help. But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members. We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript . It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.


—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Governor Palin at Son's Army Deployment

In the following video Governor Sarah Palin sends her son and other soldiers off to combat. One question comes to mind; could Obama give Palin's speech without looking like Michael Dukakis in that tank?

The Daily Palin

Sliming Palin: Fact Check Organization Responds to Lies

False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

Summary

We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

• Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

• She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

• She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
• Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesty" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
• Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

A few of these claims were included in a chain e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny. We'll be looking into other charges in that e-mail for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:

For Some of Us, The Perfect Bumper Sticker

Palin McCain 08 Bumper Sticker

Buy this product at CafePress
Designed by Palin for President

A Neighbor Reflects on the Palins

The following was written by a Wasilla neighbor of Sarah and Todd Palin.

Dear Family & Friends,

Because I have received e-mails from many of you asking for any information and insight into the newly-selected Republican VP candidate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, I thought I'd put some of my personal knowledge and observations together and send it out en masse. It's information I'd like to get out as quickly as possible, and invite you to share with your own network of family and friends who might also find it useful. Warning: It is a long e-mail, but my intent is to give you specific details that will hopefully help give you a better idea of Gov. Palin's background, history, and character.

I have lived in Alaska for 15 years. I arrived as a member of the U.S. Air Force, stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base (on the outskirts of Anchorage), and 6 years later I retired from the service. My husband, also an Air Force retiree, and I decided to stay in Alaska to raise our family and take advantage of the nearly unlimited opportunities we saw here. Our first 9 years were spent living in Anchorage and its suburbs – a city of about 275,000 people – and for the last 6 years we have lived in Wasilla, the home town of Gov. Palin. Wasilla city limits encompass about 7,000 residents, but Wasilla is an integral and centrally-located part of a much larger area known as the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough, which is by far the fastest growing area of the state. Mat-Su is approximately the size of West Virginia, and it currently has just over 80,000 residents. Mat-Su's population is growing at a rate of about 10 people per day. Wasilla itself is located about 40 miles northwest of Anchorage.

Sarah Palin attended Wasilla High School, the same school my 2 older children attended and the one my youngest will attend in 2 years. It has about 600 students total in grades 9-12. In 1982, the year Sarah Palin graduated, she was a point guard on the girls' basketball team, which won the state championship that year. While she left the state to attend college, she returned when finished and married and settled right here in Wasilla. Her house is about 3 miles from mine, on a beautiful lake, but it's nothing fancy (I would guess about 3-4 bedrooms, 2-3 baths). It is not a new or luxurious home, but one that has been there for many years, with a nice yard that even includes some weeds occasionally (just like mine).

After her children reached school age, she became involved in the local Iditarod Elementary School PTA. Her community involvement made her a well-known local, and she was elected to Wasilla City Council in 1994. She was elected mayor in 1996, and served two 3-year terms. She was unable to run for a third term due to term limits. She brought organization and fiscal responsibility to Wasilla, which was no easy task. She instituted a 2% city sales tax which allowed Wasilla to have its own police force. Previously, law and order was maintained by a few state troopers who happened to be in the area. She enabled the building and improvement of much of Wasilla's infrastructure. All this she was able to do without increasing property taxes.

Since we moved to Wasilla in late 2002, we didn't see her perform as mayor first-hand. However, we reaped the results of her time in office in the form of better infrastructure, new community facilities, and low property taxes (about 50% lower than in Anchorage). During the next 4 years, her political life evidently took a back seat to family. I discovered that her youngest (at that time) child attended the same elementary school as my youngest, and I often saw her at school events. She attended Christmas concerts, award assemblies, conferences, sporting events and potlucks just like other parents. It was hard to find her in a crowd; she was wearing jeans or sweatpants and sweatshirts and snow boots, mittens and a parka, just like the rest of us. I saw her occasionally at the grocery store, again, always in jeans and a t-shirt, sneakers and a smile. She was always friendly and at ease in a group, and had no trouble or hesitation with discussing common parental issues with the rest of us: growing kids, curfews, video game obsessions, etc. Her husband, Todd, is almost as much a local celebrity as Sarah is, because he participates in and once won the Iron Dog Race, a local snowmobile racing event that takes participants over several hundred miles of rugged winter terrain – kind of an Iditarod for snowmachines instead of dogs. Their older kids played local and high school hockey, and the Palins were always seen at the games, cheering on their kids, always from the 'cheap seats;' no special privileges.

Sarah revived her political career in 2006 by announcing her intention to run, as a Republican, against the incumbent Republican governor who had made many very public faux pas involving potential misuse of public money and preferential treatment for special interest groups. Sarah campaigned on a platform of reform within Alaskan Republican Party, in which many of us had lost faith. She won the primary by a landslide, and defeated her Democrat challenger (a former Alaska governor) soundly in the general election. She won the popular vote in nearly all demographic categories, including women, Alaska Natives, small business owners, city, and rural dwellers. Since her election, she has kept her promises to clean up the Alaska Republican Party, and to govern by doing what she believes is right, regardless of 'party lines' or political correctness. Believe me, she is giving the international energy companies (BP, Conoco Phillips, etc) a run for their money with her tough negotiating stances on their current oil field operations and also for the proposed natural gas pipeline. When the Democrats now say she won't or can't 'stand up to big oil,' they haven't done their homework, and they certainly don't live in Alaska.

Sarah's oldest child, her son Track, was in the same Wasilla High School Class of 2007 as my middle son. That year, both Wasilla High School boys' and girls' basketball teams won the state championship, the first time since the 1982 championship. Sarah was at the state championship games in Anchorage, and went wild with the rest of the Wasilla crowd when our teams won. It was at that event that my son was able to approach Sarah and ask her to speak at the Wasilla High School graduation ceremony, an invitation that she graciously accepted. Her speech was poignant, funny, and very engaging.. She has a remarkable stage presence that seems to be absolutely genuine and true to her real character.

At unofficial events, Sarah likes to be called, 'Sarah' or 'Mrs. Palin.' As rare and unlikely as it may seem, she truly cares about the people she represents and about using her office for their benefit. And that's what really draws me to Sarah – the fact that I know she DOES represent me, because many aspects of her life have been like mine. I've seen her enough to know that her world is (normally) my world, and that she looks at state and world events with the same concerns and mindset that I do. No, I can't honestly say that Sarah is a smooth, suave, professional politician. But that's a good thing. Look where all the 'professional' politicians have taken us in the past. Sarah would be the first person to admit she's not perfect, but then neither are any of the rest of us. I'm tired of being 'represented' by people who have never stood in line at the grocery store, worn funny-colored homemade mittens to a local hockey game, or sat in the cheap seats. Maybe the best way to bring true integrity back into politics is to elect someone whose life hasn't been so far removed from the experiences of the 'ordinary' middle class American family, what I believe to be the great silent majority.

For those concerned about Sarah's support of drilling in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), you must understand that NO ONE is more in love with Alaskan splendor, natural beauty and wildlife than Alaskans. It's a big reason why we choose to live here. However, we – as represented by Sarah – realize the abundance of natural resources Alaska has been blessed with; resources that we want to share with the rest of the country, but we know there is a balance to be achieved. We can harvest and benefit from these natural resources without destroying the environment. Both the technology and the methodology do exist! The oil pipeline running through the state, including ANWR, has proved this for the past 30 years. We have enacted some of the strictest legislation in the country to protect our incredible and unique environment from damage resulting from the harvesting of natural resources. Alaskans do not think we know better than other states' residents what those states should do to protect their own land and environment. We ask for the same consideration. No one will deal more with the consequences of environmental damage than those of us who live here. We have no intention of allowing our home to be maimed or destroyed. If we are satisfied with a balanced approach and plan to drill in ANWR, who is any non-Alaskan to say otherwise?

So I know this has been an excruciatingly long e-mail, but I do hope that now, at the end of it, you feel you know more about Sarah Palin than you did at the start. I know she won't appeal to everyone, and perhaps all my perceived positive aspects of her will strike some as all negative. I do know that Sarah is a unique and compelling figure in politics, and especially in this particular election. As Alaskans, we could not be more proud of our Sarah, whether or not she becomes our next Vice President. With Sarah, like most Alaskans, what you see is what you get. If what you see in Sarah is to your liking, let her know with your vote in November. I feel privileged to be able to highly recommend her!

Vicki

From Our Canadian Friends at Piddingworth

THE SENSE OF A WOMAN

According to the 'official' feminists and their media mouthpieces, Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska and running-mate of John McCain in the American presidential election, is not an authentic' 'woman'. To quote the former campaign manager for the philandering John Edwards (no kidding), 'Governor Palin doesn't understand the needs of women'. Gloria Steinem has said that the only thing that Sarah Palin has in common with Hillary Clinton are her hormones. Thank goodness for that!

The left-wing are practitioners of 'GroupThink'. Instead of regarding individuals as persons in their own right, they lump every person into an ideological category that is based upon a selected human trait or condition. Each category is defined according to a prescribed collective history, characteristics, and status. Thus, there is for them a 'black community' to which all 'black people' belong because of the colour of their skin. There are, however, some exceptions to such membership. So, if you are Barack Obama, a thoroughgoing liberal, even if he is but half-black, he is a fully-fledged member and now a spokes'person' for the 'black community'. Robert Mugabe is black. Is he a member of that community? Clarence Thomas, the Justice of the US Supreme Court, is a black man, and unlike Mr. Obama, he is the descendant of slaves. Is he a member of the skin-selected community? No. As a conservative, his views counter those of GroupThink, and even with his pedigree, he is excluded from being an 'authentic' member. Like Condoleeza Rice, the brilliant US Secretary of State, also a descendant of slaves, Thomas has been referred to by some of the 'authentic' liberal members as an 'Oreo', i.e., like the famouse biscuit, he may have black skin but inside he's just like a white man. The left frequently resorts to dismissing people by calling them names. Engaging in ideas seems to be anathema to them.

Similarly, the most prominent and liberal brand of feminists reserve the true definition of a 'woman' as a female who believes in what that 'group' believes, i.e., permitting the killing of unborn and partially born children (euphamised as 'Choice'), government oversight of child-rearing (for those children who had the good fortune not to be aborted), e.g., Hillary Clinton's 'It Takes A Village'; the 'equality' of homosexuality with heterosexuality and the promotion of the same in school textbooks for young children; and any government programme that finances and advances their philosophy anywhere, including Africa. They love 'centralised' authority if it is liberal and even crypto-socialist. Governing, to the Left, is managing the lives of citizens according to GroupThink.

Women like the impressive Sarah Palin, are not true members of the 'Woman Community'. As the recent disgusting liberal rants against her and her family have shown, she is villified for having an orthodox Christian belief in the sacredness of human life, as well as a view of the world and of culture that reflects the importance of the 'individual' in their choices, their personal character, and manner of living. For Governor Palin, that includes fighting corruption, cutting waste of people's money, encouraging economic prosperity, being a 'hockey mum', hunting and even participating in a beauty contest.

She has been criticised for having been the Mayor of a small town and Governor of a state with a small population; even though Barack Obama, their hyped-up left-liberal hero, has been mayor and governor of nowhere. Indeed, the only thing he has run, with all his eloquence, is his campaign.

The left, especially the media, are even attacking her for having a yet-to-be-married 17 year old daughter who is five months pregnant.

If there was any doubt of the amorality of the media jackals' who are disgustingly feasting on Sarah Palin's family life, surely it is blatantly obvious now as they demonstrate the profound betrayal and vulgarity that has, in the past two decades, so overtaken their once-noble purpose. The paucity of fairness, integrity and balance has become predictably the norm. If there is any doubt of the left liberal loathing for women who embrace and live lives based upon the ancient foundation of faith and culture it has been made obvious.

There is no doubt that Sarah Palin was chosen by the legendary John McCain (who, unlike Obama, lacks the extensive experience of a 'community organiser') in part, because she is a woman; with the hope of attracting voters who would vote for her because she is a woman. But after Sarah Palin's remarks to the Republican Party on Wednesday evening, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the greatest reason he picked her is because of her personality, character, public record and personal beliefs; all of which came through brilliantly, with a mixture of wit, courage, determination, conviction and a common sense that reflects a knowledge of the common good and the legacy from which her country has been so blessed. Margaret Thatcher, also a woman, achieved her place in government and history because of who she was and what she believe in at the core. It is doubtful that many voted for her or her government because she was a female.

Joe Biden, her Democratic Party Vice-Presidential opponent has reportedly said that he thinks that Sarah Palin is 'a good looking woman'. Yes, indeed, she is. But the shallowness of the left, with it's dishonest obsession with race, gender, and sexual license does not apply to Sarah Palin...and they will increasingly discover as the election campaign continues that the ordinary citizen, by common sense, is drawn to a person more for who and what they are and stand for than what they look or sound like...or what 'group' they represent.

Sarah Palin is an inspiration and one can see it's magic as the enthusiasm for her and her heroic running-mate rapidly grows. Her femininity will add to the quality of her words and deeds and bring a fresh perspective to the issues of the day, but the simple fact of being 'female' in itself, is or ought to be, irrelevant.

One can easily respect and enjoy the sense of this wonderful and extraordinary woman!

If I was an American I would gladly support her and the old maverick John McCain.

Written and originally published by Piddingworth