Raysmom's Blog

In a story about what private school President-elect Barack Obama will send his children to, "Good Morning America" reporter Claire Shipman on Wednesday mostly glossed over the obvious point that the Democrat likely won't be putting his daughters through the D.C. public educational system and also ignored his opposition to vouchers. Instead, she fawned that "the D.C. social world is obsessed with where these new, coolest kids on the block will wind up."

The only mention of public schools came when Shipman asserted, "Whenever there's a new first family with young children, the question always comes up, public or private? And with Washington, D.C. schools still struggling, it can be an especially difficult decision." She then played a clip of Washington Post reporter Jay Matthews explaining the woeful state of D.C.'s public schools. But, nowhere in the piece did Shipman mention the contradiction between Obama's opposition to school choice programs that allow low income students to use vouchers to attend private institutions and the fact that the President-elect and his wife have no intention to send their children to some of those very same schools in Washington.

When Michelle Obama visited Washington this week, she toured only two prospective schools for her daughters: Sidwell Friends, where lower-school tuition is $28,442; and Georgetown Day, where tuition is $27,445 for grades 1-5.

In the 2008 campaign, Obama was endorsed by the National Education Association and other liberal teachers unions. And yet in her report, Shipman simply reiterated a history of what past presidents have done with their children, giving Obama a complete free pass on the issue of vouchers.

Over at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington-based education advocacy group, policy wonk Mike Petrilli writes on his blog that he is pulling for Georgetown Day School, which participates in the city's voucher program. The program, which allows nearly 2,000 D.C. children to attend private school, faces possible extinction under Obama’s presidency. "It's one thing for Candidate Obama to oppose publicly funded vouchers on principle," he writes. "It's quite another thing for a President Obama to eliminate an existing program and kick his daughters' classmates out of their beloved school."

In February, when Obama indicated that he might consider some voucher programs, the Democrat hue and cry prompted his campaign to state, ""Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers." The statement went on, "Throughout his career, he has voted against voucher proposals and voiced concern for siphoning off resources from our public schools." It noted that Mr. Obama's education agenda "does not include vouchers, in any shape or form." So much for that.

Roland Martin, an African American contributor to CNN, says,
“… part of the reason why vouchers have been denounced and dismissed is because Democrats have been far too obstinate on the issue, and have not listened to their constituents, especially African-Americans, who overwhelmingly support vouchers.
There is no doubt that on this issue, McCain had it right and Obama has it wrong.
Obama's opposition is right along the lines of the National Education Association, and the teachers union is a reliable and powerful Democratic ally. But this is one time where he should have opposed them and made it clear that vouchers can force school districts, administrators and teachers to shape up or see their students ship out”

About the only thing Obama and his party offer is pouring more money into schools and teacher salaries. It's an idea that sounds sensible not only to teachers and principals but to a lot of other Americans as well— mainly because most taxpayers don't realize how much they are already spending.

A survey by William Howell of the University of Chicago and Martin West of Brown University found that 96 percent of Americans underestimate these expenditures, usually by a lot. On average, per-student outlays are more than twice what most people think, and teachers get $14,370 more per year than commonly assumed. Per-pupil spending, adjusted for inflation, has soared in the last four decades with no visible payoff.

Vouchers are a different approach: Instead of enlarging the monopoly, stimulate competition by empowering low-income students and parents to go outside the public school system. Over time, that should give rise to more private schools and impel public ones to do a better job—or, in the case of the worst ones, close down.

It's not a radical design. It's pretty much the model we use for higher education, and it may explain why American universities are held in much higher regard around the world than our elementary and secondary schools. And it's comparable to what we use for most other goods, which accounts for the vast improvements in computers, cars and TVs that have occurred even as public schools were stagnating.

Republicans grasp all this, while Democrats prefer to close their eyes. Obama says he stands for "change we can believe in." But change that works? That's another matter. We’ll see. If the Obama’s, who both attended private schools as children, continue to send their girls to private schools while opposing that choice for others, then we will know the answer to that question.

I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THIS IS A CRITICAL HYPOCRISY OF THE DEMS, AND OF OBAMA IN PARTICULAR.

Colin Powell's career has been viewed in large part through rose-colored glasses, by Republicans and Democrats alike. Many who want to prove that they would vote for a black man for President use him as an example, because of the more publicized aspects of his career. I have never been one of those people. I have always found him to be...unreliable in his views and behavior. He jumps back and forth a lot, has shown some huge lapses in character and judgement, and has always made surprising turns of face. Such as:

Here is a PBS transcript of Powell with Jim Leher justifying the war in Iraq. He was right on that one. But it flies in the face of Obama's stand on Iraq.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-jun e03/powell_1-22-03.html

In 2007, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East should find some way to talk to Hamas. This surprising turnabout in his policy was reponded to. In Lisbon, Portugal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "neither the Quartet - the US, the EU, the UN and Russia - nor Washington would deal with Hamas unless it recognizes Israel's right to exist and renounces terrorism, ruling out its participation in an upcoming Middle East peace meeting called by President George W. Bush".

He has also made some big mistakes that he was never really castigated for. Why? Is it because of political correctness, the same reason that Obama doesn't get called on his voting records and radical associations in his life and politics? HHMMMMM. Could be...does this sound like a familiar scenario?

In fall 1995, as the Republican presidential field took shape, Newsweek jumped into the Powell love-fest. Columnist Joe Klein offered the insight that "the key to the race" was the recognition that "ideas are not important." Instead of ideas, "stature is everything." Klein declared. "But if ideas don't matter, what does? Civility does." It seemed Powell had cornered the market on stature and civility.

Powell Fever

Even normally clear-eyed journalists had their vision clouded by Powell fever. Rolling Stone's cogent analyst William Greider reprised the theme of Powell as the nation's savior. "Luck walks in the door, and its name is Colin Powell," Greider proclaimed, lauding the general with descriptions such as "confident," "candid," "a tonic for the public spirit." [ Rolling Stone, Nov. 16, 1995]

But in one rare dissent, The New Republic's Charles Lane reviewed Powell's second year-long stint in Vietnam in 1968-69. The article focused on a troubled letter from American soldier Tom Glen who complained to the U.S. high command about a pattern of atrocities against civilians, encompassing the My Lai massacre.

When Glen's letter reached Powell, then a fast-rising Army major at Americal headquarters, Powell conducted a cursory investigation and promptly dismissed the young soldier's concerns as unfounded. "In direct refutation of this portrayal," Powell told the Americal adjutant general, "is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."

Only later did other Americal veterans, most notably Ron Ridenhour, expose the truth about My Lai and the abuse of Vietnamese civilians. "There is something missing," Lane observed, "from the legend of Colin Powell, something epitomized, perhaps, by that long-ago brush-off of Tom Glen." [ The New Republic, April 17, 1995]

Possibly even more troubling was Powell's acknowledgement a quarter century later in his memoirs, My American Journey, that he had been aware of wanton killings of Vietnamese civilians, especially "military-age males" or MAMs. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him," Powell wrote. "If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so."

But a key Washington Post columnist rallied to Powell's defense after Lane's article. Richard Harwood, a former Post ombudsman, scolded Lane for trying "to deconstruct the image of Colin Powell." Harwood attacked this "revisionist view" which faulted Powell for "what he didn't do" and for reducing Powell's "life to expedient bureaucratic striving."

Harwood fretted that other reporters might join the criticism. "What will other media do with this tale?" Harwood worried. "Does it become part of a new media technique by which indictments are made on the basis of might-have-beens and should-have-dones?"

But Harwood's fears were unfounded. The national media closed ranks behind Powell. Not only did the media ignore Powell's troubling actions in Vietnam, but the press turned a blind eye to Powell's dubious roles in the Iran-contra scandal and other national security foul-ups of the Reagan-Bush era.

Number of times Colin Powell said, “I don't recall” or, “I can't recall” during his 1987 Iran-Contra testimony: 56.

In 1984-85, Colin Powell was the "filter" for information flowing to Defense Secretary Casper Weinburger. But what kind of information flowed through the "filter?" Would the disastrous Iran-contra scandal have happened without Colin Powell's work as Defense Secretary Casper Weinburger's "filter?" Just as Colin Powell played an important behind-the-scenes role in missile shipments to Iran, he would be equally instrumental in the next phase, the scandal's cover-up in 1987-88.

Last week, Powell appeared as a character witness at Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-Alaska) corruption trial, telling jurors that Stevens is someone he trusts completely. "As we say in the infantry, this is a guy you take on a long patrol," Oh yes, let's DO trust his judgement, what say, Palin Haters who have used Stevens against her?

These are some of the reasons Powell never ran for President- he thought the media would destroy him for his defective judgements in the past.  If Obama is any indication, Powell should have given it a shot.  People will hear what they want to hear.

Bush fired him 8 days into his second term.  McCain rejected him for VP. 

Unfortunately, once again, the media will rule the day, telling the story the way they want to, and people will go Oh, well, if Colin Powell says so...there are way too many sheep on both sides of the fence these days.

In the Emerald City of Chicago, circa 2000, a young Senator by the name of Barack Obama was frustrated.  He couldn't get a single bill passed.  Barack pulled out his best magic hat, but he backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee.

Then, in 2002,  for the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor’s office as well as both legislative chambers.

 Illinois Senate Majority Leader James “Pate” Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr.  Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama’s. Obama became his apprentice.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city’s most popular black call-in radio ­program.

Kelley recollects the private conversation as follows:

“He said, ‘Cliff, I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator.’”

“Oh, you are? Who might that be?”

“Barack Obama.”

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

“I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty  committee chairmen,” State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

And in return for all the king-making efforts by Jones on Obama’s behalf, Obama made sure Jones was repaid handsomely.

So how has Obama repaid Jones?

Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones’s Senate district.

Shortly after Jones became Senate president, Jones was asked  his view on pork-barrel spending.

“Some call it pork; I call it steak.”

Nope. It ain’t pork and it ain’t steak. It is our  money.

Maybe Mr. Obama needs a heart.

Mr. Obama is now claiming that Republicans are mishandling the economy, and that their friends are stealing our investments.  He blames the Wall Steet boondoggle on George Bush's policies.  What policies would those be, exactly?

The Community Reinvestment Act, which outlawed "red-lining" of loans by banks and forced them to make risky loans?  Nope,  made law under Carter in 1977. Consequently, banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, or "subprime" loans. When they tried to charge higher fees, "Community Organizations" like Acorn, and Obama's Developing Communities Project, cried that this was discrimination.  They took over 100 BILLION in subprime loans in the first 20 years of the program.

How about de-regulation?  The evil Bush Republicans?  Nope,  in 1999, the Glass-Steagal Act, which separated investments and banks, put into law in 1933 to keep the Great Depression from happening again, was modified/repealed, and signed by Bill Clinton.

Maybe Mr. Obama needs a brain.

Will Obama stand up for you against the "rich investors" and the financial lobbyists, and put money back in your pockets, as he says?

Nope.  Obama received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator except the chairman of the committee,  Democrat Christopher Dodd, who stood righteously  in front of the podium tonight and decried the Republicans using this situation as a "photo op".    Obama made the Chairman of Fannie Mae, who ran that place into the ground, the chairman of his Vice-Presidential search committee (nice job, too, selecting Biden, (D-MBNA) whose son is a paid lobbyist for MBNA Banks).  Is it possible that Mr. Obama's backers are calling in their markers?

Maybe Mr. Obama needs courage.

Tonight, Mr. Obama is at a fundraiser thrown by Ms. Streisand in Beverly Hills.  $28,000 a plate. 

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

LONDON, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Oil rose on Wednesday in response to a surprise decision by OPEC to cut production by about half a million barrels a day.

Analysts in a Reuters poll expect U.S. government oil inventory data to show a sharp fall in crude oil and refined product stocks due to production and import disruptions caused by Hurricane Gustav.

In contradiction to Congress' vacation and environmentalist's glee, the Democrats campaigned and won the November 2006 election in part because the Democrats promised to fix the fuel crisis over two years ago. Senator Ken Salazar's speech on the floor of the Senate, " President's Rhetoric Out of Touch with Oil and Gas Prices outlined an agenda for energy independence, 06/28/ 2006" and Representative Mark Udall in E-Newsletter April 28, 2006: PAIN AT THE PUMP Udall Spells Out Plan for Relief" defined the issue and what they would do about it with a Democratic Congress.

When it broke for its August recess, Congress had passed only 294 laws, the fewest at this point of any Congress in the last 20 years. Out of those, 81 named post offices.

Unfortunately, among those that did not pass were the 10 appropriations bills, which fund the operations of the federal government and whose passage is Congress' main order of business in fact, almost its whole purpose. Those bills are supposed to be passed before the end of the federal fiscal year, but no one's betting on it. Some of them may not get passed until the start of 2009. However, Congress has not been totally idle, you'll be pleased to hear. According to the nonpartisan watchdogs over at Taxpayers for Common Sense, the lawmakers have introduced a total of 1,932 often meaningless resolutions.

Some $500 million in investment and production tax credits will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress renews them. Without that help, solar and wind power companies say they will reverse planned expansions and, in many cases, cut payrolls and capital investment. "These companies are shutting down projects, firing people and it's Congress's fault," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

So, what's it going to be, Speaker Pelosi? Will you do NOTHING and then blame it on George Bush? Is that really the agenda? If not- prove it, by putting the energy production needs of this country in front of your desire for power.

(I posted this on the message boards, also, but it seems like everyone is busy fighting about other things, and I thought it was an important topic, so I'm posting it here, too.  Thanks for visiting.)

The link was sent to me by an Obama supporter today, whose teenage son lays in a coma.  Her Christianity and her Bible are important to her, and this hurt her.  I was surprised, frankly, at the lack of wisdom, at very least, that this showed.  

http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM 

The annual July session of ECOSOC, the UN Economic and Social Council, featured the usual malicious attempts to deny UN accreditation to legitimate non-governmental organizations.

Applications for accreditation are considered by the 19-nation Committee on NGOs, which includes such NGO-friendly governments as China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and Sudan. The committee spends most of its time harassing or barring groups that speak out for individual freedom.

Amidst much controversy, the NGO Committee had recommended to deny consultative status to the Human Rights Foundation (HRF). The United States asked ECOSOC to reconsider, noting that the HRF board included such distinguished human rights activists as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel. Also noted was that HRF is chaired by Armando Valladares, recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience for his years of incarceration in Cuban prisons.

The Cubans replied that Mr. Valladares is a “terrorist” and “a clown and a member of a criminal gang.” Cuba, Egypt for the Islamic Group, Russia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Sudan, and Belarus spoke out forcefully against HRC. Ecuador said it had “carried out activities that promoted subversion,” and labeled the group a “terrorist organization.”

Chavez, Castro, Mubarak, Lukashenko, al-Bashir, Morales, and Putin-Medvedev won. ECOSOC upheld the decision to bar the the Human Rights Foundation from the UN.

In a separate controversy, in March, 2008, the UN Human Rights Council  adopted its 16th one-sided censure of Israel since the supposedly reformed body was founded in June 2006. Apart from passing mention of Burma, the Islamic-dominated council of 47 governments has criticized no other country.  Beautiful!

The final resolution was adopted by 33 votes in favor, with Canada casting the sole opposing vote, and 13 abstentions. Switzerland was the sole European country to endorse the resolution, which was introduced by the Arab and Islamic blocs.

This is what much of our $$$$$'s go for in the UN.  Kudos to Canada for being the only nation on this council with any guts!  FYI- The United States does not hold a seat.

Not the best way  to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Barack Obama is "The Man" in Europe, pundits are saying. 

European governments and politicians are not so sure.

Barack Obama visited Europe this week, only the second time in 4 years.  Obama is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for the region. The newspaper Le Monde pointed out on Thursday that Obama has never asked to meet the European Union's ambassador in Washington.  Not once.

A member of the German Council on Foreign Relations said, “The Obama who spoke tonight did not put all his cards on the table.” Mr. Obama “tried to use all the symbolism of Berlin to indicate that as president he would reach out to Europe,” he said.    

A former French foreign minister said, “I don’t think Europe is a major stake for” Mr. Obama, adding, “It’s the support that Europeans can bring to his politics that matters."    Mr. Obama indulged in "some pro-German demagogy on nuclear weapons to get applause”.

When interviewed about Obama, Europeans were not entirely sure what Obama stood for. "Is he a socialist?'' they asked.  Interesting question. 

Sounds very much like the Obama we get here in America, doesn't it?  "What can I say that you want to hear?" is his mantra, and not all Europeans are falling for it, obviously, although he has his adoring fan club, again, just like in America.  The New York Times calls it "Obama Fever".   

“On the positive side, we can expect somebody who reasons the way we do in Europe,” said Pierre Rousselin, the foreign editor of Le Figaro, a French newspaper.

And that's a GOOD thing?

(This is an original editorial written by myself, with info from several public sources- The NY Times, Media Net, and CNN- edited for space, but not changed, along with my own editorial comments.  I think it is responsible to reveal that.)

Obama WILL raise or eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes- he has promised to do so. This means that Social Security taxes, which are currently paid at 12% by the self-employed and 6% by employees, up to 97K in annual earnings, would be paid on all gross earnings up to 250K, or on ALL earnings, another idea of his.  Business owners, small and large alike, also have to match their employees' contributions!  While taxing the "rich" is a popular approach,  this enormous tax hike would seriously damage the U.S. economy while doing nothing to address it's abusers.

Eliminating the cap on payroll taxes would be, by far, the biggest tax hike in U.S. history: more than $1.3 trillion in new taxes over the first 10 years alone. 

Raising the tax cap would not just hurt the super rich, as Obama argues, but would fall most heavily on the upper middle class. Some 9.2 million Americans would see their taxes increased. Small businesses would be particularly hammered: about one-third of the workers affected by raising the cap would be small business owners.  These are the people who already carry the largest tax burden, proportionately, and who contribute the most to the economy through business services, overhead to supporting industries, JOBS, insurances, and charity.   They do 80% of the business in this country, on average. 

Eliminating the cap would saddle the United States with the highest marginal tax rate in the world, higher even than countries like Sweden. It would cost the United States as much as $136 billion in lost economic growth over the next 10 years, and as many as 1.1 MILLION lost jobs!

Eliminating the cap would result in only eight additional years of cash-flow solvency.  That's very little gain for so much pain.  Obama showed his ignorance of this during the debates with Hillary, and of his ignorance of how payroll taxes work in general.  Just pay more into it- that's his answer for everything.

Eliminating the cap would not address Social Security's other problems, either. It would not enable workers to decide how their money is invested. It would not allow low- and middle-income workers to accumulate a nest egg of real, inheritable wealth. It would not improve Social Security's rate of return for younger workers.  It would not ensure that people who have paid in could collect.  It would not do anything about the gross abuse of SS funds by people who it was never meant to support, such as drug addicts and illegals, who take a huge drain from Disability benefits, among other ridiculous payouts.

Obama should be confronted on this issue.  I hope McCain does.  Do Americans want a massive tax hike in exchange for propping up the current Social Security system for a few more years? Or do they want fundamental reforms that give them more ownership and control of their money?

We know what Obama wants.