Norm Crosby suggested during the Jerry Lewis Telethon that this may be the election when voters "hope that nobody wins."   He might be right. 

Sen. Barack Obama has suggested that Sen. John McCain  would be a continuation of the Bush administration.  I wish that I thought  one of the presidential candidates would be as effective a president as George W. Bush, but I don't.  The current set of major party candidates may be the worst since the 19th Century.

 I would rather have four more years of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton than have four years of either Barack Obama or John McCain.  I would rather bring back Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush, in spite of their ages, than have four years of Barack Obama.

Neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton will be considered a great president,  but both are likely to look good compared to which ever of the major party candidates  wins  this year's election.

The only ability Obama seems to have is the ability to con people into thinking he can handle the presidency.    He has never  handled any executive  position and doesn't understand  the War on Terror or the current economic  situation.  There is more to being president than just looking good on television.  Fred Thompson knows how to act like a president on television, but I wouldn't have voted for him either. 

Obama is less experienced than the 20th Century's least experienced president Warren G. Harding.  Obama shares  Harding's tendency to associate with corrupt individuals.  Unlike Harding, Obama may himself be corrupt considering that he attempted to earmark a million dollars to his wife's employer after the employer more than doubled her salary  Providing government benefits after receiving money  is usually consider bribery.  

He cannot understand that regardless of whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, the country has  become a battleground in the War on Terror.  If we leave before the Iraqis are able to  keep al  Qaeda from taking over, Osama bin Laden (OBL), or another al Qaeda leader, will move to Iraq and use its oil revenue to fund al Qaeda's operations.
 
Obama doesn't understand that if OBL is hiding in Pakistan, OBL is doing so because even if the U.S. kills him there, his successors might be able to use the action to  either take over Pakistan or at least gain access to some of its nuclear weapons.   Sending troops into Pakistan, as Obama wants to do, could spark a full scale war with Pakistan  which not only has nuclear weapons, but also a population nearly as large as the combined populations of  World War II Germany and Japan.  

OBL is not a Hitler type leader who wants power for himself.  OBL  believes he  is pursuing a cause  that is bigger than he is. He believes he might benefit in the afterlife if he became a martyr to that cause. 

Obama's comments about the current economic situation  are just simplistic partisan nonsense.  He fails to recognize that the sitaution results from global economic problems rather than the policies of President Bush.  

The basic problem began with a boom during the Clinton administration.  Historically, economic  booms fuel greed and encourage  those with money to feel they cannot lose regardless of the risk. Booms may also encourage politicians to believe that busts are a thing of the past.   The boom could have gone bust with the double shock of 9/11 and the Enron collapse, but Bush helped prevent that outcome.       

McCain isn't much better on economic matters than  Obama, but he does recognize the dangers of tax increases in a bust situation.  If I remember standard economic theory taxes should be increased during growth periods to prevent a boom situation and pay off any debts and reduced during recessions to stimulate the economy.  Reducing taxes is less expensive than sending out economic stimulous checks. 

As an experienced executive McCain won't be distracted by having to learn how to be in charge of an organization.  McCain has a better understanding of what can go wrong because of his experience during the savings and loan crisis in the late 80's.

McCain understands the War on Terror and recognizes the need to win on all battlefields.   He is unlikely to  make the mistake of starting a war with Pakistan.

McCain's weakness is that he doesn't come across as a strong enough leader.  I don't expect him to  be another Roosevelt (TR or FDR), but  he could exhibit the fiestiness  of Harry S. Truman.  McCain was too laid back during the debates which is one way he is like George W. Bush.

Obama also  shares a trait with Bush.  Obama decided to follow Bush's example and choose an older vice president who could tell him how to handle foreign policy.  If Obama really were as intelligent as his supporters claimed he would have selected a woman for his vice president. 

I'm not a fan of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, but I would concede that she would have been a better choice for vice president than either Sen . Joe Biden or Gov. Sarah Palin.  She would have been a better choice for President than Obama or McCain.     

Obama's foolish decision to choose Biden allowed McCain to select Palin as his running mate.  She's the only bright spot in this dismal election.  She is better prepared to be president than Obama.  Like Vice  President  Calvin Coolidge, who became president after Warren G. Harding died,. she was selected for the vice presidency during her first term as governor.    

Theodore Roosevelt, who like Palin was 42 at the time he was selected as vice president, was also in his first term as governor.  However, he had also briefly been an under secretary of the navy as well as an army colonel (the army equivalent of the rank achieved by McCain in the navy).    It's too early to say Palin is another TR, but she has a similar enthusiasm.  TR may have been the ultimate presidential maverick.

Many people in the Main Stream Media (MSM)misuse the term "Swiftboating".  They refuse to admit what the Swift Boat vets were actually doing during the 2004 election. 

The Swift Boat vets were doing what members of the MSM would have done if they had been  real journalists.  The first thing political reporters should learn is that one thing Republican and Democratic politicians have in common is a tendency to lie about their backgrounds. 
 
Real journalists are supposed to check with a variety of sources before writing or telling stories, or at least that's what I learned when I took some journalism courses over 30 years ago.  The MSM in 2004 accepted whatever  candidate John Kerry told them without question because they were good Democrats who believed it was their duty as journalistic prostitutes for the Democratic Party to follow orders from party leaders.

Those of us who have been in a war know that some people  like to exaggerate what they did.  Real journalists would have attempted to verify Kerry's account by talking to the other men who were there.  The Swift Boat vets  were the other men who served with John Kerry and knew what he had actually done.

Real journalists would have checked to see if Kerry and his crew had provided consistent accounts of what happened.  The Swift Boat Vets did that and discovered discrepancies in the published accounts Kerry and his crew provided.  For example, there was even an account in the July 23, 2004, "Oregon Statesman Journal" that the  Green Beret  who fell off Kerry's boat and had to be rescued  was supposedly on another boat entirely. 

I wasted  another evening on Tuesday watching one of  the media events ignorant  journalists  insist on misrepresenting as debates.   The candidates repeated the same cliches they used in their first debate.

Once again Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated that he is dangerously ignorant in the area of  foreign policy and the War on Terror.  Once again journalists ignored his mistake. 

Obama. is apparently incapable of understanding the fact that sending military forces into another country without permission is an invasion.  It doesn't matter why the troops enter the country, it is still an act of war.   The fact that Osama bin Laden might be in Pakistan  doesn't mean the U.S. can invade Pakistan without fear of retaliation -- and  Pakistan most definitely does have nuclear weapons.

Obama doesn't understand the volatility of the situation in Pakistan.  The country has been on the brink of a civil war for many years and its government could fall at any time.  An American invasion would force the government to declare war on the U.S. to try to keep the country united.  The first action in that war might be a nuclear attack that would wipe out our forces in the Middle East.

Obama's obsession with bin Laden and Afghanistan indicates he doesn't understand the War on Terror.  This war isn't a traditional war against an enemy with a geographic base. 

Al  Qaeda can function without bin Laden and might even benefit if the United States killed or captured him.  Others are available to head al Qaeda  if something happens to bin Laden.

Death at the hands of the U.S. would make bin Laden a martyr and violent Muslims would rally to avenge his death.    Capture of bin Laden would provoke efforts to capture Americans any where in the world in an attempt to obtain hostages to trade for him.

Al Qaeda doesn't have a fixed location that  it has to defend.  If pushed out of one area, al  Qaeda will move to some other area with a large Muslem population.  If  the U.S. leaves Iraq before the Iraqis  are able to  maintain stablity in  the country, al Qaeda will move in and use Iraq as a base.

It is no longer important whether or not Iraq should have become a battleground in the War on Terror.  The fact is that Iraq is a battleground in the War on Terror and we cannot afford to turn that battleground over to al Qaeda.

Why are journalists so naive about politicians?  If they had any sense they would realize that politicians are not the most truthful individuals. 

Some politicians lie to mislead voters.  Others lie because they don't really know what they are talking about.

Legislative politicians are particularly prone to changing their positions based on political expediency.  Legislators can always blame the executive branch if something goes wrong.
 
Members of the U.S. Senate have long been known for saying one thing in the Senate and the opposite back home in the states they represent.   As Gov. Sarah Palin observed in the recent vice presidential debate, Washington politicians often are for things before they are against them or against things before they are for them.

Both presidential candidates have changed their positions on important matters during the last year or so.  Sen. Barack Obama first claimed that he would accept public funding for his presidential campaign then changed his mind.  Sen. John McCain once supported realistic immigration reform before he realized he needed   the support of anti-immigrant groups.

Presidential candidates will deliberately make false promises to get elected.  Sometimes they even lie to themselves.  John F. Kennedy probably believed he could get civil rights legislation through Congress, but he failed to do so.

President Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 with a slogan "He kept us our of war."  Less than six months after being reelected, President Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

Herbert Hoover ran for president in 1928 promising  "a chicken in every pot and a  car in every garage."  A year after he was elected the stock market crashed.

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson said he wouldn't send "American boys" to fight a war that should be fought by "Asian boys."   A year after he won the election paratroopers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade were fighting for the lives against a much larger force in War Zone D in Vietnam.

So why do journalists assume we can believe anything polticians say?  Why do journalists suggest we should evaluated presidential candidates upon what they say rather than what they have done?

Perhaps journalists ignore the fact that polticians have lied in the past because they have memories like a VHS tape.  When they get to the end of the tape they simply record over whatever they used to know. 

Or. perhaps, today's journalists just aren't  very smart.  They don't understand that  politicians  will deliberately lie if no one challenges them with the truth.  Journalists don't understand that politicians, especially male politicians, often have a greatly inflated sense of their own abilities.

I'll be glad when these media events dopey journalists  call "debates" are over.  A real debate involves an extended discussion of issues, such as was done during the debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960.

The media events of today only give the participants sufficient time to repeat political cliches and other sound bites.   This approach favors politicians like  Sen. Joe Biden who  lack the intelligence to understand the complexity of the real world.

For example, Biden seems incapable of understanding that wars cannot be conducted according to strict timetables because the enemy and the weather only follow the script in Hollywood.  It isn't even possible to set a strict time table for Sunday football games which is why CBS "60 Minutes"  doesn't  start  at the same time every Sunday in fall on the  east coast.

On the subject of climate change Biden supported the primitive belief that humans control climate because carbon dioxide has a magical power to control air temperature. Gov. Sarah Palin recognizes that climate is more complex, although unfortunately she supports the general myth that CO2  affects temperature.

She failed to mention that the warming in the Arctic is part of the normal cyclic change of the region.  The Arctic experienced similar warming in the 1920's as well as more extensive warming in the distant past.   The current warming in the Arctic, which may be ending considering lower than normal temperatures in Anchorage this summer, is due to the phases of the Arctic Oscillation and the Northern Pacific Oscillation.  These cycles  moved warmer waters and air  into the Arctic, especially from the Northern Pacific.

If humans are impacting the situation, the impact takes the form of black soot from Asia.    The soot becomes mixed with snow after which it is heated by the sun and melts the snow.  Otherwise the snow would reflect sunlight back into space with only limited melting.

The debates cannot resolve disputes on issues because the comments are too short. 

The debates are more useful for demonstrating the personalities of the candidates.  Palin clearly has a more desirable personality for a vice president than Biden.  Palin was more animated and has an energizing personality and a contagious enthusiasm. 

Palin might  be the best thing that could happen to Washington since Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman were selected as vice presidents.

The following is an expanded copy of a letter I emailed to President Bush earlier today.
 
If you want voters to support a bailout you should change it so general taxpayers don't have to pay for it.  Taxpayers didn't cause the problem.   Greedy executives did.  Greedy bankers were so anxious to get richer that they made loans they shouldn't have made.

Any bailout payment should take the form of negotiable federal securities rather than cash.   The bailout program should be separate from the general budget. 

Securities would be paid off by mortgage payments, sale of foreclosed homes etc. plus special taxes on business.  One such tax could apply to money spent on executive salaries above some amount, for example $200,000 per year. The tax would be assessed even if the company not have a taxable income.   Another tax could apply to certain financial transactions or upon the income of financial institutions, etc. A tax on short term capital gains would be appropriate.  These taxes could be set to expire whenever sufficient funds were accumulated to pay off the securities.

This payment approach would force the people who caused the problem to pay to correct it.   Those who tried to buy homes they couldn't really afford would pay part of the money for the bailout.  Sale of  the bad assets would convert them to cash to pay for the bailout.  The companies that failed because of the credit crisis in some cases purchased bad assets from companies that remain profitable because they unloaded the bad assets they created. Thus it would be fair to force the companies that  didn't fail to pay part of the cost of  the bailout.  High salaries by other companies forced the failed companies to pay higher salaries than they should have paid.  Thus it would be fair to require all companies that pay high salaries to help pay for the bailout.

Only a small portion of the U.S. population caused the credit crisis.  They shouldn't expect  those who didn't contribute to the problem to bail them out.  Creditors have been exploiting people for years by charging excessive interest and fees.  Now that they are in trouble they want someone else to force those they have exploited to pay for their mistakes.

The economic portion of the so called debate Friday night was a waste of time. Neither candidate provided more than a vague set of conditions for evaluating any proposal. They want us to put them in charge,  but have nothing to offer for dealing with the current  crisis. 

But their lack of any solution shouldn't be surprising. If either had a solution to the credit he would have been in Washington trying to get Congress to adopt his solution instead of debating in Mississippi.  Hopefully, President George W. Bush will solve the problem before they take office.

Sen. Barack Obama kept trying to bring  up the issue of health care which is irrelevant to the credit crisis.  In general Obama seems more concerned with playing the blame game than ending the crisis.    The important thing now is to end the crisis. 

Both candidates repeated the old religions of their parties. 

Sen. John McCain says he  is going to freeze  federal spending except for defense and entitlement programs. It'll never happen.  Republicans have been talking about that for decades and  haven't succeeded. 

Most programs have too many supporters in Congress to be reduced.  Federal agencies often have regional offices, and the communities with those offices will  pressure  their  congressional delegation to  keep  those offices open.  The communities  or organizations that benefit  will also lobby for keeping the programs.

Sen; Obama claims he's going to raise revenue by closing corporate loopholes.  Democrats have been promising to do that for decades and haven't succeeded yet.  Congress creates new loopholes faster than it eliminates old ones.  Even if Congress did eliminate loopholes no money could be raised by taxing companies that are already losing money. 

McCain has a better chance to freeze spending than Obama has to eliminate corporate loopholes.  The president can veto spending bills.  The president cannot force congress to close tax loopholes.

McCain is correct  that Obama's spending program  would require a general tax increase rather than a reduction.  If Obama really believes that he can cut taxes and increase spending, those nice young men in their clean white coats need to take him to the happy home.  

According to the Main Stream Media, Obama is supposed to be stronger on economic issues.  I saw no evidence of that Friday night.

Based on the comments  the  candidates made on the economic situation  during the debate we would be better off keeping President George W. Bush for the next four years or bringing back Bill Clinton.  Many  people have forgotten that  Bush brought  us through the economic crisis  that followed  the 9/11 attack.

The primary purpose of any bailout should be to help people keep their homes to prevent mass foreclosures from further damaging the real estate market.  The more houses that are put on the market the lower the value of other houses.  A major decline in the value of houses in general would  reduce the assets of  banks that  have more conservative mortgage programs. Such a reduction could create problems for these banks.

Payment for the bailout should come as much as possible from those who created the problem including both creditors and debtors, instead of taxpayers in general. 
 
The federal government should buy up bad mortgages at full current value for homes that haven't been foreclosed on.  If the lender has foreclosed on the property the federal government shouldn't pay anything more than the current market value of the home.  The foreclosed homes should be turned over to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to be used in part tor a program to help military veterans, school teachers, law enforcement officers and firefighters to purchase homes.

Payment to companies should take the form of Treasure bills redeemable under a schedule that would allow 10% to be redeemed in one year, another 10% in two years, etc.  Alternatively Congress might limit redemption of the bonds to 5% per year.  Companies could use these T-bills to compensate employees or pay future federal income taxes.  Companies accepting federal aid should be required to pay an extra income tax on total revenue over the next 20 years with only limited deductions allowed.   Congress should consider a surtax on high executives in firms that are in trouble, possibly applying the tax to all income above some threshold without allowing deductions.     The IRS should audit these firms each year.        

Homeowners with  bad mortgages  where appropriate would  have to file for bankruptcy to get out of any credit card debts.   Congress would create a special  exception to bankruptcy law  to allow them to file "emergency" bankruptcy.   Eliminately consumer debt would improve their ability to pay on the mortgage. 

Homeowners who would still have difficulty making mortgage payments could be allowed to trade for one of the lower valued foreclosed houses the federal government takes over. 

The interest on the mortgage would be the same rate as on the T-bills used for the bailout.    Congress should consider requiring these individuals to have mortgage payments deducted from their paychecks along with the money withheld for income taxes.  These homeowners would be helping to pay for the bailout.

HUD would offer former residents of the foreclosed houses  an opportunity to  regain  these homes at the reduced value under the same conditions as those in houses that haven' t been foreclosed on yet.  These individuals would also help pay for the bailout.

The Great Depression  lasted so long not because banks failed, but because the bank failures eliminated the assets of depositors.  Bank foreclosures of houses and businesses, particularly farms, further eliminated assets held by individuals that might have been used to turn the economy around.  The foreclosures didn't help the banks because few could afford to buy the foreclosed properties.    

Senator John McCain is correct. He and Senator Barack Obama should return to Washington to do the jobs we are paying them to do instead of participating in a political reality show called a debate.  The place for two United States Senators to debate during an economic crisis is on the floor of the United States Senate. They can present their views about what to do and attempt to gain support from their fellow Senators.

Someone who cannot demonstrate leadership as a Senator will not be able to do so as President. 

They can participate in one of those debates anytime. At present their responsibility is to take care of the business (TCB) they being paid to take care of  as United States Senators. If Obama didn't want to continue being a Senator while he ran for president he should have done the honorable thing and resigned like Bob Dole did when he ran for president in 1996.

Obama doesn't want to TCB in the Senate. He prefers being a celebrity who goes around making speeches to adoring crowds because he likes to hear himself talk.     

Would you promote someone who spends all his time talking about what he would do if promoted instead of taking care of business in his current job?   Getting legislation through Congress is one of the president's most important jobs.  Appearing on talk shows isn't.

Does Obama  want  to merely talk about  some vague change or does he actually want to produce changes?  Perhaps Obama doesn't want to return to the Senate to do his job because he has done such a lousy job as Senator.

If Obama wants to play the spoiled brat  who has to have his way about a debate, perhaps  McCain's running mate  Gov. Sarah Palin can stand in for McCain while McCain TCB's  in the Senate.

Secretary of  Defense Robert Gates' decision to award Sgt. Rafael Peralta a Navy Cross instead of a Medal of Honor makes no sense.

Either Peralta grabbed a grenade to protect his fellow Marines or he did not.  If Peralta grabbed the grenade then he deserves  a Medal of Honor.  If he did not grab the grenade than there is no reason to award him a Navy Cross.

Peralta was born in Mexico and joined the Marines as soon as he received a green card.  He subsequently became a U.S. citizen while serving in the Marines.

On  November 15, 2004, while serving as part of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment during Operation Al Fajr in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, Peralta entered a building with 11 other Marines including Lance Corporal T.J. Kaemmerer, a Marine combat correspondent attached to Peralta’s Company.  

According to Kaemmerer's account, they had cleared most of the concrete house when they came to the last room with the door closed.  Peralta opened the door and then jumped out of the way after being hit by AK-47 fire to allow the other Marines to fire into the room. 

Peralta was lying on the floor wounded when a yellow colored grenade landed near him.  As the other Marines scrambled to get away from it, they saw his hand grab the grenade and pull it toward his body.

Col. Eric Berg III, an Army pathologist who autopsied Peralta's remains, said in the 2005 report that the head wound from what is believed to be a ricochet from an American rifle would have been "nearly instantly fatal. He could not have executed any meaningful motions."

I don't know upon what empirical research he based his opinion.   In order to make such a definitive statement there would need to be scientific research comparing observations of people after  having been shot in the same manner.  Without such research Berg's statement is only an opinion, not a fact.

Four other experts - Peralta's battalion surgeon, and two neurosurgeons and a neurologist who examined the autopsy reports - said Peralta could have knowingly reached for the grenade because the ricochet that hit him was traveling at "low velocity" and would not have immediately killed him.

I don't know upon what evidence they are basing the claim that the wound occurred before the grenade exploded.  The Marines withdrew after the grenade exploded because the back of the building was on fire.  Safe withdrawal would have meant that they would have continued to fire as they left and the bullet could have hit Peralta's head at that time.
 
The experts may not be giving sufficient consideration to the role of reflex actions in such situations. Many heroic acts in war are reflexive actions. 

If a grenade lands near you and you take time to think about what to do it will explode before you make a decision.  Peralta wouldn't have had to be fully conscious.  His eyes saw the grenade and he reflexively grabbed it. 
 
 By the time I left Vietnam, I had developed reflexes to noises that could be exploding shells.  If I heard something that might be an incoming round, my feet would start moving to the bunker while my brain determined if it was incoming or outgoing.   

If Peralta could not have grabbed the grenade, what action did he take that would justify a Navy Cross?  Opening the door to the room where the insurgents were might quality for a bronze star or maybe a silver star, but not a Navy Cross. Otherwise the Navy would have to award such a medal everytime someone entered a room where an enemy might be.

Marine Reserve Lt. Col. Scott Marconda, who investigated the incident in 2004 as a major and judge advocate, makes a good point. "there's no way that grenade got under the center of mass of his body without him putting it there. I'm not a cheerleader. It is what it is. And my point is: I believe that he did that."

Does the Department of Defense believe that the grenade just miraculously landed where Peralta's body could protect the other Marines from the blast?
 

Something is very wrong here.   Congress needs to investigate why the Department of Defense has made such a strange decision

Republicans have jumped all over Barack Obama's statement in a George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," on ABC on September 7.
 
"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."

The Main Stream Media have largely ignored the statement because members of the MSM believe it is there job as Good Democrats to make Barack Obama look good.

Even the Republican oriented Washington Times criticized Republican bloggers for their treatment of the subject.  "But illustrating the difficulty of preventing false rumors about his faith from spreading, anti-Obama groups within one hour of the interview had sliced it out of context and were sending it around via email. They also were blogging about it."

 Israelinsider  is more critical suggesting that Obama really meant what he said.  "In one of the most astonishing gaffes in American political history, in a national televised interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulus, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama referred to 'my muslim faith,' confirming what researchers and political opponents have been claiming.  While Stephanopoulus several seconds later tried to correct him, saying 'Christian faith,' it was too late. The damage was done. Obama clearly did not mean his Christian faith, since he was admitting that 'John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.' The term 'Christian faith' would not make sense in that context."

Both the Times and Israelinsider may be ignoring a more important issue than whether or not Obama is a Muslim.  The MSM have been claiming that Obama is supposed to be more intelligent than other politicians.  If that were the case, he would accidentally say "my Muslim faith".  If he did make a misstatement it indicates he isn't much different from President Jerry Ford who made a misstatement about Poland and Eastern Europe in the 1976 presidential debate.

Obama might sound intelligent reciting a prepared speech, but the real test of intelligence is the ability to think and talk at the same time without making simple mistakes.  If President George Bush  had made a similar misstatement, the MSM would make it a headline or a soundbite.  Comedians would have made jokes about it.  If members of the MSM want to be considered as real journalists they need to report the mistakes made by all politicians, not just the ones in the other political party.  Obama only seems to be smarter than Bush because the MSM are protecting him from his mistakes.        

The following transcript is from Israelinsider to show the context of the Obama's statement. .
    STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention your Christian faith. Yesterday you took off after the Republicans for suggesting you have Muslim connections. Just a few minutes ago, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, said they've never done that. This is a false and cynical attempt to play victim.
 OBAMA: You know what? I mean, these guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand. The...

    STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections.

    OBAMA: No, no, no. But the -- I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said that's wrong.

    OBAMA: Now, well, look. Listen. You and I both know that the minute that Governor Palin was forced to talk about her daughter, I immediately said that's off limits. And--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith.

    OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

    Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

    OBAMA: -- my Christian faith.

The nation's best insurance program will receive a lot of publicity this weekend.  Jerry Lewis will conduct the annual  Muscular Dystrophy Association telethon this weekend. 

The Jerry Lewis Labor Day telethon has been a tradition since the first Labor Day telethon  in New York City in 1966. Lewis and former comedy partner Dean Martin had previously conducted a telethon in New York City in 1955, but it wasn't on Labor Day.  Jerry Lewis and all the other performers donate their services and receive  no payment. 
 
Most people don't think of MDA as being an insurance program because it doesn't charge fees from those who need its services.  You don't have to have donated to MDA in the past to benefit from its treatment programs.  Patients don't have to donate money to MDA to continue receiving treatment, but they or their families often help MDA raise money so  that it can continue to assist them and others.

MDA not only provides treatment and other services, such as summer camp for children patients, but it also researches the nature of the over 40 neuromuscular diseases it covers and attempts to develop treatments that can cure those disorders or delay their progression.

"The only requirement for receiving an evaluation at an MDA clinic is the written recommendation of a physician in whose judgment a person may have one of the   neuromuscular diseases covered by the Association’s medical services program."  This requirement is reasonable because MDA doctors would have less time to treat MDA patients if they had to spend their time diagnosing unrelated disorders.  

Similarly,  paying only costs not covered by  a patient's  regular insurance  allows  MDA to  help more people than it would be able to help otherwise.  MDA can't raise its insurance rates to cover  cost increases like traditional private or public insurance programs,  so it needs to limit its costs to treatment that isn't already covered by other insurance programs

MDA is an example of the type of organization we need more of.  Other examples are  St. Jude's (supported by the late comedian Danny Thomas and his daughter Marlo) and the Shriners' hospitals.  What they offer is pure insurance.  People who can afford to help pool their resources so that whoever needs help can obtain it.  The practice is a survival from the days when Americans helped each other without worrying about any immediate benefit for themselves.  They helped because they knew that if they needed help others would help them.

MDA's research focuses on muscular dystrophy, but the treatments and knowledge that research produces can benefit people with other disorders.  One of those treatments saved Jerry Lewis' life  several years ago when  he had a major heart problem.   Recently, MDA researchers announced they have found a way to use a patient's skin cells as stem cells to treat ALS.  Being able to use skin cells as stem cells will help treatment of many other unrelated disorders.

This year's telethon will be broadcast on local  stations throughout the  country as well  as on cable and satellite on Chicago's WGN.  Those who prefer the Internet can find the telethon on MDA's website.    The website currently has highlights from last year's telethon available.  A new fund raising activity this year  is an online auction that will run through  Sep. 4.

Democrats have been criticizing  oil companies  for making high profits while hoping the public will be unaware that Democrats have been pursuing policies that help oil companies make high profits.

One of the first concepts taught in Economics 101 is the law  of supply and demand.   When the supply of a commodity or product is low, companies can charge  more for a commodity like oil.

Democrats by limiting the ability of oil companies to drill for oil are helping the oil companies keep oil in a short supply so that oil companies can charge high prices.  Limiting drilling also helps oil companies keep their costs down. 

Drilling for new wells is very expensive so paying to drill new wells reduces oil company profits.   Increasing the number of wells would require oil companies to hire more people to operate the wells.

Oil companies know that the oil that is off our coasts or in Alaska will still be there in a few years and the demand for oil will continue to increase unless there is a major economic calamity like the Great Depression.  The longer they wait to drill, the more they will be able to charge for the oil when government allows them to drill for it.  

The new politicians who will be elected to authorize drilling will likely be less concerned about any adverse environmental consequences from accidents near drilling sites.  Environmentalists will have much less  influence after it becomes obvious that they have lied about carbon dioxide causing higher temperatures.

The problem with reporters and other Democrats is that they have memories like a VHS tape.  When they get to the end of the tape, they begin recording over what they used to know. 

The Main Stream Media (MSM) and other Democrats may be about to make the same mistake they made in 1992.  They may again ignore  potential problems with  their presidential candidate.

In 1992 the MSM  minimized  claims that  Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton  was a womanizer.  The MSM and the Democratic accepted  his claim that he had only had one affair for which his wife had forgiven him.  Other politicians would subsequently follow the same format when they got caught with their pants  down. 

Another  potential problem involved  one of the many investigations involving the various savings and loan failures.  The Justice Department had discovered the  Clintons might be linked to a failed Arkansas savings and loan.  Democrats ignored the potential damage that the Whitewater  investigation might cause.

Six years later Bill Clinton's womanizing would produce a major scandal and White House intern Monica Lewinsky would become an instant celebrity.  Whitewater and Monicagate would become intertwined when  Clinton lied to a federal judge.  

As a  result of the scandal Clinton was impeached.  Although the Senate didn't vote him out of office, he and his party were weakened.  Even worse, Clinton tried to preserve his administration by provoking a confrontation with Iraq that resulted in the U.N. inspectors leaving the country.  Had the inspectors remained in Iraq, it is highly unlikely that President George W. Bush could have persuaded Congress  to support an invasion of Iraq.

There are allegations that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and thus cannot meet the Contitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen".  If he was born in Hawaii he could easily prove it by authorizing Hawaiin officials to show his original birth certificate to the media.  Instead, Obama has provided only an electronic copy of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth.     

Electronic copies of documents and pictures are too easy to forge to provide convincing evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.  Indeed an expert named  Texasdude has analyzed the document and considers it a forgery.

I don't know where Obama was born, but his response thus far implies that he wasn't born in Hawaii.  Those who suggest he might have been born in Kenya and his mother than flew back to Hawaii to make it appear he was born there provide no evidence to support their theory.  I cannot automatically dismiss the theory because many Mexican mothers take risks to cross the border into the U.S. so their babies can be U.S. citizens.

Texas Darlin suggests that his original birth certificate might have been sealed after his stepfather Lolo Soetoro adopted him and a new birth certificate in the name of Barry Soetoro issued.   Under this more plausible theory,  Obama may want to suppress the truth because it would indicate he once was named Barry Soetoro, but failed to note the fact on subsequent  government documents.  Texas Darlin believes Republicans have a copy of Obama's birth certificate.  If they do and it would hurt Obama they probably won't leak it to the media until after he is approved as the Democratic party candidate. 

An official adoption  by an Indonesian  man would mean Obama would have become an Indonesian ctiizen under Indonesian law.  Obama wouldn't have lost U.S. citizenship because the change was involuntary on his part, but he probably would have had to make some type of official statement that he wished to be a U.S. citizen after he became an adult.  It might be possible that holding citizenship in another country, even if involuntary, would mean he no longer qualified as a "natural born citizen".       

Democrats need to get this issue cleared up before they approve Obama as their candidate.  They could end up with a candidate who is unelectable.  Democrats  lost in 2004 in part because the truth about John Kerry's service in Vietnam didn't come out until after Democrats approved him as their candidate. 
       

Both presidential candidates and their running mates should provide us with copies of their birth certificates.  No one will steal their identities because they are too well known.  I read recently that I will have to provide a birth certificate to renew my driver's license even though I  have had a driver's license for 46 years.  

 If we average folks have to prove our citizenship we should require those who want to lead us to do the same thing. If the U.S. government believes anybody might lie about citizenship, then we should recognize that presidential candidates might lie about their citizenship.  Presidential candidates lie about other matters, why do we think they wouldn't lie about their citizenship.

By birth certificate, I mean an actual photocopy of the document produced when they were born complete with the signature of the doctor, midwife, or whoever.  

  Hillary Clinton is still officially a candidate.  Perhaps she could start the process by releasing her birth certificate.