The story behind William Ayres and the problem with the McCain’s scare tactics. First, the word “terrorist” conjures up images of Middle East terrorists that hate the United States. William Ayres was a 1960’s hippie. He was then and is now an American. Second, this was almost 40 years ago. William Ayres was a wild, hippie American kid around 20 years old.

When Obama met William Ayres, he was a 50 something, respectable, educated college professor. Does that mean Obama was “palling around with terrorist”? Come on! Give me a break!

The McCain staff cannot defend this as just running a negative ad campaign. This is much worse than just running negative campaign. McCain and Palin are calling a United States Senator and candidate for the Presidency of the United States a terrorist! That is way over the line and is something much worse than a negative ad campaign.

Ask yourself? Can I vote for a man that will so willingly twist the truth? Can we trust this person to speak truthfully to the American public?

But, now we know that retired General Wesley Clark is right and was right all along. And, remember, that John Kerry also said that John McCain has poor judgement. Apparently both men are correct . . . John McCain does possess poor judgement.

What was John McCain thinking when he chose Sarah Palin to be the nominee for Vice-President?

Can anyone stand tall and keep a straight face while assuring the citizens of the United States that Sarah Palin is the best qualified vice-presidential candidate to serve as President of the United States should anything prevent John McCain from fulfilling his duties?

Let’s review Sarah Palin’s credentials. Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska with population 9,000 for 10 years where she was also Miss Wasilla. She has been Governor of Alaska for less than two years. During her tenure there have not been any pressing state budget or financial issues, because the State of Alaska has a huge revenue overun due to high price of oil. Prior to being selected by McCain, Sarah Palin has very little Washington politics experience. I presume she has been to Washington on vacation to see the monuments and memorials like many Americans.

Consider this for a moment. Imagine that the company where you work is looking for a vice-president. This is a very important position and one that could have a significant impact on the company’s future. You have lunch with a friend that brings a friend. Would you return to work and recommend that the new vice-president be the the friend of a friend that you met one time at lunch.

This is essentially what McCain has done. What is your definition of “good judgement”? If you had worked in Washington politics for 26 years, wouldn’t you select a person for vice-president that you had known for a long time and knew very well? Of course! This is so logical that one has to question John McCain’s relationships with co-politicians and the respect that John McCain’s co-workers in Washington have for him.

Let’s look “under the hood” of a flat tax plan. Proponents almost always use the following arguments for why a flat tax is good for us:

1. The first myth is that a single flat rate sales tax is fair for all, because everyone pays tax on what they purchase - this is not fair for almost all taxpayers that earn a paycheck. The reaon is that most taxpayers must spend all there income to live and do not have money left over at the end of the year, except the a small amount that they have been able to put in a company 401k. This means that since the average wage earner will spend almost all of their annual earning, then they have been taxed on all of their earnings. By contrast, a dentist, a car dealership owner, a shopping center owner, a heart surgeon, a lawyer, a construction company owner, someone with a chain of dry cleaners, a restaurant owner, a shopping center developer or anyone that has earning power far exceeding $100,000 will not have to pay tax on all of their income. Say a doctor earns $450,000 and lives lavishly spending $150,000 during the year. That same person will have $300,000 left over that will not be subject to tax, because it was not spent. That’s not equitable.

2. The second myth is that the tax system is too complicated - the tax system is not complicated for wage earners. They don’t have a complicated arrangement of investments, properties, trust funds and businesses. The vast majority of wage earners can file with IRS Form 1040EZ. The only people that complain about taxes being complicated are the same people that have a many investments, businesses, LLC’s, mutual fund accounts, investment property, rental houses, vacation houses and the like. For wage earners receiving a paycheck with FICA withholding, the tax process is not so complex that they should vote to penalize themselves in the form of shouldering an even higher percentage of the income tax.

3. The third myth everyone pays tax on what they purchase, it close loopholes for credits and deductions and other IRS regulations that create a complex tax system that no one understands - what part of tax credit does someone not understand? A tax credit is created by Congress! not the IRS. Every tax credit is created by Congress as an incentive to encourage certain behavior or to provide an economic boost. For example, there is a tax credit for purchasing solar cells and installing them on house. This was created by the Congress and Senate to reward American taxpayers for helping the environment. It’s logical to believe, that this type of legislation will still be passed in Congress regardless of what kind of tax program in in effect.

4. The fourth myth is that a flat sales tax is better for all because it eliminates double taxation - this is a myth, because the double taxation on estate taxes, for example, only applies to the super wealthy. There won’t be any benefit to most American wage earners. There is no estate tax unless an estate is over $2,000,000 this year and $3,500,000 in 2009. In April 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau a report, Net Worth and the Assets of Households, that the median networth of households in the U.S. was $58,905.00. The point is that very few taxpayers benefit from relief from the estate tax law. This double taxation benefit is also aimed at eliminating capital gains tax. This is actually shameful, becuase the super wealthy derive a large percentage of all of their income from capital gains. To eliminate capital gains tax is to hand over tax free benefits to the super wealthy and this is not at all equitable. This is why the United States of America has an income tax with provisions for tax treatment of capital gains. The vast majority of working taxpayers do not benefit at all from eliminating capital gains tax, because the typical wage earner only has his 401k or IRA’s and these are taxed as revenue when the money is withdrawn. This, by the way, is the subject of another article, because proponents of flat tax rate are suggesting that super wealthy not pay any capital gains tax while wage earners must pay the flat tax rate on withdrawals from their 401k’s and IRA’s as the money is used for purchases.

There aren’t any logical reasons for the working taxpayer to vote for a flat tax. The flat tax proposals benefit the super wealthy more than they benefit the working taxpayer.

The magazine claims that the cover is merely a satirical cartoon that depicts the image “that others” have used to portray Obama. This is a pitiful excuse. The magazine has gone way across the line in decency, ethics and responsible writing. This is an indignation to the American people. Everyone can see right through the New Yorker’s excuse for publishing the offensive cover. No one is falling for the lame explanation that the image depicts the way “that others” portray the Democratic Presidential candidate.

After all, the answer to the original question is: everyone has at least once said something rude and then tried to get out of it by laughing and saying “just kidding”. Americans aren’t as dumb as the pretentious editors at the New Yorker may think.

The Pickens Plan is a plan to lead the U.S. to energy independence. According to information provided by the website, the U.S. is spending 4x more annually on foreign oil than is spent on the Iraq War. T. Boone Pickens believes this is a crisis for the U.S. The website also says that the world will never produce more oil than it produces today and that dependency on oil will be more and more expensive.

The Pickens Plan that is described on the website supports a goal of wind generation providing 20% of the electric power required by the U.S. It also supports migrating the automobile fleet from liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) to natural gas. There aren’t any details for the ‘the plan’. But, the reason for using natural gas in automobiles is that it burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel.

T. Boone Pickens has a vision. Is it the right vision? Certainly, the objective of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil will be supported. How to reach the objective will be the subject of much debate.

Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman and Speaker of the House, sent a letter to President Bush asking to act immediately to permit a draw down of a small amount of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  Don’t open protected areas for plundering by big oil companies. The oil will be sold at the market price and will not reduce the cost of crude oil or gasoline. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has the highest level of petroleum reserves that it has ever had.  The draw down is expected to help with short term oil prices and indirectly with gasoline prices. 

In the meantime, the President and big oil companies are demanding to be given the right to drill for oil in protected areas.  Nancy Pelosi is against this.  She should be applauded for remaining clear headed during this time of high prices. 

The crude oil in the ground in this country has a value.  Right now it has the highest value that the world market has ever experienced.  Giving oil companies the opportunity to drill and pump these reserves is giving them the right to plunder. 

What price will the oil companies sell the crude oil for?  Well, the oil companies will sell it for whatever the world market will bear.  The oil companies are not going to start producing gasoline at a discount for Americans.  This is a case where the oil company executives are leveraging the panic by the American public to seize the opportunity to get access to protected areas.  Make no mistake.  The price of crude and the price of gasoline at the pump will not change just because Americans give oil companies access to protected lands.

Nancy Pelosi has shown that she is cool headed and a clear thinker during difficult times.  Congratulatios to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Two days later Bush repeated the possibility of military attacks against Iran, while stating, “I very clearly pin my hopes on diplomatic efforts.” He called diplomatic efforts “my first choice” three times, but also said, “we’ll give diplomacy a chance to work.” Once again he said, “All options are on the table” concerning deterring Iran from its presumed nuclear weapons’ ambitions.

According to National Public Radio’s (NPR) website, Bush is trying to “forge a consensus with Britain, Germany and France on Iran with a carrot-and-stick strategy — a package of new penalties and incentives aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” Before the March 2003 Bush tried to “forge a consensus” with the same nations about Iraq.

Last month the Israeli Army Radio reported that a Bush administration official made remarks about intending to attack Iran before he left office. According to the Jerusalem Post the Army Radio “quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush…had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.”

The Bush administration denied the reports, and issued a statement that said the U.S. “remains opposed to Iran’s ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon. To that end, we are working to bring tough diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranians to get them to change their behavior and to halt their uranium enrichment program.”

In April the Bush administration claimed Iran smuggled weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. On April 25 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen said that a briefing would be given by General Petraeus “in the next couple of weeks” which would provide evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government announced they would conduct their own investigation. Ali al-Dabbagh, al-Maliki’s spokesman, said, “We want to find tangible information and not information based on speculation.”

Inter Press Service (IPS) journalist Gareth Porter reported on May 21 that “U.S. officials have failed thus far to provide evidence that would support that claim, and a long-delayed U.S. military report on Iranian arms is unlikely to offer any data on what proportion of the weapons in the hands of Shiite fighters are from Iran and what proportion comes from purchases on the open market.”

Porter cited Maj. Kevin Bergner’s response when asked about the allegations at a briefing on May 8 was to dodge the question and state that the U.S. military “could not do what they’re doing without the support of foreign support [sic].”

Porter also pointed out that by looking at weapons caches found in Iraq the past 15 months (as of May) reveals that the Mahdi Army relies on four types of weapons: 60mm and 120mm mortars, 107mm rocket, and 57mm anti-tank missile. “Those are essentially the same mortars and rockets that have turned up in al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent weapons caches, suggesting that both groups have obtained their heavier weapons from the international arms market,” Porter stated.

In April 2007 a U.S. explosives expert, Major Marty Weber, said that the majority of 107mm rockets discovered in Iraq were made in China.

Muhammad Cohen, Asia Times journalist, reported that the Bush administration plans to launch airstrikes against Iran” within the next two months,” according to “an informed source.” The source was a “US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community.”

According to the source “two key U.S. senators brief on the attacked planned to go public with their opposition to the move…but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.” The strike, the source told Asia Times, would be against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

“An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration’s declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that ‘all options remain on the table,’” Cohen stated in his article.

Congressional members respond

House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) sent a letter to fellow Congressional members in May asking them to co-sign a letter to Bush that threatens impeachment if Iran is attacked. The website AfterDownStreet.org published the letter:

May 8, 2008

Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman

In May the group Just Foreign Policy held a forum titled “The Folly of Attacking Iran” to encourage negotiations with Iran instead of military attacks. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) spoke at the forum. “[President Bush] wants to find a way to provoke a military confrontation, or gin up some data to frighten the American people into believing a preemptive strike is defensible,” McDermott said.

“It really is a question of whether we will learn the lessons of history or whether we will repeat them,” McDermott added.

There’s been a lot of speculation that the extended political fracas between Obama and Clinton has been to the detriment of the Democratic Party.  I disagree.  I see more Obama and Clinton decals and yard signs than I remember seeing in many years.  The Dems are coming out of hiding!