CliffyWorld

Why should Joe the plumber be penalized for success and the American dream? Joe works hard, earns a good living and has aspirations of owning his own business.

Starting out small Joe's business grows to the point that he needs to hire 5 more plumbers, a bookkeeper and a secretary. Each plumber earns a salary of $40,000 dollars per year. The bookkeeper earns a salary of $18,000 dollars a year and the secretary earns $16,000 dollars a year. Joe draws a salary of $25,000 dollars a year. Joe also needs to pay $1,500 dollars per year for property and liability and $1,000 dollars per year for workers compensation, $2,400 dollars product liability insurance along with supplying group medical insurance to his employees and their families at a cost of $280 per month for singles and about $750 dollars per month for family coverage ($6,180 dollars per year average). Joe must lease 5 vans for his plumbers at $36,000 a year and pay for maintenance and fuel at $5,600 per year. Joe will have to keep an inventory of parts and supplies at a cost of $30,000 dollars. Joe's approximate payout per year is $340,000 dollars. Assuming Joe makes a profit of $260,000 dollars per year (exceeding the $250,000 dollar mark) his business will be taxed higher. Currently Joe pays a tax of $39,000 dollars but under Obama's plan he will pay $72,800 dollars, a little less than double. The $33,800 dollars extra will be redistributed over to Bob who earns a salary of $15,000 dollars per year from his job as a clerk at Walmart.

Bob may have inspirations of becoming a supervisor or manager someday but why would he take on additional responsibilities when he can reap the benefits from other successful business people. On the other hand, Joe's business future is looking grim with a poor economy, inflation and an additional tax burden of $33,800 dollars. Joe must lay off one plumber to maintain his current standard of living.

Small business can be described as anything from a hot dog vendor to a 50 employee manufacturer. Obviously a hot dog vendor will never make $250,000 but chances are that the 50 employee company will. The latter is what drives the American workforce. Taxing small business for the purpose of redistribution to the poor makes little sense especially during a recession. It impedes progress, prevents new jobs and provides little incentive as in a socialistic society. Robin Hood is a fictional character and to believe otherwise would be illusions of grandeur.

Obama on Capital Gains...

There's nothing the least bit unusual in a Democrat calling for higher taxes; it'd be newsworthy if a Democrat called for citizens to be allowed to keep more of their own money. Capital gains taxes are always a favorite target: as their name implies, they are on increases of capital, which is considered to be owned by rich people. What do Democrats stand for, if not "soak the rich" or "tax big corporations"?

No, the surprising thing isn't the tax increase itself, but the reason Sen. Obama gave why he wants to increase it. ABC's Charlie Gibson addressed this issue at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Here's the transcript:

MR. GIBSON: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

So far, so ordinary. Barack Obama wants to double the capital gains tax, placing it 50% higher than the legislation Bill Clinton signed to lower it. Obama has always set himself to the left of the Clintons and particularly much farther left than Slick Willie himself. The truly astounding part comes next:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair...
MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. [emphasis added]

Here we see the difference between someone who is ignorant and someone who is insane.  Normal Democrats want to raise taxes so they can get more money to spend on their beloved social programs.  Raising taxes very seldom gives the government any more money; as economist Arthur Laffer conclusively proved decades ago, once taxes reach a certain point, increasing them causes the actual dollar amounts collected to go down. This is called the Laffer Curve. There are many reasons this takes place: if tax rates are too high, people will decide not to work harder because they keep so little of the extra they earn, or they will move their investments into tax shelters such as municipal bonds instead of more productive corporate stocks. This is especially true of taxes on capital: it's kind of hard to get around paying higher income taxes if you are an ordinary wage slave, but capitalists can trivially move their capital offshore, into shelters, or anywhere else to avoid excess taxes.

Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush used this insight to good effect, lowering tax rates (over vehement Democratic opposition) but reaping increased revenues as the economy boomed. Congressional Democrats have long refused to acknowledge the truth of the Laffer Curve; they continue to claim, in spite of all the evidence, that the way to get more money for the government is to continually raise taxes. They are being straightforward - fundamentally wrong, but honest about their intentions at least.

Barack Obama is a completely different bird. Let's read his statement again: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness".

Unlike his fellow Democrats, he apparently understands the Laffer Curve. He knows that raising the capital gains tax rates will not give the government any more actual cash; quite the opposite, such a move will cost the government money. But he doesn't care. In effect, he wants to spend government money (through lower tax revenues) for the express purpose of making rich people poorer, on account of fairness. He wants to destroy wealth. Not redistribute wealth; not take from the rich and give to the poor; just simply to make wealth vanish. "I can't have it; I don't want you to have it; so I'll make sure you can't keep it, even though taking it from you doesn't benefit me a bit."

What sort of person sets out to intentionally destroy wealth for no other reason or benefit than the vague perception of "fairness"? We can't all be rich, so we'll just make the rich poor like us? Not since Karl Marx have we heard such naked jealousy.

The boom-times of the 80s and 90s proved Reagan's saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Barack Obama doesn't like seeing the rich men's yachts floating high and mighty; he wants to pull the plug just to see the yachts run aground. The fact that all the rowboats and ducky-floats of the poor will run aground just as badly bothers him not in the least: we'll all be on the rocks together. He's finally found a change we can all believe in: equality in poverty.

The capital-gains tax does not apply just to the wealthy. It applies to anyone that buys something, and sells it later for a higher price. Such as, say, anyone with a house? Right now, many Americans are suffering with falling home values; in theory, we want prices to rise instead. And when they do, Sen. Obama will be right there with his hand out to confiscate an even bigger portion of the gain than previously. Need we mention that capital gains calculations have never been indexed for inflation and that the prices of everything are going up just at the moment? So what will happen is that people will wind up paying cash for taxes on gains that, thanks to inflation, don't even exist. But that doesn't bother Barack Obama; it's all about fairness, not reality, sanity, or paying the government's bills.

Let's have Bill Clinton back. At least he knew how to count.

The majority of hard working Americans, some burdened with second jobs, will have to come up with an additional $2,300 dollars for individuals or $6,000 dollars per household to pay off the $700 billion+ dollars given to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. This Robin Hood in reverse strategy takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Your legislators didn't care or think about your struggle to make ends meet, the high cost of fuel and food or your collapsing retirement fund when they rushed to pass the economic bailout bill. Nope, they were thinking about paying off their corporate cronies and of course taking their well deserved paid vacations.

Just after the $700 billion dollar economic bailout votes were cast the bosses of the Democratic do nothing Senate and Congress: Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) granted your Senators and Congressmen a little rest and relaxation for at least until after the November elections. Both houses remain open for Pro Forma sessions, the daily fantasy that must be acted out by a few unlucky blokes who missed the boat. Pro Forma according to the C-SPAN Congressional Glossary is: A daily meeting of the House or Senate during which no votes are held and no legislative business is conducted. The session "in form only" is held for purposes of meeting the 3-day rule in the Constitution. It requires each House to gain the permission of the other for recesses longer than 3 days. When the permission is not forthcoming, or not requested in time, the affected chamber convenes briefly with hardly anyone in attendance [the opening prayer, routine announcements, and sometimes short non-legislative speeches are conducted], and then adjourns.

As the stock market plummets and the housing market tumbles our legislators are at play neglecting to pass the Congressional Economic Stimulus Package or not finishing the bill to extend unemployment insurance or act upon the credit card holder bill of rights or the bill to provide aid to local and state governments assisting them with their infrastructure. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will return to the Senate after California goes broke.

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee proposed a housing bailout to the Senate floor in June 2008 that would assist troubled sub-prime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial. In 2003 Dodd received mortgages from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes. Countrywide has also contributed a total of $21,000 to Dodd’s campaigns since 1997. Dodd has received approximately $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America, which is buying Countrywide. No American politician has received more contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than Dodd's combined $133,900.

During the summer of 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sought provisions enabling the Treasury to add additional capital and regulatory oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These provisions were part of the bill signed by President George W. Bush. At the time, it was estimated that the federal government would need to spend $25 billion on a bailout of the firms. During this period, Dodd denied rumors these firms were in financial crisis. He called the firms "fundamentally strong" said they were in "sound situation" and "in good shape" and to "suggest they are in major trouble is not accurate". He suggested observers were panicking "There's sort of a panic going on today, and that's not what ought to be. The facts don't warrant that reaction, in my opinion," period, Dodd denied rumors these firms were in financial crisis. Based upon Dodd’s statement, thousands of people continued to buy stock in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac only to loose millions later on. Lifestyle personality Martha Stewart following a tip from her broker sold her IMClone stock to avoid a loss was found guilty in March 2004 of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators and sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five month term in a federal correctional facility and a two year period of supervised release. Christopher Dodd who misled thousands ran for President of the United States.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie Mae since 1989 was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive Herb Roses. For the last two years Frank has overseen both Fannie May and Freddy Mac and has continually derailed efforts to regulate both institutions. On July 14th, 2008 Frank stated that “both agencies were fundamentally sound and are not in danger of going under, they are not the best investments these days from the long term standpoint coming back, I think they’re in good shape going forward. There prospects going forward are very solid and in fact we’re going to do some things to improve them”. His statements echoed Christopher Dodd (D-CT) as almost in a sense of conspiracy. Again thousands of people continued to buy stock in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac only to loose millions later on. Still today Frank does not admit saying what he said or fails to take any blame for the demise of the two agencies he managed.

Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission eliminated a rule last year that had served to keep in check hedge funds and others from destroying companies by selling their shares short. To define short selling: Short-sellers borrow shares of stock from pension funds and brokerage houses and sell them on the open market with the expectation that the stock will drop in value and they can buy them back cheaper, making a profit. Short-selling provides liquidly to the system by bringing more shares to the marketplace and by permitting small and large investors to hedge their portfolios. George Gombossy of the Hartford Current stated “The system worked fairly well until Cox decided to interfere with it. The only time a short sale could take place was when the stock had a trade higher than the one just prior. It acted like a governor, keeping order, preventing wounded companies from being eaten alive by the shorts. When the SEC removed the uptick rule it was like giving assault weapons to hunters and letting them loose in a zoo. During the last few months, hedge funds and other speculators and investors attacked, perhaps working together, wounded banks and financial institutions without mercy, almost bankrupting all of these companies. There is widespread belief that rumors were started by some speculators who sold shares short and then bought them back right before the rumors were debunked. It was only in the last couple of weeks that the SEC stopped all short sales on about 20 major financial institutions, but it was too late”. Cox went 180 degrees in the other direction and ordered a temporary and complete halt to all short sales on 799 financial companies. Investors will still be able to purchase exchange traded funds that short market sectors, including those that have financial institutions in their portfolios. Less than 24 hours later, the order had to be amended because Cox failed to realize that traders at exchanges could not operate without being able to short stocks. Cox needs to be replaced with someone who knows how the stock market operates.

Henry Paulson, U.S. Treasury Secretary called for a $700 billion dollar recovery plan, with no guarantee of success, passed both houses and was signed by President Bush. Some have suggested Paulson's bailout plan may potentially have some conflicts of interest since Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that may benefit from the plan. Paulson appointed a former Goldman Sachs executive, Neel Kashkari to head the Treasury's new Office of Financial Stability or simply put, to manage the $700 billion, a blatant example of cronyism. Thank goodness former Senior Partner Governor Jon Corzine (D-NJ) wasn't selected. He never got along with Henry Paulson but took him for $400 million dollars when he left Sachs. Corzine went off to destroy New Jersey.

During the October 7th 2008 debate, John McCain (R-AZ) after taking a stand against massive government spending contradicted himself by committing to a government buyout that will cost at least $300 billion dollars, a government massive spend. The proposal involves directing the Treasury Secretary to purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers. Surprised….The House passed this bill back on July 26th 2008 called the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

AIG received an $85 billion dollar rescue from the Federal Government. Joseph Cassano, the financial products manager whose complex investments led to American International Group's near collapse, is receiving $1 million a month in consulting fees. Former chief executive Martin J. Sullivan, whose three-year tenure coincided with much of the company's ill-fated risk-taking, is receiving a $5 million performance bonus. Seventy of the company's top performers were rewarded with a week-long stay at the luxury St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., where they ran up a tab of $440,000. This just in... The New York Federal Reserve will lend them $37.8 billion dollars in addition to the $85 billion. I guess the spa must have raised their prices.

Barack Obama (D-IL) is listed as 2nd highest on the list of Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, receiving $126,349, Harry Reid (D-NV) is 11th on the list receiving $77,000 dollars, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is 12th receiving $76,050, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 18th receiving $56,250, Barney Frank (D-MA) is 26th receiving $42,350 and John McCain (D-AZ) is 62nd collected a mere $21,550. John McCain did call for the regulation of Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae and co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory act of 2005 submitted for the record back on May 26th 2006. Click link.
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=C97D478F-F460-4253-B2EC-8D9FBCAFF20C

There are some thinkers in Congress who do care about us: Representatives Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Rush Holt (D-NJ) proposed an alternative measure, the “No Bailouts Act”, to address the financial situation without bailing out Wall Street and corporate executives. "We want a good bill, not a fast bill. We want a bill that will really work," said Kaptur, the senior-most woman in the House. Click link.
http://www.kaptur.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297&Itemid=1

Unfortunately, the only legislators who are around to listen to Kaptur and her crew are too busy working those tough Pro Forma sessions.

As Hurricane Ike lashed the Texas coast back on Friday night September 12th, Senator Barack Obama announced he would not appear on the season premiere of “Saturday Night Live.” The Obama campaign released the following statement: In light of the unfolding crisis in Texas, Senator Obama has decided it is no longer appropriate to appear on “Saturday Night Live” tomorrow evening.

Lorne Michaels, creator and executive producer for “Saturday Night Live” had issued a statement that Friday September 12th about the tone of SNL, saying “If it’s [the hurricane] serious, it will change everything for us. The tone of the show will shift, and it would be inappropriate for the senator to do if it looks in any way like it’s going to be a tragedy.” Michaels and the SNL players didn't have a meltdown or hissy fit. The show went on the air as scheduled featuring the extremely funny Tina Fey as Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton skit. Ratings were high and the show was very successful.

Saturday September 13th the day the SNL appearance was to be, Obama was in New Hampshire. In front of his many supporters he said “I spoke on the phone with the head of FEMA and the Mayor of Houston and others as they were trying to grapple with Hurricane Ike. They don't know what the damages will be but 100,000 homes will be lost, 4,000,000 people are without power and search and rescue teams are arriving in Galveston to assist the people who didn't evacuate”. Then concluded by saying “it will be a very difficult time for people living in the Gulf”.

As Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal(R), Texas Gov. Rick Perry(R), Florida Gov. Charlie Crist(R), Alabama Gov. Bob Riley(R) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour(R) coordinated their resources and efforts to provide Hurricane assistance, Senator Obama was in New Hampshire just talking as he does that very well. Obama could have appeared on SNL but 4,000,000 people couldn't watch him. Lorne Michaels of SNL was stiffed but never complained.

As the US economy continues to fail due to the irresponsible CEO management of AIG, Merrill Lynch, Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae and by the unqualified Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Mass. Senator Barney Frank (D) and SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, Senator John McCain decided to suspend his campaign and appearance on the David Letterman show to “deal with this problem before the House and Senate”. To be fair, Obama, McCain and Clinton have not worked for over a year while on the campaign trail casting zero votes in the Senate. The country being on the verge of a depression should require much more serious attention rather than passing legislation on the naming Post Offices don't you think? McCain decided to go back to work which called for cancelling his first debate with Obama. (This could change if legislation is pasted by Friday)

Unlike Lorne Michaels and the SNL cast who graciously moved on with their show, David Letterman blew a gasket when McCain canceled his appearance. In a very distorted way he praised McCain on his military service only to insult him afterwards while still in the same sentence and insinuating that an appearance on his show holds a higher value than legislative duties. Making fun of McCain's age Letterman goes on and on displaying bitterness and disgust only to be interrupted by his side-kick Paul Shaffer who called Sarah Palin “a good looking babe”. As Dan Rather would put it “the situation in the Letterman studio would give aspirin to a headache” a situation only to get worse with the appearance of MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann. In a full court press they team screw McCain. Need I remind my readers, MSNBC is officially called the Obama network. No need to prove that statement as Olbermann and buddy Chris Mathews were demoted by MSNBC for being political advocates for Obama rather than anchors.

Tossing bowling balls off of roofs, running things over with a steam roller, elevator races in skyscrapers was the Letterman of old, funny and innovative. He has become a very bitter man with a political ax to grind. Johnny Carson, Letterman's predecessor would always invite politicians to his show and never once treated them with disrespect. His famous monologues satirized many political figures but never insulted them. Carson will always be considered the “king” of late night TV. CBS should consider replacing Letterman with an entertainer.

Care to Watch the video
Click here on the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

Heather Mallick, a so called columnist for the Canadian Broadcasting Company wrote several columns maligning Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin with personal attacks on her and family as well as attacking her constituents and supporters.

Calling Palin a hillbilly because of her small town background Mallick fails to remember her history as she says: “I was born in a northern Canadian settlement so small it was accessible most of the year only by a Bombardier, a sort of huge military tank built for passengers. It was like a transport plane, a big iron bulb with caterpillar tracks. I swear we had a paddle-steamer for supplies in the summer. Take that, Sarah Palin. The place was six times smaller than Wasilla” said Mallick. I guess it takes one hillbilly to know another. The CBC had no problem hiring a hillbilly that most Canadians disagree with but the Alaskans had no problem giving Palin an 85% performance approval rating as governor.

As for Republican males, Mallick said: “It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.” Mallick may be a product of Immaculate Conception and fails to remember scandals of her own Canadian government proving that misbehavior is not just limited to U.S. Republican males. Here are just a few Canadian male inadequacies to refresh her memory:

-Progressive Conservative Defence Minister Robert Coates was caught up in a scandal exposed by a 1985 story in the Ottawa Citizen. The report focused on a stop Coates and two aides made at a strip club in West Germany while on a NATO tour. It raised questions about the security implications of the minister's actions.

-In 1995, former Nova Scotia premier Gerald Regan was accused of a number of sexual offences dating back to the mid-1950s.
Regan eventually went to trial and was acquitted of eight charges, including rape, attempted rape and forcible confinement. However, the scandal did not end there, and in 1999, more charges were filed. The charges alleged Regan had forced kisses and physical contact on young women between 1968 and 1978. Those charges were eventually stayed as well.

-In 1999 Conservative Senator Wilbert Keon stepped down from his position as the head of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. Keon was caught in an undercover prostitution sweep in December 1999 when he pulled over his car and began talking to a woman at the side of the road. The woman turned out to be an undercover police officer.

Continuing with her nonsense, Mallick offends all of Palin’s constituents and supporters stating: “She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.” Mallick must approve of “Nippertipping” and probably looses sleep knowing that Quebec is part of Canada.

Mallick circles as one liking to hear herself talk: “Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favored by this decade's woman, the over treated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression.” Then goes on to agree with herself, “But do they not know that women have been trained to resent other women and that they only learn to suppress this by constantly berating themselves and reading columns like this one? I'm a feminist who understands that women can nurse terrible and delicate woman hatred.”

Another dirty blow from Mallick comes when she insults Palin’s family stating: “Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting”. Mallick is no raving beauty. Based on her condescending views of woman, Todd Palin would probably look better in a skirt. Insulting Track as he deploys to Iraq is unquestionably the most deplorable thing she spews. Forgetting that our military is completely voluntary, Track is putting his life in jeopardy to defend what he feels is the right thing to do, a feeling shared by many Canadian soldiers who are also deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Canadian’s should feel disgusted and embarrassed that their tax dollars support the Canadian Broadcasting Company who pays a salary to Heather Mallick.

Heather Mallick is a pig.

Read Mallick's article by clicking this link:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html

If you’re a politician running for office it could be advisable to consult God for approval on what you say before debating or making political speeches. Don’t depend on Carl Rove, James Carville, Mark Penn, David Axelrod, Dick Morris and others to provide divine guidance and motivation.

Those who are God-fearing, deeply religious and devout toward their faith and those who do not believe are continuously at odds interpreting 1st amendment rights and the constitutionality of separation of church and state. Then there are the liberal political pundants, commentators and columnists who believe or disbelieve only when it suits their political agendas. They interpret the use of God in political presentations to sway voters towards their objectives without care of insulting others. Mentioning God in any political forum these days will definitely lead to heated debates and controversy instigated by the liberal media.

Why do politicians use the reference of God in many of their speeches? Obviously they wouldn't want to offend potential supporters who might not authorize their expression of faith. The answer lies within the candidate’s own morality and support of faith and not to appease voters as left wing commentators will lead you to believe. Most of us concur that liberal media displays no morality when expressing their views and will distort just about anything to sway opinion. Fortunately we are much smarter then what they make us out to be.

On September 11th 2008, ABC news was able to boost their dismal ratings by landing the first interview with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Charlie Gibson, the talking head and all around “nice guy” of ABC World News was the interrogator who displayed his lack of knowledge on NATO treaties along with pressing Governor Palin on a so called “Bush Doctrine” a made up list of four different policies created, pieced together and named by the media and which have never been statements of official government policy. Of course Palin was confused as to which set of policies Gibson was asking about. The old “gotcha” technique clearly failed so Gibson then started his ludicrous questioning about Palin’s support of what he characterized a U.S. holy war in Iraq. His misinterpretation of a speech given at her church started a liberal media smear-fest. The actual words spoken by Governor Palin are as follows:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Palin is clearly praying that we're doing the right thing in Iraq but Palin’s response was not good enough for Gibson and continued pressing her reference to God seemingly emulating Detective Robert Goren (Vincent D'Onofrio) of Law and Order Criminal Intent with side winding head movements and convulsive body movements.

Charlie Gibson is no expert on God nor did he study theology but does hold a graduate degree from Princeton University. At one time Princeton had close ties to the Presbyterian Church but that was way before his attendance. So what gives him the authority to question Sarah Palin’s belief that God controls not only her actions but our countries actions? I surely can't find any credentials.

Mr. Gibson should review the following political excerpts from the Presidential inaugural addresses below and tell us all why having faith in God overseeing and supporting our personal and nation's actions disturbs him so much.

“The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God”.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural address, Jan 20, 1945

“The American people stand firm in the faith which has inspired this Nation from the beginning. We believe that all men have a right to equal justice under law and equal opportunity to share in the common good. We believe that all men have a right to freedom of thought and expression. We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God”.
Harry S. Truman inaugural address, January 20, 1949

“The American belief under this covenant of justice, liberty, and union we have become a nation, prosperous, great, and mighty. And we have kept our freedom. But we have no promise from God that our greatness will endure. We have been allowed by him to seek greatness with the sweat of our hands and the strength of our spirit”.
Lyndon B. Johnson inaugural address, January 20, 1965

“We have the chance today to do more than ever before in our history to make life better in America--to ensure better education, better health, better housing, better transportation, a cleaner environment-to restore respect for law, to make our communities more livable--and to ensure the God-given right of every American to full and equal opportunity”.
Richard Nixon inaugural address January 20, 1973

“I'm told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I'm deeply grateful. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inaugural Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer”.
Ronald Reagan inaugural address January 20, 1981

“There's no story more heartening in our history than the progress that we've made toward the brotherhood of man that God intended for us”.
Ronald Reagan inaugural address January 21, 1985

“We have heard the trumpets. We have changed the guard. And now, each in our own way and with God's help, we must answer the call”.
William J. Clinton inaugural address January 20, 1993

“We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom, not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability - it is human choices that move events; not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation - God moves and chooses as He wills”. George W. Bush January 20, 2005