The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Friday, October 31, 2008


Even as I am writing this post, I realize that with the majority of those who are reading it, I am , "speaking to the choir," concerning the media bias toward Barack Obama. Unfortunately there are many who still think, as they drink the liberal Kool Aid, that the press in either balanced OR biased toward John McCain.

As the old saying goes, " the proof is in the pudding," and I have found the pudding to actually present the bias toward Obama by the numbers from research that has looked at this political campaign and the way it has been covered. The proof is not only undeniable but was gathered by a think tank who is non-partisan and looks at the media with a purely objective view.

According to The Project For Media Excellence who has taken the coverage of the media and broken it down by positive and negative coverage of both candidates not only is the press in tank for Obama but so overwhelmingly so that the numbers actually surprised me a point.

Overall all avenues of media, print and broadcast the negative coverage breaks down to 57% negative for McCain and only 29% negative for Obama. Print media is even worse with 69% negative toward McCain and 28% negative for Obama.

NBC and MSNBC get the nod for being the most biased media outlet with NBC showing 54% negative for McCain and only 21% negative for Obama. MSNBC should bow their liberal heads in shame for even trying to act like objective ,"journalists," as their coverage is 73% negative for McCain and only 14% negative for Obama.

For those who try to claim that Fox News is ,"in the tank," for McCain The Project For Excellence In Journalism's findings disagree as the study shows the Fox claim of being fair and balanced is not just a claim but a proven fact as their coverage of the election shows 40% negative for McCain and 40% negative for Obama. Fox does have several conservative commentators but remember commentary is the opinion of the commentator and not supposed to be objective journalism.

That is where the the problem lies and the difference between Fox and the alphabet news outlets as well as other cable outlets like MSNBC. The alphabets, (ABC, NBC and CBS) and MSNBC all claim to be objective journalists but the absolute bias in favor of Obama has taken journalism out of the picture and made each of these outlets no more than commentaries who promote Obama as a candidate.

Yet even with the coverage biased so much toward Obama he has shown that if elected freedom of the press which is one of the checks and balances that the Founders included in the Constitution, will be stifled if a media outlet dares to ask tough questions of Obama. The real purpose for the Founders including freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights was to allow for an unfettered press that was not subject to the government or bias thus making it a voice for the people to expose corruption and keep political toes to the fire.

If Obama is elected the press will be in the tank for him as they are now which eliminates much of that avenue of Constitutional checks and balances. But as has been already shown in his campaign several times that if the press dare ask tough questions they are either banned from his plane or denied access to the candidate.

He refused to allow The Saturday Evening Post writer on his plane for the European trip because of a cover that was published that did not portray Obama in a very flattering light claiming that the plane ran out of room for one more. When an Orlando, FL. News anchor asked tough questions of Biden, an interview scheduled with Biden's wife was cancelled and the Obama campaign denied the station any access to Obama or Biden. This same anchor interviewed McCain the next day and asked equally as tough questions of him and not one cry of unfair came from the McCain campaign.

Now the Washington Times has been kicked off of Obama's plane and coverage denied for the paper because of negative reporting. Again with the Obama campaign, "claiming," no room for one more. So even with most of the media in the tank for Obama it is obvious that if the media dares to cross the media darling they are no longer in favor with the messiah and as such banned and their freedom of access through a free press is denied. Also The Dallas Morning News joins The Washington Times and The New York Post as news agencies who have endorsed McCain and no longer allowed access to Obama.

So it now becomes obvious that if elected not only would an Obama administration not receive the press scrutiny as has been the case during past administrations but if any outlet dares to come out against Obama their First Amendment rights will be denied. If he denies the rights of those who have favored him as much as the press then how would we the people stand in an Obama administration. Would our freedoms in like manor fade away as government control grows under liberal control ? Do I hear echos of Pravda and Socialism ?

Ken Taylor

Thursday, October 30, 2008


After the over kill last night with the much advertised Obama Infomercial, I thought today that a more lighter side view in the election would be most appropriate.

Just a few comments though about the Infomercial. Billy Mays would be proud, for Obama has become the ultimate high profile salesman. While I did not watch the 30 minute Obama Show, I have noticed that the reviews today have been mostly negative.

Even those that could be seen a positive, praise the presentation and say little or nothing about the content. AP who tends to lean to the left actually stated that the infomercial was misleading.

The Washington Post called it ,"hogewash," a good old southern word. Most saw the infomercial as oversaturation with the 4 million dollar cost for each television venue that played the show having no affect on the election and in essence a waste of money.

The polls are tightening and McCain's message about Obama's tax policy is takeing its toll on the Illinois Senator. That combined with a general distrust for the unknown factor about Obama is making the race tight. Tuesday is only six days away and the undecided voters look like they are moving toward McCain.

This election is FAR from over and McCain is making his move with the silent majority still waiting for Tuesday to make their voice heard at the polls!

Ken Taylor

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


The audio that has been front and center over the past few days in the 2008 Presidential election in which Barack Obama outlines how redistribution of wealth could be accomplished, and how the Supreme Court failed in the rulings concerning Civil Rights to bring about redistribution is also a telling showcase in how Obama views our Constitution.

Several times during the interview Obama talks of what he believes as Constitutional short comings and even mentions that the Court in its ruling failed because it chose to adhere to Constitutional constraints.

So the question must be asked does Barack Obama even believe in our Constitution especially in light of the fact that he running for President and that the primary responsibility of the office is to ,"preserve and protect the Constitution."

When referencing the Supreme Court and the Court rulings concerning Civil Rights in the sixties Obama in his own words believed that the court failed to address redistribution of wealth because the court, "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." In other words Obama believes that the court should over step Constitutional limitations or legislate from the bench regardless of whether that which is before the Court is in adherence to the Constitution.

This one statement reveals Obama's idea as to what he believes is the duty of a Justice of the Supreme Court. To ignore the constraints that are placed in the Constitution on the responsibilities of the court and use the power of the court to create law rather than administer law as defined in the Constitution.

Obama as stated in the audio does not believe that the Constitution is adequate in addressing the idea of not only redistribution of wealth but government intervention in the lives of the people. He stated, "the Constitution is a document of negative liberties [that] says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government MUST DO ON YOUR BEHALF."

Does he not understand that the reason that the Framers of the Constitution did not state, "what the federal and state government must do on your behalf," was because the Founding Fathers believed that government was not the solution or the fix and that the people should have the right and ability to achieve without government intervention ?

When this Nation was founded we fought a Revolution to escape the tyranny of European Socialism as governed by the British Monarchy and Parliament and as such when the Founders framed the laws of this land in the Constitution they declared the limited powers of the government as allowed by the people which prevent the tyrannical involvement of the government in the rights of each citizen breaking free from the Socialistic practices that had been forced on the Colonies by the British.

Obama continues in the interview to try and make the case for redistribution with this statement, ,"so I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally...... I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just POORLY EQUIPPED to do it."

Out institutions are , "poorly equipped, " to institute redistribution because this blatant Socialism is not what our Founders formed as even a possibility within our government. Redistribution steps on the rights and freedom of those in whom the wealth is being redistributed from. Also in the redistribution plan that Obama is proposing the rights of the recipients are also being stepped on as he is now calling for a work requirement for those who do not pay taxes and would receive a refund check with Obama's plan.

In other words in order to receive money they did not ask for in the first place the government is going to require compensation in the form of community service after the money is forced on the recipient. Many of those who do not pay taxes already work and their income is not enough to tax.

Either Obama is ignorant as to what the Constitution actually means or he does not believe in it. It is obvious that regardless of whether one supports Obama or not anyone can see that he is an intelligent man. That is why I truly believe that he just does not believe in the Constitution and what it stands for. The Framers intentionally left out Constitutional provisions for government involvement in the lives of the people, or as Obama put it what the," government must do on your behalf."

Some try to state that the Constitutions call to, "promote the common welfare," means that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the people. This it NOT what this phrase means at all. Promoting the common welfare means that an atmosphere of freedom defined within the Constitution is available so that the well being of all Americans is protected by law enabling everyone to have the same opportunity of success and achievement.

The Framers saw the roll of government as limited and also created a form of government that would prevent a Socialistic ideology from controlling the lives of the citizens of this nation. That is why our institutions are ,"poorly equipped," to handle redistribution of wealth because it was never intended to be a part of our way of life as defined in the Constitution.

Before taking office the President of the United States takes a solemn oath which states that as President, "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, PRESERVE, PROTECT and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of The United States."

How can we expect Barack Obama, if elected, to preserve, protect and defend a Constitution that he believes is lacking and that he truly does not believe in ? How can we elect to office a man who believes that the,"essential constraints," of the Constitution should be ignored ? How can we elect to the office of President a man whose very ideology seeks to destroy that which he is sworn to protect ? How can we elect to office a man who blatantly campaigns on a platform that promises to totally deconstruct the fabric and foundational principles that have made this country through freedom and liberty the great nation that it is ?

The fact that this Nation is the bastion of freedom and the most powerful country on earth is not an accident. It is because of cause and effect. The direct result of the constraints on our government as outlined in the Constitution which allows freedom to flourish and everyone to achieve. The ideology and platform of Barack Obama promises to discourage achievement and limit accomplishment thus ending the American Dream and the dream of America.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, October 28, 2008


There has been an continuing discussion since the Joe the Plumber revelation concerning Barack Obama and his Socialist idea of ,"spreading the wealth," or wealth redistribution. A very disturbing radio interview from 2001 has surfaced where Obama not only discusses wealth redistribution but exactly what course is needed in order to insure that it happens.

Discussen the Warren Court of the early sixties and the Civil Rights movement Obama in explaining why the movement did not through the courts address redistribution of wealth actually stated that the court in it rulings about Civil Rights and wealth redistribution, "didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constituion." In other words radical interpretation of the Constitution.

Obama futher states concerning the Constitution, "the Constitution is a document of negative liberties [that] says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government MUST DO ON YOUR BEHALF."

The interview then goes on to tell that since the courts did not overstep their Constitutional boundries that redistribution must be done legislativly and with community organization, "on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." He continued,"so I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally...... I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

Plain and simple Obama is a stating that although the courts Constitutionally may not have the ability to prvide wealth redistribution through legislative and community initiatives wealth can be redistributed.

Karl Marx stated as the foundational principle of the Socialist movement in the mid 1800's, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Redistribution of wealth is the central theme and principle of Socialism and this is the type of America that Barack Obama blatantly beleives that brings economic success.

Yet history shows that every country that has adopoted Socialism has failed or offers economic policy that rather than increasing the means for those who are considered having less, Socialism creates massive unemployment, actually makes the poor, poorer and eliminates the insentive for those with the ability to create not only jobs but economic expansion which creates a stronger economy.

A recent PEW survey shows that 84% of Americans favor policy that encourages economic growth rather than redistribution of wealth through legislation and taxation for the upper 5% of income earners.

Additionally in order to pay for the massive trillion dollar spending that Obama is proposing that upper 5% whose taxation ability is NOT infinite will not be able to foot the bill for his spending. So this Socialist who condemns, "trickle down economics," will create trickle down taxation as spending increases the bill will have to be paid for by taxing all income levels.

This is not the America we need nor the America that promotes success. This is not the America that will allow recovery from this economic down turn. In fact most experts agree that Obama's tax plan will slow the recovery which most beleive will only extend into the Fall of 2009 with current economic policy. Obama's economic plan of tax and spend will cause recovery to take years rather than months if recovery happens at all under an Obama administration.

We cannot afford a Barack Obama Socialism. We can not afford a Barack Obama depression. We canot afford a Barack Obama ,"change," in American society that truly offers no,"hope," for anyone.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, October 26, 2008


The 2008 election could usher in for the first time in our history a government without any checks and balances which is precisely the reason that our Founders in their great wisdom provided three branches with specific duties and freedom of the press all of which are supposed to work together to ensure that our government works for ALL of the people AND is subject to the will of the people.

With the distinct possibility of all three branches falling under complete liberal control AND the media who is so obviously in the tank with Democrats and favor liberal ideas and dogma any sense of balance in our government may fully disappear with the election of Barack Obama.

Some will try and present the argument that when President Bush was elected he also had a majority in the House and Senate. While this is true, three facts that may present themselves through this election did not apply to the Bush White House combined with a Republican majority in Congress.

First the Supreme Court. While the GOP headed both the Executive and Legislative branches, until Bush's second term the Supreme Court leaned to the left. Even in the second term the Court is actually closer to a balance between conservative and liberal judges which has the distinction of decisions that meet with disappointment on both sides of the political spectrum.

Second the Congress. Although the GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate during the first Bush term, the majorities were not enough to pass legislation without the help of members of the other party. As such though a GOP majority, Democrats still had a strong voice in legislation and the ability to delay legislation in order to kill it. A move they used quite often and with some success.

Third the Media. Throughout the four years of GOP majorities with a GOP White House the media was decidedly stacked against Republicans. As they are so blatantly showing in this election most of the media leans left. With the decided media bias during the first Bush term with a majority in Congress, nothing attempted during those years was missed without great criticism by the left leaning media who have always shown a strong dislike for President Bush. This is not to say that during those four years the GOP did not deserve criticism, the large increase in government spending for conservatives was a source of great bitterness toward the GOP, and the press hailed it and criticised it at the same time even with the left leaning toward Democrats who love to spend and in whom Republicans mirrored in Bush's first term.

How then if an Obama Presidency becomes the result of the 2008 election will our government have no checks and balances ? Citing the same criteria used above in showing that the balances were present during the first Bush term with a GOP majority, I will show how the balances disappear if Obama is elected.

First, the Supreme Court. As we wait the results of this years election so are certain members of the Supreme Court who are advanced in age and waiting to retire with a Democrat in office. Five Justices are at least seventy with a sixth being 69. Of those only Scalia and Kennedy are not considered liberals though Kennedy as the Courts loan so called moderate sides more with the left than he does the right. So an Obama Presidency certainly will appoint at least two if not four Justices. Replacing liberals with liberals and possibly replacing one moderate and one conservative with liberals.

Also in the court make up their is the possibility of the liberal Obama following the FDR example of stacking the court to ensure that decisions go in his favor. The Constitution does not provide for an absolute number of Justices. In our history we have had as few as five and as many as ten. When FDR could not get much of his New Deal passed through Congress he proposed raising the number of Justices to fifteen and planned on stacking the court with appointees who favored his ideas to spearhead Constitutional challenges. With a completely liberal Congress Obama while not increasing the number of Justices will have the ability to stack the court in his favor as Congress will approve all liberal nominations he makes. Until the retirement of those aged Justices he can increase the number to meet his needs if necessary with a liberal Congress happily approving the additions.

Second the Congress. The main difference between the first Bush term and a possible Obama first term is the make up of the Congress. If the House does not change, Obama will have a strong and clear majority in the House. Most however, believe that the House majority will increase on November 4. The Senate is close to a balance but two changes could take place. The first is that the deciding Vice Presidential and President of the Senate vote if the Senate remains somewhat balanced if Obama is elected will be Joe Biden who will side with Democrats. Second more GOP seats are up for grabs this year and also more GOP Senators are not seeking another term. The distinct possibility of a super majority exists in the Senate which could provide a completely liberal House and Senate. The GOP Minority would be reduced to only a troublesome, "fly in the ointment," without even the strength to counter legislation that they disagree with.

Third, the Media. As has been stated above the media is decidedly liberal leaning with some blatantly so. If Obama is elected and if the Democrats gain seats in the majority giving them full legislative power, the check that the free press media should provide in non-biased journalism seeking the revelation of abuse and other types of supposed or real problems in Washington will disappear almost completely. Evidence this by the almost total positive coverage of the Obama campaign and the almost as equal negative coverage of the McCain campaign. So much so that negatives about Obama have received little or no coverage and in most cases when covered are mentioned as only right wing attacks against the media messiah. This type of coverage will continue if Obama is elected and the Congress becomes a liberal mecca.

The Framers of the Constitution designed our government structure to be balanced as all three Branches have distinct responsibilities which should not blend into one ideology or political presentation. Additionally the idea presented by the Framers of a free press was thought to be an additional check for the government as journalism was thought to be the conscience of the people.

Journalism because of its obvious bias to the left has lost all credibility as the conscience of the people and its ability as an avenue of balance in our Constitutional Republic. Combining this with an unfettered liberal White House, Congress and Supreme Court could and likely will change the fabric of our society and the fundamental principles that have made this Nation great. We fought a Revolution to be a free and independent Republic from European Socialism so that the people ruled the land NOT the government. An unfettered liberal government promises to return us to that Socialistic slavery. NEVER what our Founders intended nor the Framers of the Constitution presented as the governing laws of our society.

Ken Taylor

Friday, October 24, 2008


As Friday morning trading began Wall Street was forced to shut down as a stop gap measure because Dow futures dropped 500 points. The measure was to give the market pause in order to prevent panic selling when actual trading began. Uncharted territory in an increasingly uncharted market.

While much of the problem in the extremely volatile stock market lately is due to continuing reaction to the collapse of financial institutions due for the most part to the mortgage crisis, there are two other factors that weigh heavily on this current markets somewhat panicked reaction. One is the 24/7 news cycle and the other is the continuing lead by Barack Obama in the polls which has many on Wall Street concerned because of Obama's tax and spend polices.

First the 24/7 news cycle. In 1987 the Stock Market plunged by nearly 25% in one day which caused panic by investors. Yet the crisis ended relatively soon at the market rebounded over the next two weeks. One major difference in the 1986 crash and the one we are experiencing today is the fact that news of what is happening on Wall Street receives a constant reporting because of the 24/7 news cycle that we have now with cable news networks who have a lot of time to fill.

In 1986 when the one day crash occurred news consisted of the usual alphabet, ( ABC, NBC and CBS), evening news broadcasts. Cable News was in its infancy and had a small audience. As a result the country was treated to only occasional reports of the action on Wall Street. Compare that with today when news outlets on cable keep the moment by moment DOW and NASDAQ boards running at the bottom of the screen.

Whenever one tunes into a news channel, of which there are many, the actions of the Dow are mentioned in every segment usually at the top of the segment with a quick reminder again at the end of the segment before going to a commercial break. As such we receive a barrage of coverage which increases anxiety about the markets and cannot help but add to the panic as investors watch numbers move in real time. Those who would normally ride out financial problems on the market panic as they watch the numbers and yell SELL !

The second factor is Barack Obama the candidate. Investors react to political policy. Wall Street is understandable concerned about the policy of Barack Obama and negative reaction is rampant throughout the market. According to the Washington Post one top Wall Street executive who has been an Obama supporter has urged the Illinois Senator to reconsider his tax plan which offers increases for those making over 250K a year, both individuals and small businesses and a token tax credit that Obama calls a tax cut of between 500 and 1,000 dollars to the remaining 95% of Americans which will be paid for through redistributing the wealth of the upper 5% of income earners. This credit will also be available as a refund to the 44% of that 95% who DO NOT pay taxes.

Stock prices represent current market conditions AND best guesses of what is coming down the road. Many cannot predict where this slide will stop because some of it depends on the policy of the next President and the promise of increased taxes especially on small business, ( the highest rate for small business seen in decades), raising the capital gains tax, massive increased spending and token tax credits paid for by the upper 5% to everyone else is getting a no confidence vote on Wall Street for Barack Obama.

Most compare Obama's economic policy to that of Hubert Hoover whose policy ushered in the Great Depression and Jimmy Carter who as President presided over 21% interest rates, double digit inflation, gas shortages due to the institution of windfall profit taxes on oil companies, and negative growth throughout his four years as President. Barack Obama promises to introduce the worst elements of both Hoover and Carter and Wall Street is reacting with great concern that Obama's policies will continue the slide indefinitely and delay the recovery for possibly years rather than months.

Ken Taylor

Thursday, October 23, 2008


This has been an election season for the books. Whether the Republican or the Democrat tickets win the election both will provide a first in American politics. Sarah Palin could be the first female Vice President while Barack Obama could be the first African American President.

Throughout this campaign the polls have been all over the board. During the Primary season polling missed the boat completely while occasionally they hit the mark. Since the Conventions there have been trends for both candidates and shifts but one thing has been consistent, none of the polls have shown a consistency in numbers when comparing one poll to another.

For instance in today's polling, the range is everywhere from a tie with the AP poll to Obama up by 11 if you believe the ABC poll. According to the the Investor's Business Daily poll shown on the right Obama only leads by three which places the race well within the margin of error. I posted this particular poll because of the detailed break down in the polling and IBD has been right on the mark on election day in the last three Presidential contests.

But with that said can polling be trusted to be accurate and fair ? Not really. First one has to consider the polling sample and how that affects the results of the poll. For instance immediately after the Republican Convention Gallup used a polling sample showing 33% Democrat and 31% Republican resulting in a 7 point McCain lead.

Two weeks later Gallup released a poll showing Obama with a 9 point lead. Yet when the polling samples are taken into account at 40% Democrat and only 29% Republican it becomes obvious how those numbers changed in the course of two weeks. Using the same polling samples in the Gallup poll as were used immediately after the GOP Convention the 9 point Obama lead becomes a tie or a 2 point McCain lead depending on how the calculations are handled.

Another major aspect to take into account concerning polling has to do with the totally unbalanced media coverage. Obviously many networks like NBC are , "in the tank," for Obama and either like NBC have lost all journalistic objectivity or lean so heavily in favoring Obama that the majority of reports concerning McCain and especially Governor Palin are negative.

In fact a recent study shows that 63% of reporting about McCain is negative while only 29% of reporting about Obama is negative. Considering the news coverage of the campaign experts attribute about 5% of the polling lead that Obama shows in many of the polls to the unbalanced coverage favoring Obama. Many agree that this 5% as in past unbalanced coverage does not carry to actual votes counts on election day. If you deduct 5% from most of the polling Obama's lead drops to an average of about 4 or 5 points. Taking into account then the larger sampling of Democrats and this race becomes a dead heat and within the margin of error across the board.

Another aspect that is neglected when polls are discussed is the experience factor. Fox reported on a Rasmussen poll taken in five key states, VA, NC, PENN, Ohio and FL. The polling showed McCain up by 2 in FL and Ohio with Obama up from between 3 and 5 in the other three states. But when the question of who voters thought was more experienced for the Presidency, McCain lead in the experience factor by more than 19 points in every one of the five states.

The historical record also must be taken into account when considering the accuracy of polling. For instance in 1980 going into the week before the election Jimmy Carter polled 10 to 12 point higher than Ronald Reagan and on election day Reagan was behind in the polls by 9 points. He won the election by nearly a 10 point margin and an electoral landslide. Also in 1984 on election day polls showed Walter Mondale only 3 points behind Reagan, within the margin of error. Reagan won by 18 points and the largest electoral landslide in history.

In the last two Presidential elections Al Gore lead in the polls by 10 points on election day 2000 and John Kerry lead by 6 also on election day 2004. Looking at another election whose polling mirrors this year is the 1948 election between President Harry Truman and Governor Thomas Dewey. Going into election day Dewey lead Truman in polling anywhere from 5 to 15 points, ( sounds familiar doesn't it ?), when the numbers were counted and the results were in Truman actually beat Dewey by 4.4 points with an electoral victory of 303 for Truman , 189 for Dewey and 39 for Strom Thurmond with 266 needed to win. After the election according to the son of George Gallup the founder of the Gallup organization, Gallup had to personally visit more than 30 newspapers, " to lure them back after 30 canceled their poll service."

The more accurate polling takes approximately five to ten days to give a balanced and reasonable account of what respondents are thinking. With the 24/7 news cycle and the coverage which cries for numbers on an almost moment by moment basis, pollsters are taking snap daily polling that give numbers that are based more on current emotional responses to headlines rather than true voter decisions on how they will vote come election day. As such we see varied numbers and numbers that change sometimes dramatically every day.

The bottom line is that the only real poll that counts is the one that occurs on election day when voters enter a private booth or cubicle and express their true thoughts as to which candidate they believe will best lead this Nation for the next four years. Then all of the media hype and the campaign rhetoric means nothing as voters are faced with the guidance of their own conscience and the decision as to what they want for this country over the next Presidential term.

Ken Taylor

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


Though I posted on this yesterday the fact that Obama's running mate felt it necessary to share with a group of supporters a warning that Obama would be,"tested," by a, "generated," international crisis is far to important to only mention in one posting.

Biden in addition to the warning urged the group of supporters to remain steadfast in their support when the crisis comes because the response that Obama has to the crisis will not immediatly look like it is the right response. In other words,"hang in there with us folks until we get it right."

Biden tried to insinuate that historically this, "testing," comes to every President in that first six months. I do not recall anyone testing Ronald Reagan in the first six months. Some since Biden's remarks have even tried to present the idea that 9/11 was a ,"testing," of Bush.

What they neglect to remember is that 9/11 had been planned for years and it also happened in the ninth month of his Presidency. 9/11 was not a test of a President but a long planned attack against our people and our Nation.

Is this the type of, "change," we need ? What type of,"hope," does this give us. We hope we can survive the first six months of an Obama administration ?

What then has Obama/Biden promised for America ? An international crisis to test Obama within six months of his Presidency if elected. A tax policy that would make any European Socialist Nation proud. Massive government entitlements that are payed for by the hard earned money of American tax payers. And government give-a-ways which make dependancy on the government the way of life for America.

Changing the fundamental principles of individual responsibility and individual achievement that has made our country great. Changes that will forever reshape our nation and end our free Republic in favor of an American Socialism for all.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, October 21, 2008


"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old Senator President of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate." Joe Biden

In a campaign event Democrat Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden warned that if Barack Obama is elected President, within six months there will be an international crisis specifically to ,"test," the new President. I do not agree with Biden 99% of the time but this is one instance where I am in total agreement with the Delaware Senator. Many consider this a gaffe but in reality this is the most truthful statement that Biden has made in this campaign.

Before I get into the guts of the Biden statement, this telling and troubling admission by Biden about his running mate is getting little press because of the dangerous scenario that it poses and the truth in the statement that lays to bare the inexperience of Barack Obama. If Governor Sarah Palin had made this statement about Obama it would be plastered all over the news as a terrible attack against the liberal messiah.

But Obama's running mate tells the truth about the danger surrounding an Obama Presidency and it is passed over as a minor gaffe and nothing more. The media may see it as a gaffe in order to protect their chosen candidate, Democrats are just shaking their heads at what they see as just another Biden miscue, but our enemies know this to be an absolute and even now with the possibility of an Obama Presidency are planning how to test this upstart, whether through a move on another neighbor or attempting an attack right here in The United States.

Joe Biden used the example of President John F. Kennedy and his being tested because of his little experience on the world stage by the Premier of The Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev. In June of 1961 less than six months after Kennedy took office the two leaders met in Vienna for a summit that was supposed to be an informal exchange of views.

Kennedy had just been dealt a major blow because of the Bay of Pigs disaster in Cuba which resulted directly from his inexperience as he trusted CIA chief Allen Dulles rather than looking into the full ramifications of the US trained Cuban freedom fighters invading Cuba. This was his first test as President and he failed miserably so as a result he desperately wanted and needed a successful summit with Khrushchev.

Even to the point of having his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy engage in a secret nuclear testing compromise discussions that would be finalized in Vienna. Kennedy instructed that though the secret meetings were originated by Kennedy they would have to look as if they were begun by the Soviets because of a fear of a backlash from the American people because of the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy as such bared his vulnerabilities to Khrushchev before the summit.

The summit was an absolute disaster. Khrushchev belittled Kennedy, bullied him throughout the summit on Communist ideology, the balance of power between the two Nations, nuclear testing and Berlin all but threatening war. Kennedy left the meeting knowing it had been a failure while Khrushchev left knowing he was dealing with a weak President.

Seeing Kennedy's weakness because of his little experience allowed Khrushchev to confidently use that weakness in placing medium range nuclear missiles in Cuba directly threatening 80% of The United States with less than ten minutes of warning time. Khrushchev believed because of the Vienna meeting that Kennedy would not like the idea but would accept it. In October of 1962 this resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis which brought the world to the very brink of nuclear war as Kennedy demanded rightfully so that the missiles be removed and blockaded Cuba.

While the crisis resulted in the removal of the missiles, the confrontation could have had a completely different outcome. In fact both Kennedy and Khrushchev believed even hours before the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles that nuclear war was inevitable with both countries on full alert ready to strike. All of this was a direct result of Khrushchev challenging Kennedy because of the weakness he saw as a result of the Bay of Pigs and the disastrous meeting in Vienna. Both of which occurred in the first six months of Kennedy's Presidency. Remember also that Kennedy had 14 years in both the House and the Senate, a full 11 years more experience than Barack Obama.

Is this want we want or need as the leader of our Nation ? A man, Barack Obama, who by admission of his own running mate brings with him even before he takes the oath of office the real and dangerous reality that within six months of taking office our enemies will seek to test how far they can push an inexperienced President. Possibly even using the opportunity to once again attack us on our soil or our interests throughout the world, endangering American lives. In these very troubled times we cannot afford Barack Obama's inexperience to be tested as President of The United States !

Ken Taylor

Sunday, October 19, 2008


He admitted it directly to , "Joe the Plumber." In his own words Barack Obama advocated Socialism when the now famous Joe the Plumber expressed concern about Obama's tax plan in which individuals and businesses who make over $250,000 dollar will experience a tax increase. Joe is working toward owning the business that he presently works for and Obama told him that he thought when, " you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

In the last of the Presidential debates John McCain used this conversation and the example of Joe the Plumber as a point of reference concerning Obama's economic plan especially in referencing his tax policy. It has had an affect as people everywhere have been able to identify with Joe and his concerns over tax increases and as Joe put it in an interview Obama's sharing of the wealth being, "socialist."

This is a huge negative about Obama that those who support him especially those in the media want to keep under raps. As such there has been a concentrated effort by the Obama campaign and their media backers to demonize an average American who did not attend an Obama rally but in whom Obama brought the rally to his door step as Obama was going door to door campaigning. This average, "Joe," simply asked Obama a question and now he is being hammered in an attempt to ruin Joe's credibility.

Why ? Because while Obama's plans are socialist in nature, actually having it said they are socialist makes this messiah of the left look bad and his policy look dangerous. Yet the fact remains that Barack Obama IS A SOCIALIST ! Sure he calls himself a Democrat after the party that nominated him. His record in the Senate is liberal by definition in relation to the way in which he voted, when he voted and I stress, WHEN.

But in truth Barack Obama is a Socialist and his agenda in which he wants to bring to the American people as ,"change," will greatly advance our society toward Socialism, a slippery slope that has already started but will face near completion with an Obama administration especially if he has a Democrat majority to back his agenda.

Some of the slippery slope began with the advent of the institution of the income tax which began with the passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. It was furthered by FDR's New Deal with the onset of Social Security and the massive government sponsored expansions that took place under his administration. Lyndon Johnson expanded on this with his Great Society which created an entitlement based welfare system which in essence discouraged working in favor of government assistance.

More recently are the Socialistic style economic bailout packages which have partially nationalized private businesses like AIG in which the government has a 79% controlling voice and tax payer money is being used to shore up a collapsed sector of the economy. All of which came about because in the rush to hit the campaign trail not one free market solution, in which there were many, was even considered. As such just as in the Great Depression government intervention rather than free market solutions will delay the amount of time it takes for the economy to fully recover.

Now Barack Obama steps in proposing new and massive Socialistic plans that will as he put it, "spread the wealth," under an Obama administration. His tax plan is a massive redistribution of wealth increasing taxes on those individuals and small businesses who make over $250, 000 Deceptively stating that the majority of small businesses make far less than the thresh hold for Obama's tax increase. When in reality according to the Tax Policy Center ONLY 9% of small businesses fall under the thresh hold with the other 91% facing eligibility for the increase under the Obama plan.

His claim of ,"tax cuts," for ," 95%," of Americans are nothing more than redefining the meaning of tax cut with a series of tax credits ranging from increasing the earned income credit to credits for college tuition and so called, "green," cars. All of which except the green car credit are refundable which means that the 44% of Americans, 63 million who pay NO taxes will receive a tax refund upon filing which will be payed for by Obama's tax increase for those who make over 250K.

Additionally these credits phase out if as an individual makes more income which will discourage working and actually create a tax welfare system. This is just the tip of the Socialism iceberg for Barack Obama. His health care plan by his estimate will cost $150 BILLION dollars each year, most believe it will cost much more. Providing government health care to anyone who does not have a work related plan.

His claim of saving those with health insurance, $2500 dollars per year is based on shifting the cost of catastrophic health care from the private sector to the government, payed for out of tax payer money. This idea also eliminates cost containment through competition because the government control of catastrophic insurance will allow out of control pricing at tax payer expense. Basically cost containment which is the key problem in the health care system goes out the window. Again Socialising health care where everyone through taxes pays for government control.

As evidenced in each debate when Obama was pressed for answers concerning how he would solve any problem his response always gave a government solution which again stresses his Socialistic ideas. He fully believes that the only answer to any problem is government. A society where government provides for the people and the people in turn become dependant on the government. Who then under Obama's socialistic society provides the money to pay for government control ? The people. First the, "rich," as Obama states are those who make over 250K each year. This is only about 5% of the population.

A money supply that Obama will soon tap out especially as they see their money dwindle through increased taxation and start tightening their investment and/or business expansion which will eliminate jobs and services. This thresh hold of 250K receiving a tax increase out of necessity under Obama's Socialistic expansion will have to be lowered in order to pay for Obama's programs. First it will drop to 200K, the 150K, then 100K then 50K and so on.

Also as business is taxed more under Obama, consumers will carry the burden. Businesses do not pay taxes as such. The tax burden of a business is absorbed in their prices for goods and services. If they receive a tax increase they either cut back employees or pass the increase on to the consumer through higher prices or both. Also when has anyone found a job provided by a poor person ? Those above Obama's tax increase thresh hold provide jobs. And when their taxes are raised the jobs decrease! Democrats have NEVER understood this plain and simple FACT!

Class warfare is the key to Socialism and the center piece of Barack Obama's agenda as he constantly demonizes those who make more than 250K, calling them the rich and promises those who make less that under his government Socialism they will receive the money taken from the evil and successful rich.

Spreading the wealth, government solutions for everything, tax welfare which discourages work in order to receive a tax credit, government control and individual dependency on government and finally increasing the burden on private business thus eliminating jobs and raising prices. This is the cost of electing Barack Obama. This is the price of Barack Obama , Socialist !

Ken Taylor

Friday, October 17, 2008


John McCain and Barack Obama shared the podium at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York. While both McCain and Obama spoke at the event, McCain brought the house down. Great fun showing the true humor of John McCain. Part II of the roast is below. Enjoy, real funny stuff !

Ken Taylor


The remainder of John McCains speech at the Alfred E. Smith Memeorial Dinner.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


The talking heads have spoken. The debate has been ,"scrutinized," by the,"experts", and as expected most say Barack Obama won. The fact is that all Obama, as usual, had to do was show up and thank the Debate Commission and those especially in the media who drool over Obama claim an Obama victory.

McCain was faced as with the prior two debates with a situation in the eyes of the media of needing to all but deck Obama as he stepped out on stage in order to be crowned the victor. Then they would accuse him of being to harsh on the messiah.

So setting the bias aside and the media expectations of the debate, did McCain succeed last night and will it have an affect on the rest of the campaign ?

The answer to both of those questions is yes. John McCain brought the tax and spend liberal truth about Barack Obama to all of the Joe the Plumbers in this country.

For those who may not know who Joe the Plumber is let me briefly tell you about this new celebrity on the political scene. Joe is preparing to purchase a plumbing company in Toledo, Ohio and confronted Obama at a campaign appearance about Obama's tax plan and its affect on those like Joe who own small businesses and make along with their business over Obama's tax increase thresh hold of $250,000.

Obama explained to Joe that he wasn't ,"punishing," him for his success but that he, (Obama), thought that to ,"spread the wealth around," was good for America. Joe did not take that well and was brought up several times last night in the debate as a representation of the common person who will be affected by Obama's tax wealth redistribution plan.

McCain hammered Obama on this particular subject and brought home the fact that Obama's plan was not a tax cut as advertized but a massive redistributing of wealth where those who earn will be required to pay more in order to give tax credits to those who pay nothing. And asked Obama why he would want to raise any taxes when people are hurting.

Throughout the debate McCain had Obama on his heals constantly defending his policy, ideas and associations. Even after Obama made his defense McCain managed to get another quick jab in before the moderator Bob Schieffer asked another question.

McCain backed Obama into a very tight corner on education citing the success of the voucher program in Washington DC. A program that Obama also agreed was working but stated that it was not good for the rest of the country. McCain jabbed back at Obama hanging him again for not wanting to let other school districts share in the success of the DC program.

The long awaited confrontation over Obama associations especially concerning Bill Ayers was handled well by McCain without coming across as ,"mean," or intentionally confrontational and Obama's response followed the usual talking points without revealing the details that many are demanding.

In fact these associations brought up questions concerning Obama's judgement in a focus group of undecided voters in Miami, Florida whose Dade county leans left of center.

Other focus groups of undecideds that I observed were very favorable to McCain in fact one had 23 out of 28 state by a show of hands that McCain had won their vote.

Will this debate affect the election on November 4 ? If the focus group showing 23of 28 voting for McCain because of what they saw last night and a poll following the debate by liberal CBS showing a majority of uncommitted voters trust McCain more in handling a crisis are any indication, it could very well have made a difference in the final results for the White House.

Ken Taylor

Wednesday, October 15, 2008


Many in the main stream are calling tonight's debate between John McCain and Barack Obama , McCain's last stand. Once again they are saying that McCain needs a knockout blow or all is lost and Obama wins the Presidency. Even many who are conservatives see tonight as McCain's Alamo and unless he blows Obama away with the so called knockout blow it's over.

While I agree that McCain needs a good night I totally disagree that unless he scores a, "knockout," that the election is over. Let's look at a few facts concerning this and for that matter the other two Presidential debates.

FACT ONE : the media bias toward Obama makes it impossible for most to even consider McCain the winner in any of the debates. All Obama has to do is show up and thank the Debate Commission and everyone falls all over themselves claiming Obama the winner.

FACT TWO: knockout blows seldom happen in a debate. In fact the last real knockout blow took place in 1984 when Ronald Reagan used his marvelous sense of humor against Walter Mondale telling how he would not use Mondale's, "youth and inexperience," against him in the election. Ending all challenges about Reagan's age and putting Mondale on the defensive the remainder of the election.

FACT THREE: with three liberal moderators deciding which direction the questioning will go, while they are not obviously leading the questioning to favor Obama they are posing questions that are safe for Obama. Even the, "town hall," format where Tom Brokaw had six million Internet questions to chose from, no one can tell me that there were not questions available that could have presented a negative view of Barack Obama so Brokaw chose six safe questions and fourteen safe questions from the audience.

FACT FOUR: a debate has never decided the outcome of an election and this election is far from over regardless of what happens tonight.

So what does McCain have to do in order to score points against Obama. After all this Democrat nominee is a mystery in so many ways that he is in actuality the most vulnerable candidate to ever run for high office yet because he is so protected by the media his vulnerabilities are ignored.

McCain then in many respects should in like manner ignore much of the questioning and use the opportunity with a large viewing audience to go after Obama. Sure hitting him about Bill Ayers and other Obama associations including ACORN should be part of the attack but McCain should not dwell heavily on this otherwise it will backfire as he will be seen as only going negative.

Obama has massive vulnerabilities in policy and McCain again should ignore much of the safe line of questioning that will be posed tonight and go after Obama on substance. Obama has been touting his so called ,"tax cut," for 95% of Americans. Fine, if that is what Obama wants to call it then McCain should in like manner call Obama on the deception and in no uncertain terms expose the lie with the facts that 44% of Americans do not pay taxes and that his entire ,"plan," consists of tax credits that will be issued as refunds to the 44% who pay no taxes payed for by the 1% in whom Obama has indicated he will raise taxes. Also that because the credits phase down as more money is earned his ,"plan," discourages work and creates a tax welfare state.

McCain must hit hard on Obama's discussion with the plumber in which he said to, "spread the wealth," is good for America and call it exactly what it is, SOCIALISM ! Outline in detail Obama's spending plan including especially his $150 BILLION dollar health care plan that most believe will cost much more. And stress that the ONLY way it can be paid for is out of the pockets of the American people. End this illusion that Obama and the Democrats have created that Universal Health Care is free and stress the enormous cost and entitlement it would become at taxpayer expense.

Hammer Obama and the Democrats about their direct responsibility in the financial crises that we are facing today and quit being on the defensive about this main campaign issue. Name names, Dodd, Franks, Maxine Waters and others including Obama who protected Fannie and Freddie igniting the powder keg that exploded last month. Give dollar figures received by Obama and Dodd from the Fannie and Freddie PACS, to buy their protection from exposing the corruption that took place.

Regardless of the line of questioning McCain should hammer Obama's inexperience and enforce in the minds of the American people the dangers of allowing a novice who has a questionable back ground to lead this nation and especially our armed forces.

Hammer again and again using the word Socialism in describing an Obama Presidency so that the truth about the direction this Socialist/liberal will take the country is driven home and finally the American people by the millions will hear the truth and not just the mania creating sound bites that have been played over and over by the Obamamedia.

If McCain hammers Obama tonight with the truth about what this Democrat truly believes and reveals the deception throughout his policy, his associations and his entire campaign, McCain by all the Obama backing pundits will lose the debate but he will gain the support of the majority of the people who watch the debate as the truth about Barack Obama is revealed.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


At a campaign rally over the weekend the arrogance of Obama actually shined when a plumber who owns his own business asked Obama about his taxes being raised if Obama is elected and institutes his tax plan.

Arrogant because the liberal/socialist Democrat considers that he has already won the election so now he can actually tell the truth about his socialist ideas especially when it comes to taxes.

First Obama danced around the question when the plumber expressed concern about his taxes being raised when Obama said, "it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind ya, that they've got a chance at success to."

Next the arrogant socialist admits the truth in his tax plan, " I think that when you SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND, it's good for everybody !"

Plain and simple, this is socialism, spreading the wealth around, redistrubuting the wealth, taking from those that have and giving it to those who don't. No matter how it is stated it is plain and simple socialism. That is the America that Barack Obama wants to bring, the,"change," he is calling for.

His tax proposals claims that he is cutting taxes for 95% of Americans while raising taxes for the top 5% who make over $250,000 a year. This of course includes small business owners like the one Obama told he was going to ,"spread the wealth."

Many small business owners do not seperate their personal income from their business income. Also coming off the top of their business income are expenses like, employeee payroll, inventory, daily operating cost and much more. Raising taxes for this group of Americans will limit their cash flow to the point that we will see many small business go under and/or lay off employees in order to meet the new Obama, "spread the wealth," tax burden.

Also there are other deceptions in the Obama 95% cut tax plan. First, 44% of Americans DO NOT PAY TAXES. So under the Obama tax plan these non tax payers will actually recieve a refund check which will be financed by the ,"spread the wealth," tax increase that Obama explained to the plumber.

Obama's so called tax cuts are not cuts at all but actually tax credits. In other words Obama redefines the meaning of a tax cut by proposing to either creating or expand seven tax credits for individuals.

These credits are:

1. A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

2. A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

3. A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies.

4. A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

5. An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

6. A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

7. A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

The catch with each of these is that all eccept the ,"clean car," credit are refundable which means that the 44% who pay NO TAXES will actually recieve each of the other six credits that they are eligable for in the form of a tax refund check, which again will be payed for by Obama's, "spread the wealth," tax increase. Infact according to The Heritage Foundation by 2011 Obama's refundable tax credit plan for non - taxpayers will actually increase the number of those who pay no taxes and recieve credit refunds each year by 10 million to a total of 73 million Americans.

Under Obama's plan, these tax credits are also phased out as income rises which means that the more people make the less they will recieve in Obama credits. Which of course will also incourage a welfare type situation as people realize they will recieve more if they work less.

According to the Tax Policy Center Obama's plan would cause the refundable tax credit expenditures to rise by $647 BILLION dollars in the next ten years. This would place the welfare tax credits expenditures at four times more than state and federal welfare assistance programs.

The plain and simple truth is that Obama's tax plan will become the largest redustribution of wealth in American history. This combined with his massive spending increases not the least of which is his $150 billion dollar universal health care plan which many believe will cost MUCH more, will send this Nation down the nonreversable path to socialism which Obama finally admited when ,"explaining," to the plumber why his taxes will be raised.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, October 12, 2008


I have followed politics for my entire adult life. The first election that I participated in, I voted for Gerald Ford when he ran against Jimmy Carter. My candidate lost and though disappointed in the outcome, the excitement of knowing that I had the privilege to participating in one of our most glorious displays of freedom still leaves me with the same awe today at the greatness of our Nation as it did that first time in 1976.

All elections create a certain air of anxiousness with voters because, let's face it, when it comes to our vote everyone of us is extremely partisan. Even those who decide on the day of the election, once that decision is made partisanship sets in and throughout the coverage on election night either excitement or disappointment reigns in every voters heart as we cheer for the victory of our candidate.

Some of this comes from our inherent belief as Americans in winning. But when it comes to elections that winning spirit is stronger than even the most exciting sports contest because elections determine whether this Nation that we love will take a course following a direction that matches our own personal, political, religious and philosophical beliefs.

Elections by their very nature create excitement, anger, partisanship and disappointment because all of us want and need to back the winner. The closer that we get to any election day the four things I just mentioned become more pronounced with each passing day and this election is no different that any other in that sense yet calls for calm persist daily. When in actuality the emotions we are seeing are common in every election.

As a conservative who will be voting Republican and back wholeheartedly the McCain/Palin ticket I have begun to see an anxiousness that is in many ways becoming a resignation by many toward the outcome of this election. Anxious that McCain hit hard against Obama and resignation that because of polling and the constant Obama barrage that we have had thrust at us in by Main Stream Media that this election is already over and the casting of our votes on November 4 is immaterial because the outcome is already decided.

Throughout my experience in following elections, especially because of being a conservative and voting Republican, every election has had its anxiousness toward whether our candidate can win because in nearly every election the Republican candidate especially in the Presidential race is portrayed as the underdog. Even Ronald Reagan who won two landslides over first Jimmy Carter and then Walter Mondale was cast as the underdog in both elections.

This year the anxiousness and resignation that I am seeing seems more pronounced than it has in previous elections. Almost as if many in who feel this way have resigned themselves into thinking that we have no choice in this outcome since the media and the polls have already decided that Obama will be the winner.

First I remind you of a quote from former New York Yankee catcher Yogi Berra, "It ain't over till it's over." The truth is that this like any election , "ain't over," until the last vote is cast and every vote is counted. In each election that I have been involved in since I first voted in 1976, Republicans always, I stress ALWAYS find themselves behind in the polls.

Why ? Most pollsters lean to the left and as such when taking into account the sampling of likely or registered voters or polls that , "randomly," choose a sampling of people, the sampling ALWAYS has more who call themselves Democrat than Republican. Which of course scews the poll toward the Democrat candidate. This year the samplings seem more Democrat leaning that in other elections. Just last week for example the AP poll sampled 40% Democrat and 29% Republican which resulted in a 9 point lead for Obama.

Another aspect in this election which creates the air of Obama victory more than the air of Democrat victory in other elections is the constant barrage of Obama in the news. We have been hammered with Obama this and Obama that for months and for a time McCain could not get more than a short mention in most news coverage of the election. Even now with the election taking the spotlight the majority of reporting in negative toward McCain and especially Governor Palin and extremely positive toward Obama.

Never before has a candidate had as much free favorable air time as Obama has had with the love affair he is having with the media. Their obvious bias and favoritism toward him has prevented a true venting of the Democrat candidate which is also why there are still so many questions about just who Barack Obama is.

All of this has created a resignation with McCain supporters that could pose a problem at the polls because of an almost , "what's the use," attitude that may cause some to not vote because they feel it won't matter anyway. Let me tell you THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO FEEL AND THINK !

This barrage of Obama and bias toward him both in the polls and the media is there to create the air of discouragement in those who support John McCain and Sarah Palin. They want us to lose our excitement in the election. They want us to fear that we have already lost. They want us to resign ourselves to an Obama victory. They want us to give up. They want us to stay away from the polls on election day. They want us by our resignation to actually help Obama win because come November 4 we have already given up !

Don't fall into their trap. Don't resign yourself into thinking that Obama has already won. Don't give up because this election is FAR FROM OVER ! McCain was counted out in the primaries yet he won the nomination. Republicans NEVER have the advantage in coverage or support in the media and they have ALWAYS shown negative toward our candidates.

They vilified Reagan, and they are doing the same with McCain. The 24/7 news adds to this discouragement because the barrage never ends. Don't buy into it and take the coverage for what it is worth, a blatant campaign by the press to elect Barack Obama. As far as the polls go, there is ONLY one poll that counts and that is the one in the polling booth on election day.

Reagan was behind in the polls in both 1980 and 1984 and won in two landslides. Bush was behind in the polls as much as five points on election day and WON the election by five points. Even the exit polling in 2004 had everyone believing as late as 6 PM Eastern time that John Kerry was winning and winning huge. Then the actual votes totals began to come in and an entirely different picture started showing.

Personally I still believe in the American people. I believe that they understand what we face in this world and the true ramifications of this election. Call me an eternal optimist but I believe that voters on election day will forget the Obamahype and the rhetoric and when it is just one voter alone in every voting booth across this Nation many things that polls and press cannot show will come into play.

Americans want someone as their President who knows from experience what to do in a crises. Americans want someone as Commander in Chief who understands the world and the dangers that are real and threatening. Americans want someone as their President who does not have to learn what to do but knows what to do from day one. When voters stand in that booth the hype, the fancy words, the twisting of the facts and the cries from the crowds who have been whipped into a frenzy will disappear.

When voters enter that booth across this Nation the mania will cease and the truth of selection will face each voter with the cold hard facts. Do we want inexperience and someone untested who we still know nothing about to lead this Nation through troubled times ? Or do we want someone who has stood the test of time and has the experience to lead immediately without hype or the frenzy of the masses. When voters face the real choice alone in that booth, I believe that the majority will realize that the only real choice is John McCain.

Ken Taylor

Friday, October 10, 2008


For the last twenty months there have been small ramblings concerning the relationship between Barack Obama and former Weather Underground chief and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. The association concerns Obama's involvement with Ayers as financial distributor and board member with a community action organization The Woods Fund in Chicago that both belonged to. Additionally they lived in the same neighborhood where Ayers held a, "coffee," in his home to kick off Obama's State Senate run.

Until recently the MSM has avoided even the slightest mention of the relationship because it placed a negative spotlight on Obama because Ayers who used domestic terrorism to bomb the Pentagon, The United States Capitol and New York City police headquarters where officers were killed not only got off on a technicality but praised the system that let him off and has since admitted that he thought more should have taken place. It took Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign to finally get the media to cover the questions surrounding this relationship.

Since Ayers unrepentant illegal terrorist activities took place in the sixties and early seventies when Obama was a child, and there association took place in the late nineties and early part of this decade, why then is this association and its ramifications so important ?

Bill Ayers has and always will be a radical anti - American activist who abused his right of free speech by taking that right to a violent and illegal outcome. Even the funds that were distributed through the Woods Fund from a grant received by the Chicago Anninberg Challenge on the premise that it was being used for education were NOT used for promoting the three "R's" but for teaching students radical ideas.

Ayers is well known in Chicago circles both for his involvement with the Woods Fund, as a Professor at the University of Illinois and for his radical statements and illegal activities of the sixties and seventies. The only person who did not seem to know this was Barack Obama, or so he says and that is part of where the controversy concerning their relationship lies.

Throughout the Presidential campaign the associations of Barack Obama have been questioned because of the radical content and statements made by each and Obama's close relationship with several who promote anti - American ideas like Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and several others including a convicted felon Tony Resco. As a man who wishes to be President of the United States these type of relationships bring up a question of character and in whom he will seek advise if elected.

What Ayers did in the sixties and seventies and how that affects Obama now is not as concerning as Obama's continual denial of any type of relationship with a man who clearly hates this country and his response to that relationship has changed whenever questioned and always downplayed which lends itself to the belief that he is being far less than truthful especially when records show that their involvement was far more than just a guy who lived in Obama's neighborhood.

If the relationship is a ,"innocent," as Obama claims then why is he not forthcoming with the details and the true tie to Ayers that matches the public record ? If he has nothing to hide then why is he trying to hide it so adamantly ? His continual denial that contrasts the public record is what make the relationship look shady at best.

This is one of the basic problems about Barack Obama. We are only a matter of days from a Presidential election in which Obama could become the next leader of this nation and the free world and the public STILL has no clue as to who he is and where he comes from. He is a mystery man that speaks well and is asking the people of this Nation to trust him only because he says so and not because he has been open as to who he is, who he associates with and why we should trust a man we know nothing about.

A President is public property , so to speak. An open book who because of the nature of the office needs the public trust and as such should also trust the public with who he is, what he believes and what he stands for including where he comes from and what he has done before taking office.

Obama has only touched on some of what he has done, denies who he has been involved with, only skims the surface of where he has come from but most importantly continually hides who he is. The association with Bill Ayers becomes important in the fact that it is part of long line of mysteries that Obama has and questions about just who he is. All of the mystery adds to the fact that only days from the election this Nation still does not know much of anything about this man. And that makes Ayers important !

Ken Taylor

Thursday, October 09, 2008


Three weeks from a Presidential election and Barack Obama is still the mystery man. If he has nothing to hide about his associations then why doesn't he come out and provide the details ? It is not guilt by association but extremly poor judgement and a question of character for a wanna be President.

YoU CaN't MaKe ThIs StUfF Up - BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A Connecticut judge has given the brush-off to a blonde woman's lawsuit claiming L'Oreal Inc. ruined her social life when she accidentally dyed her hair brunette with one of its products. Charlotte Feeney of Stratford says she can never return to her natural blonde hue, a shock that left her so traumatized she needed anti-depressants.

She says she suffered headaches and anxiety, missed the attention that blondes receive and had to stay home and wear hats most of the time. A Superior Court judge dismissed Feeney's 2005 lawsuit Monday, saying she never proved her allegation that L'Oreal put brown hair dye in a box labeled as blonde. The company also had disputed the claim.

Hmmm it was a BLOND looking at a box and could not figure out it was BROWN dye then she opens the box and sees the BROWN color of the dye and still puts it in her hair and it's the fault of the dye company. Nuff said ! - YoU CaN't MaKe ThIs StUfF Up

Finally justice catches O. J Simpson. The law of averages alone since he could not stay out of trouble was bound to catch up with him sooner or later. I here he's already planning to make The Longest Yard III. This time from INSIDE the prison!

YoU CaN't MaKe ThIs StUfF Up - TOKYO — Police have apprehended a Western man who went skinny-dipping in a moat ringing the Imperial Palace in a busy Tokyo business district, attracting a huge crowd, officials said Tuesday. The naked middle-aged man jumped into the moat, then threw rocks and splashed water at two policemen who chased him in a rowboat, a Tokyo Metropolitan Police official said. He got out of the water and climbed a wall, only to fall into the hands of police.

Kyodo News agency said he is believed to be a 40-year-old Briton living in Spain who visited the moat with several Spanish friends. TV footage showed the man swimming around the moat as the police chased him with a long stick, attracting a crowd of onlookers. He was in the water for about an hour before being captured.

I wonder if they used chop sticks to apprehend him ?!?!?! - YoU CaN't MaKe ThIs StUfF Up

The only way for Congress to ever have the trust and respect of the American people will be for a complete HOUSE CLEANING !

YoU CaN't MaKe ThIs StUfF Up - PORTLAND, ORE. — A patient treated for agonizing abdominal pain received this surprising news in the hospital's paperwork: "Based on your visit today, we know you are pregnant." Surprising indeed for 71-year-old John Grady Pippen.

The staff at Curry General Hospital in Gold Beach gave the retired mechanic and logger the ridiculously happy news this month, along with some pain pills. Hospital administrator William McMillan said an errant keystroke caused the hospital's computer to spit out the wrong discharge instructions for the grandfather.

I'll bet that within five minutes of the diagnosis Planned Parenthood was giving this grandfather brochures explaining the,"alternatives," to having a baby ! - YoU CaN't MaKe ThIs StUfF Up

The behind the scenes discussion that the CSPAN cameras did not see during the Christopher Dodd hearings on how this crisis happened. The truth the Democrats DON'T want us to know !

Ken Taylor

NOTE: I had planned on stopping THE LIBERAL LIE CaRtOoN GaLlErY AnD YoU CaN't MaKe ThIs StUfF Up which is posted on Thursdays until after the election because of the great importance of this election. But I reconsidered this week because WE ALL need a little break ! Enjoy !

Wednesday, October 08, 2008


The second Presidential Debate took place last night in Nashville in what was advertised as a ,"town hall meeting," but in actuality was a Brokaw controlled evening in a town hall setting. A true town hall meeting is an opportunity to face voter questions without a completely controlled environment that allows candidates to escape the talking points campaign and forces them to answer direct questions that concern the group of voters at the meeting.

What we saw was a debate which though in a town hall setting , was controlled by a news moderator since Brokaw chose the questions that he thought were pertinent to the election. While his selection of questions did not seem to show any particular bias, the fact that Brokaw chose the questions rather than a random choosing from attendees as is the intent in a town hall meeting, we were given a typical debate only without the podiums to stand behind.

If a winner could be chosen from the debate it would have to be John McCain and not because I am supporting him for President but because he did do one thing that any debater seeks to do during the course of a debate. McCain kept Obama on the defensive for the majority of the debate and even when Obama tried to take the offense, McCain managed to place him back in a defensive posture, defending his policies against McCain attacks.

In that sense McCain was the clear winner. Some pundits claim Obama the winner because McCain did not make a game changer during the debate. Was there a knock out blow or a memorable moment that creates a sound bite that can be used by either campaign ? No, but in the history of Presidential and Vice Presidential debates knock out blows are almost non-existent. As far back as the Kennedy-Nixon debate the winner was apparent only in the context of how one caught the debate coverage.

Those who listened on radio considered Nixon the winner because of content and those who watched it on television considered Kennedy the winner because he was better composed for the cameras. The last real knock out blow in a debate was when Ronald Reagan in the 1984 second Presidential debate said in reference to questions about age, "I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Putting to rest the debate about Reagan's age and because of Mondale's laughing response and the fact that it threw him off for the rest of the night from that point on during the election Reagan never looked back and went on to win the largest landslide in American history.

Is there good news for McCain since everyone suggested that McCain needed an knock out blow to make the debate a game changer ? Absolutely. First the overwhelming majority of likely voters 83% - 58% according to a CBS News poll still see John McCain as being better prepared to be President. Also across the board the polls, for what they are worth are tightening.

Additionally with nearly a month left before the election this up and down election can change quickly as it has throughout the election cycle. As late as the end of October in 2004 President Bush was down in the polls by nearly 3 point and on election day some had him down by as much as 5. Bush won the election 52% to Kerry's 47%.

Also the CBS poll showing McCain comfortably ahead with likely voters when the question of being better prepared to be President on day one shows that when voters are in the booth by themselves and the security of this country whether economically or protecting this Nation from her enemies is considered by voters, experience counts far and above looking and talking a good game. And McCain wins the experience debate hands down.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, October 07, 2008


The video posted above running nearly eleven minutes does a masterful job in explaining the causes and participants in creating and continuing the meltdown that is still affecting our economy.

I have posted several times bringing to light many of the examples and detail found in this video. In fact one posting that I cross posted at The Minority Report and Redsate is shown in the video concerning John McCain's warning about Fannie and Freddie and the ripple effect it has had on the economy. I am proud that the creator of this video considered my post worthy of his excellent revelation about the crisis.

While the entire debacle is not all Fannie and Freddie they were the fuse to the powder keg and their practices were mirrored by many as well as Fannie and Freddie mortgages purchased by companies that have since gone under.

The Democrat involvement is clear and to date they have pretty much come out unscathed during this debacle because there is a Republican administration in the White House. The ignorance of the uninformed is placing the blame on the Bush administration and Republicans and as such the candidacy of John McCain because most Americans beleive that the President controls the economy. When in fact it is the Congress who hold the purse strings.

Additionally the Democrats have spun a web of deciept concerning their involvement as well as many who had direct responsibility with Fannie and Freddie who are now either employed in or advisors for the economic policy of Barack Obama. This to has been passed over by the press and also has not been hammered home by the McCain campaign.

While there are some dirty hands in the GOP concerning this debacle the beginnings, the continuation and the shoring up for political purposes belong mainly to Democrats who now portray themselves as the savior of the economy and the American people. When in fact they created and passed this mess to the American people and thus far have been allowed to get away with it while playing the blame game.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, October 05, 2008


The General Election is less than one month away. The polls though scewed show Barack Obama with a lead and gaining ground if the polls are to be believed. Frankly the only truly accurate poll is the one that takes place on election day as voters enter and exit the polling booth bringing the final results of any election.

Elections are about two things, issues and winning. To date though an American hero who is hailed as a fighter in the political arena known as the United States Senate, John McCain has NOT been a fighter, at least one who fights to win at this point in the Presidential election. In the Primaries McCain did not have a hard fight because candidates dropped like flies and McCain was the only one left with a chance.

Since the primaries, McCain has been in the arena but not at the center fighting with every arsenal available to win this election. Being a bipartisan is well and good on the Senate floor or in trying to pass legislation in order to get the votes necessary to get a bill through Congress, but on the campaign trail partisanship is not only needed but necessary.

While McCain wants and needs to court the Independent and moderate voters, he is NOT going to do this without taking the gloves off and showing these voters why Barack Obama is bad for this country. While hitting themes like ending earmarks and supporting the surge because it was right and is winning the war, having this as the main thrust of his campaign is NOT going to win this election.

During the last two weeks as the country was focused on the mortgage collapse and the bailout bill McCain became a Senator only instead of a Senator running for President. Suspending his campaign may or may not have been a good idea but he failed to use his true actions in getting the Republicans to the negotiating table as a plus in WHY he went to Washington.

While McCain was quietly in the back ground during most of this debacle over the bailout bill, Obama was hammering economics and placing blame on every GOP member of Congress and The White House while taking credit for changes he claims he forced in the bill. McCain came out against Wall Street and let the true blame for this debacle get by without one mention. He never went after the Democrats who time and again stalled or blocked any reform of Fannie and Freddie.

Never did he mention his efforts especially in co-sponsoring legislation three years ago to get a handle on the fuse for this financial powder keg, Freddie and Fannie. In fact had it not been for Sarah Palin his campaign would not have made even the slightest mention of McCain's attempts to stop this before it happened.

Touting the direction that a candidate wants to take the country is great but in the midst of talking policy and ideas that same candidate MUST hit hard against the opposition and tell the American people why the opposition should NOT be elected.

McCain has refused to hit Obama on his associations which are especially in this campaign a very legitimate question about his character. Sarah Palin started attacking Obama about his association with Bill Ayers on Saturday which is the first time other than talk radio and a few mentions on cable news that this particular association that the American people deserve to know has been mentioned.

Until the Vice President debate last Friday the McCain campaign has been reluctant to paint the truth about the tax and spend economic plan of Barack Obama. Sarah Palin did this during the debate and it had a positive affect for the campaign.

The American people want and need to see the policy differences between the two campaigns but they also in that same light need to hear the character differences and the radical liberalism of the record of Obama and nearly as liberal record of his VP. For the rest of the campaign the bipartisan approach must fade and McCain must hammer Obama about his socialist policies and his character. A debate, I might add that has been avoided and must be broached so that America can see the real Obama and not the manufactured one for the cameras.

Governor Palin has obviously taken off the gloves and that will help a great deal in the campaign but unless McCain follows suit and especially in the next debates with a tough hard hitting fighting campaign against Barack Obama, Palin's efforts will fall short because America must see this from McCain more than Palin.

Obama has a considerable amount of vulnerability in this election. His inexperience, his almost invisible record, his very liberal stance on all issues, not the manufactured middle of the road stance that Democrats always show just before an election to get votes. His lack of foreign policy credibility even suggested in a letter from the former Ambassador to The United States for Great Britain as a warning to Prime Minister Gordon Brown before Obama's trip to England during the summer.

While the Ambassador has been removed from his post it was not for the truth in the warning but because with the revelation of the letter is had the appearance of looking as if the Brits were getting into American politics, which they do not want to do and rightfully so. But the warning by the Ambassador is real and justified about Barack Obama.

Obama's association are not only questionable but revealing about someone wanting to be President. John McCain's character is unquestionable and this difference alone is enough for the American people to reject the liberal Democrat as our President. It is time for McCain to hammer this fact and the other Obama vulnerabilities until they ring from the mountain tops.

There are some who are suggesting that the McCain camp believes that the last 72 hours before the election are the key and they are waiting until that time to hit and hit hard. If McCain waits until then Obama will be the next President. The time to hit and hit hard is now and everyday until November 4. The time to take of the gloves is now and never put them back on again. The time to fight for true principles and the American people is now and fight hard and strong until victory is achieved.

Ken Taylor

Writers note: The above post was picked up by CBS News linked with an article about Barack Obama countering the McCain gloves off strategy and CNN with an article where Obama accuses McCain of smear tactics. While I appreciate the exposure from being linked by the CBS and CNN websites, it is also resulting in a considerable amount of left fringe commenting. All comments are accepted at this site as they always have been and will continue to be in the search for intelligent discourse. But I will not engage in an argument with those on the fringe who choose to articulate with angry insults and ridiculous accusations upon me, this site, those who read it and the candidates in whom I have chosen to support which is my right as an American . Many have suggested that I use comment moderation. While I am not opposed to those who use it, it will not be used on this site as these antagonistic comments especially by anonymous commenter's reveals the true angry and irrational attitude by the far left. I also encourage those of you who view this site to ignore these insults as the idiocy that they truly are and engage in the normal intelligent discourse that this site and those who participate on it do on a regular basis. Thank you !

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.